[sixthsense2016]

RIP Katherine Dunn :(

http://www.npr.org/2016/05/16/478272730/geek-love-author-katherine-dunn-dies-at-70

NO! Time to re-read it

[sixthsense2016]

[yestomoonshake]

Spooky and also potentially scary

[sixthsense2016]

Per Dr. Sam’s request

[sixthsense2016]

Something must be done but I’ll probably get around to doing it a week or two after it was due

I attended the TO Conference on Tuesday, April 12, 2016, the first of the two days. I really enjoyed the Keynote Address made by Professor Lamy, and I was surprised by how much of it resonated with the ideas I had been generating about my Seminar Paper (A5). There was a specific quote that Lamy referenced regarding a metaphor about a stick being drawn back and then lashing forward with all of the built up force representing oppressed peoples and social change. Having recently been researching racism in Los Angeles and the formation of gangs in South Central, I found this metaphor very poignant and captivating.

My favorite panel that I attended that evening was entitled “The View from the Top”, featuring Meghna Chakraborty, Hanna Fahsholtz, Zora Kidron, Lauren Phillips, and Terek Rutherford. I found the title of the panel interesting and was eager to see how each of the essays fit into that broad context. There were things that worked for me and things that didn’t throughout the panel, but I felt that observing both really contributed to my learning experience, as the conference was a unique opportunity to hear the work of my peers that I have not had the opportunity to share a class with thus far in the TO program. It was interesting and helpful hearing the styles of the different authors and comparing them for strengths and weaknesses while keeping my own writing style in mind. For example, while I felt that the first paper was strong and touched on many interesting thematic issues like feminism, autonomy, gender relations, and character development, it was my least favorite because it was so closely tied to the primary text that she was referencing throughout. I felt like I couldn’t fully appreciate her analysis because I was unfamiliar with the text and much of what she was saying could not strongly stand alone without it. My favorite two papers, by far, were the second and last ones read, but for very different reasons. I thoroughly enjoyed the second, mostly because I was so intrigued by the text she was describing. I feel that I was so interested in the text, however, because her analysis and commentary on the thematic issues within the text were so interesting and well developed. She focussed on themes like oppression, segregation, and the uncanny, integrating the Freud's “Uncanny” into her analysis in ways that seemed novel to me having read the same piece by Freud in the context of our own class. Seeing that text integrated so seamlessly into her paper and her class, having seen it discussed and integrated into my own was interesting as it spoke to the fact that a certain text can be so versatile and support so many unique ideas. I loved the last paper mostly because I was simply astonished by the intelligence and eloquence of the speaker. While the papers thematic issues-- oppression, capitalism, and postmodernism-- were extremely relevant and intriguing, the precision and depth of the analysis and the formal yet captivating reading of the essay were the things that made me really enjoy listening. While all of the speakers were impressive, this particular speaker was phenomenal in all regards. He lives on my floor and is a relatively good friend of mine, so I already knew that he was smart and a good public speaker. Because he is a business major and we have not had the opportunity to be in the same TO class thus far, however, I have not shared an academic setting with him. Seeing him deliver his essay really brought things into perspective for me. It made me really appreciate being in the Thematic Option program and the opportunity that I have to share the classroom with such truly intelligent, thoughtful, and talented peers. I felt so lucky to be part of a program that fosters such ability and draws it out of each of the students in it.

Overall, the conference was an extremely gratifying and enjoyable experience that rekindled my appreciation of my peers, the Thematic Option Program, and USC.

[sixthsense2016]

Better Late Than Never

So I know this is like really late, but better late than never right?  Ok so the Conference.  I paid special attention to my roommate, Niaje Morgan’s paper, because obvi.  I felt kind of like that one obnoxious mom, sitting there giving her two thumbs up throughout the panel J.  But not just that, I felt that she raised an issue that really needed to be heard.  Her paper rejected the notion that we live in a post-racial era and we need only look at the police system for proof.  Her paper and the entire theme of the conference got me thinking—how we often forget that issues raised in the books we read in class especially old ones (Conjure Man Dies) and really odd ones (So Far From God /Geek Love) are grounded in real life and are still problems that don’t end when you close the book.  It’s easy to say “that book was written in 1932 and look how much we’ve progressed since then” or “that would never happen in reality (like everything out of Geek Love)”.  Yes, progress has been made, but so much more needs to be done.  And even the strangest themes had to have been inspired by actual problems recognized by the author.  It is our job as critical readers to detect the greater message of the stories we read, and recognize if not respond to the authors’ call to action.  

[sixthsense2016]

Who is...Rudolph Fisher

So I decided to do some digging on Rudolph Fisher because I bet there’ll be something on Jeopardy about him.  He was quite a Renaissance man (wink wink) as he was not only a physician and author, but also a music arranger and orator.  He wrote a short story "City of Refuge" which also told of the division among the native African immigrants and African Americans in Harlem. He was all about Harlem--most of his stories were set in Harlem and he even nicknamed his son "The New Negro" as a tribute to the Harlem Renaissance.  Interestingly enough, Conjure Man Dies was originally made to be a play, and after his death and when the manuscript was completed, it was produced at the Lafayette Theatre in Harlem 1936.  Maybe Conjure Man Dies would have been more interesting live?  

Catrina thought this story would be better if he had taken himself out of the story.  I agree, but I think that was impossible for him.  As a Harlemite in the midst of this explosion of culture, he was a part of the narrative that he and so many other black authors were inspired by.  It’s obvious that he dedicated his life to the Harlem Renaissance.  His work was rooted in his experience so of course he put himself (and most likely other real Harlemites) into his stories.      

[sixthsense2016]

[sixthsense2016]

Marianna and I had a talk about mansplaining and this video explained it way better than I could. 

[sixthsense2016]

Diverse Ideas, A+ Food

I had a lot of fun attending the conference! I love having an excuse to dress up, even just a little bit, and I can’t say T.O. treated us poorly with that dinner. Anyway, what surprised me most about the conference was just how profound the keynote address was, and just how diverse the perspectives of the students were. 

I know I sounded very critical during class (and to an extent, I still am), but I was fascinated by the fact that in a single panel, there was an essay about the violence that results from racial profiling, one making the case for racial profiling, an essay about queer theory, and one that gave a radical (potentially Room 237-esque?) interpretation of Fight Club (an interpretation that, by the way, I loved). It also opened my eyes to all the fantastic stuff that other T.O. classes are also learning! I even wrote down some books mentioned during the panel that sounded interesting (White Boy Shuffle?). 

It also reminded me that one of my favorite things about T.O. is just how oddly specific all of our classes are, but I love it. The way that we discuss and analyze such detailed aspects of literature and culture is unique to say the least. I can’t imagine taking a “Sixth Sense” class anywhere else at USC. T.O. just provides such a quality experience, and the diversity of opinions that it fosters is liberating. Also, the fact that I knew so many people at the conference spoke to something else: the close-knit family that is T.O. This program is such a personal and intimate experience, and no other writing class would encourage this level of camaraderie. I have made my best friends at USC in T.O., and for that, I am very grateful.

[sixthsense2016]

Sobering Experience

Stepping into the conference building was a lot more intimidating than expected. The reception area was a pretty cramped place with people pushing against each other in order to get a nametag or to check in. There were no visible signs pointing out the different rooms which made navigating and trying to find a friend a challenge. However, after overcoming the initial confusion, the night went amazing. The food was great, venue was beautiful, and the presentations were spectacular. I was amazed at how many people were presenting, each with a unique idea and a unique twist on it.

I had the fortune to attend the “Rock the Boat” presentation, and let me tell you, it was one of the most depressing hours I have ever been through… in a good way though. The panel’s ideas were all united by the fact that something extreme needs to be changed for the better. The topics ranged from robotic revolutions, to the importance of silence and everything in between. The reason why the panel was so sobering and somber was the fact that all of these presentations brought out the thought provoking questions and took worst issues presented in the primary text to try and fix them. For example, in the paper Silent at Sea it explores the slave narrative or the lack of by explaining the power of silence. It was brutal and shocking how entire generations of people could be wiped completely from history, without a single trace of the slave narrative while the only thing remaining of them is the absence on something, silence. It was a powerful paper that supplemented the extremely abstract idea of silence with handouts. Additionally, along with the depressing lack of narrative of the slaves were the two conflicting ideas presented in the conference. One being, the singular focus on morality causes someone to be absent from life. That someone who spends their whole life trying to leave a legacy, focused on that singular topic will not have lived in the first place. This singular mindset presented in a paper is contradicted by another paper who stated that “only when we accept death is when we start to live”. Life is meant to be lived out in its fullest and death should not be obsessed over.

Not only did the presenters present thought provoking ideas that really stuck with me, they also successfully defended themselves and their papers with questions the audience asked. Being in a conference setting was a really interesting and motivating experience. I feel driven after listening to so many good papers to strive to grow myself as a writer and as a person.

[sixthsense2016]

Writing this literally in front of you right now, Sam

Working at the T.O. office, I had heard a lot about the conference from students and staff all year. Reviews were rave, and I’ve anticipated this event for months now. But I didn’t quite know what it entailed--just how wonderful it was--until last week.

I’ll state the obvious: the food was incredible. The venue was awesome. The audience posed thoughtful questions, and the whole night went off flawlessly. But as great as the food, the guests, the location was, that wasn’t my favorite part. What I loved most of all was hearing the engaging ideas of the presenters, and recognizing just how fortunate I am to be surrounded by such brilliant individuals in this program. My panel, for example, featured presenters on such issues as rebellion and sexual oppression, or my own topic, the ethics behind the death penalty. 

Hearing these students share their ideas, I realized just how lucky I am. The caliber of writing and oral presentations is something I strive to emulate in my own classes, but man did they raise the bar for me. One essay in particular, about the film Thelma and Louise, spoke about the inherent human desire for rebellion and how we may turn to creative outlets to channel this desire constructively. Not only was it a fascinating read, but it was so so well written. I have this mindset, like many others, where I never want to be the smartest person in the room. Surrounding myself with people that challenge me allows me to grow as a writer and an individual, and I hope that comes to fruition as I continue my academic career.

Beyond the genius behind the essays themselves, though, I am fortunate to be part of the community that is T.O. My friends came to see me present, as I came to their panels as well. As you sat in the dining hall and looked around, you could witness the friendly conversations between people from all walks of life, that have found their families in this program. Above the jovial buzz of conversation and the clinking of silverware, was the sense that we were part of something bigger, something together.

I had been told the T.O. conference is one of the greatest nights of the year, and now I see why. 

[sixthsense2016]

Nothing Must Be Done (cuz TO is already amazing)

At ExploreSC, I remember distinctly waiting in my seat for another one of those presentations that shove another part of USC down your throat until you are so filled by the school that you become a part of it. Except, this was the one presentation I opted to go to. As I prepared to leave high school, I knew that I wanted the liberal arts to be a part of my college education. But as I stared down the pre-professional behemoth that is the World Bachelor in Business program, I knew its measly three elective slots would not satisfy me. Thematic Option, “an honors alternative,” seemed to be the answer to my quandary. I happily thought that, until Richard opened his presentation with: “We accept all majors into the Thematic Options program. That is, except for WBB majors, you guys know who you are.” *tears*

About a month later, as I mentally prepared to resign myself to what seemed like a life without the humanities, I read somewhere that USC planned to revamp their GE system. I hit the interwebs and found just enough loopholes in the new version that, if exploited, would give me enough room in my freshman year to complete the six Thematic Option course requirements. (I originally planned to take 4 TO courses in the spring. Lulz) I sent a bajillion emails to academic directors, counselors, and even called a dean to work out how I could be the first student to combine TO with WBB. The conversation to do so, that started in April 2015, didn’t end until the week before registration for second semester of that same year. The fear that my credits would not transfer through to HKUST and Bocconi loomed over my head like an axe for the entirety of my first semester of college, because should the two partner institutions not accept TO, I may have been forced to drop out of WBB entirely. It stressed me out immensely, but not once did I regret my choice to pursue TO. I was in love and who gives a damn when you’re in love.

Now, I realize that none of this post thus far has mentioned the TO Conference, but I wanted to give the context as to why being able to present meant so much to me. To be chosen, to see my name on the program, to feel the honor of the applause made me absolutely ecstatic. To see the immense intelligence and eloquence of my panel woven together into a powerful strand of truth through an interactive discourse between the speakers, audience, and moderator was one of the most beautiful things I’ve ever experienced. 

And I would have never gotten there if it weren’t for a handful of key individuals. Professor Nunes, thank you so much for being the first to trust my determination to get into TO. Richard, thank you so much for being flexible and courteous throughout all the miscommunication with me and HKUST. Professor Handley, you are so frickin smart. Honestly, such an inspiration. Professor Smith, thank you so much for showing me an entirely new side of art and for allowing me to write my final paper on hip-hop dance. My dance team wants me to present it at our end of the year banquet and Steezy mentioned that they may want to publish it. WOOOOHOOOOO. Dagmar, I will forever credit you with whipping my writing into shape. I really cannot understate the growth I underwent in your class. So so sorry for falling asleep all the time. 

And Sam, I know I wrote my A3 on Synecdoche, New York and mansplained what I saw as the limitations of the humanities. Well, let this tumblr post be a testimony to the humanities’ power. Your class is by far the one I look forward to the most and as you go forward as a doctor, know that you have a real hack for this kind of thing. Thank you for an amazing semester. 

So yeah, the conference was cool. 

[sixthsense2016]

I’m One of the Nuts

As I’m sure you all know, I have a few ideas about The Shining myself. When asked to write about my favorite conspiracy theory, I had a hard time choosing because they were all so very entertaining. However, entertaining does not necessarily = comprehensible. Some of the theories in Room 237 were simply so mind-blowingly insane that I had to wonder just how much watching The Shining had affected the interviewees’ grasp of reality. Kubrick’s face in the clouds? Excuse me? Or how about that nonsense about Ullman’s erect penis - in what world does that make any sense? In response to the absolutely crazy stuff that Room 237′s interviewees claim to be esoteric truths, I would like to posit my own (potentially insane) theory about The Shining.

These people seem to lack all sense of irony. The amount of time they devote to “cracking codes” is disturbingly, to say the least. I am convinced that they are convinced that what they are seeing in this film is true. So, how come there is such a broad community of people who are driven to obsessive irrationality thanks to The Shining? Well, just as The Overlook sparks something in Jack that pushes him off the edge, The Shining might very well be designed to make people lose their minds. Now, I know what you’re thinking - “he’s reading way too much into this.” But, it is a well-known fact that Stanley Kubrick was anything but sympathetic towards his audience, and I know that I have never stepped away from The Shining without feeling a deep, upsetting sense of discomfort. Something about that movie has “bad vibes” written all over it, and I think that there may very well be something malicious about it. This movie “shines” in the evil way that the Overlook Hotel shines. THE ANSWERS ARE OUT THERE, PEOPLE.

[sixthsense2016]

I’m not stupid, you’re all just crazy

I have to admit, while watching Stanley Kubrick’s The Shining, I was incredibly confused and frustrated. I was confused because as each scene of the film progressed, my idea of what the film was about became increasingly convoluted until I was left with merely a vague idea of what the basic plot was and no conceivable idea of what I was supposed to take away from it. I was frustrated because I saw this confusion as an indication of intellectual or creative inferiority. As someone who approached The Shining from an academic perspective, I was frankly annoyed when so much of the meaning went so obviously over my head. I was thus very excited to watch Room 237, hoping it would reveal the intended meaning that I had missed. Unfortunately, I came away from Room 237 even more frustrated. I was searching for an answer and I was met with a variety of conspiracy theories and ideas but nothing truly concrete. I can appreciate the provocative nature of the film and acknowledge that Kubrick is a creative genius, I’m just genuinely bothered that I can not access and comprehend that genius when watching and pondering his product.

My least favorite theory presented in Room 237 was that The Shining was a reflection on Native American genocide. I found the presented analysis interesting and I was impressed by the thorough examination of each scene, however I could not get passed a persistent question. If Kubrick wanted to make a film about Native American genocide, why wouldn’t he choose to present the subject matter in a way so that his audience, the general public, would understand? If Kubrick knew that that was what The Shining was about, but also knew that only he would be able to fully comprehend that meaning, is the movie itself not devoid of purpose? In other words, if a film has a meaning that an audience can not understand, does it not strip the film of its meaning for it failed to mean something to its intended recipients?

My favorite theory presented in Room 237 was that Kubrick was subtlety confessing to faking the moon landing footage. This theory was far more appealing to me personally as it is logical that Kubrick would have no desire to make a movie that explicitly confessed to such an act, but rather to express his guilt creatively and provocatively. That motive makes sense. 

Although I have dwelled extensively on Kubrick’s motive, I do understand that a film’s significance is not derived by what the creator intended, but rather by what the audience takes away. Based on the degree of study and numerous accounts of complete fascination with The Shining in Room 237, obviously The Shining must be considered a meaningful masterpiece, for so many people are able to draw their own conclusions and think critically about the film. This idea lends itself well to my favorite theory of all that I have encountered regarding Kubrick’s intention with The Shining. Last week in class, we theorized that perhaps Kubrick’s intention was to make the audience go crazy just like Jack. Each of the theory providers featured in Room 237 do exhibit a degree of abnormal obsession. As they watch and analyze each and every second of the film, watch it backward, create elaborate diagrams, and seek out evidence for their own theory of meaning, they are simply falling prey to Kubrick’s sinister plan of mass manipulation. This is my favorite theory because not only is it hilarious imagining intellectuals everywhere seeking out answers and Kubrick simply sitting back and chuckling menacingly, but it also makes me feel better about myself. Since I’m unable to find meaning in the film, it must have no meaning, and anybody that says it does is crazy. Sure, I like the sound of that.

[sixthsense2016]

Pastness?

Oh my God what did I just watch?!  I can only imagine this is what a bad freshman essay sounds like—a bunch of unfounded “therefore’s” and cheesy hallmark lines that don’t add any substanceJ.  The part that made me laugh the hardest was when the narrator was speaking about Kubrick’s commentary on the past.  He says “Stanley Kubrick is thinking about the implications of everything that exists…He is like a mega brain for the planet...”  You have got to be kidding me.  This guy thinks that like our dreaming brains, Kubrick boiled all of history, “all of the patterns of our world”, and presented it to us in the form of The Shining.  The real kicker comes in what he says next, “there is a lot of evidence that what Kubrick gave us in The Shining is a movie about the past…not just any past, but the past. I mean past-ness”.  What does “past-ness” even mean?!  As many of you know, I was a little scared by The Shining J, but this documentary might be even more frightening.  Anyone who watches that movie enough times to come up with theories like this are those most liable to become Jacks.  Avoid at all costs!      

[sixthsense2016]

Bringing it all together at conference

Not going to lie, I was pretty terrified about conference. Everyone kept assuring me I was going to be great, but that only seemed to make me more nervous. I had classes during the other panels, so I could only attend my own and didn’t get to benefit from watching someone go before me. I was shaking a little as I walked into the room. Walking out, it was one of my favorite TO experiences yet.

We had an audience of three people. Although that might seem disappointing, it honestly allowed for a nice discussion about a number of different papers, helping make the environment feel more personable, friendly, and inclusive. I was actually surprised by how much the themes in the other papers tied directly into what we had been discussing in class. One girl wrote a paper about machines that knew when they would “expire,” or die, and how they could give themselves more life. She compared it to humanity, and the idea about what knowing about our own death and timeline does to us. We had the exact same discussion in our class, only with psychic knowing instead of technology. In another paper, a girl talked about performing gender roles and how aggressively playing a false sense of masculinity hurts the emotional development of a man. We too spoke about this idea when reading Don’t Look Now in that John was too afraid to express himself or deal with psychic phenomena possibly because he was a man. 

This really got me thinking; how can all these other classes be discussing the same ideas brought up in a class about psychics? And that’s when it hit me: I was drawing lines that didn’t need to exist. I was partaking in the same behavior we criticized in class. Science, art, mysticism, religion, and everything else don’t need to be categorized as separate fields or as completely different entities solving unique, different problems. Rather, they are all trying to address the same questions, the same problems, and the same fears all people have. These different ways of looking at things give us different tools of reasoning, but ultimately they all lead us towards the same goal. That’s when I truly understood the beauty of TO: by truly being an interdisciplinary program, we learn to appreciate all ways of thinking about a problem. Artists aren’t separate from the scientists, and the psychics aren’t separate from the doctors. Sure, we all know about different things more than others, but when we all come together to discuss and bridge our different ideas together, and when we see we all have the same big ideas and want the same solutions after all...well, maybe when we start working together we’ll start discovering real solutions to the problems at hand. No more drawing lines for me--from this day forward, I take the TO vow to appreciate all ways of seeing the same coin. Also, we should totally have some group discussions with other CORE 112 classes sometime about random topics. That could be really fun and cool! Something must be done to make that happen!

[sixthsense2016]

I Did It Mom, I Faked the Moon Landing

And the only two words that can spell... are “moon” and “room”.........

SO THAT OBVIOUSLY MEANS IT’S ABOUT STANLEY KUBRICK FAKING THE MOON LANDING OH MY GOSH....

So I actually couldn’t get through this conspiracy theory without laughing, so that’s why I decided it was my favorite one in Room 237. 

This theorist believes that the Shining was not actually an adaptation of Stephen King’s novel of the same name, but actually Kubrick explaining what it was like to make a deal with the U.S. government to fake the moon landing. While I was watching this movie, I kept wondering what Kubrick would have thought of the fact that this man genuinely believed he faked the moon landing. Personally, I do not believe that “moon” and “room”, an Apollo 11 sweater, changing the room number from 217 to 237 because it’s 237,000,000 miles to the moon from Earth, or Jack yelling at Wendy about his employers constitutes overwhelming proof that Kubrick helped design the footage to fake the moon landing. What made this theory all the more hilarious and entertaining was how confident the man seemed in his assertions that Stanley Kubrick had to have faked the moon landing. 

The only reasonable bit of close film analysis that the theorist did, which I found moderately intelligent, was the bit about Jack’s monologue about his employers to Wendy actually being Kubrick raging against his wife about faking the moon landing. There are definite parallels to be drawn, since both would be yelling at their wives about employers that they were unsatisfied with. However, I think most people would not interpret this to mean Kubrick faked the moon landing, but would instead use this monologue to analyze Jack’s attitude towards work and the traditional family dynamic and his obligations to his family. 

Not only did this theorist choose to relate The Shining to the moon landing, he also had to drag 2001: A Space Odyssey down as well, asserting that that Stanley Kubrick film had been a test to see if Kubrick was capable of producing footage to fake the moon landing. And according to the moon theorist, Kubrick passed the test since The Shining after all, is definitely Stanley Kubrick saying “Guys I did it. I faked the moon landing.” However, one point of the theorist’s that I did support was how Kubrick having the red buggy in a car crash and have Jack drive a yellow buggy instead was a big “f you” to Stephen King. Often times, directors take artistic license with novels or stories that they adapt, and sometimes that makes the author slightly upset. Well more than slightly upset actually, since Stephen King professed to hating Kubrick’’s adaption of the Shining.

Overall, I liked the moon theory best because I thought it was the most ridiculous, and it made me laugh.