[Freya-dæg] A Look Back at Gigli ("...it rhymes with really.")

{Some off-screen tenderness. Photo by Mel/Getty Images.}

Introduction
The Plot
The Good
The Bad
Judgment
Closing






Introduction

Nine years ought to be enough time to give you some perspective on a piece of art, right? Even if it was considered utterly terrible when it came out.

That's the thinking behind this review of Gigli, the 2003 flop starring Ben Affleck (as the title character Larry Gigli), Jennifer Lopez (as Ricky), and Justin Bartha (as Baywatch-obsessed Brian). So, now that it's 2012, is it possible to view this movie as anything other than the utter waste of time that critics regarded it as those 9 years ago? Let's find out.

Back To Top
The Plot

Gigli follows Larry Gigli as he follows through on a peculiar job. His employer, Louis (played by Lenny Venito) asks him to essentially kidnap and keep someone's kid brother (Brian) for the purpose of extortion. But, Larry's kind of a screw-up, and so Louis also assigns Ricky to the job, without Larry's knowing it. This completes the patchwork nuclear family that is the movie's focus, and the two navigate the difficulties of keeping a young man with "mental deficiencies" occupied and of their own emotional baggage while trying to complete their job.

Now, for the purpose of marketing, the movie's classed as a "romantic comedy." It does have the basic requirements to fit this bill, namely, two characters who bond over a weird/comic situation and end the movie closer than they were at the start. But, the relationship between these two isn't quite romantic in the way that the genre designation implies.

Back To Top
The Good

Nonetheless, the movie features two cameos that are worth seeing.

{Photo from UGO.com.}

Christopher Walken steps in as an info-dumping cop who reveals to Gigli and Ricky that they're holding the brother of a federal prosecutor. To his credit, Walken also delivers one of the only laughs of the movie with his surreal line about what might happen if you put pie à la mode on your head: "your tongue would slap your brains out trying to get to it."

{Photo from the Simply Shaka blog}

Al Pacino comes on later in the movie, as the character that the kidnapping is supposed to help. His performance strangely mixes an over the top style with a cool, understated demeanor. His is also among the darker scenes of the movie as he blows someone's brains out and the camera pleasantly zooms into a fish nibbling away at the detritus. It's a curious shot that stands as an apt metaphor for the movie - it turns your brain into fish-food, if you let it.

The movie also co-stars Affleck's naked torso and music video levels of J-Lo's bare skin.

However, cameos - especially short, single-scene deals - and cheese/beefcake are not as potent a force for good as they could be. Especially not alone.

Back To Top
The Bad

Let's start with the premise. The idea of two mismatched mob contractors being assigned to watch a young man who is mentally disabled sounds strangely like the next generation of reality TV: a couple would be paired up, and then would adopt a child with a disability for a few days, and the audience at home would sit back and watch it all unfold. And unfold it does in the movie, as antics follow and, of course, we're treated to some moments that are supposed to be endearing.

Unfortunately, these almost endearing scenes end with weird lines like this about where they film Baywatch "That's where the sex is," or about what looking at the women of Bay Watch does to Brian: "they make my penis sneeze." Curious, sure, but the stuff of a rom com?

After all, one of the key parts of the movie is the romance between Gigli and Ricky.

To be fair, it seems like writer/director/producer Martin Brest was trying something new here. Trying to shake up the romantic comedy genre.

For, unlike in other romantic comedies where the person "in control" of the relationship shifts from one act (or even scene) to the next with comic results, Gigli puts Ricky into a position of control as firm as her own, co-starring, butt.

Sure, it's refreshing to see a movie centered on a romance where the woman is in control. But adding Ricky's lesbianism and dissatisfaction with men, and Gigli's being so caught up in his own masculinity that it would make overly macho characters like Vigoro of Skies of Arcadia wonder about what he's hiding brings the movie's romantic aspect tumbling down.

{Vigoro, showing Gigli how it's done.}

Further, because the center of control in the Ricky/Gigli relationship never really changes there's very little sense of an interplay between the two characters.

For example, when Louis tells Gigli that they'll need to cut off and mail out Brian's finger to show that they're serious, Ricky takes Gigli aside to chat with him about it. This leads to her asking if he's with her and he says "sure," which leads to her saying that "sure" isn't enough of a commitment and that he should say "yes." So she asks if he's for not cutting off Brian's thumb again, and rather than trying to take back some power in the relationship, or at least being a little flippant, Gigli exhales a breathy "yes."

The scene's potential for laughs is lost, Ricky is shown to have power *over* Gigli rather than to be sharing it with him and the romantic tone is irreversibly set.

It doesn't help matters that throughout the movie the two have their defenses up and bristling, Gigli showing far more signs of slackening than Ricky by the movie's end. Gigli's dopey-ness around Ricky is in character, but the dope being romantically entangled with the powerful woman doesn't really make for a romantic movie scenario. It's better suited to a Saturday morning cartoon.

Back To Top
Judgment

I can appreciate the unique weirdness of the premise. And the genuinely entertaining cameos. But the core of the movie is off kilter. The world wasn't ready for a rom-com where the female character can seriously say "I thought you wanted to be my bitch" in 2003, and it still doesn't seem to be in 2012.

So, Freya, cut off the thumbs so that Walken and Pacino can be saved, but leave the rest to further rot.

Back To Top
Closing

Next week, check back for a stream of consciousness take on freelance writing, an essay about some of the newest news, and for a review of the 1995 Jeff Goldblum horror flick, Hideaway.

Back To Top

[Wōdnes-dæg] If the Bard's a Barrister, What's in it for his Audience?

Introduction
Shakespeare's Education
Elizabethan Litigiousness
Playgoers Themselves
Closing
References

{The Sander's Portrait. Image from an article hosted on the University of Guelph website.}

Introduction

A recent article from newswise points to some research being done at the University of Mississippi by one Professor Gregory Heyworth. Professor Heyworth's query: Was Shakespeare an Attorney?

Professor Heyworth bases his question on a comparison of a known signature of the Bard's with one found on the "Archaionomia," a famed Elizabethan collection of Anglo-Saxon laws. Using the newest in digital imaging technology, Professor Heyworth and three graduate students were able to impose the signature in question on one that's certified to be genuine. However, the article never really gives a conclusion to the story since the research appears to be ongoing.

In any case, that's one detailed look at old ink.

But it does raise the intriguing question of whether or not Shakespeare was a lawyer. It's intriguing because so little is known about his life between his time at grammar school and his fame as a playwright. If Shakespeare was a lawyer of whatever stripe it could also nicely relate to the abundance of legal references in Shakespeare's plays.

However, it doesn't have to be that simple. Even Professor Heyworth and his team admit that it might not be the signature of the famous playwright William Shakespeare that they're superimposing over the Bard's authentic mark. "There were multiple people with that name" at the time," Professor Heyworth noted.¹

Even if it does, someday, turn out to be the Bard's signature and it comes to light that he indeed was an attorney before he became famous as a playwright, there's the question of his education.

Back To Top
Shakespeare's Education

If the records we have for his birth are accurate, he started life shortly before April 26, 1564.² However, rather than going onto university at the the age of 14 (as was standard at the time), he was pulled from the system. For his father had gone too far into debt, and had lost his social standing in Stratford,³ due in part to charging too much interest on a loan and, possibly, due to his being a Catholic.

Although Shakespeare becomes hard to track after leaving the school system, it's fair to say that if he had gone to university and studied law there would be some record of (or from) his doing so.

A lack of such a record could be chalked up to a loss of these documents in a fire or a theft, but that's an event that wouldn't have been forgotten or left out of history books.

On the other hand, perhaps Shakespeare's education in grammar school and contemporary London was enough to land him a position as a document reviewer of sorts. Someone who didn't study law to practice it, but who was well enough aware of the way language worked to be a legal copy-editor. That kind of exposure to legal material would definitely brand it into your memory and then you'd be able to pull it out for plays and cocktail parties with ease.

Such a proposition might not be as wild as you think, since, much like modern America, the people of Elizabethan London were often suing each other.

Back To Top
Elizabethan Litigiousness

A lot of their litigiousness had to do with accusations of business malpractice, family relations (usually in-laws and step-children), or with interest and loans. This last one was hotly debated at the time because orthodox Christian belief bans interest, whereas economic theory and practice had no problem with it. Loans with interest helped keep people from being cheated, though charging 'too much' interest was regarded in the same light.

Further, from what's left in documents of the time (diaries, plays, treatises), it seems that the law was not just the exclusive concern of a group of highly trained individuals. These individuals definitely would have an incredible depth of legal knowledge, but the common man or woman might also have a considerable amount of legal know-how when it came to inheritance or the maximum interest rate. Not only were they litigious, but the common people of Elizabethan England did consist of a trading class, and this trading class would've had to have dealt with the law in some way or other.

Back To Top
Playgoers Themselves

Now, if Shakespeare's plays are packed with legal terms and references, why didn't these discourage or disinterest playgoers? If the playgoers of Shakespeare's day just wanted bawdy comedy or gory spectacle, why bother going to see the latest play by the guy who puts all of that the legal jargon on the stage? Either people were interested in such things for some now lost reason, or these references resonated or intrigued because of some level of familiarity.

The fact that Elizabethans weren't shy about bringing each other to court suggests just such a general familiarity.

Back To Top
Closing

So, the question "what were playgoers getting out of these legal references, if anything?" needs to be added to the question of the Bard's being a barrister. Maybe these nods to the law and its terminology was a bit of a thrill because playgoers were familiar with them. Maybe they worked because such references offered special insight into a society that seemed alien and closed off to them (that of a legal specialist, who knew the law's theory as well as practice).

Feel free to add your thoughts in the comments.

And, on Friday, check back here for an attempt to redeem the megaflop Gigli.

Back To Top
References

1. "Was the Bard a Barrister? Signature Analysis May Offer Clues." Newswise, 23 March 2012.

2. "William Shakespeare." Wikipedia. 23 March 2012.

3. "Elizabethan Education." William Shakespeare Biography. 28 March 2012.

Back To Top

[Moon-dæg] Some Pros, Some Cons, Some Future Freelance Writing Planning

{Image from CountryLiving.com}

Much like any big decision, after you've got the facts, it's important to look at things logically. When it comes to considering going full time as a Freelance Writer, there are a few things in particular that need to be considered.

Since some might say it's the most important part of a job, let's start with the happiness factor.

Freelance writing seems to be an idyllic career move from a personal standpoint. I've always wanted to write, and I get a definite rush from selling that writing or being paid to do it. So, the life of a freelance writer would be quite rich in the fulfillment sense.

Plus, there's the flexibility that comes with being a freelancer - the notoriety and the prestige even. The last two will come over time, as more and more articles, content, and stories are written and seen. That leaves flexibility as the one immediate "intangible" benefit.

Now, flexibility can be hard to manage at first. The willpower to sit down and write is sometimes overshadowed by the willpower to just hunker down and play more Skyward Sword or Mother 3 or to hang around on YouTube.

Still, it seems that underpinning flexibility is "self-discipline," something my erstwhile kung fu instructor explained as "the will to do what you don't want to do but have to do." After six and a half years at that learning forms (aka katas) and how to do a variety of push-ups, sitting down and writing seems easy in comparison.

However, as a person whose only worked service and research jobs in the past, getting used to the idea that a "job" will end but your work will continue takes time. At time it feels like a fisherman might after seeing his latest catch devoured by a cat. Working multiple jobs at the same time definitely cuts down on the deflated feeling after one's done, but then we get into the fact that freelancing is not stable work.

This is probably the biggest con of going full time with freelancing. After all, unsteady work means an unsteady income. Though as a member of the "Boomerang Generation," it seems logical that the best move is to go for the opportunity that will pay off the most in the long term rather than the short term.

Freelancing in general is more of a slow burn. Income gradually pops over it rather than needing to be pulled out in wads like a propane tank in a bonfire. Besides, as long as bad months still see at least $800 and good months see at least $2300 coming in, then things will keep balanced.

Of course, anything with great promise carries with it great risk. Though, the lack of steady work and cushy company benefits of any sort right now don't seem particularly harsh. With a good name and a solid reputation the work will grow steadier, and the pay will get better. Plus, there are writers guilds and groups that can take the sting out of some costs of living.

Yet, there's a word in that sentence that is still troubling: "will."

That word is troubling since it makes it clear that freelancing is something long range, long term. Those sorts of jobs are foreign territory. In fact, long term planning has never really been something I've done - opportunity has simply linked to opportunity in the past. So the long range is a range I've never really needed to worry about. It's a range I'm not used to worrying about.

As a result, I've got some mixed feelings on that front of freelancing. But they'll be saved for the full moon next week.

Before that happens though, come check out an article about Shakespeare's possible ties to the legal world on Wednesday, and a Friday review of the strange-sounding Gigli.

Back To Top

John Carter: The Poor Labelling Continues with "Flop"

According to Disney (as reported by the Globe and Mail), John Carter is a flop. A movie that cost the studio $200,000,000,000.

Some critics have panned it as a corporate product (as James Kendrick has it) or as a movie that's like a bad mattress, firm at either end but saggy in the middle (Rick Groen of the Globe and Mail). It definitely can't be denied that the movie's got a shiny polish, or that it does have a middle section that involves a lot of zigging and zagging about.

But, having just seen the movie, it's clear that neither of these qualities take away from a movie that's as pulpy as its source material. Things are fantastical, and there's a lot of wandering around the world of Barsoom in the movie's middle, but the characters are fine - surprisingly deeper than what you'd expect from an big-budget action movie.

Plus, unlike another sci-fi/fantasy romp that involves a 19th century American (*cough* Jonah Hex *cough*), John Carter's main character, John Carter, actually develops and changes as a human being.

And the sets and effects don't take away from the story since they match the overall feel and atmosphere quite nicely. Heck - even the alien characters don't go Jar Jar and upend the whole movie by being obnoxiously pandering.

So with an intriguing plot that's at home among the epic stories of Final Fantasy III/VI or Breath Of Fire II, pretty impressive sets, costuming that makes the Barsoom society real, fight choreography that is entrancing to watch, and two strong lead characters, what went wrong? Why is John Carter an official "flop"?

Marketing. And, possibly, timing.

At the theater last night the first showing of the Hunger Games was sold out, though the movie was playing on three screens.

Granted, John Carter came out two weeks ago. But, even that is too close to the buzz behemoth that is the Hunger Games.

Stepping away from sheer timing, ask yourself, before John Carter hit the screens did you hear anything about it? See any previews that really grabbed your attention?

Just compare this official trailer posted on youtube:

With this fanmade trailer from The John Carter Files: Granted, it may be difficult to remember seeing anything for a movie with a name that sounds so generic (taking "Of Mars" out of the title is another stroke against the movie's marketing), but the Disney trailer puts the emphasis on the wrong places. The Disney trailer hypes the movie's action and makes no mention whatever of the legacy that Burroughs created with his novels, possibly their most interesting aspect to non-fans. And using whatever was at hand in the movie's content and source material was necessary to really get people out to see this one, since the movie doesn't have many big stars to boast of. In fact, Willem Dafoe (as Tars Tarkas) is really the only big name in the movie's roster (sorry David Schwimmer!). Setting that aside, Taylor Kitsch (as John Carter) and Lynn Collins (as (Princess) Dejah Thoris) both play their parts well enough to ensure that they'll get more gigs. In the end, John Carter's lack of star power is really the only sturdy stroke against it. Though, when you're someone who recognizes the name Michael Chabon in the list of screenwriters, things like a movie's star power really don't matter as much as marketing execs may think. Back To Top

[Freya-dæg] "While you were still learning how to spell your name..." John Travolta Was Grease-ing up his Hamminess

Introduction
Plot Summary
The Bad
The Good
Judgment
Closing

{Just what Travolta (front left) was getting up to while you were learning to spell your name, or before you were even a twinkle in an eye. Image from The Guardian.}

Introduction

This is a movie that no-one has been kind to. The critics listed at Rotten Tomatoes gave it just 2%, and audiences only 13%. It's quite a bit more reviled by the critics than last week's movie, so let's see just how hard it will be to redeem it.

What's terrible about this movie isn't hard to see, but, to know just what we're getting into let's try to objectively view the plot.

Back To Top
Plot Summary

It's the year 3000, and humanity has been suppressed for hundreds of years by an alien race known as the Psychlos. The movie begins with the wanderings of Johnny "Goodboy" Tyler (played by Barry Pepper), a man who's simply out and about trying to find something better.

While out wandering, Johnny is cornered and captured by the Psychlos. Eventually he's chosen by the head of security at the Psychlos Earth colony, Terl (John Travolta), for his gold-grabbing scheme. But in the process of preparing his selected group of humans for his secret job, Terl teaches Johnny too much.

With his curiosity fired up, Johnny begins to think dangerously and ultimately drives the remaining humans to organize a revolt. This revolt is a resounding success, resulting in the destruction of the Earth colony and even the Psychlos' home planet. Terl is then imprisoned and Johnny apparently leads humanity back to its old knowledge and technology. And, though the movie was designed to have a sequel, the story ends there.

Back To Top
The Bad

As you might have already noticed, the story itself is pretty problematic.

Why are humans being suppressed, for example?

The most obvious reason is that the Psychlos appear to be too busy draining earth of its resources to bother with wiping out what little humanity remains. This is a troubling issue since later in the movie we see a more advanced and learned race, the Chinkos, whom the Psychlos did wipe out. So there seems to be little reason for them to keep the few remaining humans alive except to toss them into prison. For some reason.

Slave labor could be a reason. But humans are deemed too stupid and senseless to be able to operate the machinery involved in mining and so even the thought of such a use is laughable to the Psychlos. While they laugh it up, you might well wonder why does an advance race still mine minerals using digging machines? If gutting planets is they're bread and butter haven't they developed something faster or automated?

Maybe the Psychlos are still hands-on when it comes to mining so that the they'll need humans to mine gold found in an irradiated area. The Psychlos being sensitive to radiation can't go there to mine it, and so Terl decides to try and get this gold for himself by sending a group of humans to mine it. This leads to the humans relearning what they've forgotten, striking back, and blowing things up before everyone lives happily ever after.

What's particularly striking about the plot is that it seems divided within itself. The first half of the movie is relatively slow for a film named "Battlefield Earth." It's not until the 50 minute mark that there's even any indication that the movie is about the humans' revolting against the Psychlos rather than Terl's socio-political woes with a side of human hijinx.

Stepping away from the plot before it falls and hurts someone, the next big foible of the filmmakers is how the movie is presented. Widescreen is fine. Good even, in some cases. But what's really annoying is the way that almost every shot in the movie is on an angle. Even more wearying is that every scene transition happens in the same way. A gradual outward wipe, like a curtain opening. Oh - except for the wipe that ends the movie. But I wouldn't want to spoil that doozy for you.

That just leaves the characters. The dialogue is nothing special. But the main characters, well, the way that they're framed is weak at best.

Our lead, Johnny, is the standard post-apocalyptic hero. Once he gets a taste of knowledge he just wants to get more and more. Then there's his love interest, Chrissie (Sabine Karsenti), who the screenwriters introduce and then appear to forget about for a good 45 minutes, is also standard fare - the strong willed woman who can do what she wants because she's "not a child anymore."

Speaking of the humans more generally, the biggest issue with them is that they pick things up too fast. They take to technology that they're supposed to have been away from for centuries like a fish takes to water. The writers and directors try to make it seem like these people are rediscovering things for the first time, but when your examples of this are things like people chewing on the word "warning" like it's something new and exciting it seems like there just wasn't a whole lot of effort put into it.

Granted, the bar that's being used as standard here was set by the Doctor Who serial The Face of Evil. In this serial the Doctor encounters two tribes of people - the Sevateam and the Tesh - who are the descendants of space explorers and who currently regard their technology with sheer religious and superstitious reverence and fear.

These reactions are present in the movie, and it does need to be given some credit for the scene where Johnny is going through the city with two others while they explain to him what happened with stories. But this nod to the basic human compulsion to explain things with stories never goes far enough.

If the first half of the movie is meant to set the humans up as believable people given their situation and the second half is meant to be the sweet tender action, then everything is overshadowed by at least two things.

First, Johnny's cry of despair when his unseen father dies a few minutes into the movie is the same as when his horse dies. Both of these happen in the first 12 minutes, and so we're not really allowed to care for either of them.

Second, John Travolta's Terl really steals the show.

Back To Top
The Good

Yes, Terl as played by John Travolta is one of the good things in this movie. Psychlo society might be a thinly veiled analogy for capitalism or profit-driven business practices, and a lot of their culture and behavior might seem too human to be alien, but they've got campy, scenery chewing John Travolta, by gum.

The way that Travolta overacts with his character is great. Everything he says is blown out of proportion - and made incredible as a result. Most memorable, perhaps, is his "while you were still learning how to spell your name, I was being trained to conquer galaxies." In fact, if you haven't heard this line, check it out right here:

Another good thing in the film is the new vocabulary that the humans use. There are just a few words, but they're rather clever additions. "Greener," meaning explorer and derived from the saying "the grass is always greener on the other side" is really cool. "Man animal" is also delightful because of just how much disgust Travolta puts into his every utterance of it. The movie's action isn't anything to phone home about, but there are two scenes that are kind of neat. One is when Terl has taken the humans he's going to be using as minors to a field to put the fear of him into them. He's waylaid by a group of humans and Johnny gets a hold of his gun. But, instead of shooting Terl, Johnny hands it back to him saying that he's probably got some way to kill him before he pulls the trigger. The pause on Terl's end suggests that he had no such leverage, and that Johnny thought he did makes him seem appropriately naive. The other is the sequence where they're trying to simultaneously blow up the dome that covers the Psychlos colony on Earth, and send the nuke to Psychlo to destroy it via the teleporter. Not the whole scene, just when the simultaneity of the two actions is emphasized. It makes for some gripping viewing! Although, it's so enjoyable to watch partially because when the humans blow up Psychlo (spoiler!) you know that the movie's almost over. Back To Top Judgment And that speaks louder than anything good or bad about this movie. When you already know how it's going to end thanks to the internet (specifically things like the Nostalgia Critic's review), and the indicators of its ending excite you more than anything else in a movie, you know that it's a stinker. Maybe if they had called it "John Travolta's Campy Alien Acting and Slo-Mo Angular Action Roundup" instead of "Battlefield Earth" it would be easier to forgive its many failings. But this movie hardly has any battle going on in it, save for the last 30 minutes. Just 30 minutes out of a total of 118 is not enough to toss that event into your title. If there was a lingering sense of battle throughout, that would work - but there is not. The movie feels like it doesn't know what it's supposed to be about, nor how it wants to tell its story until the last third or so. So, Freya, despite its fervent, over-enunciated cries of protest, leave this one down below. That is truly for the best. Back To Top Closing Let me know what you thought about Battlefield Earth. Leave your most favorite/despised moments in the comments! Next week, check back for a logical look at the pros and cons of freelance writing in Canada, an entry on something newsworthy, and a review of the 2003 bomb, Gigli. Maybe Christoper Walken will do a better job of buoying a terrible film than John Travolta did, but only time will tell. Back To Top

[Wōdnes-dæg] Dead and Buried, But Lying in Bed

Introduction
Christian Significance of Burial
Bed Burials
Her Golden Cross
Conclusion
Wrap Up
References

{The bed-burial grave at Ixworth. Image from The History Blog.}

Back To Top
Introduction

The native speakers of Old English known as the Anglo-Saxons are long gone. But, as with so much ancient history, they just can't help but be brought back into the present every now and then. As a recent article in the Hamilton Spectator reveals a new find in the field,¹ now might just be the second most exciting time to be an Anglo-Saxonist or somebody just fascinated by old burials and treasure hoards.

The most recent Anglo-Saxon find is the burial of a teenage girl. What's so special about her burial? After all, many people were buried then as they are now. Especially since she's been pegged as living in the 600s, when Christianity was coming back to Britain. Riding this tangent out, what's Christianity got to do with a girl being buried?

Back To Top
Christian Significance of Burial

Cutting straight to the quick, burial is essential according to traditional Christian belief in the Final Judgment. For, it is at the time that Christ comes back that all the dead shall rise and have their sins and virtues weighed and the lambs and the goats will be separated and so on. But if your body was cremated (or burned on a boat set out to sea - I'm looking at you, Vikings), then your soul won't have anything to wear to the final judgment. Traditionally, nothing is said about bodies reconstituting themselves from ashes and then rising for the last judgment.

So this Anglo-Saxon teen would have been buried in accordance with the new faith of the land. What's peculiar about her case though, is what she was buried with, and what she was buried in.

She wasn't buried in a coffin, no, she was buried in a bed.

{A drawing of a bed burial. Image from Wessex Archaeology}

Back To Top
Bed Burials

Bed burials among the Anglo-Saxons seem to be quite rare. To date only 13 have been found.²

Nonetheless, these bed burials have a some things in common. Most involve women, many include jewelry that suggest a high social rank.²

Most interesting about this practice is the fact that the Old English word "leger" ("a place where one lies") could refer to either a bed or a grave.² This crossing of the two ties in nicely with a lot of the enduring associations of sleep and death. Such things definitely go back to the time of Christ as he says "Our friend Lazarus sleepeth" when he is talking with Mary and Martha.³

But for the pagan Anglo-Saxons what might the connection between sleep and death mean? Sleep and death are visible in the seasons, certainly. The earth seems to sleep beneath blankets of snow in the winter when many plants die out, and then wakes again in spring.

Getting a bit more personal, sleep and death were also closely connected in pagan ideas of death. Similar to the Christian idea of the soul carrying on to another place upon the death of the body, Norse pagans believed that some part of the person journeyed to some form of the afterlife. The beliefs of the Anglo-Saxons may have differed from this, but certainly only slightly - especially as they would have been in close contact with the Norse throughout the 6 and 700s.⁴

The fact that the Anglo-Saxon word "leger" was used to signify both sleep and death during the 7th century also attests to Anglo-Saxon ideas of the two being connected. As the two are connected, though, what did the Anglo-Saxons think happened when people awoke from death? Or did they think that the afterlife was a dream had by the dead? These nuances of Anglo-Saxon belief are unclear, but when Christianity becomes widely adapted they must have either been completely consumed or maybe blended with the perspective of the new religion.

Back to the Ixworth teen and what she was buried with. As a young woman of power in a Christian nation, she was buried with what else upon her chest but a golden cross.

{The cross found as part of the bed-burial in Ixworth. Image from The History Blog.}

Back To Top
Her Golden Cross

The artistry of the girl's golden cross is incredibly fine. The mix of gold base and cut garnets is indeed striking. But, what does it mean?

The cloisonné style (art consisting of multiple cells) of it shows the intricacy that 7th century Anglo-Saxon artisans were capable of, but why gold and garnet?⁵

Gold has always been regarded as valuable, and indeed the Anglo-Saxons prized it among treasures. A quick read through the first part of Beowulf, where Heorot is described as a hall decked about with the stuff (on line 308) makes its value clear.⁶

Garnet on the other hand seems more obscure. If you allow there to be a connection between modern pagan practices and ancient ones, then the garnet stone seems to be most closely related to repelling evil and helping with blood flow.⁷ That such material be used for a cross, and one that was sewn onto the girl's clothes, no less, suggests that it may have been worn for spiritual protection. Perhaps as an aid against the temptations of the world. This works well with the current theory that this girl was associated with a nearby abbey - possibly even as the abbess herself.

Back To Top
Conclusion

So this find is a little bit removed from what's generally associated with Anglo-Saxons. There isn't a great treasure hoard here or a lot of ornate armour or weaponry. Instead, this teenage corpse sheds light on the more refined side of Anglo-Saxon culture. The side that's often lost amidst the images of wenching, ale-ing, and fighting, but that's no less important. For starters, it definitely civilizes the Anglo-Saxons to some degree. It shows that outside of their shield-play and bard-song they had some refinement.

Perhaps this other side's being revealed in this teenage girl's burial is due to a different set of values having been ascribed to women. Not necessarily by the Anglo-Saxons (let's not forget that there were some very powerful Anglo-Saxon women), but within the Christian system that was in place by this time.

In fact, given that garnet was a stone associated with protection, perhaps this young woman was as much a warrior as a male could have been. Only, rather than fighting on the field of grass and dust, hacking through bone and flesh with iron, she was fighting on the field of litanies and vespers, lunging at sin with paternosters.

Back To Top
Wrap Up

What's your favourite archaeological find of all time? Feel free to post about it in the comments.

And check back on Friday for an attempt to find some lasting good in the movie, Battlefield Earth.

Back To Top
References

1. Raphael Satter. "Archaeologists discover seventh-century teenager buried in bed." TheSpec.com. 16 March 2012.

2. "Bed Burial" Wikipedia. 20 March 2012.

3. Bible, The King James Version.

4. "Norse activity in the British Isles." Wikipedia. 8 March 2012.

5. "cloisonné." Merriam-Webster Dictionary Online. 2012.

6. Beowulf in Hypertext. McMaster University.

7. Cresentmoon2007. "Garnet and Its Magical Properties." HubPages. December 2011.

Back To Top

[Moon-dæg] Five Reasons Freelance Writers Aren't in It for the Money

T-A-X-E-S

But I'll get to that below.

Introduction
Potential Incomes
Taxes
Conclusion

{Is the hand giving or taking? Image from "Freelance Writing - Career and Scopes" on ezdia.com}

Introduction

Freelance writing. Perhaps this is an inevitable topic for any "unemployed" writer with dreams of literary grandeur. 'Unemployed' is in double quotes since it doesn't really apply to freelancers in quite the same way as it might to a person who formerly worked for a company as a press release writer, or ad writer but now needs to find work.

There are a number of online job sites and boards that cost a freelancer some money (as a union might), either as deducted from pay or upfront, but working with these outlets can hardly be regarded as an employer-employee relationship. The writer who uses sites like Elance, oDesk, Constant Content, or Guru.com, doesn't generally get any benefit from working with them aside from increased visibility and a pleasant platform on which to deal with clients. But already this article's being diverted, let's just say that this whole paragraph a metaphor for YouTube in the day to day life of a freelancer and then close this tab.

Working for yourself isn't just about being able to control your output and ultimately being the only person to whom you answer. There's the matter of making enough to live on every year as well. In spite of its apparently small number of polled freelancers, the site payscale.com paints a hope-inspiring picture.

Back To Top
Potential Incomes

According to this website, the average hourly wage for a Canadian Freelance Writer in Canada is between $9.90 and $64.11 (between $20 357 and $106 818 yearly). The site quotes the yearly earnings of Canadian Writers as $20 101 to $68 207; Writer/Authors as $11 745 to $84 971; and Freelance Writers, Technical as $32 580 to $141 015. All of these are fine and comparable professions since they're all dealing in fairly general writing.

Compared with Freelance Writer, however, the ranges - except for the specialized "Freelance Writers, Technical" - make going your own way with your writing look pretty promising.

However, the money you earn is not entirely what you keep. If you get a cavity you'll need to see a dentist, if you fracture a bone or damage a nerve (carpel tunnel becomes a serious job-threatening injury as a writer of any stripe), then you'll need to see a doctor. And of course, as spring overcomes winter each year, so to you need to file your taxes.

So, at the end of a good year, according to payscale.com, you could expect about $63 000. Tempered by the more sobering data offered by Sarah Turner, namely that only 8% of Canadian writers earn $25 000 or more a year, let's move that $63 000 to $30 000. That's still a relatively high number, but what would you owe in taxes on that sort of income as a freelance writer?

Back To Top
Taxes

There are certainly a lot of different factors involved in tax calculation as it is. But, however individual a tax return may be, as someone selling services, you may have to charge your clients sales tax for your writing.

In fact, with 30 000 a year you need to charge GST/HST. You should keep clear records of your expenses since they could be written off if you can connect them to your writing business (this includes things like books on writing, and part of your rent if you work from home). And you also need to be clear and honest about what you make, even if you run a deficit with your writing, since this could offset income from other sources (assuming you have some).

Much like the nature of freelance writing itself, figuring out its taxes is a very individual activity. However, to get a general sense of at least one aspect of the income tax you file as a writer, let's take a look at what sort of GST/HST remittance you would need to pay on your $30 000 if you had a registered GST/HST account.

Running with 2011's numbers for Ontario (8.8% remittance rate for business providing services in another "participating province"), you would need to remit 30 000 * 0.088 = $2 640 of your income to the government in sales tax. The Canadian Revenue Agency website on the Quick Method of Accounting for GST/HST offers more help on this matter, but is also quite dense.

Back To Top
Conclusion

So, if you're considering starting up as a freelance writer and feel like you've got a realistic grasp on how much you could make in a year, you should definitely plug your numbers into the calculations outlined on the relevant Canadian Revenue Agency website (or find what you need on the main site).

You might also want to consider moving to one of the "non-participating" provinces or territories (PEI, Quebec, Nunavut, Manitoba, the Northwest Territories, Saskatchewan, or Alberta) so that your remittance rate, at least, is considerably lower. Montreal does have a pretty vibrant arts scene.

How do you feel about how taxes work for freelancers, or in general? Let me know in a comment.

Check back here Wednesday for a lightly researched thought piece about Anglo Saxon burial finds, and don't miss Friday's review of Battlefield Earth - there's good in it somewhere, there's got to be!

Back To Top

[Freya-dæg] All the Pomp of Ancient Immortals, but Chaotic Beneath

Intro
Plot Summary
The Bad
The Good
Judgment
Closing

Intro

Immortals is one of those movies that comes along every now and then with quite a bit of promise. Not necessarily promise to revive the sword and sandal genre or to deliver a stunning story that will have people talking for years. But with the promise of maybe marrying visuals to story in a way that transcends the action genre in the same way that a band like Rhapsody of Fire transcends the label "symphonic metal."

A promise of heavy action, dark and high fantasy elements, and cheesy fetch-quest/macguffin-driven epic stories that are fully enjoyable because they're just so earnest.

However, like a Roman (or a modern) senator, Immortals doesn't come close to fulfilling this promise. Rotten Tomatoes' critics definitely agree, having awarded the movie a 37%, and audiences are eying the fence since their legs are tired - but not that tired - having given it a 52%.

The story of Immortals can't entirely be blamed for this, it's so run-of-the-mill you can't really pin a "good" or "bad" label on it.

Back To Top
Plot Summary

Hyperion (played by Mickey Rourke) seeks to revive the Titans who were defeated by the Gods in a great war before history began. To succeed in his plan, he needs a weapon called the Epirus Bow, but it has been lost. So, in his search for it he has - quite cleverly - "moved every precious stone you people worship upon."

Meanwhile, a young man named Theseus (Henry Cavill) grows up in a small village. The village is attacked, he's taken as a slave (to "work in the salt mines") and while in the slave train he meets the oracle Phaedra (the lovely Freida Pinto). They break free along with a tongueless monk, a thief, and another, and then they start to quest about for the bow.

Spoilers start here.

Theseus finds the bow in his village's crypt after returning there to bury his mother. Somehow Hyperion gets a hold of it, and then Theseus and his gang head out to meet the Greek (?) forces that are about to face Hyperion at Mount Tartarus, where the Titans are bound. They arrive just in time and Theseus rallies the troops against Hyperion. But Hyperion frees the Titans, at which point the Gods appear. Gods fight Titans. Men fight men. And Theseus defeats Hyperion. The whole mountain collapses, and we're shown that Theseus and Phaedra had a son.

Generic plot aside, what's so bad about this movie? Like Poseidon plummeting into the sea to cause a tidal wave - let's dive right in.

Back To Top
The Bad

The biggest problem that the movie has is that major plot points are obscured by action sequences. It's not that you're left reeling after an action sequence and can't take in what's happening in the plot as a result, but rather that major plot points tend to happen *during* the action. And they can be hard to pick out.

For example, when Theseus and co. break free from the slave train, I had no idea how they did it - some sort of brouhaha broke out and then in the next scene they're in some room. And when the Epirus bow is stolen in the middle of a later action sequence, it just appears with Hyperion a few scenes later. A henchman must have run off with the bow in the confusion of the skirmish, but this isn't a video game, and so letting the viewer share in the confusion of battle isn't a good thing.

Further, just who is fighting who is really unclear.

Hyperion, all around creep-tastic badass, is the villain. And Rourke plays this role excellently. Even if he does look like something you might want to trap in a ball and force to fight for you.

{Image made by Enthorn, found at Cheezburger.com)}

But who are the good guys?

Anonymous "Greek" soldiers in period garb I guess. Maybe the Greeks as a whole? Or the "Hellenics" as the gods refer to the humans that are fighting against Hyperion. But just who the good guys are is never made clear. Placing the story in 1200 BC is kind of clever though - a time that's far removed from ours, but not as distant as, say, 10 000 BC. So allegiances and who did what and all of those silly "details" can more or less be ignored.

Plot problems aside, the action of the movie is also lacking.

In fact, this movie commits the greatest (and maybe oldest) action movie sin.

In the first real action scene with Theseus pitted against Hyperion's men, we see a line - a single-file line! - of Hyperion's men running at and attacking our hero without breaking formation. And that's practically the whole sequence. But even worse is when Theseus fights the minotaur in the crypt.

After having knocked Theseus around a bit, the minotaur goes up some stairs to a landing and then pulls Theseus' prone and weakened body up to the same level.

Then the minotaur stands there. And stands there.

And vaguely waves around his club.

And then he stands some more - waiting until Theseus gets up.

There's a solid six second gap between the minotaur's pulling him up and Theseus' counter-attack. Six seconds in which the minotaur could have ended this movie. But nope. For some reason he waits patiently while Theseus collects himself, grabs a shard of something and then slices his tendons. Yeah. Well. Minotaurs are only intelligent in science fiction re-tellings, it seems.

Moving onto the quest item at the movie's center, there are some major issues with it as well.

The fact that the Epirus Bow is found not in some distant shrine, but a pile of rubble in the crypt of Theseus' village makes it clear that the movie's creators desperately wanted a video game tie-in. As if the action sequences aren't hint enough.

Granted, a bow that makes its own arrows when you draw it is pretty cool - but just happening to stumble upon it like that? I'm sort of surprised that the bow wasn't Theseus' conscience or something along those lines, but then, that would be far too deep.

And deep thought is definitely not something to apply to this movie.

After all, if you look for them, the messages of the movie aren't entirely clear.

War is bad because you need to fight for the right reasons, and one of those reasons is to defend the weak. So, then, might, so long as it's in defense of "the weak," makes right?

The gods don't listen to people's prayers because Zeus has a strict non-interference policy in place, but the actions of a human can restore Zeus' faith in people? So the gods work as long as people believe in them? Curiously undercutting religion, but simultaneously supporting it.

Theseus seems adrift and uncertain, but then the bow makes him believe that there are indeed gods and he becomes focused and true? So religion is necessary to have a meaningful purpose?

All of these can be found in the movie, and all of them are kind of odd. But the strangest of all comes when Lysander, a soldier whom Theseus dishonored, reveals that Theseus is the child of rape.

That Theseus is believed to be the child of rape is troubling because he is both the hero, and, at least according to the original myth, the son of Zeus.

Now, Zeus is into some freaky stuff, but I don't think gang-rape (which Lysander mildly implies) was ever something he did. Sex up a woman while in the form of an ox? Sure. Appear to a woman as a shower of gold? Okay. Ravish a young boy (in both senses of the word) so he can be your heavenly cup-bearer? That gets another one of Zeus' thumbs-up.

Aside from this inaccuracy, Theseus' parentage is troubling because it suggests an oddly pro-life message. It's never mentioned in this movie (but might be in a sequel, if there ever is such a thing), but if series canon is that Zeus is Theseus' father, then you could interpret that as saying that children of rape are gifts from the god(s).

But it's just a flashy Hollywood action flick, right? It doesn't really have any messages, right?

Stepping away from the issue of Theseus' origins, let's look at his character.

Does anyone know the Ancient Greek form of the name "Stu"? Because Theseus is as flawless as Parian marble. Sure he has a hot temper, but that only flares up when he's "defending his loved ones." He's got Larry-Stu written all over him.

The only other character of note is the oracle that breaks out of the slave train with Theseus. Her character is fine throughout most of the movie, pretty standard strong-willed woman with an important social role stuff.

But Theseus drops a line about her special gift of prophecy being more of a curse than a blessing. Then he goes down to bury his mom, comes back, and she lets him deflower her.

As a virgin oracle this is supposed to release her from her power, but as the rest of the movie suggests, she keeps her powers anyway - even passing them onto the son she has at the movie's end.

Phaedra's giving up her power of prophecy so easily is poor writing. Not because she doesn't lose them after having sex as the world of the movie suggests will happen, but because she doesn't go through any major struggle to reach her decision to lose her powers.

We see her in one scene and she seems vaguely thoughtful about Theseus' calling her gift a curse. We see her again, minutes later, and she gives it up. Bad character writing of a high caliber, this is.

Another quibble, and this time with the movie as a whole, is that it is dim. Just like in countless 20th century movies set in the middle ages, everything seems darker than it ought to be. Maybe the sense that's being conveyed here is that the movie's action takes place at the "dawn of time" but that's a figurative expression, not a literal one. Especially on a small screen, so much darkness makes it difficult to actually see a lot of the movie's detail.

Now, to the movie's credit, there are some good things in it, too.

And no, they aren't just limited to Rourke's Hyperion, originator of such gems as:

{Original image from Parimal M. Rohit's Buzzine interview with Mickey Rourke.}

Back To Top
The Good

Theseus' own philosophy is definitely a good one - "deeds are eternal, not the flesh." Better to do great deeds than have a lot of kids. Definitely. This is also something found throughout heroic literature, from Hercules to Beowulf and back again.

And, though the movie thoroughly goes in the opposite direction, the attempt to class it up by quoting Socrates at the beginning is a nice touch. And the choice of quotes is obviously appropriate.

Plus, there are sequences where the characters actually talk in what sounds like Ancient Greek.

And even on the small screen, the visuals are compelling. Especially the final mass battle scene, which is also well choreographed.

And...uh.

Well, that's it, really. There's not too much more that's actually really all that good about the movie.

Back To Top
Judgment

Immortals' plot is poorly told, despite its simplicity. The action choreography is poorly executed in all of the small scale fights. The characters are flat for the most part. The motivation of Hyperion is just that he lost faith after the gods let his wife and son die of disease. The fact that the Titans seem to be leopard-skinned pig men who can only grunt goes unexplained.

Zeus, Poseidon, Athena, and two other gods being the only ones in Olympus makes for a seriously dull bunch of deities. Granted, Zeus realizing that his isolationist policy is mistaken is at least a nice nod to the fallible Zeus of myth. But the absence of Hera, and especially Kronos, the Greek gods' father and king of the Titans, is far too conspicuous to let pass.

Weighing the good against the bad, this movie can hardly stand.

In it there's promise of a great story told in an over the top way, but the plot is too much like a video game's, leaving you with the sense that "you just had to be there" to really get it.

The effects are pretty, but a sword and sandals movie with gods and ultimate evils and big bads that just has effects is like a Rhapsody of Fire song that just has guitar shredding and a strings section but no lyrics.

A good action plot doesn't need to be something out of Dickens or Orwell, but it should be good - the kind of thing you could sing along to when no-one's looking if it was a song. But if Immortals was a song, it'd be one that you wouldn't want to sing even if you were entirely alone, faced only by your own reflection.

So, Freya, leave this one where it lay. But, maybe take its jeweled sword or diamond encrusted plate armor - it has no further use for either.

Back To Top
Closing

Did you think that the Immortals was more than just another action movie? Or was it worse than being Socrates and having your wife dump a chamberpot on your head? Feel free to express your own thoughts on Immortals in the comments below.

And check back next week for the start of a series on freelance writing, an article about a topic yet to be announced, and an attempt to find some good in Battlefield Earth - a film that Rotten Tomatoes' critics gave a whopping 2% and that audiences gave 17%. But, even in the worst of films there's some good to be found. The question is: is there enough?

Back To Top

[Wōdnes-dæg] Preppers: Not Starchy and Dull Ties, but Freeze Dried Food and Bartering

Introduction
Going too Far
Some Possible Disasters
Conclusion
References

This entry's topic is a bit of a cheat, since it didn't come from a newspaper or a Google Alert. I'm letting it slide in since I did get it through email, it was unexpected, quite surprising, and it offers a whole group to learn about.

{Preppers. Even National Geographic is curious, enough to make a show about them. Picture from Doomsday Preppers' Overview page}

Introduction

Preppers, people who are preparing for what they believe is an imminent disaster or cataclysm,¹ might seem a little crazy to some. People a little too close to the paranoid thinking espoused by people like Glen Beck. But before jumping to any conclusions, let's see the extent of Preppers' preparations.

Based on the content of Prepper.org, it seems like they do it all.² But, the three mainstays, understandably, look like becoming self-reliant for food, bartering, and self-defense.

The first two are understandable.

Bartering doesn't necessarily need to undercut money or the economy, it could be used to buttress it in some ways.

And learning how to grow your own food, make your own flour,³ and so on and so on are all really important things. Doing things in the old ways helps to perpetuate those ways. In a way, people who know how to mill their own flour are living pieces of history while the rest of us still buy it from store shelves. Stockpiling food can be problematic, however.

Nonetheless, if you're expecting civilization to collapse, it makes sense that you'd want to make sure you can defend yourself, but this sort of preparation is where the movement starts to sound less quaint and becomes vaguely threatening.

Going too Far

Yes, if society as we know it collapses, that means that the law might lose its power to maintain order. And a return to what some call "natural law" would not be pretty. But to take preparations to the extreme of stocking up on guns and ammo is simply going too far.

Getting firearms or archery training in preparation strains the boundary, but still seems somewhat sensible. If it makes a person feel safe, that's great, but it suggests too firm a belief in the imminent collapse of society.

Some Possible Disasters

Now, there is a lot going on across the world to suggest something might be coming down the tubes shortly.

The problem of having a money based more on an idea or series of concepts than any tangible thing (like gold); a new disease breaking out of laboratories and causing a pandemic; an earthquake that will finally cut large pieces of California and British Columbia away from the North American continent; a zombie apocalypse.

Okay, the last one's made up, but all of these scenarios seem to lean so heavily on things out of people's control or their own self interest that zombies may as well be included in a list of possibilities.

A small group of people may have a lot of sway over the global economy but what do they have to gain if that economy crumbles? Without that sort of system in place all of their value becomes meaningless. If you were in such a powerful position wouldn't you do everything possible to serve your best interest as well as, at least nominally, the best interest of everyone else?

The same goes for the fear over scientists potentially publishing their findings about making avian flu transmittable between mammals.³ Human hubris doesn't put people beyond trying to spread it in the mistaken belief that they have an antidote and will be safe. All the same, if pandemic strikes and the world's population is decimated where does that leave the survivors re: its resources? A power vacuum might exist, but society would also be entirely re-ordered.

Conclusion

Times are tough, economies are eccentric, and people might be getting more paranoid as a result. But it's important to remember that as much as there's a lot going on in the world, ours is also a world in which its easier than ever to see/read/listen to what's going on.

Our high level of connectivity means we get more news, the fact that a lot of it is negative definitely isn't going to help us feel better about the future. But it's more a matter of volume than of content. Bad things happened all over the world before we could read about them with just a click or a flick.

Nonetheless, Preppers should be commended for their dedication to their beliefs. And, ultimately, for those of us who are perhaps more optimistic, for their preparing themselves as potential teachers as well. And if there is no major disaster, then at the least there will be a whole subculture that keeps extreme DIY attitudes alive while the rest of us rely more and more on each other.

References

1. Forsyth, Jim. "Subculture of Americans prepares for civilization's collapse." Reuters 21 Jan 2012.

2. The Prepper Networks. Prepper.org. 2009-2010.

3. Branswell, Helen. "Future work on lab-made bird flu viruses should be done in most secure labs." Winnipeg Free Press 6 March 2012.

[Moon-dæg] A Tag Team Logical Approach to the Choice of Teachers College

Introduction
Writing And Teaching Together
The Reality of Writing
The Reality of Teaching
Tag-Ins
Writing's Challenges
Conclusion

Introduction

Through Another cycle the moon has its way made,
and now through the end of a mire of thoughts we wade.

Yes, this is the entry for the waning of the moon - the second logical look at this lunar month's topic: going to teachers college.

A number of angles have been considered over the past few entries in the series, and it seems that the best one to really clasp onto is the thought that extra training really isn't the answer. After all, it's not for a lack of training that teaching is an option.

In fact, last week's entry definitely had a good point to make. Writing needs to be considered a serious option.

Writing and Teaching Together

Now, teaching and writing do go hand in hand like milk and cookies or butter and popcorn or a sharp cheddar and a fine red wine. But some cookies go better alone, some popcorn is best left naked, and sometimes the wine is all you need.

Yet, considering the fact that drained a PhD of its allure (aside from a sense that all the extra training would never get used) is that writing and teaching would need to be balanced, makes me doubtful of going to teachers college.

If teaching is what I want to get into, then there are colleges that will happily take an applicant with a master's degree. With plenty of freelance writing work packed for the duration, even a temporary college teaching gig would work. Or I could just hop back over the ocean for a spell.

However, what has made teachers college less appealing is the simple fact that it will not guarantee a job at its end. Though throughout the year-long course opportunities would be had and connections would be made. And I would learn how to teach - or at the least, pick up some useful hints. All the same, if all that's to be gotten out of teachers college is a few names to add to my network, and a few teaching tips, then it becomes little more than a year-long, several thousand dollar conference on education.

The Reality of Writing

Writing is the better choice. And, tempering my reasoning with some subjectivity, it's a lot more enjoyable. If the world ran on human laughter or feelings of elation, then writing would be all I'd need to do. But anything indie like that is something that's built up slowly.

Yet, writing's slow build figures into my broader philosophy entirely well. A small flame burning faithfully through the night and into the next day is better than a bonfire that needs to be constantly fueled then flags and dies only moments after you've run out of feed.

It may be excessive pride, it may be the foolishness of youth, or it might just be the rush that writing gives, but pursuing writing makes more sense to me. Teacher's college is stable, and kind of dull. It's like riding the bus somewhere in a city whereas writing is like walking. Slower, and perhaps less intensely peopled, but more rewarding in the end.

Writing might lack the stability of something like teaching, and the challenges might be more multiple in writing but that makes writing more rewarding. Nothing worth doing is ever easy.

The Reality of Teaching

As much as it seemed like a logical next step when I applied to teachers college last fall, I declared that teaching was my passion and calling after having my first good class in South Korea. In hindsight, it seems that the announcement was more likely the passion itself speaking rather than me.

Moreover, 20 teaching hours and 10 prep hours per week aren't really comparable to the sort of work that would be expected in Ontario - even for a high school teacher. While the teaching and prep hours might be the same (or less, or greater), I would be involved in more things than my Korean school's meetings in restaurants and such.

Of course, all of that sounds like the writhing of a man pinned down by an uncomfortable idea. Writhing caused by the feeling that, as I mentioned in last week's entry, I would be simply caving to the social pressure of being told that "teacher" is the default job for an English/History major.

{Blake and Sartre.}

Time to tag in Blake.

William Blake may have a point with: "to be in a passion you good may do" (William Blake, Auguries of Innocence), but if that passion is cast on you like a cloak rather than put on by your own two hands is it necessarily proper to you?

Okay! Bring in Sartre!

And would Jean-Paul Sartre, a man who thought a lot about freedom, regard my choosing to go to teachers college (and therefore make myself mean "teacher" more formally) as a really a free choice, if it's not a meaning that I've made on my own, but rather a meaning that's been presented to me over and over again so that I'm open to it?

And bring it back to me!

But those last two paragraphs, quotes (*ahem* tag-ins) aside, are steeped in rhetoric and feeling and not necessarily deduced from anything.

Writing's Challenges

Without the Internet, it would be easy to say that teaching is stable work and writing is not. Of course, there are still thin months for writers, but having to weather a few thin months as opposed to a waiting period of up to five years for regular employment sounds like a better, more stable, deal.

Yet, throughout my life people have said, when asked about writing for a living, "don't do it" (Thomas King's exact answer to the question, given to me when I was a student in Guelph). But that just makes me want to dig in my heels and try harder.

Certainly it takes someone special to teach well, and someone special to really bring material alive for people, but it also takes someone special to write well, and to bring ideas and emotions alive with only ink and paper (or pixels on a screen).

Somehow dealing with words directly has more appeal to me, perhaps (despite the possibility of posting videos and audio clips online) because of a belief that more people can meaningfully understand words alone than can understand a man standing in front of a camera.

Further, those words on a page won't misdirect with potentially confusing gestures or intonations. A bit of reading experience and maybe a dictionary or thesaurus, and writing can be understood by most anyone, regardless of their learning style. Plus, it gives a more concrete reference point than an online video or audio clip.

Conclusion

Ultimately, I could teach, but I'd rather write. And as much as the two are compatible, I feel like I'm too single-minded and stubborn to mingle them together.

So, teacher's college, it could be some wild good times. And it could lead to a steady, solid career, but I don't see it necessarily leading to a maximally happy life. In fact, I think I'd be better off skipping teacher's college and just going out for college teaching or returning to South Korea. I feel fine about either of those combined with writing. They seem a better fit, and a stronger match.

I'll still wait for the replies from the teachers colleges to which I applied, but can't say with certainty that they'll be hearing much back from me.

Taking writing over formal teaching training may seem illogical, but I'm no robot and not all of my actions can be governed by logic alone. So I will write and write, and probably teach some on the side.

Let me know what you think about combining teaching and writing or the usefulness of teachers college in the comments. And feel free to follow my blog, I'll follow yours back.

The topic for the next four-parter is still being worked out. In the meantime check back here Wednesday and Friday. On Wednesday an article about the "Preppers" movement will go up, and on Friday a review of "Immortals" will be posted.

[Freya-dæg] A Franchise Lost in S. Darko-ness

[N.B.:Since this review runs a little long, I've divided it into sections. And, if you like, you can jump from the list of headings to any of those sections.]

This is about S. Darko: A Donnie Darko Tale (released in 2009), or, as the title cards have it:

Intro
The Bad
The Middle Ground
The Good
Judgment
Closing

Intro

This movie is quite curious to me. If taken by itself, as a standalone story, then it's a movie that more or less holds up, something that might've been a light weight Donnie Darko, if it had been released in its place. The plot does bear some similarities.

S. Darko follows Donnie's sister Sam (played by Daveigh Chase, reprising the role of Sam) as she and her friend Corey (played by Briana Evigan) drive from Virginia to California to become dancer's at Corey's dad's club. Of course, that wouldn't make for much of a time travel movie. So, the girls' car breaks down, and they wind up in the town of Conejo Springs, Utah. They get involved with the townsfolk, and some strange things go down. Ultimately leading to the girls going their separate ways.

Revealing the ending of the movie isn't entirely necessary, because it follows the same arc as Donnie Darko. If you haven't seen Donnie Darko, then go here and watch the viral video marketing campaign, videos number two and three give a solid idea of what happens in S. Darko.

The Bad

At any rate, being a sequel, and a sequel to a movie that had so much going on in it, the bar is set fairly high.

This is most true of the mythology of the "series."

A lot of what S. Darko revolves around is the idea that time travel is possible because time travel involves a version of a person or thing cutting into the present dimension from another dimension that is somehow "the future." It's a pretty cool concept of an old sci-fi standby, and just as in the original, it's visualized in a neat way.

Yes, the time streams from chests and TV reach-ins and such are all there, plus shimmering dimensional walls that make sure that people from the present dimension don't come into direct physical contact with beings from the "future" dimension.

But the problem with this movie, from the perspective of the mythology of the "series," is that it doesn't develop it. If you watch Donnie Darko, and then watch this movie directly afterwards, you'll see the same things being established and a lot of parallels between the movies' characters and situations.

One character is better off dying, another character goes too far, and at least one character is left having to figure things out and deal with the ripples of a supernatural event.

The shape of the plot itself is also similar, the difference being that what happens after a character chooses to die seems to be better than what had happened when he chose not to.

But this change doesn't really have the rippling effect that the first movie's did. There's no emotionally scarred younger sibling to absorb the shock and be moved by the tragedy as was the case with Sam after Donnie's death, only a shift in who shoulders a supernatural responsibility.

And what is that responsibility you ask? A meteorite that gives its owner some kind of terrible rash. Why does it give them this rash? What is the rash's purpose? None of the characters in the film seem to know, and neither do I.

And that's the movie's greatest failing. A sequel to a movie that presented a world where the metaphysical is real and the fourth dimension has meaning beyond an abstract notion isn't one that should just be a rehash with sexy teens. And that's essentially what S. Darko is.

But.

The Middle Ground

The characters are at least believable (it *is* set in 1995), and there are some okay exchanges between them (Justin: "Why are you looking at me funny?" Sam: "Why are you looking funny?"). Some of the characters are a little bit clichéd - the town badboy/mechanic, the religious man with a sordid past, the conspiracy nut, the nerd.

But then there are two characters who are also fairly conventional, but might have made the movie more interesting had there been more attention paid to them. Iraq Jack (aka Justin Sparrow, played by James Lafferty) is one of them, and Officer O'Dell (played by Bret Roberts) is the other.

{Justin "Iraq Jack" Sparrow in full garb.}

Justin Sparrow is the poster child for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), and a veteran of Desert Storm. But his social maladjustment makes him the closest thing to a truly alienated character in the movie. This position also makes him akin to Donnie in the first movie.

Sparrow's get up, and his living like a hobo confirm him as a dweller on the edge of society and make him the perfect candidate to explain, or have his plot explain, just how time travel works in these movies, or at least why things are blipping into our dimension and leaving people dead.

This promise is almost fulfilled when it's revealed *spoilers!* that Justin Sparrow is indeed the grandson of Roberta Sparrow, the author of the book the "The Philosophy of Time Travel" from the first movie.

Focusing the story on him, or having him meet a past/future self who isn't of a fragmented mind and then having him, or maybe meeting his grandmother and having her, explain just what's going on would have been great. Such a move would also add to the story, and let us into it.

{The man responsible for the line: "How do you explain midgets and sock monkeys? Shit happens."}

The other of the two eccentric characters who could've had more done with them is officer O'Dell. He seems like a stereotypical small-minded, small town cop, but his style suggests that there's something more at play. Though he seems to be the only cop in town, he still stands out in his shorts and flat-top haircut.

So why is he different? Why does he make himself unique among a uniformed profession? Maybe it has something to do with all the inter-dimensional stuff going on in the movie? Maybe he was dropped as a child? Maybe he refuses to conform because of a deep-felt need to be "hip"? Maybe he too is a veteran of Desert Storm and his odd style is his means of coping? The thing is, he's presented, but kept in the margin.

All the same, those two characters are examples of what's good in this movie. But, as with last week's review of "The Seeker: Dark is Rising," they're also underdeveloped. What is good and at least given some development follows.

The Good

The movie didn't move the overall plot of the "series" forward, but it's neat to see a female protagonist. And there's an undeniable "Twin Peaks"-esque feel to the parts that feature piano and strings in the background. If nothing else, the movie should be regarded as a pretty decent example of how to create atmosphere throughout a film. Maybe not maintain it (it *is* the 90s, so 90s rock and pop work their way into audiences' ears, too), but certainly to create it.

The movie's effects are also well done for a movie made for a straight-to-DVD release. Some of them look like they might've been made in the 90s themselves, but that quality just adds to the movie's charm. And the sequence with an infinitely flowing tesseract late in the movie is definitely worth the wait.

So, is this one quite so bad as the critics at Rotten Tomatoes say it is, awarding it a whopping 0%? No. Not quite.

But I wouldn't give it anything beyond a 35%, myself. So, watch it if you want to see a variation on Donnie Darko, if you want to let yourself dream about what this series could've been for an hour and forty minutes, or if you never saw the original at all and don't want to reach that far back in time.

Otherwise, S. Darko doesn't have much to offer. Ultimately, the movie raises the same questions as the first movie did (and some of its own, too) but it doesn't offer any new answers.

Judgment

So, Freya, heavy hearted I say to you, let this one lay. But maybe move it into the shade so that the sunlight won't rot it quite so quickly as the rest of the fallen still littering the field.

Closing

If you loved S. Darko and think that there should be another, believe that S. Darko should never have been made, or like/don't like my headings experiment, just let me know in a comment. And follow my blog - I'll follow yours back.

Next week, I post my final logical look at the option of teacher's college, Wednesday will see an article about what the "Prepper" movement seems to be appear here, and, come Friday, I'll post a review of Immortals.