Hero: It's a nice-boy notion that the real world's gonna destroy

A friend and I went to see Beowulf tonight (in 3-D, for what it's worth). I'm glad I saw it--but the gladness is more from an academic standpoint than from an actual sense of true enjoyment. You feel immersed in the movie, but more because it feels like an immersive experience than a good, well-rounded story.

But then, I'm a purist.

Some of the changes actually weren't bad. The original Beowulf doesn't follow the Aristotelean plot arc quite to my personal satisfaction--that Grendel's mother is changed significantly makes for a better story, for example, though the ending is depressing as all heck. No--the thing that bothered me was how all of the Christology was treated. It seemed like every few minutes there was a new subtle poke at Christianity. The unfinished tapestry illustrating Christ's ascension. The abusive nature of the sole worshipper of the "new Roman god." The burning cross on Beowulf's funeral pyre. The movie's message is apparent: there's no such thing as a savior, and those who claim to be one probably caused the problems they eventually solved in the first place. If we're lucky, we might magically manage to avoid falling into the same trap as our predecessors, but probably not.

Should I have expected anything less from a screenplay that was co-authored by one of the co-author of Good Omens? I suppose not. But I'd rather they had left the Christian stuff out entirely. The movie just leaves you with a feeling of utter despair; in fact, the demons have a distinct upper hand. Compare it to the end of the poem itself--Beowulf isn't strong enough to kill the dragon by himself, but with the help of his companion, he manages it. Yes, Beowulf dies; but good triumphs over evil, and there's a new hero in town.

Actually, I think that's at least part of the message of the original: heroes are the ones who can fulfill justice when another no longer can. Beowulf fulfills the social obligations Hrothgar can't at the beginning (form of extracting the wergild, or the reparations for various peoples' deaths, out of Grendel), and eventually Wiglaf takes over for Beowulf. Point: even heroes need a redeemer, but the movie never gives them one. In fact, the only social obligation fulfilled is
the wergild granted to Grendel's mother, form of a new child to replace the dead one, thereby creating the monster of a consequence the next hero has to fight.

How utterly hopeless, right? Sounds like the sort of vicious cycle only a hero can break. Too bad there aren't any.

Another intriguing idea

A middle school teacher is apparently using a twitter account to have his (and other!) students collaboratively write a story. I have to wonder what the purpose is, of course; is it simply collaboration for the sake of collaboration, or is it a lesson on the Aristotelean story arc? ("Sure, you can have a woman and baby run screaming--as long as you do something with it.") My friends and I used to play a story called "and then," which is similar in concept; I promise you, though, our stories were incredibly silly. That this teacher thinks he can corral something worthwhile out of this may overly optimistic. It will be interesting to see how it all turns out.

It's fascinating, though. Dig deeper into mrmayo.org (the teacher's blog/projects page) and you see a lot of internet-based learning. They're doing digital childrens' books. They're using Skype to talk to people like Susan Linn, head of the Campaign for Commercial-Free Childhood--a conversation I'm pretty sure led to the class's current reading: Animal Farm. He's got his students blogging as opposed to keeping reading journals. They've got a book on Lulu. Digital integration into the classroom? That's crazy talk. I think a lot of teachers on all level (including the collegiate) could learn from him.

Point of Amusement

I love how this article from the Lansing State Journal about a website doesn't actually state the URL anywhere in the article itself--and the side link a) isn't hyperlinked, and b) doesn't copy/paste well. I had assumed it was a convention: if writing for a print medium (i.e., a newspaper), one ought always cite the url for all but the most common of sites right after its name so the reader can cite the site on sight.

(...cite the site on sight, lest they incite the.... uhm... ok, gonna go now.)

An update? Craziness!

Two bits of news:

(1) I just registered wasabijane.com, so hopefully soon I'll start blogging over there. I'd been needing a portfolio site for a while. The 100mb MSU offered just isn't enough if you do anything fancier than plain html, and anyway, my own domain should be a bit more permanent. After all, what kind of digital rhetor doesn't have her own domain?

(2) Projects kicked my butt this week. I don't even have the server space (yet) to post one of my projects (ironically, the one that's just a paper)--my server space won't be activated for a day or two. However, my other course has all students' projects online, and they're worth checking out. This includes mine, of course, but I'm not direct-linking it here yet--long story that I'll explain in a few days. Just realize the version that's up is actually a draft. A near-final draft, but a draft.

Barriers to entry

I had the opportunity today to participate in an online conversation hosted by one of my pastors. It was... educational. There were technology problems, for one thing; on my end, figuring out the software was more difficult than it should have been, and at one point the pastor's line went dead (not the best of circumstances, considering that he was the one hosting the discussion).

On a personal level, I'm not a phone person. At all. In general, I'm a much more eloquent writer than speaker. Actually, Moses' plea that he is slow of speech has always resonated with me; as a child, I actually had to go to speech therapy because (a) I couldn't say the letter "r," and (b) I tend to pause a lot and fill in gaps with multiple "umms" and "uhs." This has, of course, impacted my life in a number of ways, but that's a different blog post. For now, suffice it to say that any technology that requires speech is less than pleasant. I am in no way cognitively impaired, and chances are nobody realizes I had a speech impediment, but using a technology dependent on orality is still a barrier to entry to me.

Chances are, I'm in the minority on that one. Still, it's an interesting thought. As my pastor tries to build a collaborative site, he has to consider what people use. One of my favorite stories from Tapscott's Wikinomics is of the CEO of GeekSquad's attempt to build a wiki. Despite the tech-geek nature of GeekSquad members, the wiki never really took off. It turned out that members were already collaborating elsewhere--in a MMO, in fact.

So, of course, the question for my pastor is, what technologies are users of his new site already using to collaborate? It may be, in his case, that I'm the minority in hating phones; it might be the best option for him. Still, it's interesting to ponder from an accessibility standpoint. Is universality an impossibility?

A Case of Questionable Rhetoric

I find this Onion article--"Female Serial Killer has to Work Twice as Hard to Achieve Notoriety"--to be in less than stellar taste. It's not the article itself; this is the Onion after all--it's the fact that they chose to locate the killer in Michigan. To be fair, they put their fictionalized killer in Otsego, which is just north of Kalamazoo on the west side, but considering Lansing is actually in the early stages of trying a suspected serial killer, the timing and location is... less than wonderful. I suppose it could be worse; they could have set it in mid-Michigan, or they could have put a satirized shooting spree in a northern Wisconsin town, but still, a little bit of forethought would have been nice.

I'm not sure what to think of this

This email came through the university listserv today:

Google, Microsoft, and other companies are offering, at no charge, an
increasingly diverse set of online, web-based software tools, many of which
provide standard "office" functions such as document and slide deck
production and management, spreadsheeting and communications, including
e-mail. These tools run on company (vendor) servers, and user files and
other content are stored on company systems as well. The no-cost option is
attractive to many University units, faculty and staff. However, due to the
terms of use and business models being applied to these tools, they MAY NOT
be used in the conduct of University work.


To illustrate one concern, the terms to which you agree when you use Google
Apps (http://www.google.com/accounts/TOS?hl=en) include the following; which
compromises the University's intellectual property rights and the security of University records:


"You [user] retain copyright and any other rights you already hold in
Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services. BY
SUBMITTING, POSTING OR DISPLAYING THE CONTENT YOU GIVE GOOGLE A PERPETUAL, IRREVOCABLE, WORLDWIDE, ROYALTY-FREE, AND NON-EXCLUSIVE LICENSE TO REPRODUCE, ADAPT, MODIFY, TRANSLATE, PUBLISH, PUBLICLY PERFORM, PUBLICLY DISPLAY AND DISTRIBUTE ANY CONTENT WHICH YOU SUBMIT, POST OR DISPLAY ON OR THROUGH, THE SERVICES. . You agree that this license INCLUDES A RIGHT FOR GOOGLE TO MAKE SUCH CONTENT AVAILABLE TO OTHER COMPANIES, ORGANIZATIONS OR INDIVIDUALS WITH WHOM GOOGLE HAS RELATIONSHIPS for the provision of syndicated services, and to use such Content in connection with the provision of those services." (emphasis added)


Furthermore, neither Google nor Microsoft makes any promise to back up
content, secure confidential or proprietary content, or provide free service
for any particular period of time. If they change their minds about the
business utility of this model, it may simply go away one day.


Contract terms like these do not provide appropriate protection for
University business records or documents. If software tools like these are
used in instruction, they may compromise student intellectual property
protections. They may also adversely affect commercialization or
publication of intellectual property created by faculty. Because
individuals frequently do not know that they are creating University
business records, including student records, in the course of doing their
daily work at MSU, ANY use of these sorts of online tools must be avoided.
Individuals or units contemplating use of any software tool or online
service should carefully read and consider the terms of use, and seek
appropriate legal or other review from University administrative offices
when terms of use are incompatible with University policy or exceed the
relevant administrator's authority.

Now I'm a big fan of Google and have used Google Docs for several things, both school-related and personal. I'm also distinctly not a fan of the university's webmail system (128 MB limit? Seriously?). I do, however, understand the university's concerns. Are they being neo-luddites? I'm not sure. I'll have to do some more thinking about this.