The word "research" used to make me cringe until I realized that it doesn't necessarily have to mean science science. I much prefer social sciences.
Lucky that the Oxford class revolves around British culture and history anyway.
I am most interested in contemporary cultural and social aspects. Harry Potter was brought up as a possible topic, and being a lifelong fan of Harry Potter, I would love to study that (the effects of Pottermania, Rowling's social mobility, what aspects of British culture make it into the Harry Potter books that Americans miss or don't understand, etc.) I also find the accent fascinating -> the break between American and British accents must have happened less than 250 years ago, and I always thought that was a very small time period for large linguistical changes to occur. I'd love to look into British slang, or the relationship of movie theater entertainment versus dramatic theatre entertainment.
How does one research things like slang or accents, though?
Sunday, May 22, 2011
Sunday, May 15, 2011
americans on brits and vice versa
After the hubbub about the royal wedding, especially here in America, I was a bit curious as to what the general American view on Britain was.
I mean, we had a direct war against them, so it's interesting how hostilities have died down. I suppose it has been over two centuries. But the USA was founded on antagonizing the British, leading to the nationalism that was able to unite the colonies against the Loyalists and win the Revolutionary War.
We all know the way that the Revolutionary War is taught in American textbooks. Americans are painted as the honest farmers who simply want to be recognized by the Crown. (Actual reasons for revolt varied much more than that, I suspect.) So how are the American colonists depicted in British textbooks? I would predict we are painted as rebels that ran off with the colonies and abandoned the motherland that spawned us. That is fair enough, I suppose. It's just interesting how perspectives change everything.
History sometimes seems really universal and concrete. I mean, if a certain battle occurred on a certain date, etc. etc., then how much is there that can be fabricated or twisted? In two ways is this assumption incorrect. First, as the cliche goes, history is written by the victors, so any losers that were stamped out have no voice in what we hear today. (Perhaps we lost evidence of any more egalitarian, pacifist societies that were overrun by the war-friendly; we shall never know.) Second, it is difficult to realize that even in the "unified" present there are still so many fault lines where we differ. (The present being commonly described as "unified" in the sense that the internet is able to share ideas and when international relations are arguably at their most prioritized point to date.) We could learn so much just by looking at the differences in what our children are taught to be facts.
A lot of this internal discussion was spawned from the following picture from my favorite webcomic, Married to the Sea.
Cheers to the fact that we seem to have mostly gotten over our differences in respect to the Revolutionary War.
I mean, we had a direct war against them, so it's interesting how hostilities have died down. I suppose it has been over two centuries. But the USA was founded on antagonizing the British, leading to the nationalism that was able to unite the colonies against the Loyalists and win the Revolutionary War.
We all know the way that the Revolutionary War is taught in American textbooks. Americans are painted as the honest farmers who simply want to be recognized by the Crown. (Actual reasons for revolt varied much more than that, I suspect.) So how are the American colonists depicted in British textbooks? I would predict we are painted as rebels that ran off with the colonies and abandoned the motherland that spawned us. That is fair enough, I suppose. It's just interesting how perspectives change everything.
History sometimes seems really universal and concrete. I mean, if a certain battle occurred on a certain date, etc. etc., then how much is there that can be fabricated or twisted? In two ways is this assumption incorrect. First, as the cliche goes, history is written by the victors, so any losers that were stamped out have no voice in what we hear today. (Perhaps we lost evidence of any more egalitarian, pacifist societies that were overrun by the war-friendly; we shall never know.) Second, it is difficult to realize that even in the "unified" present there are still so many fault lines where we differ. (The present being commonly described as "unified" in the sense that the internet is able to share ideas and when international relations are arguably at their most prioritized point to date.) We could learn so much just by looking at the differences in what our children are taught to be facts.
A lot of this internal discussion was spawned from the following picture from my favorite webcomic, Married to the Sea.
Sunday, May 8, 2011
Mr Begum
I like the idea that not everything has a point. It really allows me to relax when I read. Knowing that Zadie Smith did not necessarily intend for some profound meaning is comforting. In fact, I think I would be a bit of a mess if I had continued frantically searching for a point in both short stories we have read, "Picnic, Lightning" and "Mrs. Begum's Son and the Private Tutor."
I wonder if Smith's descriptions are a little bit too polarized, however. I used to write fiction too. (You could call them short stories -> they were intended to be novels, but the word count never made it past short story length.) There was certainly a dilemma on how to word my descriptions succinctly, yet...well, descriptively. I can't help but feel that Smith forces herself to choose whether her characters will be comical or credible.
For instance, Mrs. Begum never comes off as much more than a ridiculous matriarch-wannabe. The description of her home drips with disdain. Geeni is a very stereotypical child figure: I made a face at the phrase, "As Geeni tugged pointlessly at the hem of her mother's skirts" because the act of 'tugging at skirts' always seemed like such a cliche. The people on the bus are carricaturized as well.
Meanwhile, Pembrose, the narrator, seems to be the only credible figure, except for perhaps Magid (though Magid's original description brought up a "fat kid" stock image in my head.)
Then again, as Pembrose is the narrator, and not necessarily Smith, all of this could just be indirectly informing the reader of Pembrose's perceptions of superiority. Nevertheless, the cliches make me cringe.
I suppose that Mark displays a bit of both sides. The words that describe him seem to emanate with cigarette smoke themselves. Yet he displays remarkable understanding and compassion for his father's situation in life.
Speaking of Mr. Begum, I developed a theory on what Mark was talking about.
'"I think your mother hopes you and Magid will have more opportunities," I said weakly.
"It's not enough," he said quietly. "It's not enough. Someone's got to pay it back. ..."' (pg 10)
The concept that parents work to better their children's future seems pretty standard nowadays. People hear this sentiment, nod, and smile. Yet it is rarely considered how the parents fare in this deal. Mr. Begum worked quietly in the garden, struggling through all the adversity quite literally thrown onto his head by outsiders that did not know him or care about the well-being of his garden. He struggled to help his plants to grow. The plants could not really help themselves to grow. It was all Mr. Begum's responsibility to take care of them. Yet when the plants do grow and blossom or bear fruit, and the passerby stop to admire them, it will be the plant that they admire, and not the admirable efforts of Mr. Begum.
Isn't that what raising kids is like? Parents endure the financial and practical responsibilities of children. The act of even raising their offspring to be functional human beings is quite a feat. If the parent does their job well, the child can run out into the world to succeed. Meanwhile, the parents are left to "pick up shit."
Admittedly, the final dialogue between Pembrose and Magid was somewhat lost on me. I still am unsure what to make of that.
Lastly, how on earth do you pronounce Magid? I've been saying May-gih-d, but that can't be right.
I wonder if Smith's descriptions are a little bit too polarized, however. I used to write fiction too. (You could call them short stories -> they were intended to be novels, but the word count never made it past short story length.) There was certainly a dilemma on how to word my descriptions succinctly, yet...well, descriptively. I can't help but feel that Smith forces herself to choose whether her characters will be comical or credible.
For instance, Mrs. Begum never comes off as much more than a ridiculous matriarch-wannabe. The description of her home drips with disdain. Geeni is a very stereotypical child figure: I made a face at the phrase, "As Geeni tugged pointlessly at the hem of her mother's skirts" because the act of 'tugging at skirts' always seemed like such a cliche. The people on the bus are carricaturized as well.
Meanwhile, Pembrose, the narrator, seems to be the only credible figure, except for perhaps Magid (though Magid's original description brought up a "fat kid" stock image in my head.)
Then again, as Pembrose is the narrator, and not necessarily Smith, all of this could just be indirectly informing the reader of Pembrose's perceptions of superiority. Nevertheless, the cliches make me cringe.
I suppose that Mark displays a bit of both sides. The words that describe him seem to emanate with cigarette smoke themselves. Yet he displays remarkable understanding and compassion for his father's situation in life.
Speaking of Mr. Begum, I developed a theory on what Mark was talking about.
'"I think your mother hopes you and Magid will have more opportunities," I said weakly.
"It's not enough," he said quietly. "It's not enough. Someone's got to pay it back. ..."' (pg 10)
The concept that parents work to better their children's future seems pretty standard nowadays. People hear this sentiment, nod, and smile. Yet it is rarely considered how the parents fare in this deal. Mr. Begum worked quietly in the garden, struggling through all the adversity quite literally thrown onto his head by outsiders that did not know him or care about the well-being of his garden. He struggled to help his plants to grow. The plants could not really help themselves to grow. It was all Mr. Begum's responsibility to take care of them. Yet when the plants do grow and blossom or bear fruit, and the passerby stop to admire them, it will be the plant that they admire, and not the admirable efforts of Mr. Begum.
Isn't that what raising kids is like? Parents endure the financial and practical responsibilities of children. The act of even raising their offspring to be functional human beings is quite a feat. If the parent does their job well, the child can run out into the world to succeed. Meanwhile, the parents are left to "pick up shit."
Admittedly, the final dialogue between Pembrose and Magid was somewhat lost on me. I still am unsure what to make of that.
Lastly, how on earth do you pronounce Magid? I've been saying May-gih-d, but that can't be right.
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
stages of culture shock
I just finished my IPE (International Programs and Exchanges) Orientation last night.
In the booklets they passed out, there is a chapter devoted to the stages of cultural adjustment. Briefly, they are:
1. the honeymoon period
2. irritability/hostility
3. discovery of perspective
4. feeling at home
When I traveled to Denmark and Korea, I really did experience these stages (though I did not map them out so concretely in my head). Unfortunately, I only spent 10 days in Denmark and 2 weeks in Korea, so I never quite reached the fourth stage in either place.
I know what it will be like to reach the fourth stage, however. I made it through all four when I came to UW, (for I came from a radically different upbringing, so UW truly was a foreign culture.) It is easy to remember how fascinated I was by the city at first, and then how I plunged into semi-depression (though not homesickness!) at the initial loneliness.
Speaking of loneliness, I am concerned about stage 2 in that aspect. Making friends is really important to the transition from stage 2 to 3. While I anticipate making friends among the UW students that are going, I also really hope to meet some Brits. I know we will not be living right alongside them, necessarily, so I predict that will be something of a challenge. I didn't do so well with this part in Denmark or Korea, but in retrospect, it took me two weeks to even out at UW, so it could be that I simply did not have enough time abroad to adjust.
Is it politically correct to call them "Brits?" I know "Japs" definitely isn't an okay abbreviation. But "Danes" for Danish citizens seems to be acceptable.
In the booklets they passed out, there is a chapter devoted to the stages of cultural adjustment. Briefly, they are:
1. the honeymoon period
2. irritability/hostility
3. discovery of perspective
4. feeling at home
When I traveled to Denmark and Korea, I really did experience these stages (though I did not map them out so concretely in my head). Unfortunately, I only spent 10 days in Denmark and 2 weeks in Korea, so I never quite reached the fourth stage in either place.
I know what it will be like to reach the fourth stage, however. I made it through all four when I came to UW, (for I came from a radically different upbringing, so UW truly was a foreign culture.) It is easy to remember how fascinated I was by the city at first, and then how I plunged into semi-depression (though not homesickness!) at the initial loneliness.
Speaking of loneliness, I am concerned about stage 2 in that aspect. Making friends is really important to the transition from stage 2 to 3. While I anticipate making friends among the UW students that are going, I also really hope to meet some Brits. I know we will not be living right alongside them, necessarily, so I predict that will be something of a challenge. I didn't do so well with this part in Denmark or Korea, but in retrospect, it took me two weeks to even out at UW, so it could be that I simply did not have enough time abroad to adjust.
Is it politically correct to call them "Brits?" I know "Japs" definitely isn't an okay abbreviation. But "Danes" for Danish citizens seems to be acceptable.
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
Kate
How does one become a Princess? Most of the answers that people will give today are in terms of "inheritance," where a woman will either be born or marry into a royal family to receive the title.
Now, in medieval Europe, where intermarriage between social classes was considered even more ridiculous than today, how would one become a princess? With luck and enough knights in your (Lord) Father's army to conquer the incumbent King/Queen and their offspring.
The second option really isn't that appealing. (A lot of things from the medieval period are, in general, somewhat unsavory.) The Princess Diaries would have been really different from that perspective.
I try not to dwell on the fact that inherited glory is generally more tempting than self-earned glory. My work ethic itches a bit to think that the current Windsor family has lived a pretty cushy life without ever having to consider the common man's definition of "work." I recognize that the royal family lives with constrictions that the average American can shrug off-> when (if ever) it is appropriate to burp or scratch one's nose, if they can ever suffer the indignity of learning to snowboard or play video games, or what costumes are appropriate at Halloween parties (I'm looking at you, Harry.)
So where does that leave Kate? Her beginnings don't appear flamboyant -> her parents were airline employees (though, I admit that I do not understand the finer points of British socio-economic status; perhaps the position of stewardess is lucrative in England.) Her decision to date Prince William came with an extra fifty pounds of etiquette and the loss of all privacy.
I was especially intrigued by the fight that the couple allegedly had a few years ago. How does one "dump" a Prince? It is easily feasible that she felt burdened by the extraordinary relationship, but the breakup would have been just as extraordinary.
In my very narrow worldview, Kate is either an unbelievably mature young woman with strong values, or she has a very acute sense of ambition. I'd really like to believe the former, but nowadays, when reality shows demonstrate just how insane humans will become for their five minutes of fame, the latter is not beyond belief.
However, if indeed she is riding William's coattails, then she is really, really good at faking a smile.
Now, in medieval Europe, where intermarriage between social classes was considered even more ridiculous than today, how would one become a princess? With luck and enough knights in your (Lord) Father's army to conquer the incumbent King/Queen and their offspring.
The second option really isn't that appealing. (A lot of things from the medieval period are, in general, somewhat unsavory.) The Princess Diaries would have been really different from that perspective.
I try not to dwell on the fact that inherited glory is generally more tempting than self-earned glory. My work ethic itches a bit to think that the current Windsor family has lived a pretty cushy life without ever having to consider the common man's definition of "work." I recognize that the royal family lives with constrictions that the average American can shrug off-> when (if ever) it is appropriate to burp or scratch one's nose, if they can ever suffer the indignity of learning to snowboard or play video games, or what costumes are appropriate at Halloween parties (I'm looking at you, Harry.)
So where does that leave Kate? Her beginnings don't appear flamboyant -> her parents were airline employees (though, I admit that I do not understand the finer points of British socio-economic status; perhaps the position of stewardess is lucrative in England.) Her decision to date Prince William came with an extra fifty pounds of etiquette and the loss of all privacy.
I was especially intrigued by the fight that the couple allegedly had a few years ago. How does one "dump" a Prince? It is easily feasible that she felt burdened by the extraordinary relationship, but the breakup would have been just as extraordinary.
In my very narrow worldview, Kate is either an unbelievably mature young woman with strong values, or she has a very acute sense of ambition. I'd really like to believe the former, but nowadays, when reality shows demonstrate just how insane humans will become for their five minutes of fame, the latter is not beyond belief.
However, if indeed she is riding William's coattails, then she is really, really good at faking a smile.
Monday, April 11, 2011
pre-departure: relative ignorance
Images that come to mind when I think of "modern" England and the United Kingdom:
 |
| Monty Python and the Holy Grail (film, 1975) |
 |
| Atonement (novel, Ian McEwan, 2001; film, 2007) |
 |
| Old Gregg - The Mighty Boosh (comedy show, 2004-2007) |
At least Atonement had some historical basis. I wonder if the average Brit is aware of what pop culture points have jumped the Atlantic to serve as ambassadors. I wonder what the Brits think of when they think American pop culture. Please God let them not know about Jersey Shore.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)