19 February 2013
16 February 2013
The Modernistic Values and Technical Significance of Consistently Discordant and Contradictory Jargon, as Explained by the Acclaimed Calvin
My dad sent this to me, and I just had to share it. Incidentally, I just learned about jargon in school. Enjoy!
15 February 2013
George MacDonald Quote
I was paging through George MacDonald's The Princess and Curdie the other day, when I came across this quote. I think it's really quite beautiful.
"The boy should enclose and keep, as his life, the old child at the heart of him, and never let it go. He must still, to be a right man, be his mother's darling, and more, his father's pride, and more. The child is not meant to die, but to be forever fresh born."
"The boy should enclose and keep, as his life, the old child at the heart of him, and never let it go. He must still, to be a right man, be his mother's darling, and more, his father's pride, and more. The child is not meant to die, but to be forever fresh born."
04 February 2013
Language, Legends, and Music
"...'Legends' depend on the language to which they belong; but a living language depends equally on the 'legends' which it conveys by tradition." ~J.R.R. Tolkien
I recently came across this quote in a collection of Tolkien's letters, and it set me thinking. I quite agree with Tolkien; language and legends are closely entwined together, and a language without legends and fairy-stories is a dead one. However, I think that there is another thing that is entwined with language and legends, which Tolkien has forgotten: music.
As one cannot imagine a story without words, or words that tell no stories, it is impossible to imagine a song without music. For a long, long time, stories were told with songs. From the Ancient Greeks and Romans to the Medieval English, music and story-telling were closely connected.
Close your eyes and imagine an ancient Greek poem being recited. Listen closely, and surely you will hear a lyre being played. Now imagine Beowulf being told; nay, not only told, but sung by a bard, as you will surely hear if you but listen closely in your imagination. It is hard to picture a story being told in ancient times without music.
In other ways, too, is music connected with stories and words. Stories, words, and music are all capable of creating feeling. As a story can paint a picture, or make the reader feel joy, sorrow, hope, despair, courage, cowardice, &c., so can words--and music. Perhaps the only difference is that while words and stories paint, for the most part, the same pictures and create the same feelings for everyone, music is more personal. A piece of music might mean something different to all who hear it. Antonin Dvorak's "New World Symphony" paints for me a stag leaping through deep green woods, a fox running through the underbrush, a bear suddenly crashing through the bushes. It makes me feel, at different times, joy, fear, love, and sorrow. But doubtless for others, the "New World Symphony" paints much different pictures and creates much different feelings. However, for all who hear it, it must create some pictures or feelings--just as words and stories do.
Music, stories, words--all are entwined together in a tight bond that cannot be broken. The relationship between these three things brings to mind the ending of "A Celtic Tale", a recording of a retelling of the legend of Deirdre by Mychael and Jeff Danna (narrated by Fiona Ritchie). The tale ends with two trees, growing from the graves of the ill-fated lovers Deirdre and Naoise, becoming tightly entwined together over time. Except that the trees of legends, language, and music, are three, not ill-fated; and the trees grow not from the graves of dead and forgotten things but from living traditions.
I recently came across this quote in a collection of Tolkien's letters, and it set me thinking. I quite agree with Tolkien; language and legends are closely entwined together, and a language without legends and fairy-stories is a dead one. However, I think that there is another thing that is entwined with language and legends, which Tolkien has forgotten: music.
As one cannot imagine a story without words, or words that tell no stories, it is impossible to imagine a song without music. For a long, long time, stories were told with songs. From the Ancient Greeks and Romans to the Medieval English, music and story-telling were closely connected.
Close your eyes and imagine an ancient Greek poem being recited. Listen closely, and surely you will hear a lyre being played. Now imagine Beowulf being told; nay, not only told, but sung by a bard, as you will surely hear if you but listen closely in your imagination. It is hard to picture a story being told in ancient times without music.
In other ways, too, is music connected with stories and words. Stories, words, and music are all capable of creating feeling. As a story can paint a picture, or make the reader feel joy, sorrow, hope, despair, courage, cowardice, &c., so can words--and music. Perhaps the only difference is that while words and stories paint, for the most part, the same pictures and create the same feelings for everyone, music is more personal. A piece of music might mean something different to all who hear it. Antonin Dvorak's "New World Symphony" paints for me a stag leaping through deep green woods, a fox running through the underbrush, a bear suddenly crashing through the bushes. It makes me feel, at different times, joy, fear, love, and sorrow. But doubtless for others, the "New World Symphony" paints much different pictures and creates much different feelings. However, for all who hear it, it must create some pictures or feelings--just as words and stories do.
Music, stories, words--all are entwined together in a tight bond that cannot be broken. The relationship between these three things brings to mind the ending of "A Celtic Tale", a recording of a retelling of the legend of Deirdre by Mychael and Jeff Danna (narrated by Fiona Ritchie). The tale ends with two trees, growing from the graves of the ill-fated lovers Deirdre and Naoise, becoming tightly entwined together over time. Except that the trees of legends, language, and music, are three, not ill-fated; and the trees grow not from the graves of dead and forgotten things but from living traditions.
02 January 2013
Some Christmas Musings
I know that Christmas was a week ago, but it is still the Christmas season, so I shall post some thoughts I had after listening to a lovely dramatization of Charles Dickens' A Christmas Carol.
A Christmas Carol is a perfectly charming story. It has been beloved by generations of readers, from when Dickens actually wrote it to the present. There are few, I think, who do not know the names of Bob Cratchit, Tiny Tim, and of course, the story's main character: Ebenezer Scrooge.
It is Ebenezer Scrooge that my thoughts centered around after listening to A Christmas Carol. If one looks up the word "scrooge" in a dictionary (I used the Oxford Dictionary of English), one will find a definition similar to this: "a person who is mean with money". Ebenezer Scrooge has gone down in history as a curmudgeonly old miser, who cares for nothing but money, and calls Christmas a humbug. But is this really the right way to think of Scrooge? Yes, this is his character in the beginning of the story, but A Christmas Carol is a tale of redemption and repentance. At the end of the book, Scrooge is a changed man; he has been shown the consequences of his actions, and has repented. He raises Bob Cratchit's salary, thus saving the life of Tiny Tim, to whom he furthermore becomes "a second father". He stops neglecting his nephew, Fred, he raises the salaries of all who work for him, he becomes a benevolent, kind, old grandfather figure.
I wonder why the Scrooge of the end of A Christmas Carol is seemingly forgotten. The changed Scrooge is a much nicer character than the unchanged. Perhaps, though, it is because change is hard. As fallen men, we find it much easier to judge someone and say that we will not be like them, rather than to accept a story of repentance, and repent of our own sins. That, I think, is the real lesson to be learned from A Christmas Carol. In this new year, let us try to change ourselves, repenting as Ebenezer Scrooge did.
Merry Christmas, and "God bless us, every one!"
A Christmas Carol is a perfectly charming story. It has been beloved by generations of readers, from when Dickens actually wrote it to the present. There are few, I think, who do not know the names of Bob Cratchit, Tiny Tim, and of course, the story's main character: Ebenezer Scrooge.
It is Ebenezer Scrooge that my thoughts centered around after listening to A Christmas Carol. If one looks up the word "scrooge" in a dictionary (I used the Oxford Dictionary of English), one will find a definition similar to this: "a person who is mean with money". Ebenezer Scrooge has gone down in history as a curmudgeonly old miser, who cares for nothing but money, and calls Christmas a humbug. But is this really the right way to think of Scrooge? Yes, this is his character in the beginning of the story, but A Christmas Carol is a tale of redemption and repentance. At the end of the book, Scrooge is a changed man; he has been shown the consequences of his actions, and has repented. He raises Bob Cratchit's salary, thus saving the life of Tiny Tim, to whom he furthermore becomes "a second father". He stops neglecting his nephew, Fred, he raises the salaries of all who work for him, he becomes a benevolent, kind, old grandfather figure.
I wonder why the Scrooge of the end of A Christmas Carol is seemingly forgotten. The changed Scrooge is a much nicer character than the unchanged. Perhaps, though, it is because change is hard. As fallen men, we find it much easier to judge someone and say that we will not be like them, rather than to accept a story of repentance, and repent of our own sins. That, I think, is the real lesson to be learned from A Christmas Carol. In this new year, let us try to change ourselves, repenting as Ebenezer Scrooge did.
Merry Christmas, and "God bless us, every one!"
15 December 2012
A Brief Review of "The Hobbit"
I was fortunate enough to be able to see "The Hobbit" yesterday; and I enjoyed it very much. As with all movies, there were definite pros and cons, of course, and it is these that I would like to discuss briefly.
I shall start, I think, with the pros. The music, scenery, and most of the casting were brilliant. Howard Shore is truly a genius; the dwarves' song, which serves as the man theme for the whole film, is perfect, and the many other themes are beautiful as well. The scenery is simply gorgeous (I need not say more). The actors who played Bilbo, Thorin & Co., Gandalf, and Galadriel were excellent. The actor who played Elrond was, through no fault of his own, not quite perfect. His voice is just what comes to mind of when I think of Elrond, but his physical appearance is, in my mind at least, not quite right.
Now for the cons of the movie. The two main things that irritated me were these: 1. Tolkien's book is a children's story, a charming tale of adventure. The movie has lost this charm, and is simply an epic fantasy action film, though a good one. 2. The decision to make "The Hobbit" into a trilogy is quite annoying to me. I can understand making two movies, but three, I think, crosses a line. It is a decision made simply to make more money, which is rather ironic, seeing as the story deals much with dwarves and their love of gold.
Another thing that bothered me was that, although many lines from the book were used in the film, the filmmakers did not follow the plot of the book very closely. There were parts that were practically unchanged, but there were other parts that were completely invented. For example, one of the major plot lines of the film has to do with the orc Azog, who was never mentioned in The Hobbit. (For more information on Azog, see The Return of the King, Appendix A, pp. 441-443.)
There were other small details that were wrong, but also many that were right. I have spent more time discussing the cons than the pros, but the pros do not need to be talked over and picked through. It suffices merely to say that all the pros were excellent pros, and that "The Hobbit" was a very good movie that I enjoyed very much.
I shall start, I think, with the pros. The music, scenery, and most of the casting were brilliant. Howard Shore is truly a genius; the dwarves' song, which serves as the man theme for the whole film, is perfect, and the many other themes are beautiful as well. The scenery is simply gorgeous (I need not say more). The actors who played Bilbo, Thorin & Co., Gandalf, and Galadriel were excellent. The actor who played Elrond was, through no fault of his own, not quite perfect. His voice is just what comes to mind of when I think of Elrond, but his physical appearance is, in my mind at least, not quite right.
Now for the cons of the movie. The two main things that irritated me were these: 1. Tolkien's book is a children's story, a charming tale of adventure. The movie has lost this charm, and is simply an epic fantasy action film, though a good one. 2. The decision to make "The Hobbit" into a trilogy is quite annoying to me. I can understand making two movies, but three, I think, crosses a line. It is a decision made simply to make more money, which is rather ironic, seeing as the story deals much with dwarves and their love of gold.
Another thing that bothered me was that, although many lines from the book were used in the film, the filmmakers did not follow the plot of the book very closely. There were parts that were practically unchanged, but there were other parts that were completely invented. For example, one of the major plot lines of the film has to do with the orc Azog, who was never mentioned in The Hobbit. (For more information on Azog, see The Return of the King, Appendix A, pp. 441-443.)
There were other small details that were wrong, but also many that were right. I have spent more time discussing the cons than the pros, but the pros do not need to be talked over and picked through. It suffices merely to say that all the pros were excellent pros, and that "The Hobbit" was a very good movie that I enjoyed very much.
08 December 2012
Another Quote
By now, you can probably tell that I am very fond of quotes. Perhaps a little too fond, if that is indeed possible. Regardless, I have another quote that I would like to share--a passage from Antoine de Saint Exupery's The Little Prince (which is, by the way, a delightful little book). I think that it is quite charming and, at the same time, thought-provoking.
"Grown-ups love figures. When you tell them that you have made a new friend, they never ask you any questions about essential matters. They never say to you, "What does his voice sound like? What games does he love best? Does he collect butterflies?" Instead, they demand: "How old is he? How many brothers does he have? How much does he weigh? How much money does his father make?" Only from these figures do they think they have learned anything about him . . . They are like that. One must not hold it against them. Children should always show great forbearance towards grown-up people."
~Antoine de Saint Exupery
"Grown-ups love figures. When you tell them that you have made a new friend, they never ask you any questions about essential matters. They never say to you, "What does his voice sound like? What games does he love best? Does he collect butterflies?" Instead, they demand: "How old is he? How many brothers does he have? How much does he weigh? How much money does his father make?" Only from these figures do they think they have learned anything about him . . . They are like that. One must not hold it against them. Children should always show great forbearance towards grown-up people."
~Antoine de Saint Exupery
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)