some english nonsense

real blog: http://tookishbehavior.tumblr.com/

[kempenitreal]

What’s right?

The couple that is being described by T. Coraghessan Boyle in her short story called She Wasn’t Soft are seemingly polar opposites. I am only half way through it and I can see the positive and negative aspects in both of the ways they live their lives. She is hard, and he is soft. She thinks she is above people because of how hard she works and trains. He could care less about his status compared to everyone else. She lives for triumph. He lives to chill. Yet when the history of their relationship is described it is like they are seeking out what they aren’t in each other. And they way the relationship is playing out presently is quite turbulent in emotion. He is drunk and she is focused. She is on the edge of something very important to her and he just won’t give her the space she needs to get in the zone. He is living day to day and enjoying the moment and she won’t come along with him. Their relationship doesn’t seem like one that will last forever, but one that they will both learn and grow from. Isn’t that the only thing that anyone can consider right? That learning and growing is definitely a good next step? Is she better for being hard- working or is he better for being harmless? They are both content. They are both right. 

[kempenitreal]

In the house of Goldberry and Tom Bombadillo

The movie of The Fellowship of the Ring left out a pretty interesting part of the book. When the hobbits are saved from the black rider by Tom Bombadillo he takes them to his house and introduces them to his endlessly scintillating wife, Goldberry. It is a pleasant part of the book, but the most interesting part I found was when Frodo asks Tom who he is. Tom goes on to say that he was there before everything else, he is the oldest thing and he remembers everything before anything else. He remembers the first acorn and the first rain and when the elves came west. I instantly related this to Theology because we are talking about the necessity and contingency and the ontological argument and blah. It just made me think that maybe there was never a nothing, and always a something. So there is no something that made something out of nothing, the necessary being, but there was always a something that flowed into another something that bounded into another something. I wrote in my theology forum that I thought that the universe was a double helix of logic and love and that there was no beginning to it but it would end when we realized that they were one in the same, not existing without the other. I guess that made me wonder that if there is something, if this is all something, then there would have to be a nothing. But I think that exists everywhere where things are done for no reason. When a hole of dark matter expands, or when someone just up and decides that someone is not worth their time. Maybe that's what makes up the outside of the double helix, things that happen with no logic or love. 

[kempenitreal]

Jane AusTEN/TEN

I love language. I don't love how it feels that my generation reacts linguistically from a set list of phrases that are trending on twitter at that time to any given situation. The way that Austen's characters and many characters from the time use such vocabulary that I must be consistently learning and using context clues in order to be able to understand. The way that they are able to say precisely what they mean without the any 'likes' or 'ya knows?'. The way that they are witty and sarcastic and intelligent and endlessly literate just makes me so satisfied with the plot no matter what is happening. I think this is why I loved The Hobbit so much as well. The amount of pleasantness that is added to a certain aesthetic is so vast when politeness and descriptiveness and honesty and vocabulary are involved. I JUST LIKE THE WAY THEY TALK IT'S SO NEAT-O. 

[kempenitreal]

It's 12:04 AM

I haven't checked my portal or anything, but I'm reading some pretty good poetry. It's by Charles Bukowski he's got a lot and most of it is good. I feel bad saying that some of it is really bad because this writer is probably a lot smarter than me and a lot better but some of his stuff makes me hate him and some of his stuff makes me like his thoughts. Some of it's pompous and some of it's beautiful and it makes me wonder if all creative writers have some sort of chip on their shoulder towards other writers like 'yeah, you said it first but I could have said it better.' This sounds kinda dumb but it's 12:07 AM and I haven't checked my portal or anything. Good night, good morning, congratulations to all you disciplined, unprocrastinating scholars out there, keep doing what you're doing. 

[kempenitreal]

Is science art?

I think both art and science take a significant amount of creativity and open- mindedness. Seeing a sunset and considering rotation of the earth and light particles and the color spectrum is just as lovely as considering colors and significance and beauty. The products and the thought processes are not the same, and they may be occurring on different sides of the brain. But I think there is still a certain amount of curiosity and appreciation necessary to even start to consider the wondrous stuff of everyday.