moon meme

Mar. 17th, 2011 11:05 pm
ricardienne: (chord)


You were born during a New moon

The moon is dark in this phase, because the half that's illuminated by the sun is facing away from Earth.





- what it says about you -


You want to leave an impression on people and make your mark on the world. When you love an idea, you'll work hard for it, sometimes even dropping whatever it is you're doing to go on to the next new great thing that's captured your imagination. The more freedom you have to chose what you're doing, the busier you'll be.


What phase was the moon at on your birthday? Find out at Spacefem.com




ricardienne: (tacitus)
[1.] What did you do in 2010 that you have never done before?
Went to grad school! Started living entirely "on my own" and cooking for myself every day, buying groceries, etc. Got regular paychecks.

[2.] Did you keep all of last year's resolutions?
I'm not sure I had any. If I did, I don't remember.

[3.] Have you any resolutions for next year?
(1) Start playing the cello again regularly. Find people to play it with. (2) Keep up correspondence. (3) Somewhat overcome my fear of my professors. (3a.) Present a a paper somewhere (?). (4) Start dancing again, or do something that involves me a bit in some sort of community that is neither my group house nor the department.

[4.] What countries did you visit?
Didn't leave the USA.

[5.] What would you like to have in 2011 that you didn't have in 2010?
A bit more self-confidence about doing the academic thing. A trip to Europe, either for summer or study or to visit my ex-pat relatives.

[6.] What date in 2010 will remain etched in your memory?
I'm not so good with dates. And I'm not sure that this past year had hugely significant single instants for me. I vividly remember my acceptances to a couple of schools, and I remember how miserable I was when I was having to decide where to go. I remember the one day that I was completely on top of the material and bursting with intelligent things to say in seminar.

[7.] What was your biggest achievement of the year?
Getting into grad school, probably.

[8.] What was your biggest failure?
Keeping in touch with people.

[9.] Did you suffer any illness or injury?
Anxiety was up and down as always; I fell down the stairs at least five times, and off my bike twice, but none of those were serious.

[10.] What was the best thing you bought?
A heavy wool peacoat for winter (because, while it was a necessary purchase, I really really like the coat I bought) and awesome button boots. Oh! And the Oxford Latin Dictionary and Liddell & Scott's unabridged Greek Dictionary, although those were kind of excused as "necessary" expenditures, too. (The boots were not necessary -- but they have BUTTONS.)

[11.] Whose behaviour made you appalled and depressed?
The Tea Party's. The Democrats'. The American People's.

[12.] Where did most of your money go?
books! Well, strictly speaking, I probably spent more on rent & food than on books, but I did spend a lot on books -- far more than I spent on any other non- "room and board" item.

[13.] What did you get really really really excited about?
A Conspiracy of Kings coming out. Anna coming to Tempe. Olympic Ice-dancing and the World Cup, actually. Getting invited to interview at various schools.

[14.] What songs will always remind you of 2010?
oh I don't know.

[15.] Compared to this time last year are you:
[A] Fatter or thinner? a bit thinner, but not very noticeably.
[B] Happier or sadder? about the same. A year ago, I had just finished undergrad and was utterly relaxed; now I have a lot of work to do and am pretty anxious about that all the time.
[C] Richer or poorer? Richer, I suppose (see: paychecks)

[16.] What do you wish you'd done more of?
keeping in touch; writing for pleasure, revising the Tacitus thing; reading Greek (and Latin)

[17.] What do you wish you'd done less of?
internet; reading fanfiction.

[18.] How will you be spending Christmas?
Spent it with my family: we went for a 15 mile bike-ride and everyone got a couple of awesome presents for each other, and we made a delicious dinner, and it was good all around.

[19.] Which LJ users did you meet for the first time?
none. I saw [livejournal.com profile] achyvi for the first time in a while, though!

[20.] Did you fall in love in 2010?
nope

[21.] How many one night stands?
zero

[22] What was your favourite TV show?
Here we see how little TV I watch: Foyle's War was by far the best thing I saw (except for the new season, which was very sub-par); I also watched quite a bit of DS9, which is lots and lots of fun.

[23.] Do you hate anyone now that you didn't hate this time last year?
I don't think so. I wasn't so aware of Russell Pearce and Tom Horne and Jane Brewer and the screwballs who are in control of my home state a year ago; I still hate David Brooks.

[24.] What was/were the best books you read?

Oh I can't answer this one ever. "Best" is just too charged a word, and a year is a long time; I don't even remember what I was reading at the beginning of the year. I really liked David Mitchell's novels, though: The 1000 Autumns of Jacob de Zoet, Cloud Atlas, Black Swan Green. Pythia's Pupils was a crazy and entertaining discovery. Can't let this space go by without mentioning A Conspiracy of Kings.

[25.] What was your greatest musical discovery?
Anthoine de Bertrand!

[26.] What did you want and get?
Into a funded graduate program.

[27.] What did you want and not get?
Into the perfect funded graduate program (hint: it turned out not to exist).

[28.] What was your favourite film this year?
Rare Exports: alternately terrifying and heart-warming and utterly hilarious Finnish Christmas movie about a little kid versus Santa Clause-the-evil-ancient-goblin-under-the-mountain. The Secret in their Eyes was also very very good.

[29.] What did you do on your birthday and how old were you?
I signed for a snack that day and brought two kinds of cake to seminar and didn't tell anyone it was my birthday; my housemates made tea and had a surprise cake for me in the evening. I had a long talk with my brother about Ursula Leguin and fantasyland vs. fairyland. I turned 24.

[30.] What one thing would have made your year more satisfying?
Getting a perfect score on JUST ONE prose-comp homework. Having done more with my semester off in the first part of the year, maybe.

[31.] How would you describe your personal fashion concept in 2010?
Shorter skirts. Tights. Dresses! Trying to dress less self-consciously and more "I like quirky things and I'm not ashamed of that"-ly.

[32.] What kept you sane(r)?
Megan Whalen Turner. Going jogging.

[33.] Which celebrity did you fancy the most?
none

[34.] Which political issue stirred you the most?
I was rather shockingly apathetic once I started school again. Immigration rights was a big issue for me, though, as was the "Ethnic Studies" ban in AZ. And the "Rally To Celebrate the So-Called Middle While We Ignore The Fact That the So-Called Middle Keeps Moving To The Right" ticked me off and rather put me off the oh-so-coolness of Jon Stewart.

[35.] Who did you miss?
Natty, frequently, and friends from home. And the friends from undergrad whom I didn't keep up with. I also found myself missing my grandfather, even though he died five years ago. I'm turning into a real person, and I frequently thought of conversations I wish I could have with him.

[36.] Tell us a valuable life lesson you learned this year? Don't bring highly experimental desserts to parties without trying them first. (Everyone was pretty drunk by the time we got to dessert anyway, and I later brought excellent cake to other events, so I hope I have not been as the departmental "one who can't bake.")
ricardienne: (Default)
(From [livejournal.com profile] awomanthatsblue)

Bolded what I've read, italicized what I've started, etc.cut for space )

67/100
ricardienne: (Default)
My entire friends page appears to be this meme:

1) Look at the list and bold those you have read.
2) Italicize those you intend to read.
3) Underline the books you LOVE.
4) Reprint this list in your own LJ so we can try and track down these people who've read 6 and force books upon them

bold + italic = partially read )

I know that it's stupid to complain about lists like these. But: 1) Why are Shakespeare and C.S. Lewis represented by both a complete series/anthology and a part of that series. 2) Given that at least half the list is Stuff You Had to Read in High School, why is Hawthorne nowhere? 3)Shakespeare and the Bible are the only things pre-1800 (I don't think any of Austen was published in the 18th century); a few French things (and the Bible) (EDIT: and a few Spanish- and Russian language novels) are the only non-Anglophone works. Why not ditch those outliers and present it as a list of contemporary English-language books?
ricardienne: (Default)
the unread book meme thing )

Also, since when can you mark your entries as "adult content"? Since latest lj explosion, I suppose.
ricardienne: (Default)
"borrowed" from [livejournal.com profile] grapeyquoter






what key signature are you?




G# minor - You are not totally happy, and you know it. At least you are trying to do something about it. You like to think and create to try and sort out your problems. Keep going the way you are, and you will soon be on speaking terms with your demons.
Take this quiz!








Quizilla |
Join

| Make A Quiz | More Quizzes | Grab Code



I know that I'm really c# minor, but this is fairly close…
ricardienne: (Default)
November 3:

1493 - Christopher Columbus first sights the island of Dominica in the Caribbean Sea.
1793 - French playwright, journalist and feminist Olympe de Gouges is guillotined.
1918 - Austria-Hungary enters an armistice with the World War I Allies, and the Habsburg-ruled empire dissolves.
1970 - Salvador Allende is inaugurated as president of Chile.


I also have many U.S. elections on my birthday. Sadly, the last one was 1 day too early. Not that it would have mattered anyway.

Births:
39 - Lucan, Roman poet (d. 65)
1500 - Benvenuto Cellini, Italian artist (d. 1571)
1874 - Lucy Maud Montgomery, Canadian novelist (d. 1942)
1895 - Grand Duchess Olga Nicolaievna Romanova (d. 1918)


Deaths:
361 - Constantius II, Roman Emperor (b. 317)
1428 - Thomas Montacute, 4th Earl of Salisbury, English military leader (mortally wounded in battle (at the siege of Orleans, if you care to know) (b. 1388)
1926 - Annie Oakley, American sharp-shooter (b. 1860)
ricardienne: (Default)
So here I am. Or, there I am, I suppose. The paper doesn't look so hopeless at the moment, although that may be optimism born of an airplane-numbed mind.

SW Shakespeare is doing Much Ado, and we saw it last night. It was a good way to end break, even if I did finish off the night with the usual breakdown. Natty and I both agreed that the MdN production was better though (well, in some ways, at least.) I was a little disconcerted by the director's pre-concert talk in which he more or less said, "well, we set it in 1840's California because we could,"* but I'm mostly over my phobia of non-traditional Shakespeare, and so it was fine. Actually, I think it was just an excuse to replace Balthasar with a Mariachi band. Otherwise, the setting was completely irelevant, although it did give the whole production a tinge of melodrama, thanks to a very emo Don John and general overacting. I suppose that one way of doing comedies is to have everyone wildly overact and go for slapstick, because, you know, it's supposed to be funny, but that didn't quite work here because of the intervening Claudio-Hero plot. The AZ Republic did not approve of the second half for this reason, although they noted that this was entirely Shakespeare's fault, for not writing a uniformly funny play. Also, they kind of ripped off the Kenneth Branaugh movie. But then, they did that when they did Henry V, too.
*Incidentally, I am wondering why, although people "update" Shakespeare regularly, no one every "backdates" him. Why not a Much Ado set in Roman Gaul, for example, or a Hamlet in Third Crusade Jerusalem? They would probably work as well as anything else. I suppose it wouldn't be "relevant," as a wholly modern one would be, but, when a company sets their production in 1880, for example, are they really intending any greater point other than "these are the costumes we happen to have handy," or maybe, "look: the Victorians had backward ideas about sexuality"?


And, now, because I've actually been tagged, for once, by [livejournal.com profile] forgtnsuitcase
username meme )

popularity meme )
ricardienne: (chord)
LiveJournal Haiku!
Your name:ricardienne
Your haiku:geek are just dying to
sleep around well perhaps it
is unnatural
Username:
Created by Grahame


I guess this is one that randomly pulls words out of your recent entries?
because I have a far too short attention span )
ricardienne: (angelo)
So thanks to [livejournal.com profile] thynk2much, I have now seen the Globe Richard II (anyone needing references for good karma on her behalf can apply to me). By rights, then, this should be a long post, but, fortunately for you all, I think it might not be. I am not sure why. For one thing, I am still feeling the effects of post-good-Shakespeare-meltiness. But also, I don't find that I have lots of burning things to say. I don't actually know the play incredibly well. It isn't like Measure for Measure, where I've been spordically obsessed since seventh grade, but it isn't one I've studied in school either (which, granted, isn't very many) or, more the point, one that I've even read in an edition that had notes and critical essays at the back.

I was thinking about Richard today -- I watched the first half last night, and decided that I had really better hold off on the second half as it was already past midnight and I had a piano rehearsal/coaching in the fairly early morning. (It's odd to be thinking about II instead of III.) Or rather, I was thinking about Shakespeare's Richard. It was a very basic question I was asking myself, with an obvious answer perhaps, but I needed to think it out: why isn't he a villain? He's a bad king: not only weak but wasteful, arbitrary, and not incredibly scrupulous, in fact. He's had his uncle murdered; he thinks nothing of wishing his other uncle dead so he can seize his lands and revenues. But that's the important thing, I think. He doesn't think. Richard (at the beginning of the play) isn't even aware that what he's doing and has done might be wrong. Villainous villains always know, whether they know and dismiss it, know and feel (a little or a lot) guilty, or know and revel in it. Richard, if you pointed it out, would just get indignant; he wouldn't understand. And so while it's a realization of his mistakes that he comes to, and maybe even an acceptance of death, it isn't really repentance, and, consequently there isn't a sense that he got his just deserts, even that he really deserved to be deposed and murdered. Henry Bolingbrook isn't a villain either, but he isn't the hero of the play. I wonder, though, if this is just moral reduction, to say that because Richard does not realize that he is acting immorally, he is somewhat exonerated. At some point, ignorance can't equate down to innocence. Innocence, however, is not what I'm talking about, is it? If he doesn't realize that he's guilty, then he isn't guilty. For guilt is really an interior emotion that must be felt. And I think that this last may be a logical fallacy, whereby I am using two senses of a word commutatively. But there's the connection to Measure for Measure, in fact. In what Harold Bloom extolls as the nihilist and comedic center of the play, Barnardine is so "unfit" to die that he can't even be executed -- because he won't acknowledge that he can be executed, i.e. that he's guilty. Actually, the connection is not nearly so strong as it seemed in my head. Never mind.

It was a little odd, watching Richard II with Measure for Measure still so much in my mind. (I think I'm on to what I saw, now, and not the play in general). Essentially the same company of actors wearing many of the same costumes, even (although different people were wearing different costumes -- I know, I know: I get great drama and I sit here drooling over the needle-lace), and very distinctive costumes (as well as sets, music, etc.) at that, was really very nice, in many ways. It all felt so familiar. But then, it made Rylance and Brennan's (and others', actually, but those were the main two) characters seem oddly parallel -- the inept, frivolous ruler vs. the efficient, serious ruler; bright and ornate costume vs. black and severe.

I shall probably have more thoughts about this later.

EDIT
Indeed, I have been. The parallels I was seeing are for the most part specious. It's the result of the same actors playing in the same kind (most broadly speaking) of play. In fact, it's happened to me before. Good actors do make you believe they are who they portray, and someone with a very distinctive mannerisms (e.g. Mark Rylance) is going to really get that effect. It might be compounded in Shakespeare because the language is just that much removed from my normal one, and that, combined with the non-contemporary setting and the fact that it's all part of the Shakespeare Canon makes any play seem like part of some greater, meaningful whole, where there would be grand hidden patterns. I mean, I think you could do this legitimately with some plays: a lot of the comedies could have giant parallel lines drawn through them all in certain characters. You know what? It's 1:15 a.m., and I'm really not able to even explain what I'm thinking coherently. Time to stop
Comment Statistics Meme )
ricardienne: (augustine)
I am so amused )

First day over. Latin was good, so much so that I'm almost not dreading FYSEM tomorrow (note I said almost!) I should probably go and brush up on Hobsbawm, but I really don't want to. The professor seems to think that I have a St. Augustine obsession, based, it appears, on my one comment last semester that he's an author I'd like to read in the original. When I mentioned today that my ultimate goal was to be able to read Latin somewhat easily, if I never can get to the point where I can just 'pick something up and read it,' he asked me if I was referencing St. Augustine's tolle et lege moment in the garden. I definitely wasn't, but should have been. Argh! Oh well.

Medieval Lit was okay. It started out bad, because it's a *huge class, and about half of them are lit majors who are really only taking it so they can moderate, and are primarily interested in "the development of the modern novel and modern author," but it got better. And I am looking forward to most of the readings.
*huge=~25 people

I practiced three hours today. Yay, but I'm sure it won't last, once I start having more work.

Profile

ricardienne: (Default)
sigaloenta

January 2017

S M T W T F S
12 34567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031    

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Sep. 24th, 2017 10:53 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios