My thoughts today are residing on happy, quiet things. I am not entirely certain why that is--the Seahawks are playing in the Superbowl again today, and I am excited about that, but I am focused more on nature this morning. Perhaps it is because our computer freaked out the other day and we had to re-install Windows, and the background it defaulted to was the picture of the two daisies on a very blue background.
I suppose that spoils any surprise that might have come from this post, and so I may as well get it out there: my favorite flower is the daisy. Not the huge, colorful Gerbera daisies... just a plain, white, common daisy. Some women love getting roses or colorful bouquets. As much as I love getting any type of flower, I am more excited about getting a handful of delicate white daisies than I am about getting a bouquet of long-stemmed roses. I have sometimes wondered why this is, and thus I am writing a post about it.
These are my favorite daisies.
There are many different reasons that I am attracted to the daisy. My mother loves daisies, and I adore my mother. I think Mommy (yes, I still call my mother "Mommy", and so do the rest of my siblings--that is just the kind of person that she is) likes any type of daisy, but she had this fake tree that she would put on our porch that had little white daisy blossoms all over it. My logical brain thought it was ridiculous (as daisies most definitely do not grow on trees), but I loved that "plant" as much as my mother did. It was just... happy. The tiny white blossoms with delicate little petals seemed to calm whoever looked at them. I have found that it's true with any sort of wild daisy. There are not a lot of petals on a regular daisy. You may get two layers if you're lucky, each one in the second row perfectly lined up so that they peek through the "windows" of the first line, much like dancers do. All of those dainty petals seem to direct your attention to the ball of yellow that they grow out of, like a sunshine! Gerbera daisies have way too many petals, and they seem dwarfed by a dark, sunfloweresque center.
This is a bouquet of Gerbera daisies.
It's the plan white ones that make me smile. Even talking about those daisies makes me happy.
There is a clip from the movie You've Got Mail that I think is great, and I will link it here to where I want it to start. You can stop it as soon as she's done with her happy little thought: http://youtu.be/pmNmFpJM3qQ?t=1m41s. Everything about how Meg Ryan is acting in that clip is perfect. The fact that she is feeling awful, but has a happy, serene smile as soon as she sees the daisies is exactly the reaction that I would have. Daisies are calming, gentle, and "friendly." When I was married, daisies were everywhere. They were centerpieces, the main part of my bouquet, and accents on my dress. I love how calm and... I don't know... pure they make me feel. I wanted to share that feeling with everyone on my wedding day. I think we tend to be too busy all of the time and worry about all sorts of different things. It is nice to have a dash of color every once in a while... but, hey, you can gently dye daisies any color you want by putting food coloring into the water!
I try to learn things from anywhere I can, and the daisy has taught me the most out of any other flower. It has taught me to be calm and gentle to others, even when the winds of life are blowing me around and make me feel like I can't hang on anymore. (I am certainly not perfect at that, but I am better than I was!) It has taught me that simplicity is beautiful. It has taught me that being delicate isn't being frail. It has taught me that growing with others makes you a better, stronger person. I love this flower.
What is your favorite flower and why? I would love to know!
Lela
Bonus: I realized, as I was reading this, that two of my favorite characters are named Daisy: the one from the Nintendo world, and the other from the Disney world. They're my favorite because of their spunk and sass... but maybe their names affected my subconscious.
Way back in 2009, I had a fit of rage over the misuse of the English language by native speakers and wrote a note on my Facebook page entitled "OMG leet spk lol roflcakes!!! (A rant/lesson)". It is as follows:
I was debating with myself today. The topic was that of the sudden decline of knowledge in grammar, punctuation, and spelling in the past couple of years. After a couple minutes, I realized the answer.
Texting.
Why, oh why, can't people just text ACTUAL text, instead of that atrocious leet? I can't understand half of what is said to me unless it's typed out in real English words. My Dad sometimes texts me in Leet. I have to spend a good minute-and-a-half trying to figure out the messages hidden in those letter/number "words." I think these Leet words have spawned a terrible generation of illiterate geeks. This is probably the reason that hardly any teen can spell worth a dime. Perhaps this next part isn't a result of Leet, but it still irks me: I should be flattered when somebody tells me that I'm awesome over chat, not annoyed. "Your so cool!!" ...My so cool what?
Here's a lesson for those of you that have been wondering about what "your" to use:
Your - Possessive singular. "Your spelling is terrible." Or "Your mom!!!"
You're - A conjunction of the words "you" and "are" in the English language. "You're failing English because you can't spell." Or "You're so cool!" (I actually got a wedding invitation saying "your invited." That was REALLY sad. I don't even own an invited.)
The word "there" is misused as well.
There - In reference to a place. Also used as an exclamation. "I miss being there." Or "There!! Finished!"
Their - Possessive plural. More than one person. You cannot say "that person killed their language." A good example of using this word: "Their spelling is awful." Or "Their English teacher mustn't have taught them much at all."
They're - A conjunction of the words "they" and "are" in the English language. "They're not too hard to understand." Or "They're using Leet everywhere these days."
OH!!! And let's not forget that "to" is also misused!!
To - The most common "to" in sentences, used in tandem with a verb. "I'm going to crush you." Or "I'm going to the zoo." Or "To be or not to be."
Too - In excess. "You're using the word 'their' far too much." Or "Too bad." Also means 'as well.' "I'm tired of people being silly, too."
Two - The number 2. "I bought two apples." Yes, in that sentence, you must spell it.
Also:
Weather - The state of the elements outside. "The weather is awful."
Whether - An indication that there are two choices of outcomes important to the topic of the sentence. "I don't know whether or not the weather will clear up." Can also mean "regardless of these two outcomes" if said "whether or not."
Lose - To misplace something. "I hope we do not lose the power of the written word!"
Loose - To slacken something's hold on something else, or to describe such a state. "The American hold on the English language is really loose."
Chose - The past tense form of the word choose. "I chose not to answer the question he asked due to its utter stupidity."
Choose - To make a choice. "Choose to educate yourself about the proper use of grammar."
Thank heaven that's over with. Unfortunately, I cannot tell you just how hard it is for me to read sentences without punctuation, even if all of the words are spelled out perfectly. There is no real way for me to go through all of them, but I will highlight a couple things.
There is ALWAYS a punctuation mark at the end of EVERY scentence!! "." for a regular sentence, "!" for an exclamation (NOT TO BE USED EXCESSIVELY, ESPECIALLY IN LEET!! If I see another "lol!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" again, I will blow something up with my wicked glare of death. I've been told that one can make volcanos erupt), and "?" for a question.
After the sentence, there must be a space (formerly two spaces, but one is now the norm), and the first letter of the first word of the next sentence (whew) MUST be capitalized! Also, every proper pronoun (eg. "I" or someone's name) has to be capitalized. Sentences do NOT look like this: omg i'm so excited rofl.i cant wait 4 the new hannah montana movie.lol!!!!!!!!!!!!
Commas are VERY important! There should be a comma before a conjunction (but, and, because, yet, though, etc.), but the comma is only necessary if the two sentences it connects are complete.
Always use commas to separate the items when writing a non-bulleted list.
Conjunctive words need to have an apostrophe between the conjoined words.I'm, you're, they're, can't, won't, mustn't, don't, etc. It's is included in this list--it means "it is."
Do not confuse plural and singular words."Does anyone have their book with them?" does NOT make sense. It's "Does anyone have his book with him?"
Apostrophes are not to be used to make plurals. Ever. Plurals do NOT have apostrophes! "We sell book's" is utterly stupid. What that says is that you are selling something that belongs to a book, but you don't tell us what it is. (Please note, however, that some possessive plurals require you to place the apostrophe AFTER the word: "I wish all of my students' English did not make me sick.")
I can't teach you how to spell. I'm SO sorry for that. However, if you ever have trouble figuring out how to spell a word, pull up your handy-dandy word processor and figure it out! Then type it out instead of copying and pasting it. You'll find that you'll learn much quicker that way.
Thanks.
Yes, this is how I feel when I read "leet".
Weird Al sums up my feelings in this brilliant song that came out not that long ago:
Now, before anyone jumps on my back, let's get a few things out there:
1). I am aware that grammar rules are not always followed. Being a writer and an English teacher, I can be the first to say that breaking the rules of written English can sometimes make a piece of writing better. There are sentence fragments riddled in my rant; here's the thing, though: I am aware of them being there. The sentence fragments are used sparingly, and to make a point. When correcting papers, I am lenient on fragments unless they make absolutely no sense even with context clues. Punctuation is sometimes fun to play with as well, but I am not going to ignore the types of things that I mentioned in the above rant.
2). I wrote these examples myself (without looking at any other posts or even at a dictionary) when I was nineteen. They could be more specific, but I am rather proud of them, especially since they are written in such a way that people who truly do not have any idea which homophone to use in a sentence might be able to understand and remember.
3). I am aware that the pronoun "they" is being used a lot more frequently and is being accepted widely as "okay" now due to the fact that some people do not identify with the assigned gender that either "he" or "she" gives. I think it started, however, with females being angry that the default pronoun is "he" or "him" when speaking about a single person. You can easily change it to "her" or "she" if you want, but then someone will find fault in it somewhere. Nobody seems to have an issue with the masculine pronouns being the default when speaking about humans in the other Latin-based languages, though...
4). If you want to see more incredible evidence of how unfortunate the lack of proper spelling and/or punctuation can become, just type "misspelled tweets" into your search engine. My heavens.
5). Texting was "a thing" in 2009, for sure, but it wasn't as big as it is today. I no longer think that texting/the internet is the main reason behind this atrocious slaughter of the English language. I think that it's because not many people read anymore.
The Real Problem
I know that some people simply do not like to read. People have different hobbies, and I can respect that. I do think, however, that there are people who say they do not like to read because of what they were asked to do in school. Reading becomes a burden to students, especially in grade schools. In college, reading simply comes with the territory--you're studying, for heaven's sake. I really do believe, however, that school is killing would-be readers. There are many teachers who simply assign books in order to get work out of students. The reading isn't usually anything that actually sparks the students' interests, and the consistency of this assignment of uninteresting and time-consuming reading results in students who would rather gouge their own eyes out than read a classic book. Sometimes, it even goes so far as to have students who don't want to read any book whatsoever.
I am not the only one who thinks that the flawed school system is killing readers. Kelly Gallagher, a renown author and teacher in the English field, wrote a book about it. The title is a word of his own creation: Readicide. He defines this term as follows:
"Read-i-cide: noun, the systematic killing of the love of reading, often exacerbated by the inane, mind-numbing practices found in schools" (from Readicide, page 2).
Gallagher spent twenty-two years as a classroom teacher among other positions to do with English in school settings, so he is well-acquainted with those mind-numbing practices. I have to let you know that the assigning of certain reading (actually, most of it) is not the teachers' faults. Most English teachers, especially in high school, have a set list of readings to choose from, and some that they don't have any choice in assigning (usually a play by Shakespeare--have you ever met a ninth-grader who has not read Romeo and Juliet?). It is disgustingly ironic that the very practices that are supposed to create lifelong readers are the very ones that are slaughtering the students' drives to read. I say slaughtering because the numbers are staggering (there are all sorts of links that I could put here about school-aged children and reading skills, but you can find them--it's very simple to do so), and it carries over to their adult lives. In fact, my husband recently came home from work the other day and told me about a conversation that he had with one of his coworkers about movies, and the stories found within them. At this time, Ender's Game was getting ready to come to theaters. My husband and I both grew up reading that book (by Orson Scott Card--go read it. Seriously.) and absolutely loving it. As they were speaking about newer movies with great stories, my husband's coworker asked, "Have you seen the trailer for that Ender's Game movie?"
Job purposefully made to look vague!
My husband, who had been tracking the movie's production since I had shown him that it was in the works, excitedly answered, "Yeah! That is one of my favorite books! Have you read it?" When his coworker said he hadn't, my husband told him that he should, because the story (and the writing itself, since they are two different things) was/is amazing.
"Nah. I'll wait for the movie to come out," said the coworker.
"No, seriously, you should read it!"
At this point, Coworker looks at Husband with incredulity and says, "I don't read!"
He didn't mean, of course, that he couldn't read... just that he won't read. Ever. Not unless he has to.
The National Endowment for the Arts is a fantastic source of information regarding all of this. While it may be considered "old' to some people, their research in 2004, Reading at Risk, shows trends that have not necessarily been reversed or even stopped in the USA. Truly, though, it all seems to really start in high school--most middle school students still seem to enjoy reading things that they choose to read.
Here are some examples of what high school students anonymously said about reading that Gallagher has in his book on page 4:
"I never really liked reading, but I don't have many books."
"Reading is only fun if I have nothing else to do."
"Reading really sucks."
"Reading is a big waste of time."
"I read books only because my teachers make me."
He also said "There are worse crimes than burning books. One of them is not reading them."
As a lover of reading as well as an English teacher, this makes me so incredibly sad. I know that young students who are being taught how to read adore being able to do it themselves. There are amazing new worlds in books, and there are incredible ways to pretend through characters on the pages. It doesn't have to be fiction, either! The school systems are not teaching our students to be life-long readers, they are teaching the students to loathe reading. If you are forced to do something without an explanation of why or the ability to make it interesting, you're going to wind up hating it. There is danger in getting people to stop reading books of their own accord; not only does it make people more susceptible to stupid misspellings or horrid grammar, but it makes them less capable of forming their own opinions. Less capability to check facts or have enough attention to the details contained within the lines of the written word can end in a society of drones. We've already started to see this with people refusing to read paperwork before they sign things... and then getting really upset when they realize that something they don't like (but that they agreed to!) is happening as a result of that signature--or they cannot see the difference between a hoax and the actual terms they agreed to. Either way, if you stop reading, how will you learn? The main way I get my information and satiate my love of learning is to read! I read constantly: books, articles, newspapers, blogs, news reports, etc. are all out there for the reading, and I love the knowledge they hold. I love being able to read multiple sources and decide for myself when reading nonfiction! I love being able to escape for a short period of time while learning new words in sci-fi and fantasy novels! I love the human experience and emotion that I can find in other fiction novels! There is so much to learn out there! I was taught how to go about reading various forms of writing in school, but you know what? The time spent on teaching me about different types of writing only involved me actually reading maybe one of each thing and then moving on to memorizing facts about Greek Mythology for some test that was happening three weeks from that point. See, schools are so focused on getting test results that they no longer really allow for true reading. I think that the schools want the students to remember facts about assigned gonna-be-tested-on-this-eventually books (usually from The Canon, which is another rant I could have) and grammar rules, and that's it. What I don't think the school system realizes that is if you allow students to read what subjects they want to read about and at their own pace earlier on in school, they will actually learn instead of memorize a great deal of the things they'll end up being tested on. Because I read a great deal on my own time through school, I learned very quickly when to recognize if a word "looked wrong." I may not have been able to spell it correctly on my own, but I knew that it was wrong and could get a dictionary in order to correct my error. I also learned how to structure an argument, how to create a compelling scene, and how to use punctuation and grammar even before I knew the rules. You want your kids to do well on English tests? Let them read, and help them to love reading to learn.
Some Ways to Prevent a Murder
Seriously, you guys. Seriously.
Obviously, that is a tongue-in-cheek heading, but I really do want to prevent the slaying of what usually is a natural love to read. Learning is fun. When you see someone actually get something, you will know what I mean. Or, if you can remember a time when some type of mystery was finally unlocked in your own head and you could walk around the newly-opened metaphorical room with wonder, you know what I am talking about. Learning is incredible, as long as it is actually learning. Too often, we tag the word "learning" to schools that are not actually helping our children learn--they are making them memorize for testing. Now, in the classroom, we know that our students are technically not spending a lot of time on actual tests, but what doesn't really get put into the statistics is just how much of the instruction time is used to prepare for the tests.
You know what...? I will write a blog post about my feelings on testing later. What I want to really focus on is the fact that the time used in classrooms to either prepare for testing or to do that testing is resulting in the students developing a hatred of reading. There isn't any time allowed in schools now, especially with all of the laws that have come out that necessitate students passing tests in order for the school to dodge a penalty, for reading for pleasure. Sure, sometimes they allow for sustained silent reading (SSR), but my experience as a student is that time is not for the students--it is for the teachers to try and get stuff done and to keep the kids quiet. They expect students that have been trained not to like reading novels to suddenly want to quietly read instead of work on homework that they could finish up in school instead of at home... where they could be doing other things. So, when SSR happens in classrooms now, I have noticed that it has simply become "silent time", and reading for pleasure doesn't ever really happen anymore. Either the students are working on other homework, or they are reading a book assigned to them in a different class. The teacher, it seems, usually doesn't care. I truly believe that if you allow students to have SSR and be allowed to read what they want to (providing for school-appropriate content), they will end up liking reading a great deal. There may be some students who feel like SSR is forcing them to read, though. To that, I say that the teacher can help the students by being a Book Whisperer. Donalyn Miller, the person who wrote the book The Book Whisperer, has been helping what we English teachers call "non-readers" to become lifelong readers by doing this. The basic premise behind being a Book Whisperer is that you figure out what interests a person has and what level of reading he or she may be at, then mention a book in passing about what that person likes and at the probable reading level. You, of course, have to have read a great deal of books about a wide range of subjects in order to have this ability. You encourage and help, but never force, your "non-reading" friend to start reading. The more people read things that genuinely interest them, the more they will find that reading really is an incredible thing. Miller's students have been known to read three hundred books in a year on their own. That's amazing!
Another thing that I think we need to do is get off of the electronic IV we seem to have hooked into our arms indefinitely. I know this sounds rather hypocritical coming from a blog post, but it is true! In 2007, the National Endowment for the Arts released a study called To Read or Not to Read about how electronics have come to replace our society's prior love of reading. If you don't want to take the time to read that report, you can listen here to NPR's coverage of the report. Here are some of the findings:
As people read less, they read less well, and students who read less well do less well in school. People who do less well in school do less well in the work-place and participate less in civic life. (Duh! If you're stuck on the computer, you're not going out and doing other stuff!)
The first generation of students raised in the midst of electronic media read significantly less--and less well--than previous generations of students.
Internet reading produces shallower reading than book reading. Internet reading has much more emphasis on reading headlines and blurbs. You hardly ever find deep reading on the internet.
The reading proficiency of college graduates fell 23% in the past ten years.
What used to be considered a proficient high school level of reading is now considered a college level of proficient reading... and only one out of three college graduates reads at that level.
55% of people who read at a "below basic" level are jobless.
HALF of the adults in the USA do not read either to themselves or to their children.
These are only SOME of the findings. Books are no longer bought. New media does allow people to access newspapers and other such things, but, once again, it seems to be more about headlines and subheadings. Some of my family members love reading on their electronic devices (like Kindles, etc.), and that is better than nothing... but it is so easy to simply stop reading those books and move on to other distractions that the devices have on them. People can't seem to stop using apps--they can't stay focused long enough on books.
I cannot explain to you how incredible it feels to read a book with pages and finish that book. To love a book so much that the cover is worn and the pages are bent because it was read so often. When I see brand new books on a shelf and somebody right next to them with headphones on and a cellphone out, it makes me so sad. Books used to be loved. Everyone used to have a library card, and I remember spending hours in the library, pouring over books and finding new and interesting things in them. One of the ways we may be able to prevent a hatred of reading is to go to a public library (and stay OFF of the computers!) and mosey around the shelves, looking at the thousands of titles that are there and waiting for us. You don't have to scroll to search... just stroll! There's no lag, there is a synopsis on the back, you don't have to buy it to read it, and there is no storage space to be eaten up. Seriously--I challenge you to go out and spend at least an hour in a public library and reading this week. I'll do it, too! If we want to have a better future, we need to start reading as a society again.
Please, go out and, as IKEA has just beautifully said, "experience the power of a book book."
The blank in the title is filled in one of two ways. 1). The starving student. Yes, sometimes they go hungry because they are trying very hard to work while going to school, and all of that money goes to school-related costs and rent. This is sad, but understandable. I want to talk about the other way to fill in that blank.
2). The starving artist.
Let's play pretend for a little while, okay?
You are passing out business cards at a job expo for your new work as a private accountant. Your business is something that you have worked extremely hard to create; you have gone to school for years, you have worked hard to build your resume, and you are finally licensed. This is something you are very proud of, and you have a talent for numbers. You're very excited, because a lot of people have been talking to you about the possibility of calling you and giving you work.
A very well-dressed woman comes up to you and looks at your card, then looks at you. ... Oh no. You know that look. It's the look that your roommates in college gave before they asked you to help them figure out their accounts and come up with a budget for them. This woman gives you the once-over, and you know that she's noticing that you're young and probably inexperienced. She knows that you're excited and that you're probably talented and a hard-worker--you wouldn't be here if you weren't, right?
"So," she says, "you're an accountant?"
As if she didn't know that.
"Yes," you say politely. "What is it that you do?"
"I am a business owner. I own the large grocery store on the corner of Main Street."
"Oh! That's wonderful! Congratulations." What else do you say to that?
She smiles somewhat smugly. "Thank you. You know, I was just thinking about getting an accountant to help us out at the store--we have had a good year, but there are some places that we need to figure out how to better use our money within the business."
You're getting excited now. A business might want to hire you! You do your best to look interested, but not horribly excited. "Oh? I would love to be considered for the job." That sounded good. Good job, you!
She smiles. "I was hoping that you would. How long have you been an accountant?"
"I have a resume ready, if you would like to see it." You reach to your table and pull out a resume, which she glances at. You see it on her face--a kind of smug smirk that flits across her lips before being replaced by the smile. You know exactly why this happened, and you try to cover with "I graduated recently, and I am just starting out."
"Oh, that's perfectly fine." She continues to smile as she looks up at you and says, "Since you are looking for more business, I would like to offer you the job in exchange for notoriety."
Your blood freezes. "Excuse me?" you ask, hoping that you misheard.
You didn't. And she's still smiling. "Well, the store gets a great deal of business now, and I can offer to put your business cards on our checkstands as well as your name on a small plaque."
This is a joke. She must be joking. Isn't she? You realize, as she waits for an answer, that she isn't. Seriously? She, instead of offering you the business she knows you are looking for, is telling you that she isn't going to pay you. She thinks that she can get away with compensating you for doing hard, private work by letting you leave your name in her store! Instead of yelling at her ("Do you know how many people actually take business cards or even coupon books from checkstands? Hardly anyone, that is how many! I can't buy food with business cards on your freaking checkstands!"), you simply and politely say, "No, thank you."
I think many artists feel the same pain I feel when I see this.
Now, some of you may have read this and thought, "Okay, this is stupid." I agree. It is. However, this happens in an artist's life a lot. It continues to be stupid. I have found, however, that many people feel like artists don't need to be paid. It's as if people feel like they are doing artists a favor by "letting" them do the art for their company's poster for such and such an event, or "letting" a graphic designer design a business card, or "letting" a newer actor act in a play. I am here to tell you that we artists cannot put food on our tables with you "allowing us" to do something that you need us to do. Artists are used a great deal, and I think it is because we love our craft. I think that people assume that because artists enjoy what they do so much that we will do whatever it takes to have an excuse to do what we love.
Another argument I have heard is that art is a hobby, no matter what form that art may take. That is something I hate hearing very, very much. You wouldn't walk up to Richard Sherman (Pacific Northwest girl; deal with it) or any other member of a major sports team and say, "Look, Mr. Sherman, I think sports are a hobby, so you shouldn't get paid for your work." You sports fans all are hypocrites if you think artists shouldn't be paid because what they do is a "hobby". There is a very large difference between something done as a hobby and something done as a vocation. Miss Business in the opening story might paint in her spare time. Does that make her an artist to be paid for her work? Nope. It's her hobby--she isn't trying to sell her talent or her work; she does it as a pastime. That isn't her living. There are people, however, who paint all of the time and sell their work. There are photographers who spend a great deal of money on their equipment and training in order to sell their photographs. There are cellists who practice every day and have paid a great deal of money in lessons and school in order to be paid to play in a professional orchestra. Et cetera, et cetera. People who have honed their craft and artistic talents have worked hard to be able to make a living off of their work, just like the people who run small businesses or work in the accounting business have. I have two separate degrees in artistic fields, and there is no way that you can tell me that I didn't work as hard to get those as the person over in the school of math and science did for her degrees. The type of work is different, but the effort is the same. I would argue that we artists may spend more time on our schooling than many other professions do because of the amount of work that has to happen outside of the classroom. Artists work hard to get where they are going, and if they don't work hard, it shows.
As you can tell, this topic is one that really hypes me up. I am not alone in my anger at those who don't think artists should be paid, however. Maria Brophy wrote a rather angry piece about it, though her definition of "artist" seems to only refer to those with a paintbrush in hand. She mentions a couple of other kinds of artists that get paid for their work (specifically interior designers and musicians), but I don't think she realizes that many of those artists hardly ever get paid for their work unless they are employed by large corporations or organizations. As I have mentioned, artists get used. Do other people get used? Sure! I mentioned that in my little story; the young accountant was asked by college roommates to do work for free. It happens to everyone... but I would argue that it happens a lot more to people who work with their hands for a living.
The UK seems to know what is up. I applaud this video below. While the statistics may not be exactly what they are in the USA, I have a sneaking suspicion that they are probably very close.
Look, I know that many of you may not care about this. You know what, though? That is part of the problem. I mean, why does everyone accept the phrase "the starving artist" as a job description for those trying to make a living doing what other people may do or see as a hobby? You want to know what one of my hobbies is? Budgeting (and, yes, I actually mean that I like to do that). How is it that if I had taken that hobby to school and received degree in accounting that nobody questions that I would (and should) get paid to budget money, but I shouldn't have to be paid if I want to act in a play after having worked for years to get a degree in theatre?
That is stupid.
That is wrong.
I had really hoped that this would be taken more seriously.
Art is incredibly important in society. When archaeologists are on a dig in a city, what is it that they usually find and cherish? What lasts long enough for them to find and study? Art, my friends. Art. Pottery, paintings on the sides of caves, carvings! All of these things are beautiful and incredibly telling of a culture. We, as people, value art more than we sometimes realize. If you think of a "civilized society", you usually think of some form of art being created in that society. Music, visual art (I am going to include architecture in that category, actually--some architecture is visually stunning), culinary trends, theatre, film, and dance are some of the easiest ways to discern what is important to any given society. We, as people, love art; have you ever been in a house with absolutely nothing on the walls? It's depressing. Empty. It doesn't feel like a home until there is something up on the walls to give it life. Heck, even in the Sims games know that it is important--your Sim will get extremely depressed if you don't put any art in the house. Go ahead. Try it.
Art is important! If we do not pay people to contribute their art to society, we will end up with even more drones getting paid to do things that they don't want to do, like bagging groceries or working at a clothing store as a clerk instead of doing what they really are talented at. Artists should not have to make their art a side business while they work to survive in a job they hate. Nobody deserves that fate.
ALL OF THIS BEING SAID: dear artists, stop accepting nothing for your work. Stop being bullied into thinking that your work or talent is only good enough to do as a hobby. Stop worrying about the people who ask "oh, so what are you planning on doing with that degree?" and go on and DO something with it!
A very successful artist of the writing variety, Neil Gaiman, spoke these very inspiring words, made into visual art by Zen Pencils: make good art. Take a look, no matter who you are. It's pretty awesome. And here is the video of the speech from which the text comes, which should be watched by any artist:
He does mention that you should never do work just for the money, and I agree; but you shouldn't accept a pay-less job.
In the end, nobody deserves to starve, and if someone has practiced for incalculable hours and spent time as a starving student in order to get somewhere with his talent, he as sure as Earth's gravity doesn't deserve to starve simply because nobody wants to pay him for his hard work. There should be no more starving artists. Art is important. Society knows this, though individuals within that society may not. The artist behind the art, therefore, is even more important. That is the maker of the thing that society needs in order to be considered cultured. That is the outside-thinker that offers new ideas. That is a person, dang it, and that person deserves to be paid for his work.
Get this button on the "no more starving artists" link I posted!
First of all, I have to first tell you that I recognize that this may seem like a very strange thing to get so up-in-arms about to some people.
Now, with that out of the way, I am going to go ahead and get all up-in-arms about this Calvin and Hobbes fanfiction.
Many have seen this circulating the internet on social media websites. It was a big thing in July of 2014, but I am sure that it will come back at some point. Social media has a way of doing that. Anyway, I have seen it multiple times, and many people say that it has brought tears to their eyes. I respect those people--they have every right to feel all teary about this sentimental piece of fanfiction. Others say that it "punched [them] right in the feels." I completely agree with these people... but I think the feels that I got punched in are very different than theirs. My feels were very negative. I think the easiest way to some it up is by saying that I felt angry, betrayed, and hurt.
That's right. This little piece of fanfiction actually offended me.
Remember, I know that this may seem like an odd thing to get upset about, but it doesn't change the fact that I really, really am. Upset enough to write a note! Yes, it's a trivial thing in life as a whole... but is it really? Calvin and Hobbes is an incredible comic; it has touched the lives of countless people, and though it stopped being syndicated in 1995, it continues to be eagerly read by even more people. I grew up with these comics, and I adore them. Many others also really like them, but perhaps they have only read a few comics, or maybe all of them once long ago. They know the main character as Calvin and Spaceman Spiff. I, as any other true fanatic, know him by not just those names, but by the following as well: Stupendous Man, Tracer Bullet, Safari Al, and the leader of G.R.O.S.S. (Get Rid of Slimy Girls). To put it bluntly, this boy and his stuffed tiger were my heroes growing up, and they continue to be my heroes. People who have posted this fanfiction are obviously also touched by Calvin and Hobbes, and I love that they are. But it kind of bugs me that people that claim to love the comic are so in love with this little story.
Now then. WHY does this tiny piece of fanfiction bother me so very much (besides the fact that it isn't written very well as far as English teaching standards go)? Well, I will tell you in two different minds (because I have issues with being both extremely emotional AS WELL as extremely realistic/detached).
First, we'll hit the emotional one, since that is what punched me in the first place. Calvin may be only six years old in these comics, but he loves Hobbes. Yes, there are many children whose stuffed animals are their best friends, but Calvin takes it to a brand new level. Really, Calvin doesn't have any friends but Hobbes. He's constantly bullied for being crazy or silly (when his imagination is really something to be envied) and never plays with anyone else, except for Susie Derkins (and, really, he is usually trying very hard to ignore her). Most children have at least a few friends, or are interested in trying to make friends. All Calvin has is Hobbes, and he seems to be okay with that. I would be, too! Hobbes is an amazing, perfect companion. I have stuffed animals that I loved a lot from my childhood and couldn't bear to throw or give away. Calvin had ONE. So I can definitely buy that he still has Hobbes, and hooray for the author for having Calvin keep Hobbes until his dying day. But where has that tiger been this whole time according to the fanfiction?
The attic.
THE ATTIC?!
I have always wanted my own Hobbes.
THIS is what made me reel from the metaphorical (yet strangely very physical) punch in the feels. Calvin would have never put Hobbes in the attic. Ever. Those stuffed animals I have mentioned from my childhood? I didn't have half the bond with them as Calvin did to Hobbes, and I STILL have them. Even though I had stopped seeing them as "real" when I was quite young (so, yes, I can believe that Calvin stopped seeing Hobbes--yay for being realistic in that sense, Mr. Fanfic), I had to apologize to each one as I boxed them up when I left home to go to college. I felt like I was betraying them for putting them in a box, even though I knew that I would be retrieving them as soon as I was done with the transient lifestyle of a college student. And, actually, I took three of my most beloved stuffed animals with me to college. Anyway, if Ihad to apologize to my stuffed animals even though I knew they were just stuffed animals, how on earth would Calvin be able to put Hobbes in the attic? Answer: he wouldn't. Ever.
Some may argue that he's a guy and that doesn't happen to guys. To that I call a very loud and vehement "bull crap" (as well as a "let men feel like they can be allowed to be the very sentimental human beings that they actually are, jerk"). My husband has a stuffed flamingo from his childhood that I am not allowed to even touch sitting up on the shelf in our bedroom closet. So I fully believe that Calvin would still have Hobbes in the house in his adult life. However, even if he was "the typical guy" that supposedly exists and felt like he could put his beloved tiger in the attic, his wife, Susie, would have never let him do that. She loved Hobbes as well (especially when he wore a tie) and knew him as Calvin's best friend. Besides, she arguably has her own sentimental tie to the tiger that would prevent her from allowing him to go to the attic.
Calvin and Hobbes are two very important characters to my childhood.
In essence, I believe that Hobbes would have been with Calvin for every part of his life. Hobbes probably would have had a role to play in the wedding of Calvin and Susie (honestly, they probably would have made him the best man for sentimentality's sake), and he probably would have been on display in the home somehow. He would have never gone in the attic.
Now then. For the other side.
If we were to look at Calvin's relationship with his stuffed tiger in a realistic way, we would see that this six-year-old takes him literally everywhere he goes (unless it's at school... but, on test days, he has been known to smuggle Hobbes in). They go adventuring together all the time. This stuffed tiger has been through the woods, in the snow, in the mud, smeared along grass (especially if Calvinball is in session), and in countless other places. We know that he does get washed every once in a while (and Calvin waits right next to the machines when this happens), but even that would wear on the tiger. Hobbes would, no doubt, be sewn multiple times and be mended in multiple ways throughout the many more years of Calvin's adventurous childhood. However, being out that much that often would eventually make this tiger unable to be played with any longer. Such is the case with my husband's flamingo. So, in a realistic world, Hobbes would be either hanging out with Calvin and Susie on a shelf or in a display case in the house, or he would have been replaced when Calvin was about nine or ten after being loved to smithereens.
But my feels won't allow for the latter option.
SO.
I feel a whole lot better.
I can't be the only fanatic who was bothered by this. I may be the only one that felt enough about it to write a rant about it, but I am sure there are others who feel that this fanfiction seriously diminishes the friendship that Calvin and Hobbes have and that the entire comic series is based upon, even though the author probably meant it to pay homage to it. With so many people claiming to love Calvin and Hobbes while thinking this was a touching scene, I suppose I felt that I needed to defend the incredible friendship that I grew up reading about and adoring. If you want to enjoy a fun fanfiction, check out Hobbes and Bacon, which was created by the comic behind pantsareoverrated.com. I think this man did an incredible job capturing the possible relationship between Susie and Calvin as well as showing us how Calvin passed on his love for Hobbes to his offspring.
Hello! Welcome to my blog. I figure, since you are taking the time to read my thoughts, that you may want to know some stuff about me and why this blog exists. We'll just hop right to it!
A Little Bit About Me
The first thing that you should know is that I am not particularly fond of posting a great deal about myself on the internet, so the following will be relatively non-specific.
This is me. Nice to meet you!
I was born into a very religious, nuclear family in the USA. I grew up mostly in the western side of Washington state, and I have loved it. I ended up being the third child of eight, and I would not trade my childhood for anyone else's. I have since received my AA at eighteen years old from a community college that allows concurrent enrollment to high school students, and I went on to study at a private university, receiving my BA in theatre education with a minor in English teaching. As my major and minor might have already alluded to, I received my teaching certificate in both subjects. I am currently using my education to be a private tutor, but I will become a teacher when I feel like it is the right time to become one. I have lived in three different states, and I love to travel. I am a married mother of one (so far!), and while life has thrown me many hard pitches in my life, I am looking forward to seeing what else it has in store--because I adore learning.
That is, I think, the most important thing in getting to know me as far as this blog is concerned. I gobble up information and go to great lengths to have my questions answered with enough background and authority for me to feel satisfied with the answer I was given; it usually leads to more questions. I have always been this way. I started forming opinions when I was very young about things that my peers were not really concerned about, including presidential debates when in elementary school. While I didn't understand much about what was being said at the time, I would clue into body language, which is something that I have always had a talent in interpreting, and have since had the talent honed in my theatre studies. Because of my very conservative upbringing (large, religious family!) and my very liberal schooling (Western Washington schooling as well as theatre and education in my college career), I have turned out to be very independent politically. I tend to side with Mr. Mike Rowe on this one--many people want to tag him to some political party or another, and he simply doesn't want to belong any of them. I am the same way. Also akin to Rowe is my very loud, opinionated nature. While it is possible for me to keep my opinions to myself when in public, I have found that they end up turning into a massive collection of exclamation points behind my eyeballs. You see, I tend to think a great deal on any given subject before I vocalize an opinion about it, so when I do have something to say, I can go on for quite some time.
"So, Lela," you might ask, "why do you have so many opinions about a myriad of subjects?" Well, even after my explanation of my love of learning and my education training, my history of work positions plays a big role in my many interests: courtesy clerk at a grocery store, produce clerk, lighting technician, AV support, Walt Disney Theme Park attraction host, teaching assistant, student, laundry worker, mom, wife, and all sorts of other things. It has been a fun life! The assortment of jobs with all sorts of different needs associated with them (and many, many different types of people as my coworkers) has left me with thoughts on all sorts of different subjects and experience in many different fields. I am most definitely not an expert on anything, but I do feel that I have received a lot of learning opportunities that many others my age (young, but not "youngin'" young) have not had. This is one of the reasons for my silence in public places to be extremely loud, as I have found that many people like to present themselves as experts in an area that I have learned a bit about, but that they have only read about online because of trending topics on social media. As such, my opinions do not tend to be very popular.
The Blog
I suppose that is why this blog was created: to offer opinions that may not be heard very often. After talking to a few close friends about my feelings and struggling with myself about how to best go about organizing my unpopular thoughts on many, many subjects, I have decided that writing it all down in a medium that allows for various other media to be added to it would be best; what better medium to do that than a blog? The title of this blog is a reflection of the feeling I have when I try to be reserved and quiet about something that I feel very strongly about... which, I admit, is quite a lot of things. The Excited Ellipsis, therefore, is not going to be about any one specific thing, and it is not written with the intent for people to be convinced that I am correct in my thinking. Once again, I do not claim to know all--I keep asking questions because I don't know everything. I have found, however, that one of the best ways to fully "think out" any subject is to write it all down. After journaling most of my life and finding that keeping my opinions all to myself only tended to make my opinionated outbursts more intense, I think that my friends were correct in thinking that I needed to make them accessible to the public.
This is also me. Hi!
Because I am family-oriented and don't take kindly to people being unnecessarily rude, I will not tolerate comments that are created simply to be offensive. Due to my love for learning and my wish to hear others' opinions, I shall read all comments that are posted on my blogs--be prepared to either talk to me via those comments, or to have your comment deleted if I deem it to be rude.
I like to sketch, and I like to relate things to my own life, so you will see some of my work on the blog. There's an example!
By the way, I don't expect much of this, and I want you to understand that. I don't even expect anyone to have read this post. I just want to organize my thoughts in a way that I can let other people choose to "listen to" them or not, rather than me talking somebody's ear off at a social event when I should just keep my mouth shut.
Either way, I am honored that you are here, and that you are reading what I write. Thank you for your understanding, and I hope that all is well with you, no matter where you are.
.jpg)
