Skip to main content

After the meldwon--cotton-candy pixie play? (2 March 2009)

"'excellence, however, is rather simple.' Ummm... no it's not. Excellence is elegant. Elegance can make excellence appear simple. But excellence is never ever simple. Excellence is always preceded by years of toil: deliberate, intense, comprehensive study and carefully reflected upon experience.

More and more we seem to believe in notions of instant gratification. Knowledge and skill is just a download away...not. Sorry to break it to ya kids, but for the foreseeable future there are certain things that our meatrix can and can't do.

And no it's not just hard work. Everyone works hard (except for maybe the richest, as there's no way they could ever work hard enough to justify their wealth).

Patty you go on to prove my point. To take your example:Tired: Mac vs. PC commercials and lacking the creativity to communicate in your own tropes.Wired: You figure it out. Oh, and realizing that just bitching is part of the problem. Bitching is easy. Bitching is simple. Bitching is not excellence.Cotton candy spinnery is all fluffy sweet, but it's a nutritional desert. It's all just clever trash. What a life waste that is." (James Burns)

James, Your way of narrating the development of excellence is one many readers may be familiar with, but they ought to know that many people believe genius, great creativity, emerges only when people look at life with an attitude of spirited play. Progressive educators like Alfie Kohn and Stanley Greenspan have the same end as you do -- they want kids to grow up truly creative, but they see this end as coming through getting kids to relax, take chances, being more than willing to look stupid, take delight in what they do: the care-free approach. They avoid the kind of talk you're offering -- that is, of taking care, being deliberate, of comprehensive study -- because it makes learning seem "tight" and arduous, with pleasure not as something that arises naturally enough from -- because it is inherently part of -- the doing, but as something you get after many years, and only after much pain and frustration. Personally, I find your attitude toward rewards a bit calvinist: where creativity MUST be seen as emerging from toil because any other kind of life MUST be judged as about instant gratification, lazyness-- as about bad stuff, for bad people, heading nowhere at all good.

I think to show me up as unimaginative (and not just as someone que n'est pas au current), rather than argue that my turning to the P.C. vs. Mac trope by itself showed I couldn't have much of a mind, you would have done better (or at least have reached me more effectively) if you had shown how I used the Mac vs. P.C. trope with little imagination. Poets/rhetoriticans can show great creativity when they fashion new tropes or other poetic forms/devices, but they can show their stuff just as well when they make effective, imaginative use of the materials already at hand. The tropes in pastoral poetry are familiar to all who use them, for example: the fun is in seeing how they tease and twist their shepherds, lovers, flowers, and nymphs, in novel ways that delight, surprise, and convince.

For me, turning kids on to the possibilities of itunesU isn't about instant gratification. It's about getting kids to know that THEY can be the ones in charge of their own education, about not being so ready to bow their heads to the powers that be. It's about empowerment, the nurturance of self-belief and self-esteem: for me, the kinds of things that engender creative exploration. I think that if they nurture this attitude toward their world, their development will become worth our demarcation and study -- that is, I think my cotton-candy talk can lead to the enterprises you would like to see more of in society, and when table-talk turns to the post-secondary.

Link: After the Meltdown, Back to Post-Secondary?

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Discussion over the fate of Jolenta, at the Gene Wolfe facebook appreciation site

Patrick McEvoy-Halston November 28 at 10:36 AM Why does Severian make almost no effort to develop sustained empathy for Jolenta -- no interest in her roots, what made her who she was -- even as she features so much in the first part of the narrative? Her fate at the end is one sustained gross happenstance after another... Severian has repeated sex with her while she lay half drugged, an act he argues later he imagines she wanted -- even as he admits it could appear to some, bald "rape" -- but which certainly followed his  discussion of her as someone whom he could hate so much it invited his desire to destroy her; Severian abandons her to Dr. Talus, who had threatened to kill her if she insisted on clinging to him; Baldanders robs her of her money; she's sucked at by blood bats, and, finally, left at death revealed discombobulated of all beauty... a hunk of junk, like that the Saltus citizens keep heaped away from their village for it ruining their preferred sense ...

Salon discussion of "Almost Famous" gang-rape scene

Patrick McEvoy-Halston: The "Almost Famous'" gang-rape scene? Isn't this the film that features the deflowering of a virgin -- out of boredom -- by a pack of predator-vixons, who otherwise thought so little of him they were quite willing to pee in his near vicinity? Maybe we'll come to conclude that "[t]he scene only works because people were stupid about [boy by girl] [. . .] rape at the time" (Amy Benfer). Sawmonkey: Lucky boy Pull that stick a few more inches out of your chute, Patrick. This was one of the best flicks of the decade. (sawmonkey, response to post, “Films of the decade: ‘Amost Famous’, R.J. Culter, Salon, 13 Dec. 2009) Patrick McEvoy-Halston: @sawmonkey It made an impression on me too. Great charm. Great friends. But it is one of the things you (or at least I) notice on the review, there is the SUGGESTION, with him being so (rightly) upset with the girls feeling so free to pee right before him, that sex with him is just further presump...

The Conjuring

The Conjuring 
I don't know if contemporary filmmakers are aware of it, but if they decide to set their films in the '70s, some of the affordments of that time are going to make them have to work harder to simply get a good scare from us. Who would you expect to have a more tenacious hold on that house, for example? The ghosts from Salem, or us from 2013, who've just been shown a New England home just a notch or two downscaled from being a Jeffersonian estate, that a single-income truck driver with some savings can afford? Seriously, though it's easy to credit that the father — Roger Perron—would get his family out of that house as fast as he could when trouble really stirs, we'd be more apt to still be wagering our losses—one dead dog, a wife accumulating bruises, some good scares to our kids—against what we might yet have full claim to. The losses will get their nursing—even the heavy traumas, maybe—if out of this we've still got a house—really,...