Time.
What the heck is time. There are certain connotations behind the word. Now, despite how proud I bet I could make Ms.Galson/any other Academites who read Ceremony, I won't write about how time is not always linear. If you're interested in that type of 'time is illusory' type of theory/perspective, I'd suggest you read Ceremony by Leslie Silko. However, I digress...
So, what is time?
Time is money.
Hrm, not quite always the case. It seems that in today's lovely, booming, capitalist society if you're aren't busy working you're doing something darn well worth your time. (or if you're just a lazy couch potato, you're okay with that).
Before I read an article from Freakonomics (thank you Kate H for the blog suggestion!), I would be hard pressed to think of a scenario in which time isn't money. You spend it, right? Each minute could be a dollar or some equivalent one to one ratio of sorts. What I didn't consider was sometimes less time costs more money. Inspire by this article, sometimes taking a step back and slowing down is more profitable. I'm sure trying not too do too many tasks at once extends beyond the confines of Starbucks barristers. There's still the argument they are just 'investing' their time more wisely, continuing the monetary framework.
Regardless, I just want to make you ask yourself, did you fully think through the implications of the phrases and cliches you use?
Life is about timing. Time is limited. Time flies when you're having fun.
There's a lot we say about time and timing. I find the all of the above to be slightly calculative though. There's only so much time. Everything is a trade off. You can do x at the expense of y. It's not that this isn't true. I am like every other high school senior - I would love to be able to freeze time as our November 1st deadlines approach but it's not going to happen. How we approach and view time has it's own implications though. Do we lose site of loving every moment, and embracing "the little things", when we are obsessed with the concept that time is limited?
“Time is too slow for those who wait, too swift for those who fear, too long for those who grieve, too short for those who rejoice, but for those who love, time is eternity.”
-Henry Van Dyke
It's not something to resolve: how to define time? It's something to consider. There are so many layers to such an abstract concept. If you grasp on to one idea too tightly, you might lose sight of something that could prove just as meaningful.
Monday, October 25, 2010
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
Orleanna Price
Orleanna Price is a character in Barbara Kingsolver's The Poisonwood Bible. In the novel, the dynamic between her and her husband, Nathan Price, is one of complete domination. Nathan is controlling, and even scary.
"'Orleanna, shut up!' he yelled, grabbing her arm hard and jerking the plate out of her hand. He raised it up over her head and slammed it down hard on the table, cracking it right in two. The smaller half flipped upside down as it broke, and lay there dribbling black plantain juice like blood onto the tablecloth." p134
Why did Orleanna marry such a man?
She should have known better. She should have seen what her daughters walk on eggshells to avoid. As Rachel knows on page 133:
"Then Father's whole face changed and I knew he was going to use the special way of talking he frequently perpetuates on his family members, dogs that have peed in the house, and morons, with his words saying one thing that's fairly nice and his tone of voice saying another thing that is not."
However, the last sentence implicates slightly more. His words are nice while his tone is not. Is it possible Orleanna could have fallen in love with a different man?
It's a shame that some people believe every poor situation one encounters is directly related to a decision they have made. While I was reading, I perceived Orleanna as a human with weak character. She should have known not to marry him.
It is later that her decision to marry Nathan was revealed...if you could call it a decision. It was sudden. She was young and she didn't understand what was going on. She just barely picked up she was being courted.
Was she weak to not stop the marriage? To just 'go along with it' and agree to spend her life with him in the best of times and the worst of times? Maybe. But there's something to be said to grant Orleanna some benefit of the doubt.
Someone named Fnord wrote in this forum about possible reasons women choose to be with an abusive husband. There are the classic psychological reasons like 'she doesn't love herself' or 'her daddy was a bad bad man and that's all she knows.' Despite that some of these may be true, I don't see much of a discussion of 'she didn't know that version of him.'
There's so much we cannot possibly understand about abused women. Making an attempt is good because that's the only way we can help, but we can't make judgments and decide for them the psychological explanation in their past that made them fall in love with the wrong man. They've had too many things decided for them already.
Orleanna seems to deny she meets the points Fnord discusses.
"My downfall was not predicted. I didn't grow up looking for ravishment or rescue, either one. My childhood was a happy one in its own bedraggled way. My mother died when I was quite young, and certainly a motherless girl will come up wanting in some respects, but in my opinion she has a freedom unbeknown to other daughters. For every womanly fact of life she doesn't get told, a star of possibility still winks for her on the horizon." p192
Her perception of herself is that she would have more freedom because she would be able to avoid the expectations of a housewife.
Why does it matter why Orleanna married Nathan?
Because it could happen to you. Women who don't have 'scarred' or 'troubled' childhoods may assume that they have nothing to worry about. It is my fear that some of these women also believe it's their fault for not knowing before hand.
Orleanna is not to blame because Nathan stripped away her free will.
Everyone has a right to safe - physically and mentally. Everyone has a right to be happy.
"'Orleanna, shut up!' he yelled, grabbing her arm hard and jerking the plate out of her hand. He raised it up over her head and slammed it down hard on the table, cracking it right in two. The smaller half flipped upside down as it broke, and lay there dribbling black plantain juice like blood onto the tablecloth." p134
Why did Orleanna marry such a man?
She should have known better. She should have seen what her daughters walk on eggshells to avoid. As Rachel knows on page 133:
"Then Father's whole face changed and I knew he was going to use the special way of talking he frequently perpetuates on his family members, dogs that have peed in the house, and morons, with his words saying one thing that's fairly nice and his tone of voice saying another thing that is not."
However, the last sentence implicates slightly more. His words are nice while his tone is not. Is it possible Orleanna could have fallen in love with a different man?
It's a shame that some people believe every poor situation one encounters is directly related to a decision they have made. While I was reading, I perceived Orleanna as a human with weak character. She should have known not to marry him.
It is later that her decision to marry Nathan was revealed...if you could call it a decision. It was sudden. She was young and she didn't understand what was going on. She just barely picked up she was being courted.
Was she weak to not stop the marriage? To just 'go along with it' and agree to spend her life with him in the best of times and the worst of times? Maybe. But there's something to be said to grant Orleanna some benefit of the doubt.
Someone named Fnord wrote in this forum about possible reasons women choose to be with an abusive husband. There are the classic psychological reasons like 'she doesn't love herself' or 'her daddy was a bad bad man and that's all she knows.' Despite that some of these may be true, I don't see much of a discussion of 'she didn't know that version of him.'
There's so much we cannot possibly understand about abused women. Making an attempt is good because that's the only way we can help, but we can't make judgments and decide for them the psychological explanation in their past that made them fall in love with the wrong man. They've had too many things decided for them already.
Orleanna seems to deny she meets the points Fnord discusses.
"My downfall was not predicted. I didn't grow up looking for ravishment or rescue, either one. My childhood was a happy one in its own bedraggled way. My mother died when I was quite young, and certainly a motherless girl will come up wanting in some respects, but in my opinion she has a freedom unbeknown to other daughters. For every womanly fact of life she doesn't get told, a star of possibility still winks for her on the horizon." p192
Her perception of herself is that she would have more freedom because she would be able to avoid the expectations of a housewife.
Why does it matter why Orleanna married Nathan?
Because it could happen to you. Women who don't have 'scarred' or 'troubled' childhoods may assume that they have nothing to worry about. It is my fear that some of these women also believe it's their fault for not knowing before hand.
Orleanna is not to blame because Nathan stripped away her free will.
Everyone has a right to safe - physically and mentally. Everyone has a right to be happy.
Monday, October 4, 2010
The Right Way to Live
"How does a country's myth effect their imperialist tendencies and/or colonialism?"
The Poisonwood Bible, written by Barbara Kingsolver, inspired the above question in my English class this morning. A Baptist minister with his family move to the Congo with a plan to 'enlighten' the village of Kilanga.
There is the fatal assumption. Well, fatal could be an over-dramatization, but it's the assumption I'd like to question. What 'information' informed the Price family that they know the best way to live? That they could enrich the Congolese's lives by imposing their own culture upon them?
A background;
America has a history of white racial supremacy. The White Man's Burden, by Rudyard Kipling, is a haunting poem you must read that exemplifies the ideology amongst Americans and Europeans in 1899. Infact, it was written as an appeal to Americans to take up the task of 'civilizing' the Philippines.
Although the story begins in 1959, the us-them dichotomy was not resolved. Nathan Price grew up in a time in which minorities were still segregated. He probably grew up learning the Bible as complete truth.
I don't think Nathan ever questioned or truly thought about his religion. On page 45 Nathan announces his own calender and Easter to start off the church. He devoids the holiday and removes all spiritual connection from it. This is an action that reflects shallow consideration behind his religion.
Nathan's failure to critically think about his beliefs feeds other assumptions. Because he assumes that the bible is the word of God, he assumes that he is saving the Congolese with his actions. Who's to say that's what's occuring? Who's to say they need saving? As a 21st century reader it's not hard to see this as an imperialistic assumption that could probably never be justified. As a 21st reader, you should still ask yourself why this still occurs though.
1959 has made quite a bit of progress since the 19th century, yet The Poisonwood Bible still resonates a legitimate concern. There are Americans who still perpetuate the idea that we as a nation know more than other countries. Did you know the majority of Americans support Arizona's immigration law? That some people should always have identification to ensure that these 'unwanted' immigrants don't live in our country. There's a myth that we as Americans have the answers on how to live life correctly. There's a myth that America is the mighty nation that will show other nations the light of Free Market Capitalism and democracy that will save them.
Do we really know what's best?
The Poisonwood Bible, written by Barbara Kingsolver, inspired the above question in my English class this morning. A Baptist minister with his family move to the Congo with a plan to 'enlighten' the village of Kilanga.
There is the fatal assumption. Well, fatal could be an over-dramatization, but it's the assumption I'd like to question. What 'information' informed the Price family that they know the best way to live? That they could enrich the Congolese's lives by imposing their own culture upon them?
A background;
America has a history of white racial supremacy. The White Man's Burden, by Rudyard Kipling, is a haunting poem you must read that exemplifies the ideology amongst Americans and Europeans in 1899. Infact, it was written as an appeal to Americans to take up the task of 'civilizing' the Philippines.
Although the story begins in 1959, the us-them dichotomy was not resolved. Nathan Price grew up in a time in which minorities were still segregated. He probably grew up learning the Bible as complete truth.
I don't think Nathan ever questioned or truly thought about his religion. On page 45 Nathan announces his own calender and Easter to start off the church. He devoids the holiday and removes all spiritual connection from it. This is an action that reflects shallow consideration behind his religion.
Nathan's failure to critically think about his beliefs feeds other assumptions. Because he assumes that the bible is the word of God, he assumes that he is saving the Congolese with his actions. Who's to say that's what's occuring? Who's to say they need saving? As a 21st century reader it's not hard to see this as an imperialistic assumption that could probably never be justified. As a 21st reader, you should still ask yourself why this still occurs though.
1959 has made quite a bit of progress since the 19th century, yet The Poisonwood Bible still resonates a legitimate concern. There are Americans who still perpetuate the idea that we as a nation know more than other countries. Did you know the majority of Americans support Arizona's immigration law? That some people should always have identification to ensure that these 'unwanted' immigrants don't live in our country. There's a myth that we as Americans have the answers on how to live life correctly. There's a myth that America is the mighty nation that will show other nations the light of Free Market Capitalism and democracy that will save them.
Do we really know what's best?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)