Carmen ranks number one on my list of favorite operas. What attracts me to this particular opera, however, is not just the music; it's the way the titular gypsy girl operates. She is a very highly dangerous woman, but at the same time she is utterly fascinating. Who is this character?
Carmen is a fiery gypsy girl who prefers six-month-long dalliances with men rather than a committed relationship. And she is part of a band of criminal smugglers. When we first meet her, she is working a temp job in a cigarette factory (she can only be working a temp job there because she never stays in one place for long). She seduces Don Jose who leaves the army to join her, and then she leaves him for the bullfighter, Escamillo. Jose (who by that point is crazy obsessed with Carmen), tries to plead with her, but she will hear none of it, and so he kills her.
But why does Carmen do the things she does? There has got to be a reason. And with that in mind and after listening to various mezzo-sopranos talking about the character (not to mention numerous discussions with my parents), I have come up with a plausible explanation.
First off, Carmen is a gypsy and because of that she is poor. She has spent pretty much her whole life wandering all over Spain because she has no real place to settle down, and she appears to have become accustomed to this nomadic lifestyle. In fact, she revels in it. She makes this very clear to Don Jose when she first seduces him, then reiterates it during their final confrontation at the end of the opera. And secondly, she knows full well that there are men who are perfectly willing to use her for their own gain. So she believes that if she calls all the shots in a relationship, then she's home safe. It never occurs to her in 65 million years That someone would actually what to spend his life with her. Which brings me to my third point, which is that Carmen is so used to the unscrupulous men that she hangs out with, she does not gain full understanding of why Don Jose is behaving jealously. In fact, that kind of jealousy in alien to her. While it's true that Don Jose is really in love with an idea of Carmen rather than with Carmen herself, his passion is something Carmen isn't used to. And she learns the hard way not to seduce men who are used to good and honest women like Micaela.
I think that explains a thing or two about the character.
Sunday, December 23, 2012
Wednesday, December 19, 2012
Eat Your Heart Out, Richard Wagner!
Leitmotif City! How much Richard Wagner music did Howard Shore listen to? The Peter Jackson film version of J.R.R. Tolkien's The Hobbit (and the Lord of the Rings movies) is full of leitmotifs.
Simply put, a leitmotif is a melody associated with a character, object, place, or event. While Wagner did not invent it, he made it popular. It helps to tell the story if there is some tune that is associated with something in the story. If Wagner were to hear the soundtrack from Peter Jackson's LOTR and Hobbit films, he'd be in hog heaven. He loved leitmotifs (see Anna Russel for more info).
What I am saying is that Howard Shore's music is full of leitmotifs, including ones from the LOTR trilogy. We heard a new melody associated with the Dwarves, but there are also the old Ring and Shire motifs.
Wagner would be pleased.
Simply put, a leitmotif is a melody associated with a character, object, place, or event. While Wagner did not invent it, he made it popular. It helps to tell the story if there is some tune that is associated with something in the story. If Wagner were to hear the soundtrack from Peter Jackson's LOTR and Hobbit films, he'd be in hog heaven. He loved leitmotifs (see Anna Russel for more info).
What I am saying is that Howard Shore's music is full of leitmotifs, including ones from the LOTR trilogy. We heard a new melody associated with the Dwarves, but there are also the old Ring and Shire motifs.
Wagner would be pleased.
Sunday, December 9, 2012
Which One Do I Prefer?
After seeing Un Ballo in Maschera twice, I must say I don't know which interpretation of Count Renato Anckarstrom I like the best; is it the handsome Korean Hyung Yun or the sexy Russian Dmitri Hvorostovsky? I can't decide either way.
Hyung Yun's performance was the one I saw on stage at Overture. Aside from his sexy 18th Century black costume and wig, I loved how he did the role. I was up in the nosebleed section so I could only just see his face.
Dmitri Hvorostovsky was the one I saw perform in the Met simulcast yesterday. This was a new production which set the story in the 1930s (or sometime thereabout). His costume was mostly a grey suit although he donned a burgundy one in the final act. I could see his face clearly.
I think that both were superb in their performance of the aria "Eri Tu Che Macchiavi" ('Twas Thou that Marred the Soul). In it, Renato swears vengeance on King Gustavo for messing around with Mrs. Anckarstrom, and then laments the loss of his marital bliss. I loved how Yun and Hvorostovsky were both able to communicate to the audience not only his bitterness and anger at the king and his grief at his wife's own infidelity. It takes quite an effort to sing this aria. It's not easy to communicate musically both the feelings of anger and sadness. It takes a master singer and actor to execute it properly. And that's what both baritones did.
So I really can't say who is better. Hyung Yun and Dmitri Hvorostovsky are both incredibly talented and amazingly sexy baritones who can pull off any role without much trouble. I don't even think I can compare the two.
Hyung Yun's performance was the one I saw on stage at Overture. Aside from his sexy 18th Century black costume and wig, I loved how he did the role. I was up in the nosebleed section so I could only just see his face.
Dmitri Hvorostovsky was the one I saw perform in the Met simulcast yesterday. This was a new production which set the story in the 1930s (or sometime thereabout). His costume was mostly a grey suit although he donned a burgundy one in the final act. I could see his face clearly.
I think that both were superb in their performance of the aria "Eri Tu Che Macchiavi" ('Twas Thou that Marred the Soul). In it, Renato swears vengeance on King Gustavo for messing around with Mrs. Anckarstrom, and then laments the loss of his marital bliss. I loved how Yun and Hvorostovsky were both able to communicate to the audience not only his bitterness and anger at the king and his grief at his wife's own infidelity. It takes quite an effort to sing this aria. It's not easy to communicate musically both the feelings of anger and sadness. It takes a master singer and actor to execute it properly. And that's what both baritones did.
So I really can't say who is better. Hyung Yun and Dmitri Hvorostovsky are both incredibly talented and amazingly sexy baritones who can pull off any role without much trouble. I don't even think I can compare the two.
Tuesday, November 13, 2012
Why Use This Word When Describing Desserts?
I keep coming across the word "decadent" when someone is describing a dessert. "Dark Decadent Donuts", "This is a very decadent dessert". Why "decadent"? That word means "decay". There is book called From Dawn to Decadence: A History of Western Civilization. That means it's a history of corruption in Western Civilization. Why is this word used to describe a dessert? It doesn't fit at all.
The same thing applies to chocolate desserts with names like "Devil's Delight" or "Sinful Sensation". Christian comedian Ken Davis' wife doesn't like that because she loves chocolate. And I agree with her. Why should chocolate desserts have those kinds of names? Why not, as Mrs. Ken Davis suggested, have chocolate dessert with names like "A Taste of Heaven" or "God's Gift to Mankind"? Sure that last one sounds a little over-the-top, but it sounds a lot better than "Devil's Delight".
The same thing applies to chocolate desserts with names like "Devil's Delight" or "Sinful Sensation". Christian comedian Ken Davis' wife doesn't like that because she loves chocolate. And I agree with her. Why should chocolate desserts have those kinds of names? Why not, as Mrs. Ken Davis suggested, have chocolate dessert with names like "A Taste of Heaven" or "God's Gift to Mankind"? Sure that last one sounds a little over-the-top, but it sounds a lot better than "Devil's Delight".
Monday, November 5, 2012
Wreck Of The CARL D. BRADLEY
This is one of the most famous Great Lakes shipwrecks of recent history. The Carl D. Bradley was an ore carrier, which means she transported iron ore from one place to another. She had already been in service on the lakes for thirty-one years at the time of her final voyage in 1958.
The Great Lakes are prone to massive violent storms in late autumn. These produce waves that can be up forty feet high. On the night November 18, the Bradley ran into one such storm on Lake Michigan. She broke in two on the surface and went down with thirty-three of her crewman. Only two men survived to tell the tale; First Mate Elmer Fleming (aged froty-three at the time), and Deck Watchman Frank Mayes (aged 26 at the time). They had escaped with two other crewmen in a life raft, but the latter two died of exposure to the elements. Fleming and Mayes held on and later rescued by the Christian Sartori, a German cargo vessel that witnessed the Bradley's sinking.
What makes the story of this wreck a very gut-wrenching one is the fact most of the crewmen on board (a total of 23) were from Rogers City, a small town in Northern Michigan. The entire town was devastated by the loss of their men on the lake. As a tribute to the families of the victims, divers down to wreck and retrieved the bell in 2008. A memorial service was held in City hall and the bell tolled to commemorate the crew.
Frank Mayes is the only one of the two survivors left. Elmer Fleming died about twelve years after the sinking.
The Great Lakes are prone to massive violent storms in late autumn. These produce waves that can be up forty feet high. On the night November 18, the Bradley ran into one such storm on Lake Michigan. She broke in two on the surface and went down with thirty-three of her crewman. Only two men survived to tell the tale; First Mate Elmer Fleming (aged froty-three at the time), and Deck Watchman Frank Mayes (aged 26 at the time). They had escaped with two other crewmen in a life raft, but the latter two died of exposure to the elements. Fleming and Mayes held on and later rescued by the Christian Sartori, a German cargo vessel that witnessed the Bradley's sinking.
What makes the story of this wreck a very gut-wrenching one is the fact most of the crewmen on board (a total of 23) were from Rogers City, a small town in Northern Michigan. The entire town was devastated by the loss of their men on the lake. As a tribute to the families of the victims, divers down to wreck and retrieved the bell in 2008. A memorial service was held in City hall and the bell tolled to commemorate the crew.
Frank Mayes is the only one of the two survivors left. Elmer Fleming died about twelve years after the sinking.
Sunday, November 4, 2012
Hyung Yun
I was eighteen and a senior in high school when I first heard this baritone. The Overture Center in Madison does school performances of the final dress rehearsals of the operas. My choir class went to the matinee of Faust for a field trip. This baritone sang the role of Valentine, Marguerite's ill-fated soldier brother.
It has been four years since I first heard Hyung Yun sing. He has sung the role of Escamillo in Carmen, and the title role in Eugene Onegin. Then last weekend, I saw him live again in the role of Renato Anckarstrom in Un Ballo in Maschera. I was completely stunned by his performance.
While I have not seen as much of this barihunk as I'd like (he's not as well-known as most of my other favorites), I loved his performance so much that I actually yelled "I love you, Renato," from my seat up in the balcony. I have also seen his website. If you haven't heard this guy, you need to seriously fix that. Now. He is so talented and so handsome that I swear he can kill an opponent without even making a move.
Wednesday, October 31, 2012
My Top Eight Favorite Male Opera Singers
Since I mentioned it the other day, I will now talk about who is on my Top Eight Favorite Male Opera Singers list. NOTICE: This is not in order of preference. This is simply my way of keeping track of them.
Number 8: Hyung Yun (Korean Baritone)
The latest addition to the list. As handsome as he is talented, this baritone has performed several times for the Madison Opera. I have seen him thrice at Overture Center; as Valentin in Faust when he made his Madison Opera debut, in the title role of Eugene Onegin, and then as Renato Anckarstrom in Un Ballo in Maschera. He has also done Escamillo in Carmen (I only caught the encore broadcast, unfortunately. I think he would have looked incredibly sexy in a Matador's costume). He has got to come to Madison College Truax Campus and do a master class. And I hope he comes back to Madison Opera next season.
Number 7: Jonas Kaufmann (German Tenor)
The dashing hero kind of guy. And he looks like he's still in his early twenties. Already I have seen him twice in simulcasts from the Met; first as Siegmund in Die Walkure, and then in the title role in Gounod's Faust (the one that prompted me to add him to the list). I have heard him numerous times over the radio, not to mention that I have one of his albums (The Romantic Arias CD, my little brother owns the German Arias CD). He will be performing the title role in Parsifal this season.
Number 6: Mariusz Kwiechen (Polish Baritone)
The lady's man of the opera world. I have seen this barihunk live on stage once, and that was when he sang the role of the Count Almaviva in Le Nozze di Figaro alongside Kyle Ketelsen. I have also heard him over the radio quite often. The last time I heard him was when he sang Belcore alongside Juan Diego Florez's Nemorino in L'Elisir d'Amore. He's a big name in the opera world. I would love to meet him one of these days.
Number 5: Piotr Beczala (Polish Tenor)
The operatic boyfriend type. Indeed he has the looks to match the kinds of roles he tends to do. I have seen him perform in the simulcast of Manon. I can't remember precisely when I first heard him, but I know I have heard him over the radio as Lensky in Eugene Onegin, Edgardo in Lucia di Lammermoor, and it was he who sang the role of the Duke of Mantua in Rigoletto when I first heard it on the radio. He will reprising the role of the Duke this season at the Met in new production.
Number 4: David Daniels (American Countertenor)
A rarity in the opera world. I seen him live once in in the simulcast the Baroque pastiche The Enchanted Island. I first heard him as Orfeo in Orfeo ed Euridice. I don't hear him very much over the radio because given his voice type, he tends to specialize in the Baroque repertoire. This is because the practice of castrating boys in order to keep a higher-pitched singing voice died out in the Western Hemisphere nearly a century ago. This man will return to the Met for a simulcast performance of Giulio Cesare.
Number 3: Kyle Ketelsen (American Bass-Baritone)
The local guy. I first saw him live in the role of Raimondo in Lucia di Lammermoor when it was performed by Madison Opera. I later saw him when he came to my high school to do a master class, and then I saw him in the title role in Le Nozze di Figaro. I actually got to meet him in person, which while nerve-biting, was nonetheless a very special moment in my life. He has got to come back to the Met and do a broadcasted performance.
Number 2: Dmitri Hvorostovsky (Russian Baritone)
Opera's silver fox. He's already fifty, and he just gets better with the years both in looks and in voice (which, believe me, is rather rare). I have seen him live in the role of King Carlo V of Spain in Ernani, and M. Germont in La Traviata. I first heard him over the radio in the title role in Eugene Onegin. I think it was he who did the role of Yeletsky in The Queen of Spades. I am so looking forward to his performance of Renato Anckarstrom in the simulcast of Un Ballo in Maschera and his acclaimed performance of Roderigo in Don Carlo.
Number 1: Juan Diego Florez (Peruvian Tenor)
The new King of the High "C's" (please forgive the pun, it was not of my creation). I first saw this hunkoid live in role of Tonio in the simulcast of La Fille du Regiment. I saw him live again in the title role of Le Comte Ory when that one was simulcasted. I have heard him several times on the radio, once in a reprisal of the role of Tonio, and another time as Nemorino in L'Elisir d'Amore. He will reprising the role of Le Comte Ory this season at the Met. That one I cannot miss.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number 8: Hyung Yun (Korean Baritone)
The latest addition to the list. As handsome as he is talented, this baritone has performed several times for the Madison Opera. I have seen him thrice at Overture Center; as Valentin in Faust when he made his Madison Opera debut, in the title role of Eugene Onegin, and then as Renato Anckarstrom in Un Ballo in Maschera. He has also done Escamillo in Carmen (I only caught the encore broadcast, unfortunately. I think he would have looked incredibly sexy in a Matador's costume). He has got to come to Madison College Truax Campus and do a master class. And I hope he comes back to Madison Opera next season.
Number 7: Jonas Kaufmann (German Tenor)
The dashing hero kind of guy. And he looks like he's still in his early twenties. Already I have seen him twice in simulcasts from the Met; first as Siegmund in Die Walkure, and then in the title role in Gounod's Faust (the one that prompted me to add him to the list). I have heard him numerous times over the radio, not to mention that I have one of his albums (The Romantic Arias CD, my little brother owns the German Arias CD). He will be performing the title role in Parsifal this season.
Number 6: Mariusz Kwiechen (Polish Baritone)
The lady's man of the opera world. I have seen this barihunk live on stage once, and that was when he sang the role of the Count Almaviva in Le Nozze di Figaro alongside Kyle Ketelsen. I have also heard him over the radio quite often. The last time I heard him was when he sang Belcore alongside Juan Diego Florez's Nemorino in L'Elisir d'Amore. He's a big name in the opera world. I would love to meet him one of these days.
Number 5: Piotr Beczala (Polish Tenor)
The operatic boyfriend type. Indeed he has the looks to match the kinds of roles he tends to do. I have seen him perform in the simulcast of Manon. I can't remember precisely when I first heard him, but I know I have heard him over the radio as Lensky in Eugene Onegin, Edgardo in Lucia di Lammermoor, and it was he who sang the role of the Duke of Mantua in Rigoletto when I first heard it on the radio. He will reprising the role of the Duke this season at the Met in new production.
Number 4: David Daniels (American Countertenor)
A rarity in the opera world. I seen him live once in in the simulcast the Baroque pastiche The Enchanted Island. I first heard him as Orfeo in Orfeo ed Euridice. I don't hear him very much over the radio because given his voice type, he tends to specialize in the Baroque repertoire. This is because the practice of castrating boys in order to keep a higher-pitched singing voice died out in the Western Hemisphere nearly a century ago. This man will return to the Met for a simulcast performance of Giulio Cesare.
Number 3: Kyle Ketelsen (American Bass-Baritone)
The local guy. I first saw him live in the role of Raimondo in Lucia di Lammermoor when it was performed by Madison Opera. I later saw him when he came to my high school to do a master class, and then I saw him in the title role in Le Nozze di Figaro. I actually got to meet him in person, which while nerve-biting, was nonetheless a very special moment in my life. He has got to come back to the Met and do a broadcasted performance.
Number 2: Dmitri Hvorostovsky (Russian Baritone)
Opera's silver fox. He's already fifty, and he just gets better with the years both in looks and in voice (which, believe me, is rather rare). I have seen him live in the role of King Carlo V of Spain in Ernani, and M. Germont in La Traviata. I first heard him over the radio in the title role in Eugene Onegin. I think it was he who did the role of Yeletsky in The Queen of Spades. I am so looking forward to his performance of Renato Anckarstrom in the simulcast of Un Ballo in Maschera and his acclaimed performance of Roderigo in Don Carlo.
Number 1: Juan Diego Florez (Peruvian Tenor)
The new King of the High "C's" (please forgive the pun, it was not of my creation). I first saw this hunkoid live in role of Tonio in the simulcast of La Fille du Regiment. I saw him live again in the title role of Le Comte Ory when that one was simulcasted. I have heard him several times on the radio, once in a reprisal of the role of Tonio, and another time as Nemorino in L'Elisir d'Amore. He will reprising the role of Le Comte Ory this season at the Met. That one I cannot miss.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monday, October 29, 2012
Verdi Weekend
On Saturday, I went to see the simulcast of Giuseppe Verdi's Otello at Eastgate Cinema. On Sunday, I went to see the live performance of his lesser-known gem Un Ballo in Maschera (A Masked Ball) at Overture Theatre in Madison. So my weekend has been full of Verdi. I have added another singer to Top Favorite Male Opera Singers List, so it has gone from having seven on the list to eight.
Let's start with Saturday's performance. Otello was sung by tenor Johann Botha. Desdemona was performed by soprano Renee Fleming (Desdemona is her signature role). Iago was played by baritone Falk Struckman, who appeared two seasons ago as Scarpia in Puccini's Tosca. And Cassio was sung by tenor Michael Fabiano.
Otello is adapted from Shakespeare's play Othello, which is a tragedy of jealousy and misplaced trust. The title character is a Moor and a general in the Venetian army. At the start of the opera, he is on the Venetian flagship in a storm and has just defeated the Turks. the ship arrives safely and he tells the people to rejoice. He has also recently married Desdemona, a Venetian woman, who is deeply in love him. Everyone celebrates the victory, except one: Iago. This man is jealous of the fact that Otello promoted a man named Cassio the rank of Captain (In the original play, it was Lieutenant), instead of him. So he tricks Cassio into getting drunk. This sparks a riot and Otello impulsively strips Cassio of his rank. Otello and Desdemona then have a moment to themselves where they recall how they fell in love.
Iago manipulates events from that point onward. He tells Cassio talk to Desdemona and ask to her to ask Otello for a pardon. Cassio does so. Iago then sings what is perhaps one of the most terrifying Villain Songs ever written: his Credo. Here he sings about just what a nasty piece of work he is (and in many productions he concludes the piece with an evil laugh). He tricks Otello into thinking that Desdemona is being unfaithful. And this undoes both Otello and Desdemona. Otello Murders Desdemona in her bed, but when both Emilia (Desdemona's maid and Iago's wife), and Cassio disprove Iago, Otello kills himself in a fit of remorse.
The sets were awesome. In Act 1, we first had the harbor where soldiers and townsfolk were praying for salvation for the flagship which is struggling in the storm. Then the scene changes to the grand hall where the victory celebrations are being held. These scenes had high ramparts and huge columns.
Same was true for Act 2, which took place in Otello's study and the garden. There were enormous columns there two. On the desk was a model of the fortress and ships, which made me think that it was for plotting strategy. The garden outside had a path surrounded by bushes, with trees in the background.
Act 3 had the grand hall scene from Act 1, but in the first scene we see this enormous painting of what appears to be either a scene of damnation or else the martyrdom of a saint, I couldn't tell which. The picture was lifted the show the grand hall.
Act 4 was the only one where the sets did not involve columns. It was in Desdemona's bedroom, so we had her bed in the center, there was an end table off to the side, and behind was another picture that I had a hard time identifying. Was it the martyrdom of Saint Ursula, the Coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, or what? I couldn't tell. Oh, and in this production, Otello dies before he can give his wife the final kiss.
Now on to Sunday's performance. This opera was in Development Hell and gave Verdi a lot of trouble. At the time Verdi wrote it, Italy was in a period of upheaval, and the opera was based off of the real-life assassination of Sweden's King Gustavus III by a disgruntled courtier. Naturally in a time of trouble this would not go over well, and Verdi wound up re-setting the opera in Colonial Boston and the king was demoted to a governor. This production used the original Swedish characters.
The role of King Gustavo was sung by tenor William Joyner. Baritone Hyung Yun, who stunned audiences last year with his amazing portrayal of the title role in Tchaikovsky's Eugene Onegin, sang the role of Renato Anckarstrom, Gustavo's best friend and secretary. Soprano Alexandra LoBianco made her Madison Opera debut as Amelia, the king's love interest who is also Mrs. Anckarstrom.
The plot centers around the fortune-teller Ulrica's prophecy that Gustavo will die at the hand of a friend. "The first to shake your hand shall be the one," she tells him. But Gustavo considers the prophecy to be sheer nonsense and laughs it off when Renato Anckarstrom is the first to shake his hand. But trouble has been brewing from start. Even before Ulrica prophesies his death, already there are men conspiring to overthrow and kill Gustavo. To make matters even worse, Gustavo is in love with Renato's own wife, Amelia. She herself is in love with the king, but she is aware that it is trouble, and things get worse when Renato finds out about it.
As Act 1 opens, the king's court awaits him in grand hall. This particular set had tall windows and two desks. The floor was blue and beige tile and the king made entrance from the doorway in the back. One group of courtiers sing Gustavo's praises while another group plots his downfall. When the king enters he sits down at his desk to look over the list of people who will be attending an upcoming masquerade (the titular Masked Ball). He is excited to learn that Amelia, the woman he loves, will be in attendance that night. Unfortunately, she also happens to be Mrs. Anckarstrom. Renato Anckarstrom arrives to warn Gustavo of a growing conspiracy, but the latter pays no attention to his words. A judge arrives to tell Gustavo of a complaint against Ulrica, a fortune-teller, whom he has sentenced to be banished for practicing black magic and witchcraft. Oscar, the king's page (beautifully done by soprano Caitlin Cisler), however, defends the woman. Gustavo decides to go to see the woman in disguise.
The second scene takes place in Ulrica's hut. This set looked like it was falling to one side, as witches aren't always well known in fiction for having nice neat houses. There were five orange-glowing lanterns by the fireplace, and there was a table center-stage where Ulrica (sung to perfection by mezzo-soprano Jeniece Golbourne), deals out tarots cards and tells fortunes. While a group of women look on, Ulrica calls upon the devil to assist her with her magic. Gustavo arrives disguised as a fisherman, but the woman tell him to go away, and so he hides in the house. Christiano, a sailor in the king's navy, approaches Ulrica and asks him about his future, telling her that he has served faithfully for fifteen years and has never been rewarded. Unbeknownst to him, the king has overheard him and takes the complaint into account. Ulrica reads Christiano's palm and tells him that he will be promoted and become wealthy. While both their backs are turned, Gustavo quietly slips money and a promotion notice into Christiano's bag, and then returns to his hiding place. Christiano is overjoyed when he finds out that his fortune came true, and everyone present praises Ulrica's abilities. Ulrica sends everyone away when Amelia's servant tells her that that the mistress is waiting outside. Amelia enters and tells Ulrica about her unfortunate love for the king. Ulrica tells her to find a magic herb that grows between the stones near the scaffold and that the herb will cure her illicit passion. Amelia thanks her and leaves. Then the disguised courtiers enter and begin to ask Ulrica their fortunes. Gustavo comes out of hiding and does the same, but he's very defiant too. Ulrica tells him that he will die at the hand of a friend, the first one to shake his hand. Gustavo laughs at her words, and laughs even more when Renato is the first to shake his hand. Christiano recognizes the king and all who present either bow down to him or curse him.
Act 2 takes place by the scaffold near midnight. The moon shines on the gallows, which in this production had two nooses; one dangling from above, the other was wrapped around a scaffold beam and it looked like it had blood on it. There was a grove of trees on either side of the scaffold and underneath the gallows grew the so-called magic herbs that Ulrica told Amelia would cure her illicit passion. Amelia enters and summons the courage to gather one of the herbs. Gustavo surprises her, and while she resists his advances, she does tell him that she loves him. Renato arrives suddenly and Amelia covers her face (in most productions she veils herself, in this production she pulled the hood of her cloak over her head). Renato warns the king that his enemies are approaching. Gustavo tells him to escort the lady back to the city, but not to ask her identity. Renato agrees and the two men exchange cloaks. Gustavo leaves, but before Renato and Amelia can escape, the conspirators find them. They realize that they have caught Renato and not the king, but they fight him anyhow. To save her husband's life, Amelia reveals her identity. Renato is shocked at this revelation and the chief conspirators laugh at the prospect of Renato sneaking out at night to make love to his own wife. Renato tells the leaders, Counts Ribbing and Horn, to come to his house the next day. But he swore to escort Amelia back to the city, so he does so.
Act 3 starts out in Renato's study. There were tall windows and curtain doors on the left and right. Renato's desk was off to the right and red armchair stood to the left. There was also this wooden stool that was moved around at times. By this time, Renato feels heartbroken and betrayed by Gustavo. He and Amelia enter and he throws her to the ground threatening to kill her with his sword. She pleads with him to grant her one last request before she dies, which he allows her to do. In this production Renato put his sword on the chair and sat down on the stool while Amelia made her request. She asks him to let her embrace their only son one last time. Heck, they even had Amelia clutching Renato's leg as she pleaded with him. He relents and pulls his leg away. Then Renato decides that it is Gustavo who must pay with his life. When Ribbing and Horn come in, Renato tells them that he will joint their conspiracy. When they can't agree on who shall assassinate the king, the agree to draw lots. They force Amelia to draw the winning name: Renato. Oscar the king's page enters with an invitation the masked ball. The conspirators welcome this unexpected chance to kill the king while Amelia resolves to warn him.
The final scene starts with the king alone in front of a curtain just before the ball. Torn between love and duty, he decides to make the sacrifice of sending Amelia and Renato back to their homeland. The masquerade begins when the curtain is drawn up revealing a magnificent ballroom. There were four chandeliers with candles lighting up the place. The chorus members wore mostly light yellow or bluish costumes and everyone wore a mask or had one on a stick. Many were dancing. Renato, Ribbing, and Horn entered wearing identical costumes. They approached Oscar the page and asked him to tell him which one is the king. Oscar playfully refuses to give away the information. But then he tells him: The one in the black cloak with the scarlet ribbons. Meanwhile, Gustavo finds Amelia and tell her that he is sending her and her husband back to Finland, and they tell each other good-bye. Just then, Renato comes from behind and shoots Gustavo in the back. Everyone present demands that he be punished, but Gustavo asks that Renato be spared punishment. He insists that even though he loved Amelia, she never broke her marriage vows. He then tells him that Amelia and Renato were meant to leave the following day. Renato is overcome with remorse at what he has done. The king forgives the conspirators and bids his country farewell. He dies and everyone present begs the forgiveness of Heaven. In this production, the king took Renato's hands as he lay dying. I do believe this his way letting the traitor know that he did not hold the murder against him. And as each of the crashing final chords sounded first Oscar, then Renato, then Amelia fell weeping over Gustavo's body.
I am gong to engage in a fangirl moment here. I must say that what sold the performance of Ballo for me was Hyung Yun. I love that baritone. I didn't care that Renato turned traitor; I was so taken with Mr. Yun's performance that during the curtain call I yelled "I love you, Renato," from my seat up in the top balcony. I swear, this guy is a perennial. I first saw him as Valentin in Faust. He later performed the roles of Escamillo in Carmen (which I heard re-broadcasted on the radio), M. Germont in La Traviata (which I also heard over the radio), and then Eugene Onegin. He's got to come to Madison College and do a master class.
Both performances were splendid. I think that both Otello and Un Ballo in Maschera are stupendous operas that show the genius of Verdi. And Otello was premiered when Verdi was already in his seventies. I recommend both operas for those who are new to the opera medium.
Let's start with Saturday's performance. Otello was sung by tenor Johann Botha. Desdemona was performed by soprano Renee Fleming (Desdemona is her signature role). Iago was played by baritone Falk Struckman, who appeared two seasons ago as Scarpia in Puccini's Tosca. And Cassio was sung by tenor Michael Fabiano.
Otello is adapted from Shakespeare's play Othello, which is a tragedy of jealousy and misplaced trust. The title character is a Moor and a general in the Venetian army. At the start of the opera, he is on the Venetian flagship in a storm and has just defeated the Turks. the ship arrives safely and he tells the people to rejoice. He has also recently married Desdemona, a Venetian woman, who is deeply in love him. Everyone celebrates the victory, except one: Iago. This man is jealous of the fact that Otello promoted a man named Cassio the rank of Captain (In the original play, it was Lieutenant), instead of him. So he tricks Cassio into getting drunk. This sparks a riot and Otello impulsively strips Cassio of his rank. Otello and Desdemona then have a moment to themselves where they recall how they fell in love.
Iago manipulates events from that point onward. He tells Cassio talk to Desdemona and ask to her to ask Otello for a pardon. Cassio does so. Iago then sings what is perhaps one of the most terrifying Villain Songs ever written: his Credo. Here he sings about just what a nasty piece of work he is (and in many productions he concludes the piece with an evil laugh). He tricks Otello into thinking that Desdemona is being unfaithful. And this undoes both Otello and Desdemona. Otello Murders Desdemona in her bed, but when both Emilia (Desdemona's maid and Iago's wife), and Cassio disprove Iago, Otello kills himself in a fit of remorse.
The sets were awesome. In Act 1, we first had the harbor where soldiers and townsfolk were praying for salvation for the flagship which is struggling in the storm. Then the scene changes to the grand hall where the victory celebrations are being held. These scenes had high ramparts and huge columns.
Same was true for Act 2, which took place in Otello's study and the garden. There were enormous columns there two. On the desk was a model of the fortress and ships, which made me think that it was for plotting strategy. The garden outside had a path surrounded by bushes, with trees in the background.
Act 3 had the grand hall scene from Act 1, but in the first scene we see this enormous painting of what appears to be either a scene of damnation or else the martyrdom of a saint, I couldn't tell which. The picture was lifted the show the grand hall.
Act 4 was the only one where the sets did not involve columns. It was in Desdemona's bedroom, so we had her bed in the center, there was an end table off to the side, and behind was another picture that I had a hard time identifying. Was it the martyrdom of Saint Ursula, the Coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, or what? I couldn't tell. Oh, and in this production, Otello dies before he can give his wife the final kiss.
Now on to Sunday's performance. This opera was in Development Hell and gave Verdi a lot of trouble. At the time Verdi wrote it, Italy was in a period of upheaval, and the opera was based off of the real-life assassination of Sweden's King Gustavus III by a disgruntled courtier. Naturally in a time of trouble this would not go over well, and Verdi wound up re-setting the opera in Colonial Boston and the king was demoted to a governor. This production used the original Swedish characters.
The role of King Gustavo was sung by tenor William Joyner. Baritone Hyung Yun, who stunned audiences last year with his amazing portrayal of the title role in Tchaikovsky's Eugene Onegin, sang the role of Renato Anckarstrom, Gustavo's best friend and secretary. Soprano Alexandra LoBianco made her Madison Opera debut as Amelia, the king's love interest who is also Mrs. Anckarstrom.
The plot centers around the fortune-teller Ulrica's prophecy that Gustavo will die at the hand of a friend. "The first to shake your hand shall be the one," she tells him. But Gustavo considers the prophecy to be sheer nonsense and laughs it off when Renato Anckarstrom is the first to shake his hand. But trouble has been brewing from start. Even before Ulrica prophesies his death, already there are men conspiring to overthrow and kill Gustavo. To make matters even worse, Gustavo is in love with Renato's own wife, Amelia. She herself is in love with the king, but she is aware that it is trouble, and things get worse when Renato finds out about it.
As Act 1 opens, the king's court awaits him in grand hall. This particular set had tall windows and two desks. The floor was blue and beige tile and the king made entrance from the doorway in the back. One group of courtiers sing Gustavo's praises while another group plots his downfall. When the king enters he sits down at his desk to look over the list of people who will be attending an upcoming masquerade (the titular Masked Ball). He is excited to learn that Amelia, the woman he loves, will be in attendance that night. Unfortunately, she also happens to be Mrs. Anckarstrom. Renato Anckarstrom arrives to warn Gustavo of a growing conspiracy, but the latter pays no attention to his words. A judge arrives to tell Gustavo of a complaint against Ulrica, a fortune-teller, whom he has sentenced to be banished for practicing black magic and witchcraft. Oscar, the king's page (beautifully done by soprano Caitlin Cisler), however, defends the woman. Gustavo decides to go to see the woman in disguise.
The second scene takes place in Ulrica's hut. This set looked like it was falling to one side, as witches aren't always well known in fiction for having nice neat houses. There were five orange-glowing lanterns by the fireplace, and there was a table center-stage where Ulrica (sung to perfection by mezzo-soprano Jeniece Golbourne), deals out tarots cards and tells fortunes. While a group of women look on, Ulrica calls upon the devil to assist her with her magic. Gustavo arrives disguised as a fisherman, but the woman tell him to go away, and so he hides in the house. Christiano, a sailor in the king's navy, approaches Ulrica and asks him about his future, telling her that he has served faithfully for fifteen years and has never been rewarded. Unbeknownst to him, the king has overheard him and takes the complaint into account. Ulrica reads Christiano's palm and tells him that he will be promoted and become wealthy. While both their backs are turned, Gustavo quietly slips money and a promotion notice into Christiano's bag, and then returns to his hiding place. Christiano is overjoyed when he finds out that his fortune came true, and everyone present praises Ulrica's abilities. Ulrica sends everyone away when Amelia's servant tells her that that the mistress is waiting outside. Amelia enters and tells Ulrica about her unfortunate love for the king. Ulrica tells her to find a magic herb that grows between the stones near the scaffold and that the herb will cure her illicit passion. Amelia thanks her and leaves. Then the disguised courtiers enter and begin to ask Ulrica their fortunes. Gustavo comes out of hiding and does the same, but he's very defiant too. Ulrica tells him that he will die at the hand of a friend, the first one to shake his hand. Gustavo laughs at her words, and laughs even more when Renato is the first to shake his hand. Christiano recognizes the king and all who present either bow down to him or curse him.
Act 2 takes place by the scaffold near midnight. The moon shines on the gallows, which in this production had two nooses; one dangling from above, the other was wrapped around a scaffold beam and it looked like it had blood on it. There was a grove of trees on either side of the scaffold and underneath the gallows grew the so-called magic herbs that Ulrica told Amelia would cure her illicit passion. Amelia enters and summons the courage to gather one of the herbs. Gustavo surprises her, and while she resists his advances, she does tell him that she loves him. Renato arrives suddenly and Amelia covers her face (in most productions she veils herself, in this production she pulled the hood of her cloak over her head). Renato warns the king that his enemies are approaching. Gustavo tells him to escort the lady back to the city, but not to ask her identity. Renato agrees and the two men exchange cloaks. Gustavo leaves, but before Renato and Amelia can escape, the conspirators find them. They realize that they have caught Renato and not the king, but they fight him anyhow. To save her husband's life, Amelia reveals her identity. Renato is shocked at this revelation and the chief conspirators laugh at the prospect of Renato sneaking out at night to make love to his own wife. Renato tells the leaders, Counts Ribbing and Horn, to come to his house the next day. But he swore to escort Amelia back to the city, so he does so.
Act 3 starts out in Renato's study. There were tall windows and curtain doors on the left and right. Renato's desk was off to the right and red armchair stood to the left. There was also this wooden stool that was moved around at times. By this time, Renato feels heartbroken and betrayed by Gustavo. He and Amelia enter and he throws her to the ground threatening to kill her with his sword. She pleads with him to grant her one last request before she dies, which he allows her to do. In this production Renato put his sword on the chair and sat down on the stool while Amelia made her request. She asks him to let her embrace their only son one last time. Heck, they even had Amelia clutching Renato's leg as she pleaded with him. He relents and pulls his leg away. Then Renato decides that it is Gustavo who must pay with his life. When Ribbing and Horn come in, Renato tells them that he will joint their conspiracy. When they can't agree on who shall assassinate the king, the agree to draw lots. They force Amelia to draw the winning name: Renato. Oscar the king's page enters with an invitation the masked ball. The conspirators welcome this unexpected chance to kill the king while Amelia resolves to warn him.
The final scene starts with the king alone in front of a curtain just before the ball. Torn between love and duty, he decides to make the sacrifice of sending Amelia and Renato back to their homeland. The masquerade begins when the curtain is drawn up revealing a magnificent ballroom. There were four chandeliers with candles lighting up the place. The chorus members wore mostly light yellow or bluish costumes and everyone wore a mask or had one on a stick. Many were dancing. Renato, Ribbing, and Horn entered wearing identical costumes. They approached Oscar the page and asked him to tell him which one is the king. Oscar playfully refuses to give away the information. But then he tells him: The one in the black cloak with the scarlet ribbons. Meanwhile, Gustavo finds Amelia and tell her that he is sending her and her husband back to Finland, and they tell each other good-bye. Just then, Renato comes from behind and shoots Gustavo in the back. Everyone present demands that he be punished, but Gustavo asks that Renato be spared punishment. He insists that even though he loved Amelia, she never broke her marriage vows. He then tells him that Amelia and Renato were meant to leave the following day. Renato is overcome with remorse at what he has done. The king forgives the conspirators and bids his country farewell. He dies and everyone present begs the forgiveness of Heaven. In this production, the king took Renato's hands as he lay dying. I do believe this his way letting the traitor know that he did not hold the murder against him. And as each of the crashing final chords sounded first Oscar, then Renato, then Amelia fell weeping over Gustavo's body.
I am gong to engage in a fangirl moment here. I must say that what sold the performance of Ballo for me was Hyung Yun. I love that baritone. I didn't care that Renato turned traitor; I was so taken with Mr. Yun's performance that during the curtain call I yelled "I love you, Renato," from my seat up in the top balcony. I swear, this guy is a perennial. I first saw him as Valentin in Faust. He later performed the roles of Escamillo in Carmen (which I heard re-broadcasted on the radio), M. Germont in La Traviata (which I also heard over the radio), and then Eugene Onegin. He's got to come to Madison College and do a master class.
Both performances were splendid. I think that both Otello and Un Ballo in Maschera are stupendous operas that show the genius of Verdi. And Otello was premiered when Verdi was already in his seventies. I recommend both operas for those who are new to the opera medium.
Monday, October 22, 2012
Teddy Tahu Nuva: Baritone of Fire
I had only heard the name "Tahu" in Bionicle, which was a line of toys released by LEGO about bio-mechanical creatures. Then I went to see Carmen simulcasted in 2010 and I heard this baritone Teddy Tahu Rhodes was replacing Mariusz Kwiechen in the role of Escamillo. I knew that the names in Bionicle were based off of Polynesian names, but had no idea that the name "Tahu" was even real. Ever since, I have been making jokes about him being the "Baritone of Fire" after Tahu, Toa of Fire, who wields a sword that channels his element and wears a mask of shielding.
Therefore, I say that Teddy Tahu Rhodes wields the element of fire and wears a mask of shielding. I have always wanted to make a joke like that.
Therefore, I say that Teddy Tahu Rhodes wields the element of fire and wears a mask of shielding. I have always wanted to make a joke like that.
Monday, October 15, 2012
Happy Birthday, Dmitri Hvorostovsky!
Yes, the hot and spectacular Dmitri Hvorostovsky is fifty-years-old today. WOO! To celebrate, I have made a little haiku in his honor:
Russian baritone,
I wish you luck on this day.
Happy Fifty Years!
I remember first hearing him when I was fifteen. I don't think Russia has ever produced a more amazing baritone than him. He is hot, and his voice is even sexier. Even some of my non-opera-loving friends say that he's hot.
So with that, Happy Birthday, Dmitri Hvorostovsky!
Russian baritone,
I wish you luck on this day.
Happy Fifty Years!
I remember first hearing him when I was fifteen. I don't think Russia has ever produced a more amazing baritone than him. He is hot, and his voice is even sexier. Even some of my non-opera-loving friends say that he's hot.
So with that, Happy Birthday, Dmitri Hvorostovsky!
Tuesday, September 25, 2012
Kyle Ketelsen
I was sixteen and a junior in high school when I first heard of this bass-baritone. I learned that he was a local opera singer who lived in my home town of Sun Prairie. He was singing the role of Raimondo in Lucia di Lammermoor.
It has been five years since I first heard Kyle Ketelsen sing. He came to my high school and did a master class, and I have also seen him in title role in Le Nozze di Figaro. He was also in the Christmas Spectacular last year.
Mr. Ketelsen is one of the most awesome singers ever. I have actually met him in person. I do not consider him to be incredibly sexy as I do with singers like Florez and Hvorostovsky, but I like him anyhow.
I have been to his website. If you have not heard him sing, you need to fix that. Pronto. He is so awesome he could kill an opponent at 20 paces just by singing.
Sunday, September 2, 2012
Turandot: An Analysis Of The Title Character
Puccini's Turandot is one of my favorite operas. The premise is simple: The princess does not want marry and will only wed the man who successfully completes her challenge. Naturally if he does not succeed, he dies; in this case he loses his head. An unknown hero arrives, tries his luck, and wins. Now he puts a challenge before her: If she can guess his name before dawn, she can execute him (if she wants). So the entire city is kept up all night on pain of death so that the hero's name can be revealed.
I have always found the character of Princess Turandot to be rather fascinating. She has sworn only to marry the man who correctly answers her three riddles. In her aria "In Questa Reggia", she claims that her reason for this challenge was due to the fact that her ancestress, the Princess Lo-u-Ling, was raped and murdered by a foreign king. She's so terrified of what happened to Lo-u-Ling that she thinks it will happen to her as well. And so she uses this one incident (that happened thousands of years ago), as an excuse to not marry and attempts to justify her having suitors answer the riddles or die.
In their trio at the beginning of Act 2, the three magistrates speak of one prince who had a spectacular longbow, another had many furs, and yet another had lots of golden riches. This means that previous suitors had apparently tried to impress the princess with their strength, riches and power (which naturally backfires in a tale like this). When Calaf comes along, Turandot says that she saw in his eyes the glint of a hero. Now Calaf is described as the Unknown Prince, not to mention his father had been dethroned a not too long ago. This means that Calaf probably does not have much on him in the first place. What he does have is determination and persistence. And Turandot seems to notice this. e. When Calaf succeeds in answering the riddles, Turandot is shaken and does not want to give up her power. That's when Calaf puts forth his challenge: She can execute him if she can guess his name before dawn. Remember that he's still the Unknown Prince at this point.
Turandot decrees that none shall sleep on pain of death until the stranger's name is discovered. When Calaf's father and slave girl are brought before the princess, everyone is sure they'll get the answer. But the slave girl says that while she alone knows the answer, she will keep silent. She is tortured, but still refuses to talk. And this impresses Turandot. She probably has never seen anyone show so much courage under torture. The slave girl tells her that she loves the prince and that she will resin silent out of that love for him. She then says that Turandot will love the prince as she does, and then she kills herself without saying any more. When Calaf is left with Turandot, he rebukes her for her cruelty. She resists initially, but then Calaf kisses her and she finally gives in. Now, critics at the time the opera was premiered argued that Turandot's change of heart could only have been hormonal. Well, not quite. She says that she fell in love with Calaf the first time she saw him, which means she must have had a rush of feelings an did not know what they were (I know this from experience), and it scared her. She has tried to maintain her cold icy personality, but Calaf's persistence in his love for her slowly thaws her out. In the end she gives up the fight because she sees no use in further resisting him. She tells Calaf to leave him with his secret, but he reveals it to her and tells her that she may do with him as she pleases. She chooses to marry him, because she wants to and he clearly cares about her. She declares to her father and the assembled crowd that the stranger's name is Love.
I love this character's progression. Turandot starts out as a cold unfeeling princess who is basically held prisoner by the story of her ancestress, to a woman who knows genuine love and emotion. And recently I thought of a possible bit of staging for this: Turandot is haunted by the ghost of Lo-u-ling who accompanies her through the first half of Act 3, and when Calaf kisses Turandot and she surrender's, Lo-u-ling's ghost is banished. I think that can be pulled off rather well.
I have always found the character of Princess Turandot to be rather fascinating. She has sworn only to marry the man who correctly answers her three riddles. In her aria "In Questa Reggia", she claims that her reason for this challenge was due to the fact that her ancestress, the Princess Lo-u-Ling, was raped and murdered by a foreign king. She's so terrified of what happened to Lo-u-Ling that she thinks it will happen to her as well. And so she uses this one incident (that happened thousands of years ago), as an excuse to not marry and attempts to justify her having suitors answer the riddles or die.
In their trio at the beginning of Act 2, the three magistrates speak of one prince who had a spectacular longbow, another had many furs, and yet another had lots of golden riches. This means that previous suitors had apparently tried to impress the princess with their strength, riches and power (which naturally backfires in a tale like this). When Calaf comes along, Turandot says that she saw in his eyes the glint of a hero. Now Calaf is described as the Unknown Prince, not to mention his father had been dethroned a not too long ago. This means that Calaf probably does not have much on him in the first place. What he does have is determination and persistence. And Turandot seems to notice this. e. When Calaf succeeds in answering the riddles, Turandot is shaken and does not want to give up her power. That's when Calaf puts forth his challenge: She can execute him if she can guess his name before dawn. Remember that he's still the Unknown Prince at this point.
Turandot decrees that none shall sleep on pain of death until the stranger's name is discovered. When Calaf's father and slave girl are brought before the princess, everyone is sure they'll get the answer. But the slave girl says that while she alone knows the answer, she will keep silent. She is tortured, but still refuses to talk. And this impresses Turandot. She probably has never seen anyone show so much courage under torture. The slave girl tells her that she loves the prince and that she will resin silent out of that love for him. She then says that Turandot will love the prince as she does, and then she kills herself without saying any more. When Calaf is left with Turandot, he rebukes her for her cruelty. She resists initially, but then Calaf kisses her and she finally gives in. Now, critics at the time the opera was premiered argued that Turandot's change of heart could only have been hormonal. Well, not quite. She says that she fell in love with Calaf the first time she saw him, which means she must have had a rush of feelings an did not know what they were (I know this from experience), and it scared her. She has tried to maintain her cold icy personality, but Calaf's persistence in his love for her slowly thaws her out. In the end she gives up the fight because she sees no use in further resisting him. She tells Calaf to leave him with his secret, but he reveals it to her and tells her that she may do with him as she pleases. She chooses to marry him, because she wants to and he clearly cares about her. She declares to her father and the assembled crowd that the stranger's name is Love.
I love this character's progression. Turandot starts out as a cold unfeeling princess who is basically held prisoner by the story of her ancestress, to a woman who knows genuine love and emotion. And recently I thought of a possible bit of staging for this: Turandot is haunted by the ghost of Lo-u-ling who accompanies her through the first half of Act 3, and when Calaf kisses Turandot and she surrender's, Lo-u-ling's ghost is banished. I think that can be pulled off rather well.
Thursday, August 16, 2012
Mr. Lincoln Was Not A Seducer!
Somebody put "La Ci Darem La Mano" from Mozart's Don Giovanni as the background music for a video on the life Mary Todd Lincoln. Excuse me, but that duet is sung by the lascivious Don and a peasant girl he's attempting to seduce on her wedding day. What! Is the person who made the video implying that Abraham Lincoln was a Don Juan? Of course he wasn't! Please people; make sure you know the context of the song before using it in a biographical video.
Monday, August 13, 2012
Bar Signs 6
Well, the Main St. bar has another weird sign again. It reads, "There Is No Better Sunscreen Than Sitting In A Bar." Eh? How is that better sunscreen? Is it because you're out of the sun? Or is someone just looking for an excuse to get himself bombed out of his brain? That sign is just dumb.
Wednesday, July 18, 2012
54th Massachusetts
On this day in 1863, the 54th Massachusetts infantry attacked the Confederates at Fort Wagner in South Carolina. Although it was a Confederate victory, the attack must have scared the Rebels something awful.
The 54th Massachusetts was one of the very first all-black regiments in the United States Army. Their leader was white abolitionist Colonel Robert Gould Shaw. The idea behind the formation of a black regiment was to help bring about Union victory. Blacks were slaves in the South, so arming free blacks in the North was seen as encouraging slaves to rise up against their masters. Given how slaves were treated, it makes sense that blacks wanted to do so. Except that in this case, forming a regiment meant that the men were trained as soldiers.
Because the regiment was an all-black one, the soldiers were paid three dollars less than white soldiers. Shaw encouraged his men to take no pay because of that.
When the regiment attacked Fort Wagner, Shaw was killed as he told his men to keep going forward. The men fought bravely, but had to retreat in the end. After the battle the Confederate soldiers stripped Shaw's body naked and put him on display for a couple of days. Then buried him at the bottom of a pit and piled the bodies of other soldiers from his regiment on top of him as way to insult him. When his father asked what became of him, and Confederate soldier said, "We buried him with his niggers." This proved to be an Insult Backfire as Shaw's father replied that his son would have been honored to be buried alongside his men.
The 54th Massachusetts proved to the nation that blacks could fight just as well as white soldiers. More black regiments were formed after that. Lincoln credited these black soldiers for their part in helping turn the tide of the war in favor of the Union. Fort Wagner was never taken, but it was abandoned by the Confederates a few months later after repeated bombardment from Union warships.
The 54th Massachusetts was one of the very first all-black regiments in the United States Army. Their leader was white abolitionist Colonel Robert Gould Shaw. The idea behind the formation of a black regiment was to help bring about Union victory. Blacks were slaves in the South, so arming free blacks in the North was seen as encouraging slaves to rise up against their masters. Given how slaves were treated, it makes sense that blacks wanted to do so. Except that in this case, forming a regiment meant that the men were trained as soldiers.
Because the regiment was an all-black one, the soldiers were paid three dollars less than white soldiers. Shaw encouraged his men to take no pay because of that.
When the regiment attacked Fort Wagner, Shaw was killed as he told his men to keep going forward. The men fought bravely, but had to retreat in the end. After the battle the Confederate soldiers stripped Shaw's body naked and put him on display for a couple of days. Then buried him at the bottom of a pit and piled the bodies of other soldiers from his regiment on top of him as way to insult him. When his father asked what became of him, and Confederate soldier said, "We buried him with his niggers." This proved to be an Insult Backfire as Shaw's father replied that his son would have been honored to be buried alongside his men.
The 54th Massachusetts proved to the nation that blacks could fight just as well as white soldiers. More black regiments were formed after that. Lincoln credited these black soldiers for their part in helping turn the tide of the war in favor of the Union. Fort Wagner was never taken, but it was abandoned by the Confederates a few months later after repeated bombardment from Union warships.
Sunday, July 8, 2012
Thoughts on Diversity
So the church I was worried about turned out to be run by someone who is godly and competent, and apparently qualifies to take on the job of running a church multicultural center. This is a good thing.
The only reason I initially freaked out is because I have had some rather bad experiences with the current ideas about what is often called "diversity". I'll agree that treating someone solely of the basis of race, sex, age, etc., is a bad idea, but the way it's being taught in this culture leaves a lot to be desired.
Let's start with this fact: No two people are alike. You've got men and women, each with their own personality and looks. People may have a similar body pattern (I've observed this), but no one has the same personality or looks.
With that in mind, let's look at how the issue of diversity is handled in our culture today.
Kids are taught from an early age to accept other people regardless of any differences. This is all good and well. However, as the kids grow up and move on from preschool and kindergarten to grade school on up, the tune slowly changes from "Accept other people despite their differences" to "White person-Bad, Minority person-Good".
We have all read about the troubles minority groups have faced in the past (slavery, discrimination, lynching, etc.). It used to be that white supremacy was one of the chief vices plaguing our country. Nowadays, you can't even say something bad about a black person without being labeled a racist.
Personal Experience: I had a very incompetent teacher for sophomore English. She deduced that the theme connecting all the stories we were reading was intolerance. I was already aware of the stupidities of "tolerance" as it is taught today. In this particular English class, I got the full force of it (I'm still mad at my teacher for that). She gave us a packet on The Laramie Project. Apparently, in 1991 two guys murdered a homosexual man in Wyoming. This sparked quite a bit of debate. People were shouting "Oh, he was killed for being homosexual; oh it was a hate crime, blah, blah, blah." This packet clearly left a lot to be desired. It was riddled with inaccuracies about prejudice, about Fred Phelps, the man who ran around carrying stupid signs about the murder victim in Hell, and was had more biases than the average politician (exaggerated for effect). I found out later on that the victim's murderers were thugs in the first place and at the time were high on meth. So that was not so much a "hate crime" and more of an ordinary mugging; the victim just happened to be a homosexual.
The teacher gave us a project on "tolerance" and had us go to this website on the subject. My dad looked over this website and found that there were more inaccuracies and lies on that website alone than I have ever come across in my twenty-one years; rivaled only by the incredibly stupid and inaccurate piece of junk known as my Sociology textbook from last summer. For example, one of the things the website suggested to become more tolerant of others was to "Increase my circle of friends". Whoever made this site clearly doesn't understand that most people don't make friends for a little more "diversity" in their portfolio. And most people have at least only one or two close friends. They may have a group of friends, but will only have a close bond with one of them. Therefore, "Increase my circle of friends" is not very sound advice. And making friends with someone who's black just because he's black is not a good way to go about this. In fact, it's reverse racism.
Another thing this lame excuse of a website suggested was to "Create a tolerance website". My dad said that doing so would be preaching to the choir. His reason was simple: "Are those idle thrill-seeker going to visit your website?" No one goes online to look for advice on how to become more "tolerant". They go online to spend hours playing RPGs and watch silly videos. They're not going to be interested in reading about "tolerance" at all.
How does one handle diversity? It's hard. Almost two centuries of prejudice have left many people, black, white, etc., with feelings of resentment. Everyone resents someone. And to get past this requires work. And to get rid of it is rough. What is really more important is who the person is, not what the person is. And no, being more "tolerant" does NOT mean condoning sin. All I can say is the best way to handle it is to love that person as yourself, even when their behavior offends you. Tell them that you love and respect them, but that you don't approve of immoral or improper behavior. And do it in such a way as to bring glory to God's name.
The only reason I initially freaked out is because I have had some rather bad experiences with the current ideas about what is often called "diversity". I'll agree that treating someone solely of the basis of race, sex, age, etc., is a bad idea, but the way it's being taught in this culture leaves a lot to be desired.
Let's start with this fact: No two people are alike. You've got men and women, each with their own personality and looks. People may have a similar body pattern (I've observed this), but no one has the same personality or looks.
With that in mind, let's look at how the issue of diversity is handled in our culture today.
Kids are taught from an early age to accept other people regardless of any differences. This is all good and well. However, as the kids grow up and move on from preschool and kindergarten to grade school on up, the tune slowly changes from "Accept other people despite their differences" to "White person-Bad, Minority person-Good".
We have all read about the troubles minority groups have faced in the past (slavery, discrimination, lynching, etc.). It used to be that white supremacy was one of the chief vices plaguing our country. Nowadays, you can't even say something bad about a black person without being labeled a racist.
Personal Experience: I had a very incompetent teacher for sophomore English. She deduced that the theme connecting all the stories we were reading was intolerance. I was already aware of the stupidities of "tolerance" as it is taught today. In this particular English class, I got the full force of it (I'm still mad at my teacher for that). She gave us a packet on The Laramie Project. Apparently, in 1991 two guys murdered a homosexual man in Wyoming. This sparked quite a bit of debate. People were shouting "Oh, he was killed for being homosexual; oh it was a hate crime, blah, blah, blah." This packet clearly left a lot to be desired. It was riddled with inaccuracies about prejudice, about Fred Phelps, the man who ran around carrying stupid signs about the murder victim in Hell, and was had more biases than the average politician (exaggerated for effect). I found out later on that the victim's murderers were thugs in the first place and at the time were high on meth. So that was not so much a "hate crime" and more of an ordinary mugging; the victim just happened to be a homosexual.
The teacher gave us a project on "tolerance" and had us go to this website on the subject. My dad looked over this website and found that there were more inaccuracies and lies on that website alone than I have ever come across in my twenty-one years; rivaled only by the incredibly stupid and inaccurate piece of junk known as my Sociology textbook from last summer. For example, one of the things the website suggested to become more tolerant of others was to "Increase my circle of friends". Whoever made this site clearly doesn't understand that most people don't make friends for a little more "diversity" in their portfolio. And most people have at least only one or two close friends. They may have a group of friends, but will only have a close bond with one of them. Therefore, "Increase my circle of friends" is not very sound advice. And making friends with someone who's black just because he's black is not a good way to go about this. In fact, it's reverse racism.
Another thing this lame excuse of a website suggested was to "Create a tolerance website". My dad said that doing so would be preaching to the choir. His reason was simple: "Are those idle thrill-seeker going to visit your website?" No one goes online to look for advice on how to become more "tolerant". They go online to spend hours playing RPGs and watch silly videos. They're not going to be interested in reading about "tolerance" at all.
How does one handle diversity? It's hard. Almost two centuries of prejudice have left many people, black, white, etc., with feelings of resentment. Everyone resents someone. And to get past this requires work. And to get rid of it is rough. What is really more important is who the person is, not what the person is. And no, being more "tolerant" does NOT mean condoning sin. All I can say is the best way to handle it is to love that person as yourself, even when their behavior offends you. Tell them that you love and respect them, but that you don't approve of immoral or improper behavior. And do it in such a way as to bring glory to God's name.
Sunday, July 1, 2012
What Is The Purpose?
The Wisconsin State Journal ran an article last Sunday about a church on the South Side of Madison which is building a cultural center. The idea is to bring people of other ethnic groups into the church and feel welcome.
At first glance this sounds like a good idea. However, as articles in the State Journal are notorious for leaving things out, it is not entirely clear to me what the purpose is in building this place and bringing in people from other ethnic groups. They said that one of the missions was to "be a gathering place where we can learn about each other's cultures. Fair enough.
But it doesn't say anything about reaching out to people and telling them the Good News of Jesus Christ. That might be the purpose, but there's no real indication that it is.
The other possibility (and the one I unfortunately suspect to be the most likely), is that this church just wants to make their congregation more diverse. They spoke of being a "neighborhood gathering place to bring various cultures together." That alone is not enough reason to build a cultural center.
If the purpose of this place is to reach out to other ethnic groups in order to bring more people into the Family of God, by all means; build this cultural center. Let people come and worship together and enjoy one another in Fellowship. Let us meet with fellow brothers and sisters in Jesus and share God's love with other people. The body of Christ is made up of people from every tribe, tongue, and nation the Bible tells us. But if the purpose is to bring other cultures together for the sake of bringing other cultures together, forget it. Don't build a cultural center. If it is not specifically for reaching out to other people, then there is no point in building one of these places. It's a church cultural center. So what? It's just a church cultural center. That doesn't mean anything to a Christ Follower unless it has the purpose of bringing people to Christ.
I'll agree with the pastor that there is a real problem with segregation. It has always been an issue since our country was being formed. But the purpose must be for the good of God's people instead of being just a cultural center that's part of a church. And as followers of Christ, we don't want the latter.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UPDATE: It turns out that the church in question is one that my church is partnered with and the pastor is a very Godly man. So this doesn't sound like a bad idea after all. It turns out that the pastor has been working hard in that community, and that if anyone is qualified for the job, he is. We should still pray for this operation, and ask God to let it work the way He wants it to, so that it doesn't become like I often think it will.
At first glance this sounds like a good idea. However, as articles in the State Journal are notorious for leaving things out, it is not entirely clear to me what the purpose is in building this place and bringing in people from other ethnic groups. They said that one of the missions was to "be a gathering place where we can learn about each other's cultures. Fair enough.
But it doesn't say anything about reaching out to people and telling them the Good News of Jesus Christ. That might be the purpose, but there's no real indication that it is.
The other possibility (and the one I unfortunately suspect to be the most likely), is that this church just wants to make their congregation more diverse. They spoke of being a "neighborhood gathering place to bring various cultures together." That alone is not enough reason to build a cultural center.
If the purpose of this place is to reach out to other ethnic groups in order to bring more people into the Family of God, by all means; build this cultural center. Let people come and worship together and enjoy one another in Fellowship. Let us meet with fellow brothers and sisters in Jesus and share God's love with other people. The body of Christ is made up of people from every tribe, tongue, and nation the Bible tells us. But if the purpose is to bring other cultures together for the sake of bringing other cultures together, forget it. Don't build a cultural center. If it is not specifically for reaching out to other people, then there is no point in building one of these places. It's a church cultural center. So what? It's just a church cultural center. That doesn't mean anything to a Christ Follower unless it has the purpose of bringing people to Christ.
I'll agree with the pastor that there is a real problem with segregation. It has always been an issue since our country was being formed. But the purpose must be for the good of God's people instead of being just a cultural center that's part of a church. And as followers of Christ, we don't want the latter.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UPDATE: It turns out that the church in question is one that my church is partnered with and the pastor is a very Godly man. So this doesn't sound like a bad idea after all. It turns out that the pastor has been working hard in that community, and that if anyone is qualified for the job, he is. We should still pray for this operation, and ask God to let it work the way He wants it to, so that it doesn't become like I often think it will.
Sunday, June 24, 2012
Bar Signs 5
There's yet another sign on the side of the Main St. bar. It read, "Some say the glass is half full; others say the glass is half empty. I've been wondering who's been drinking my beer."
That's one of the most hilarious signs I've seen. I'm going to enjoy this one as long as it's up.
That's one of the most hilarious signs I've seen. I'm going to enjoy this one as long as it's up.
Saturday, June 23, 2012
Where Is A Clue-by-Four When You Need One?
There was an article in today's paper about a New Jersey woman who is suing and 11-year-old child of all people after he accidentally hit her with a ball. He was warming up a pitcher and the ball strayed when he threw it, hitting the woman in the face. She needed medical attention. She is now suing the boy for $150,000 in order to pay for her medical expenses. $150,000! The boy doesn't have that much money.
Read this clip:
"The lawsuit filed April 24 alleges that the boy's* errant throw was intentional and reckless, 'assaulted and battered' the woman*, and caused 'severe, painful, and permanent' injuries.
A second count alleges the boy's actions were negligent and careless through 'engaging in inappropriate physical and/or sporting activities' near the woman.
And the woman's husband, in a third count, is suing for the loss of 'services, society, consortium' to his wife. They've demanded a jury trial."
What is this woman thinking? This was an exceedingly rare freak accident, like the batter many years ago who got killed by a fastball. "The throw was intentional and reckless". Of course the throw was intentional; but the boy was aiming to warm up his team pitcher. He was not aiming for the woman. The ball simply strayed. Why should this be reason to sue? Also, the average 11-year-old still doesn't have the best coordination, and so this accusation of the throw being reckless is rather silly.
And what was the woman expecting when she went to a Little League baseball game? Dance? It's a baseball game. There's nothing inappropriate about playing on a school baseball team. Not only are the kids getting exercise, but the kids are learning teamwork. What does this woman have against that?
I'm not even going to try to explain the third set of charges. However, since the woman's husband is helping with this, he's at fault too. Allowing his wife to frivolously sue a fifth or sixth grader? Why doesn't he recognize the lawsuit as undeniably stupid and tell her she's making a mistake. Neither spouse should help the other do something as vile as this. The man is not behaving like a proper husband and letting his wife know she's being foolish by suing a child; not only for something the child did not intend to do, but expecting him to pay an obscene amount.
The lawyer who represents the boy knows that this is appallingly cruel. He told to newspaper, "I think that it's disgusting that you have people suing an 11-year-old for overthrowing his pitcher in the bullpen."
Mike Royko wrote of a similar incident in 1996. The only kind of person who would do this sort of thing is a vengeful, avaricious, and all-around monster. I sincerely hope that this lawsuit gets rejected immediately.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*I have refused to reveal the names of the persons involved.
Read this clip:
"The lawsuit filed April 24 alleges that the boy's* errant throw was intentional and reckless, 'assaulted and battered' the woman*, and caused 'severe, painful, and permanent' injuries.
A second count alleges the boy's actions were negligent and careless through 'engaging in inappropriate physical and/or sporting activities' near the woman.
And the woman's husband, in a third count, is suing for the loss of 'services, society, consortium' to his wife. They've demanded a jury trial."
What is this woman thinking? This was an exceedingly rare freak accident, like the batter many years ago who got killed by a fastball. "The throw was intentional and reckless". Of course the throw was intentional; but the boy was aiming to warm up his team pitcher. He was not aiming for the woman. The ball simply strayed. Why should this be reason to sue? Also, the average 11-year-old still doesn't have the best coordination, and so this accusation of the throw being reckless is rather silly.
And what was the woman expecting when she went to a Little League baseball game? Dance? It's a baseball game. There's nothing inappropriate about playing on a school baseball team. Not only are the kids getting exercise, but the kids are learning teamwork. What does this woman have against that?
I'm not even going to try to explain the third set of charges. However, since the woman's husband is helping with this, he's at fault too. Allowing his wife to frivolously sue a fifth or sixth grader? Why doesn't he recognize the lawsuit as undeniably stupid and tell her she's making a mistake. Neither spouse should help the other do something as vile as this. The man is not behaving like a proper husband and letting his wife know she's being foolish by suing a child; not only for something the child did not intend to do, but expecting him to pay an obscene amount.
The lawyer who represents the boy knows that this is appallingly cruel. He told to newspaper, "I think that it's disgusting that you have people suing an 11-year-old for overthrowing his pitcher in the bullpen."
Mike Royko wrote of a similar incident in 1996. The only kind of person who would do this sort of thing is a vengeful, avaricious, and all-around monster. I sincerely hope that this lawsuit gets rejected immediately.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*I have refused to reveal the names of the persons involved.
Monday, June 18, 2012
"Happiness: The Real Medicine and How It Works" By Blair Lewis
This is my very first book review online.
I had to do a project for Psychology class where I had to read a self-help book and review it. I chose this one mostly because of the title because it sounded good.
This book is a mostly Buddhist/Hindu guide to being "happy" (that word, unfortunately has lost its meaning). Mr. Lewis sets out to show us the pathway to "happiness". But given the heavy Buddhist/Hindu influence, he tends to go off into a lot of mystic gobbledegook.
Mr. Lewis is right in three places:
1) Cultivating a quiet mind. This is very hard to do, and for someone like me who has Berserk Buttons aplenty, this is important. Working keeping your mind calm--keeping YOURSELF calm--helps one think more clearly. And it also helps in dealing with other people. If you're calm, you're more likely to be able to handle idiots well. I know because I've seen what happens when I blow up.
2) Self-Restraint. Seriously, we need more of this in our culture today. Keeping yourself under control helps deal with annoyances, and it helps keep one from falling into temptation.
3) Yoga. Yoga has been scientifically proven to be beneficial to one's health. Regular stretching and breathing exercises help keep your body in shape. And it helps you calm down.
Mr. Lewis fails, however, to use clear words, fails to address one specific problem, and goes off into Buddhist mystic psychobabble. He also fails to document many of his claims.
1) Rejuvenation Herbs. These sound nice and some are useful in medicine. But, well, read this:
I had to do a project for Psychology class where I had to read a self-help book and review it. I chose this one mostly because of the title because it sounded good.
This book is a mostly Buddhist/Hindu guide to being "happy" (that word, unfortunately has lost its meaning). Mr. Lewis sets out to show us the pathway to "happiness". But given the heavy Buddhist/Hindu influence, he tends to go off into a lot of mystic gobbledegook.
Mr. Lewis is right in three places:
1) Cultivating a quiet mind. This is very hard to do, and for someone like me who has Berserk Buttons aplenty, this is important. Working keeping your mind calm--keeping YOURSELF calm--helps one think more clearly. And it also helps in dealing with other people. If you're calm, you're more likely to be able to handle idiots well. I know because I've seen what happens when I blow up.
2) Self-Restraint. Seriously, we need more of this in our culture today. Keeping yourself under control helps deal with annoyances, and it helps keep one from falling into temptation.
3) Yoga. Yoga has been scientifically proven to be beneficial to one's health. Regular stretching and breathing exercises help keep your body in shape. And it helps you calm down.
Mr. Lewis fails, however, to use clear words, fails to address one specific problem, and goes off into Buddhist mystic psychobabble. He also fails to document many of his claims.
1) Rejuvenation Herbs. These sound nice and some are useful in medicine. But, well, read this:
"The main ingredients in Bacopa monnieria* are saponin fractions, known Bacosides A and B. there are also alkaloids, brahmine, and herpestine. A clinical study conducted in India indicates that Brahmi* will improve memory, thinking, and reasoning."
Notice that Mr. Lewis doesn't actually document which study India he's talking about. The lack of documentation means he probably doesn't known as much about the plant as he thinks he does. He later goes on to say that this particular plant "is the magic elixir for putting your thoughts into action. It helps you overcome the fears and anxieties paralyzing your good intentions". In regards to that last sentence, doesn't Mr. Lewis know what the road to Hell is often paved with?
Also, I have heard of people who have improved their memory, thinking, and reasoning skills without the help of plants. All it takes is hard work in order to do so.
2) One of the things Mr. Lewis says that happy people possess is "freedom from conflicts and distractions". He seems to be talking about this in relation to our troubles with technology. However, "freedom from conflicts and distractions" has to do with a lot more than just technology. I get distracted, for example, by talking too much. I am also a daydreamer. Does this have anything to do with technology? On one hand yes, because I get easily distracted by the computer or the console. On the other hand no, because distractions have been a constant problem for me since my early childhood. I would recommend that Mr. Lewis go back and look at other things that cause distractions in our lives.
3) He also talks about how "happy" people are not "interested in worldly charms". He doesn't specify what that means. And it's that lack of specification that causes confusion.
4) Mr. Lewis fails to address one specific problem. If this were a book on combating depression, I think I could (with some difficulty) figure out how this book might be helpful. But there isn't one specific problem that is addressed. That is a problem. If the reader doesn't know precisely how this book could give them any idea on how to improve their life, then the author has failed in his goal.
The worst part is when Mr. Lewis begin talking about the "koshas" or "sheaths that cover the soul" and the "kleshas" or "obstacles to happiness". It is here that he really goes off into Neverland. I don't want to hear about the layers of the soul and all that stuff. Not only is it something that I don't believe in, it also isn't very informative. What all do kleshas and koshas have to do with being happy? Nothing.
In conclusion, I will say this: Mr. Lewis does offer some good advice on how to restrain yourself, cultivate a quiet mind, and use breathing and stretching exercises to help keep your body in shape. But I'm afraid that this is outweighed by all the talk of rejuvenation herbs and all the other Buddhist/Hindu stuff.
My advice: Skip the book. It's a waste of time and it's not very informative.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*These are both Indian named for the coastal water hyssop plant.
Saturday, June 16, 2012
Buzzwords That Should Stop Being Used
I have heard some really ridiculous sounding words and phrases that really should fall out of usage. These are words and phrases that don't have real meaning. They are meant to abuse and opponent or to make something sound good. Here are the ones that I find the most appalling:
Modern Woman
I remember reading a review of the '09 Disney film The Princess and the Frog. The heroine was described as a "modern woman".
I'll admit that there were all sorts of myths about happiness coming from a handsome prince and whatnot floating around back in the Victorian era. These myths would not have been so popular, however, if the marriage customs had been different. People married for more for money than for love back then, and they married whoever Mom and Dad picked out for them. So you were lucky if the person your parents selected actually cared about you.
But just because a woman knows that happiness comes from hard work and good character does not make her a "modern woman". King Solomon wrote of such a woman in his Proverbs: The Wife of Noble Character. This is the ideal woman. She puts her family before her and works hard to take care of them. This is nothing new. Why should it be considered a "modern" thing? It isn't. And when you think about it, "modern woman" doesn't really mean anything. Therefore, it should not be used.
Homophobic
A popular term of abuse among a lot people today. It's supposed to mean someone who hates homosexuals. It sounds more like "same fear", however, and that doesn't make a whole lot of sense. What's more, by saying that the person who disagrees with you has a irrational fear of you, you're being abusive to them. God says that homosexuality is wrong. Does that mean He God has a irrational fear of homosexuals? No, it does not. Therefore "homophobic" should fall out of usage because it is a term of abuse.
Bashing
This is supposed to mean insulting people of one particular group, but it's really a synonym for breaking or smashing. As a word for insulting, "bashing" should not be used.
There are plenty more buzzwords that I hate, but I can't think of them right now.
Modern Woman
I remember reading a review of the '09 Disney film The Princess and the Frog. The heroine was described as a "modern woman".
"She knows that happiness does not come from a handsome prince or a fairy godmother, but through hard work and good character"
(That's not the exact quote, but that is the basic gist.)
But just because a woman knows that happiness comes from hard work and good character does not make her a "modern woman". King Solomon wrote of such a woman in his Proverbs: The Wife of Noble Character. This is the ideal woman. She puts her family before her and works hard to take care of them. This is nothing new. Why should it be considered a "modern" thing? It isn't. And when you think about it, "modern woman" doesn't really mean anything. Therefore, it should not be used.
Homophobic
A popular term of abuse among a lot people today. It's supposed to mean someone who hates homosexuals. It sounds more like "same fear", however, and that doesn't make a whole lot of sense. What's more, by saying that the person who disagrees with you has a irrational fear of you, you're being abusive to them. God says that homosexuality is wrong. Does that mean He God has a irrational fear of homosexuals? No, it does not. Therefore "homophobic" should fall out of usage because it is a term of abuse.
Bashing
This is supposed to mean insulting people of one particular group, but it's really a synonym for breaking or smashing. As a word for insulting, "bashing" should not be used.
There are plenty more buzzwords that I hate, but I can't think of them right now.
Thursday, June 7, 2012
"Harry Potter" Minor Characters
I hate Viktor Krum.
Seriously, I hate Viktor Krum. At seventeen, he's already the seeker for the Bulgarian Quidditch team (and the best seeker in the world to boot), and is clearly a favorite with young girls. He has no flaws at all (he only commits evil under the Imperius Curse), and it's him, the urplest character in the entire Harry Potter series who gets to be Hermione Granger's first date.
Krum can get kissed by a Dementor. He may be a minor character in Potterverse, but he's urple and he's too good to be a believable person.
Some of the other minor characters are way more interesting. Cedric Diggory for example, is one such character. He is brave, and honest. He is also very talented. He does have his flaws though. He is a very believable character and very sympathetic too. In fact, his death at the hands of the evil Lord Voldemort's servant in Goblet of Fire is considered one of the saddest moments in the entire series.
Dobby is a very well done minor character too. When we first meet him, he is an obnoxious and annoying little twirp who's doing his wicked masters bidding. When we see him again later, however, he is loyal and bold to the point where he sacrifices himself to save Harry. His death atthe hands of Bellatirx Lestrange in Deathly Hallows is also considered to be one of the saddest moments of the series.
And how about Fred and George Weasley? The most enjoyable pranksters in the world. They never hesitate to give someone, especially one of the less amiable characters, a hard time. They made the sadistic Dolores Umbridge a rough year before leaving Hogwarts. They both love their family and are willing to risk their lives to help Harry. Unfortunately, George loses his ear in a skirmish with the Death Eaters and Fred dies at the battle of Hogwarts. But they're still fun.
That is not to say that my favorite Potterverse minor characters are ones who die or suffer tragic injuries. Another one, Neville Longbottom starts out as a normal pushed-around kid, but then gets a larger role Order of the Phoenix and a bigger, more awesome part in Deathly Hallows. Peeves doesn't appear in the movies, but he's incredibly funny (he's a poltergeist).
So the minor characters in Harry Potter are mostly very well drawn or otherwise just plain enjoyable characters. But Krum? Let a lithofold get him. Or better yet, a basilisk. Just something to get rid of that urple wizard.
Seriously, I hate Viktor Krum. At seventeen, he's already the seeker for the Bulgarian Quidditch team (and the best seeker in the world to boot), and is clearly a favorite with young girls. He has no flaws at all (he only commits evil under the Imperius Curse), and it's him, the urplest character in the entire Harry Potter series who gets to be Hermione Granger's first date.
Krum can get kissed by a Dementor. He may be a minor character in Potterverse, but he's urple and he's too good to be a believable person.
Some of the other minor characters are way more interesting. Cedric Diggory for example, is one such character. He is brave, and honest. He is also very talented. He does have his flaws though. He is a very believable character and very sympathetic too. In fact, his death at the hands of the evil Lord Voldemort's servant in Goblet of Fire is considered one of the saddest moments in the entire series.
Dobby is a very well done minor character too. When we first meet him, he is an obnoxious and annoying little twirp who's doing his wicked masters bidding. When we see him again later, however, he is loyal and bold to the point where he sacrifices himself to save Harry. His death atthe hands of Bellatirx Lestrange in Deathly Hallows is also considered to be one of the saddest moments of the series.
And how about Fred and George Weasley? The most enjoyable pranksters in the world. They never hesitate to give someone, especially one of the less amiable characters, a hard time. They made the sadistic Dolores Umbridge a rough year before leaving Hogwarts. They both love their family and are willing to risk their lives to help Harry. Unfortunately, George loses his ear in a skirmish with the Death Eaters and Fred dies at the battle of Hogwarts. But they're still fun.
That is not to say that my favorite Potterverse minor characters are ones who die or suffer tragic injuries. Another one, Neville Longbottom starts out as a normal pushed-around kid, but then gets a larger role Order of the Phoenix and a bigger, more awesome part in Deathly Hallows. Peeves doesn't appear in the movies, but he's incredibly funny (he's a poltergeist).
So the minor characters in Harry Potter are mostly very well drawn or otherwise just plain enjoyable characters. But Krum? Let a lithofold get him. Or better yet, a basilisk. Just something to get rid of that urple wizard.
Monday, May 21, 2012
Governor Dodge Adventure
Last Saturday was a perfect ending to a horrendously rough and confusing week. My mother had organized a trip up Governor Dodge State Park for the Chinese kids. I volunteered to drive because my mom can't right now (well, only for short distances, and even then, not so much). We also listened to Juan Diego Florez on the way up.
There were twelve Chinese who showed up. We drove from Madison to Governor Dodge in two cars due to the relatively large number of people.
When we got there, we had to get a park sticker (we hadn't been to the park in several years). We got to the Cox Hollow Lake picnic area, set up our stuff, and then Mom and the others went down to the beach to look for rocks and smalls water creatures. I stayed at the picnic table because I needed to rest, so I spent much of my time reading Walking With Prehistoric Beasts which is the companion book to the docu-drama Walking With Beasts (it's about the rise of mammals after the dinosaurs died out). Meanwhile, the Chinese kids found and observed tadpoles.
We had lunch around 12:30 and the Chinese kids spent another half hour at the beach before we packed up and went to Stevens Falls. I spent most of the time at the falls wading. I must say that due to the hot dry weather, the pool was half the size it was the last time I had been there, and a great deal muddier. I kept struggling to keep my balance while I was wading, but it was still fun after all these years. The Chinese kids kept on running up and down this fallen log and collecting tent caterpillars (we had to tell them to stop doing that after a while).
After we were done at the falls, we all got back in the cars and headed back to Madison (while listening to Piotr Beczala).
A good time was had by all, and I hope sometime we'll get to do it again.
There were twelve Chinese who showed up. We drove from Madison to Governor Dodge in two cars due to the relatively large number of people.
When we got there, we had to get a park sticker (we hadn't been to the park in several years). We got to the Cox Hollow Lake picnic area, set up our stuff, and then Mom and the others went down to the beach to look for rocks and smalls water creatures. I stayed at the picnic table because I needed to rest, so I spent much of my time reading Walking With Prehistoric Beasts which is the companion book to the docu-drama Walking With Beasts (it's about the rise of mammals after the dinosaurs died out). Meanwhile, the Chinese kids found and observed tadpoles.
We had lunch around 12:30 and the Chinese kids spent another half hour at the beach before we packed up and went to Stevens Falls. I spent most of the time at the falls wading. I must say that due to the hot dry weather, the pool was half the size it was the last time I had been there, and a great deal muddier. I kept struggling to keep my balance while I was wading, but it was still fun after all these years. The Chinese kids kept on running up and down this fallen log and collecting tent caterpillars (we had to tell them to stop doing that after a while).
After we were done at the falls, we all got back in the cars and headed back to Madison (while listening to Piotr Beczala).
A good time was had by all, and I hope sometime we'll get to do it again.
Wednesday, May 16, 2012
Bar Signs 4
The Main St. bar actually has a sign that makes sense! It reads "Beer Doesn't Make You Fat. It Makes You Lean Against The Table". That's pretty self-explanatory I think. And I'm going to enjoy this as long as there's an understandable sign on the bar.
Friday, May 11, 2012
Fanboy City
The LEGO company recently released an Oola minifigure for the latest release of another Jabba's Palace set. Just by looking at the design on the minifigure itself, I think there's no question as to how the fanboys are going to react. I'll admit I'm being rather general here (Most fans are not drooling squealers), but given what I've seen online regarding the dancing girl, I'm pretty sure it's the case with many people.
Thursday, May 10, 2012
Eh Now? What is Up with These Various Parliaments?
I have seen Scottish comedian Danny Bhoy's sketch about the Italian parliament many times. The country has had literally thirty-eight governments since the Second World War and the government can't get its act together at all; which is apparently due to the numerous brawls the politicians have during session.
I found out recently that it's not just Italian politicians who are quite literally at each others throats. The same problem is going on in Bolivia, India, Somalia, the Ukraine, Korea, Taiwan, a whole bunch of countries have the politicians brawling during session. What the kriff is going on with them? They make our own Congress look tame.
If anyone has an answer, please let me know.
I found out recently that it's not just Italian politicians who are quite literally at each others throats. The same problem is going on in Bolivia, India, Somalia, the Ukraine, Korea, Taiwan, a whole bunch of countries have the politicians brawling during session. What the kriff is going on with them? They make our own Congress look tame.
If anyone has an answer, please let me know.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)