Anyone who knows me can pretty much skip this post entirely. It'll be of no interest to you to read about my college studies.
I won't go through a year-by-year analysis of modules and courses, but I can break it down into three major categories: Religion, English, and Education.
The Religion aspect of my Undergrad degree covers:
- Church history,
- Liturgy,
- Scripture,
- Philosophy,
- Ethics, and
- World religions.
What that meant was trying to balance my strengths and weaknesses across several completely different fields in an effort to attain the best possible grade for Religion overall. As it happens, the history and scripture modules were always my worst in terms of grades. I put it down to (a) the amount of material and (b) the marking style of the lecturers. It's a known fact that grades at third level vary according to the student doing the writing, and the lecturer doing the correcting.
All in all, it was interesting. I loved the Religion and Science module we had in third year, and surprised myself with a high grade in one of the scripture exams in first year. And, it's safe to say, I'll never want to be examined in Religion as a field of study - like that, anyway - ever again.
The English aspect of the degree was split into:
- Fiction,
- Poetry,
- Theatre, and
- Film.
Yes, we got to watch movies as part of our lectures. Yes, it was fun. And, if you did the same course as I did, it was all scarring. Blue Velvet is just one of the prescribed texts that will forever haunt me.
The English lectures were my favourites by far, because they focused on my longest-standing interest. While I came to enjoy Religion and Education lectures, I had always been excited about what we were studying in English, whether it was Shakespeare, Tragedy, Epic and Romantic Poetry, or Adaptations - even if I had no interest in reading the text, I loved learning about them.
The Education aspect of the degree was split more dramatically than anything else into two sub-categories: theory, and practice. The theory consisted of learning about the history of education, child psychology, methodology, and other such things that are Department-prescribed. The practical aspect of it... well... did I ever tell you the story about someone throwing a table at me in the middle of class?
I won't name names, but it happened. It's my horror story. It was a one-off event, in a heated situation, and I had to learn on the spot how to handle that - because no amount of theory of education can prepare you for the real thing!
Teaching practice was, and will probably always be, the most difficult and formative experience of my life as a student. I couldn't just talk to the students blankly about the topics - which usually covered someone I might have studied myself in college. I had to figure out how to make it interesting and engaging and relevant to them - even if that meant asking them, openly, what was the first thing they thought of when they thought of Muslims? (I won't lie, 9/11 and terrorism were offered as answers most of the time, a fact of which they were ashamed. Don't worry, I set them straight during my time as their teacher - they really didn't know any better.)
Of course, that was just my Undergrad degree. From September onwards, I'll be entering the world of the Masters, with war stories from the classroom to share with people when we're introducing ourselves to one another!
Showing posts with label religion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label religion. Show all posts
Monday, July 14, 2014
Wednesday, March 12, 2014
A (Lack of) Progress Report
As far as writing has gone this past week... well, I haven't done much. I've wanted to, but I haven't exactly had as much opportunity as I would have liked. The most significant thing I've done is actually figure out why I want to write a particular series. That was done by figuring out what the overall story is. It's important, but it doesn't bring me closer to my target.
The main problem is that I've been spending my spare time relaxing a lot more than usual. That, when combined with exhaustion from a series of sleepless nights (partially my fault for staying up too late when I have to be up early, partially the fault of alarms going off in the middle of the night), has resulted in me doing much less than I'd have liked to.
I'm hoping that tomorrow will help put me back on track, with a couple of things planned for the afternoon and nothing else planned for the evening.
This means I have to avoid the PS3, though. That's been the biggest distraction. You see, recently I came across Tales of Symphonia Chronicles, and, having played the first game a few years ago, I couldn't help but buy it and play it. And play it I have. Constantly. It's not just a nostalgia rush, of course. I genuinely love the game, and I love following the story.
Yes, some of the dialogue is ridiculously cheesy. Yes, the graphics aren't the best. Yes, it's a dated game at this point. But it also has an interesting system of religion at work. It demonstrates the struggle for ideals in equality and peace.
It's a game that helped form the sort of depth I've wanted to include in my fantasy novels. I want to develop a system of religion that fits into the world. I want to create a rulebook for magic users. I want to create a world in which life is actually at stake, but not merely on a global level.
This is why I play games, even when it means not writing. The games that explore religion, and the games that explore the concept of the martyr, they help to create human stories concerned with personal destiny in the wider scheme of life. Colette in Tales of Symphonia has to save the world, knowing it will end her life. The l'cie in Final Fantasy XIII have to make a decision: destroy the world they come from, or die tragically. Yuna in Final Fantasy X has to stop Sin, knowing that the summoner never survives the pilgrimage.
I want to tell my own story. I want to figure it all out before I start writing that book.
Unfortunately, I don't think I can use that as an excuse for not writing the books I've already planned. I have a feeling I'll be playing catch-up on my books for the rest of the 40-day challenge. So be it. But I'll be damned if I have to give up doing something else I enjoy, too, especially on the days when exhaustion takes it toll.
My progress is lacking, but that doesn't mean I can't talk about it.
The main problem is that I've been spending my spare time relaxing a lot more than usual. That, when combined with exhaustion from a series of sleepless nights (partially my fault for staying up too late when I have to be up early, partially the fault of alarms going off in the middle of the night), has resulted in me doing much less than I'd have liked to.
I'm hoping that tomorrow will help put me back on track, with a couple of things planned for the afternoon and nothing else planned for the evening.
This means I have to avoid the PS3, though. That's been the biggest distraction. You see, recently I came across Tales of Symphonia Chronicles, and, having played the first game a few years ago, I couldn't help but buy it and play it. And play it I have. Constantly. It's not just a nostalgia rush, of course. I genuinely love the game, and I love following the story.
Yes, some of the dialogue is ridiculously cheesy. Yes, the graphics aren't the best. Yes, it's a dated game at this point. But it also has an interesting system of religion at work. It demonstrates the struggle for ideals in equality and peace.
It's a game that helped form the sort of depth I've wanted to include in my fantasy novels. I want to develop a system of religion that fits into the world. I want to create a rulebook for magic users. I want to create a world in which life is actually at stake, but not merely on a global level.
This is why I play games, even when it means not writing. The games that explore religion, and the games that explore the concept of the martyr, they help to create human stories concerned with personal destiny in the wider scheme of life. Colette in Tales of Symphonia has to save the world, knowing it will end her life. The l'cie in Final Fantasy XIII have to make a decision: destroy the world they come from, or die tragically. Yuna in Final Fantasy X has to stop Sin, knowing that the summoner never survives the pilgrimage.
I want to tell my own story. I want to figure it all out before I start writing that book.
Unfortunately, I don't think I can use that as an excuse for not writing the books I've already planned. I have a feeling I'll be playing catch-up on my books for the rest of the 40-day challenge. So be it. But I'll be damned if I have to give up doing something else I enjoy, too, especially on the days when exhaustion takes it toll.
My progress is lacking, but that doesn't mean I can't talk about it.
Thursday, July 25, 2013
Day 25: Reunion
I didn't do much writing today. Okay, I did nothing. I hadn't really arranged any time in the day for it to fit in, and didn't use the time I had arranged for other things exactly as planned. There was only one thing I really, really wanted to get done: a reunion.
This involved meeting in the city - at the Spire (where else?) - and going for lunch. Nando's was in order. It was my first time to experience the deliciousness of the ever-growing chain. A few years back, when my family went to Portugal, we acquired a taste for Peri Peri chicken. I haven't had a decent dish since. (My mum tried it once...it didn't work out.) Today, I was entirely satisfied with my food, enough so that I would return.
So that's good.
After dinner, the three of us went shopping. Well, they did most of the shopping. After a few minutes in a gift shop none of us had ever seen before, we ended up in clothing store after clothing store. I didn't really mind, until we ended up in the lingerie section of Penneys.
Let's just be clear: neither myself or my friend buying something for herself were comfortable being there. I was just glad I didn't need to have an opinion on any of it. It kind of helped that we joked about the episode of Father Ted in which the priests found themselves lost in the lingerie section with no way out.
Of course, I dragged them to the comic book shop. It would be rude not to. I was in and out in a matter of minutes - the perks of shopping with someone who knows exactly what he wants and where to get it - and we were off to wander about some more.
We found a couple of overtly religious preachers on our journey through the city, today. One rather large group of young men and women proclaimed their life-changing discovery of God. Somehow, even after four years in God College, none of us were able to listen to much of that. I think we've become slightly alienated from religion at the thought of academia. I'm sure it'll wear off if we don't run into too many preachers in the next few weeks.
What was more troubling was the man claiming the word of God on Henry Street, and turning all psycho-Islamaphobic-bigot on us. Wherever Muslims go they start wars, yadda yadda yadda... as if the US military hasn't been unnecessarily involved in some recent conflicts. As if Hitler wasn't a Christian. As if the British Empire in its quote-unquote glory days weren't devout Christians. When people ignore certain fundamental facts of history to further their hatred, and do so in the name of Christ...well, that makes being a Christian difficult.
Don't get me wrong. I know what it means to be a Christian. It's the people who hear this guy and somehow come to believe that it's about hating on others that I'm worried about. So, here are a couple of truths for you:
- Wars are started by people, sometimes over religion, sometimes over politics, sometimes over wealth, but no one group of people is solely responsible.
- The core message at the heart of Christianity is love, and I'm willing to accept that a lot of people who call themselves Christians can come to forget that, or are intentionally unwilling to see the love of others.
Of course, I didn't bring these things up while wandering about the city. It was much to warm out for that. Instead we walked away muttering to ourselves that he was a nutjob, until more exciting topics for conversation arose.
By the time I arrived home, I had intended on submitting some more work to various journals. That didn't happen. I ended up having dinner and watching more Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Tomorrow, I'm baking. But I'll definitely have to make time to do some writing, do some submitting, and start making plans with friends. Having a social life is fun!
This involved meeting in the city - at the Spire (where else?) - and going for lunch. Nando's was in order. It was my first time to experience the deliciousness of the ever-growing chain. A few years back, when my family went to Portugal, we acquired a taste for Peri Peri chicken. I haven't had a decent dish since. (My mum tried it once...it didn't work out.) Today, I was entirely satisfied with my food, enough so that I would return.
So that's good.
After dinner, the three of us went shopping. Well, they did most of the shopping. After a few minutes in a gift shop none of us had ever seen before, we ended up in clothing store after clothing store. I didn't really mind, until we ended up in the lingerie section of Penneys.
Let's just be clear: neither myself or my friend buying something for herself were comfortable being there. I was just glad I didn't need to have an opinion on any of it. It kind of helped that we joked about the episode of Father Ted in which the priests found themselves lost in the lingerie section with no way out.
Of course, I dragged them to the comic book shop. It would be rude not to. I was in and out in a matter of minutes - the perks of shopping with someone who knows exactly what he wants and where to get it - and we were off to wander about some more.
We found a couple of overtly religious preachers on our journey through the city, today. One rather large group of young men and women proclaimed their life-changing discovery of God. Somehow, even after four years in God College, none of us were able to listen to much of that. I think we've become slightly alienated from religion at the thought of academia. I'm sure it'll wear off if we don't run into too many preachers in the next few weeks.
What was more troubling was the man claiming the word of God on Henry Street, and turning all psycho-Islamaphobic-bigot on us. Wherever Muslims go they start wars, yadda yadda yadda... as if the US military hasn't been unnecessarily involved in some recent conflicts. As if Hitler wasn't a Christian. As if the British Empire in its quote-unquote glory days weren't devout Christians. When people ignore certain fundamental facts of history to further their hatred, and do so in the name of Christ...well, that makes being a Christian difficult.
Don't get me wrong. I know what it means to be a Christian. It's the people who hear this guy and somehow come to believe that it's about hating on others that I'm worried about. So, here are a couple of truths for you:
- Wars are started by people, sometimes over religion, sometimes over politics, sometimes over wealth, but no one group of people is solely responsible.
- The core message at the heart of Christianity is love, and I'm willing to accept that a lot of people who call themselves Christians can come to forget that, or are intentionally unwilling to see the love of others.
Of course, I didn't bring these things up while wandering about the city. It was much to warm out for that. Instead we walked away muttering to ourselves that he was a nutjob, until more exciting topics for conversation arose.
By the time I arrived home, I had intended on submitting some more work to various journals. That didn't happen. I ended up having dinner and watching more Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Tomorrow, I'm baking. But I'll definitely have to make time to do some writing, do some submitting, and start making plans with friends. Having a social life is fun!
Sunday, June 2, 2013
5 Things We Can Learn From Skyrim
I recently took to playing Skyrim again, and it occurred to me that there are a number of things we can learn from the game about how the conventional genre of Fantasy works. Tonight, I'd like to address 5 Things We Can Learn From Skyrim About Fantasy.
1. Races
Fantasy lends itself to other races. Not always, but often enough that there's an existing idea of the genre in people's heads before they ever read or see a Fantasy novel or film. The Lord of the Rings had humans, elves, dwarves, hobbits, and variations on the above. Skyrim gives us three types of human race, three types of elves, orcs, cat-people, lizard-folk, a bizarre magical creature similar to elves, and the extinct dwarven race. They all go by different names depending on the novel, game, film or television series you're talking about, but in general, Fantasy allows for there to exist a plethora of sentient races.
2. Magic
Think Fantasy, think Magic. Even Game of Thrones has magic, though it comes in rarer doses than what most mainstream Fantasy demonstrates. There aren't any major characters who actively practice Magic in the show, though a few that demonstrate a semblance of magical ability. Gandalf in The Lord of the Rings is part of a wizarding order, and from his first appearance in The Hobbit demonstrates even a basic use of magic. I don't think I need to get in to Harry Potter on the matter of Magic. In Skyrim, we're given a much more basic understanding of magic. Any race can use it (as demonstrated by our ability to choose a character of any race and still throw a fire ball at a bandit), anyone can learn it. It does, however, break itself down into sub-categories, including Destruction Magic (for the standard elemental Magic we see so often: Fire, Ice and Lightning), Restoration Magic, Illusion Magic, and Conjuration, being just a few.
3. Politics
Perhaps the most important thing we need to pay attention to in Skyrim is the politics. In both Elder Scrolls games I've played, Oblivion being the other, the political tension in the world is a major factor into the storyline. It affects the protagonist, we're asked to become involved in it, and it reaches out into the various towns and cities across the Fantasy world no matter how far away from the capital they are. You don't necessarily need a big battle, either. The college at Winterfold in Skyrim is purposely removed from politics - but even the statement of this fact by a member of the college is in reference to the Mage's Guild's political involvement in Oblivion. There are also the little politics of each guild and town, who is in charge, how they reach power, who wants to take them down.
4. Religion
I've always been aware of the religious aspects of these games, probably as a result of the overexposure to religion at college. Looking at it simply, there are four kinds of people in Skyrim: those who don't believe in the gods (the minority), those who do believe in the gods (the majority), those who actively work for the gods (i.e. clergy), and those who worship the Daedric Lords instead. Players are free to do as they wish, though it usually comes down to whether or not you do something for the Daedra or not. (For those who don't play the games, consider them demons, and worship of them akin to worshipping the devil.)
5. Guilds
While the word "guild" is used to describe groups that no longer exist by the time Skyrim begins, the basic idea still exists: characters belong to groups of either mages, warriors for hire, thieves, or assassins. The latter two are typical in Fantasy when a hero is trying to avoid trouble. Terry Pratchett makes use of them in his Discworld novels. There are wizarding schools through the Fantasy genre, too, to the point that we can't ignore the fact that like-minded individuals come together for the building of a craft.
How does this help writers?
A simple focus on these five areas can shed some light on what your Fantasy novel might be missing. This is especially true for those who just dive in without planning (I'll raise my hand to that one - my first novel ever written was a Fantasy novel, though I hadn't fully thought it through before I began writing.) Making appropriate use of the different races that have appeared in Fantasy in the past can enliven your towns and cities. Knowing whether there is Magic, and understanding how it works, makes it much more acceptable for a reader when a character causes a man to freeze with ice coming from this throat. Having political parties - even just a ruling army and a rebellion - appealing for support can drag your character away from their true goal - or closer towards it. Embracing the idea of religion is much more believable for a world than one without any concept of a God, god or gods - a sense of the divine, whether you feel it yourself or not, has been part of human history for thousands of years. Creating groups of magic users or warriors or thieves can help your character find the help and support he or she needs. Parties of diverse characters are part of what has become convention. Even if you choose to then ignore the convention, being aware of it is a good first step.
Of course, there is a sixth thing we have to remember when it comes to Fantasy: have fun! If you, as the writer, or the reader, or the gamer, or the viewer, are not having fun with the genre, something has gone terribly, terribly wrong.
Writers: play around with how things work in your novel (especially if you haven't actually started writing it yet...which you totally should start doing instead of putting it off.) Make things different. Don't repeat the wizarding order of The Lord of the Rings or the Magic system in the Discworld novels. Don't just mimic the gods of Dungeons and Dragons, or throw out the old Fantasy races for the sake of familiarity. Use your imagination, and show the world something different. And one you've created that, keep with it. Skyrim is the fifth game (minus-extensions) in the Elder Scrolls series, and while it has developed with the processing power of computers, it's stuck to the same world, to the same races, and to similar concepts for how the world works (including Magic and other dimensions.)
There's an awful lot to the Fantasy genre, yes, but Skyrim helps make it all a little bit easier to see how it fits together nicely. All this while shooting people in the head with lightning enchanted arrows. Imagine that.
1. Races
Fantasy lends itself to other races. Not always, but often enough that there's an existing idea of the genre in people's heads before they ever read or see a Fantasy novel or film. The Lord of the Rings had humans, elves, dwarves, hobbits, and variations on the above. Skyrim gives us three types of human race, three types of elves, orcs, cat-people, lizard-folk, a bizarre magical creature similar to elves, and the extinct dwarven race. They all go by different names depending on the novel, game, film or television series you're talking about, but in general, Fantasy allows for there to exist a plethora of sentient races.
2. Magic
Think Fantasy, think Magic. Even Game of Thrones has magic, though it comes in rarer doses than what most mainstream Fantasy demonstrates. There aren't any major characters who actively practice Magic in the show, though a few that demonstrate a semblance of magical ability. Gandalf in The Lord of the Rings is part of a wizarding order, and from his first appearance in The Hobbit demonstrates even a basic use of magic. I don't think I need to get in to Harry Potter on the matter of Magic. In Skyrim, we're given a much more basic understanding of magic. Any race can use it (as demonstrated by our ability to choose a character of any race and still throw a fire ball at a bandit), anyone can learn it. It does, however, break itself down into sub-categories, including Destruction Magic (for the standard elemental Magic we see so often: Fire, Ice and Lightning), Restoration Magic, Illusion Magic, and Conjuration, being just a few.
3. Politics
Perhaps the most important thing we need to pay attention to in Skyrim is the politics. In both Elder Scrolls games I've played, Oblivion being the other, the political tension in the world is a major factor into the storyline. It affects the protagonist, we're asked to become involved in it, and it reaches out into the various towns and cities across the Fantasy world no matter how far away from the capital they are. You don't necessarily need a big battle, either. The college at Winterfold in Skyrim is purposely removed from politics - but even the statement of this fact by a member of the college is in reference to the Mage's Guild's political involvement in Oblivion. There are also the little politics of each guild and town, who is in charge, how they reach power, who wants to take them down.
4. Religion
I've always been aware of the religious aspects of these games, probably as a result of the overexposure to religion at college. Looking at it simply, there are four kinds of people in Skyrim: those who don't believe in the gods (the minority), those who do believe in the gods (the majority), those who actively work for the gods (i.e. clergy), and those who worship the Daedric Lords instead. Players are free to do as they wish, though it usually comes down to whether or not you do something for the Daedra or not. (For those who don't play the games, consider them demons, and worship of them akin to worshipping the devil.)
5. Guilds
While the word "guild" is used to describe groups that no longer exist by the time Skyrim begins, the basic idea still exists: characters belong to groups of either mages, warriors for hire, thieves, or assassins. The latter two are typical in Fantasy when a hero is trying to avoid trouble. Terry Pratchett makes use of them in his Discworld novels. There are wizarding schools through the Fantasy genre, too, to the point that we can't ignore the fact that like-minded individuals come together for the building of a craft.
How does this help writers?
A simple focus on these five areas can shed some light on what your Fantasy novel might be missing. This is especially true for those who just dive in without planning (I'll raise my hand to that one - my first novel ever written was a Fantasy novel, though I hadn't fully thought it through before I began writing.) Making appropriate use of the different races that have appeared in Fantasy in the past can enliven your towns and cities. Knowing whether there is Magic, and understanding how it works, makes it much more acceptable for a reader when a character causes a man to freeze with ice coming from this throat. Having political parties - even just a ruling army and a rebellion - appealing for support can drag your character away from their true goal - or closer towards it. Embracing the idea of religion is much more believable for a world than one without any concept of a God, god or gods - a sense of the divine, whether you feel it yourself or not, has been part of human history for thousands of years. Creating groups of magic users or warriors or thieves can help your character find the help and support he or she needs. Parties of diverse characters are part of what has become convention. Even if you choose to then ignore the convention, being aware of it is a good first step.
Of course, there is a sixth thing we have to remember when it comes to Fantasy: have fun! If you, as the writer, or the reader, or the gamer, or the viewer, are not having fun with the genre, something has gone terribly, terribly wrong.
Writers: play around with how things work in your novel (especially if you haven't actually started writing it yet...which you totally should start doing instead of putting it off.) Make things different. Don't repeat the wizarding order of The Lord of the Rings or the Magic system in the Discworld novels. Don't just mimic the gods of Dungeons and Dragons, or throw out the old Fantasy races for the sake of familiarity. Use your imagination, and show the world something different. And one you've created that, keep with it. Skyrim is the fifth game (minus-extensions) in the Elder Scrolls series, and while it has developed with the processing power of computers, it's stuck to the same world, to the same races, and to similar concepts for how the world works (including Magic and other dimensions.)
There's an awful lot to the Fantasy genre, yes, but Skyrim helps make it all a little bit easier to see how it fits together nicely. All this while shooting people in the head with lightning enchanted arrows. Imagine that.
Friday, April 6, 2012
This Thing Called Sin
A little while ago, we received the first details of our Research Papers in college. This began with the systematic choosing of subjects, approaching moderators nervously and trying to get our heads around what to do in the space of a week.
Except for me. I've been thinking about this since about October or November. I've known for a long time what I wanted to do my Research Paper on: the Seven Deadly Sins. For the actual paper, it's boiled down to a single sin: Pride. And so, the theological, psychological and literary examinations of Pride began, with a bibliography of over thirty titles to get through. Of these, many are meant directly for the actual discussion of Pride in literature and popular media, but there are also articles and books about Sin, Pride, the Capital/Deadly Sins, Demons, Lucifer, the Devil... the list goes on.
What it has essentially done is make me look at certain things in the world in terms of Sin. It's a weird experience. I don't consider myself to be overtly religious. Yes, I have faith, but I never really thought I would look at people or their actions and consider the Sin they were committing. Don't ask me how it happened or what I think about, because if I ever knew (about the former), I've long since forgotten (in both cases).
I plan on using this research, of course. I'm getting an understanding of some of the basic principles the Church has been against for centuries, and the psychological sources and implications of the sins as I do my research. Essentially, I'm reading about what makes a person "bad".
It's the ultimate villain research.
The Research Paper will be examining a number of texts, from Doctor Faustus to Lord Sunday to Like a Rolling Stone. Yes, Marlowe, Nix and Dylan. I don't do subtlety, do I?
It will be fun, though. I love reading about this stuff. I've had ideas about how to use it all beforehand, and now I'll actually have some proper understanding of it. God, I'm turning into an adult, aren't I?
Except for me. I've been thinking about this since about October or November. I've known for a long time what I wanted to do my Research Paper on: the Seven Deadly Sins. For the actual paper, it's boiled down to a single sin: Pride. And so, the theological, psychological and literary examinations of Pride began, with a bibliography of over thirty titles to get through. Of these, many are meant directly for the actual discussion of Pride in literature and popular media, but there are also articles and books about Sin, Pride, the Capital/Deadly Sins, Demons, Lucifer, the Devil... the list goes on.
What it has essentially done is make me look at certain things in the world in terms of Sin. It's a weird experience. I don't consider myself to be overtly religious. Yes, I have faith, but I never really thought I would look at people or their actions and consider the Sin they were committing. Don't ask me how it happened or what I think about, because if I ever knew (about the former), I've long since forgotten (in both cases).
I plan on using this research, of course. I'm getting an understanding of some of the basic principles the Church has been against for centuries, and the psychological sources and implications of the sins as I do my research. Essentially, I'm reading about what makes a person "bad".
It's the ultimate villain research.
The Research Paper will be examining a number of texts, from Doctor Faustus to Lord Sunday to Like a Rolling Stone. Yes, Marlowe, Nix and Dylan. I don't do subtlety, do I?
It will be fun, though. I love reading about this stuff. I've had ideas about how to use it all beforehand, and now I'll actually have some proper understanding of it. God, I'm turning into an adult, aren't I?
Friday, February 18, 2011
Soul Friend
During one of my education lectures (I think...) there was a bunch of discussion about relationships and different types of people, and the term 'Anam Cara' came up. This is, pretty literally, the Irish for Soul Friend. The concept is relatively simple, or I'm making it too simple: you have a friend you can tell anything.
I suppose it goes deeper than that. It's a relationship. Not a romantic one, by necessity, but a relationship nonetheless, like every other friendship or business partnership you'll ever have, and as such the implication that you can tell this one person anything also suggests that they, too, can tell you anything. The mutual level of trust is there, even if it becomes shaky at times - my own personal experience of the matter, and not something I wish to try again.
It's not just about trust, though. I mean, we all place a degree of trust in the people we talk to. We trust teachers. We (used to almost always) trust priests. We trust our parents. We just the chaplain at our school/college. But that doesn't mean we tell them everything, and it doesn't mean we feel the same way about them as we do about our Soul Friend.
The term itself suggests a connection that runs deeper than just the talk and the other aspects of a friendship, like drunkenly laying an arm over someone's shoulder. It's something you can't explain, really, no matter how hard you try and no matter how many words you have in your vocabulary. It's a form of love that can't be broken, but not the same as a parent's love for his/her child, or the same as the sort of love you have for someone in a romantic (and sexual) relationship. It's a run-deep kind of love that doesn't get celebrated on Hallmark day.
I believe in the idea of the Soul Friend. I believe in it because sometimes, even for an attendee of God College, believing in God and having faith in God is difficult. I believe in God's existence alright, but more often my faith is placed in my Soul Friend. It's a comfort thing, on one level, having someone there to talk to, but it's also something more basic than that - I have faith that he can do right. It's what we lack in God, sometimes; there's a great expectation that nothing should go wrong, then a tsunami strikes and thousands die, along with the faith of thousands more. Without getting to religious on the matter, I'd say it's because the love for God and the faith in God lacks two-way communication, lacks the certain security that comes with the sound of another human voice telling you everything's going to be okay, even when there's nothing wrong, telling you how to deal with something when you didn't ask, and letting you talk when you need someone to listen. God listens alright, but the problem I reckon lots of people have is that it's like it's all forgotten a second later and nothing ever gets done.
You can't just look for your Soul Friend. It sounds unfair, I know, that some people have them and others don't, but it's not the richest or the happiest, or the poorest or the saddest that find a Soul Friend. It just happens. It happens and you can't escape it, and you don't want to lose it when you find it. I know if I thought I'd like this friendship, nothing would stop me trying to make things right. I suppose that's dangerous, too, because it means I can put myself in some sort of physical danger, firstly, as well as emotional danger if it just can't be fixed, if the pieces don't quite fit back anymore.
That was my worry once, until I found new pieces that held the old ones together, too.
I write this, on a Friday night because really I don't do anything beyond going to the cinema, but specifically on a Friday because that's the day my interviews will be posted when they're done. Friday is my sort of Friendship Appreciation Day, and Hallmark won't ruin that. But for me, friendship isn't just confined to one day on my blog. Every day in my friendships is important. I just make sure not to test things with my Soul Friend on a Tuesday. Long story. I won't be telling it.
I suppose it goes deeper than that. It's a relationship. Not a romantic one, by necessity, but a relationship nonetheless, like every other friendship or business partnership you'll ever have, and as such the implication that you can tell this one person anything also suggests that they, too, can tell you anything. The mutual level of trust is there, even if it becomes shaky at times - my own personal experience of the matter, and not something I wish to try again.
It's not just about trust, though. I mean, we all place a degree of trust in the people we talk to. We trust teachers. We (used to almost always) trust priests. We trust our parents. We just the chaplain at our school/college. But that doesn't mean we tell them everything, and it doesn't mean we feel the same way about them as we do about our Soul Friend.
The term itself suggests a connection that runs deeper than just the talk and the other aspects of a friendship, like drunkenly laying an arm over someone's shoulder. It's something you can't explain, really, no matter how hard you try and no matter how many words you have in your vocabulary. It's a form of love that can't be broken, but not the same as a parent's love for his/her child, or the same as the sort of love you have for someone in a romantic (and sexual) relationship. It's a run-deep kind of love that doesn't get celebrated on Hallmark day.
I believe in the idea of the Soul Friend. I believe in it because sometimes, even for an attendee of God College, believing in God and having faith in God is difficult. I believe in God's existence alright, but more often my faith is placed in my Soul Friend. It's a comfort thing, on one level, having someone there to talk to, but it's also something more basic than that - I have faith that he can do right. It's what we lack in God, sometimes; there's a great expectation that nothing should go wrong, then a tsunami strikes and thousands die, along with the faith of thousands more. Without getting to religious on the matter, I'd say it's because the love for God and the faith in God lacks two-way communication, lacks the certain security that comes with the sound of another human voice telling you everything's going to be okay, even when there's nothing wrong, telling you how to deal with something when you didn't ask, and letting you talk when you need someone to listen. God listens alright, but the problem I reckon lots of people have is that it's like it's all forgotten a second later and nothing ever gets done.
You can't just look for your Soul Friend. It sounds unfair, I know, that some people have them and others don't, but it's not the richest or the happiest, or the poorest or the saddest that find a Soul Friend. It just happens. It happens and you can't escape it, and you don't want to lose it when you find it. I know if I thought I'd like this friendship, nothing would stop me trying to make things right. I suppose that's dangerous, too, because it means I can put myself in some sort of physical danger, firstly, as well as emotional danger if it just can't be fixed, if the pieces don't quite fit back anymore.
That was my worry once, until I found new pieces that held the old ones together, too.
I write this, on a Friday night because really I don't do anything beyond going to the cinema, but specifically on a Friday because that's the day my interviews will be posted when they're done. Friday is my sort of Friendship Appreciation Day, and Hallmark won't ruin that. But for me, friendship isn't just confined to one day on my blog. Every day in my friendships is important. I just make sure not to test things with my Soul Friend on a Tuesday. Long story. I won't be telling it.
Thursday, December 2, 2010
Being a Teacher
People seem to underestimate the work involved in being a teacher. I can say this, without conviction, because I have been doing some of the work of a teacher. If you think it's just standing up in front of a class and talking for the day, you're wrong. At primary level, which I've been getting lessons together for, there's a lot of creative thought necessary.
Why?
Because children don't want to listen to someone drone on about everything day-in, day-out for eight years. They need activities, stimulation, colour, videos, music, and time away from being spoken at about all the subjects they don't care for.
So what does a teacher have to do?
Let's put this into context: I have three classes to teach in January - 2 Religion and 1 English, every day for two weeks. For each of these three classes and for each of the weeks, I need to prepare what's called a Scheme of Work. I normally like scheming. This involves so much more than just minute preparation and a lot of winging it, though. Each scheme needs to cover the AIMS of the week's lessons, CONCEPTS & DEFINITIONS involved in the lessons, RESOURCES that were used to prepare the lesson and a DESCRIPTION of each of the five lessons per class per week.
After that, there then has to be a Lesson Plan for each of the lessons in each of the classes for both weeks. For me, with only a fraction of the work of a fully-qualified primary school teacher, this is still a huge amount of work: 15 lesson plans per week! New teachers would use lesson plans for a while until they had everything more or less prepared for the duration of their time teaching a particular school year, only tweaking things when necessary. However, this means an estimated 8-9 lesson plans per day, which amounts to 40-45 per week, for 37 weeks of the year (I'm told). That's 1,480-1665 per year. Bare in mind that many teachers stay with the same class group for two years, so they don't repeat a year until after they've done the same workload again.
That's a LOT of preparation...
And it's only the beginning! Teachers still have to prepare worksheets and resources for all of these lessons, and... yes, you guessed it: they have to teach the lessons. But it's not over after that. There's also this thing children hate called HOMEWORK and it has to be collected. Fun times, yeah?
And this is what I've signed up for, only with secondary schools instead. This means less freedom for lessons, but less subjects to cover. That doesn't make it easier, it just means that I'd have to teach up to six years worth of material. Yeah, that's more lesson plans the first time around. And with the way the curriculum is in English, it'd mean having to change the plans every year for fifth and sixth class, based on what texts are on for their Leaving Cert exams.
That doesn't sound like fun... why are you doing this again?
I ask myself that every time I have to do the preparatory work. I guess I just want to teach. I want to pass on knowledge, maybe make a generation of people excited about books and reading and, if I'm lucky and good enough, half-way decent citizens. Religion teaching isn't just "Yay God and all that"; it's about encouraging pupils to make an educated choice about religion; it's about teaching morals and values that have real importance in the world; it's about promoting equality and understanding and removing all the presumptions about other religious faiths, which I find to be of high importance given South Park's attacks on Judaism and Islam, even they're meant to just be funny; and it's about helping pupils to progress in their faith development.
Their...what?
Faith development; it's part of Robert Fowler's study of what he calls the stages of faith. They're not specific to Christianity, though a lot of the work was done in a Christian context. The stages of faith present a stage of someone's life, allowing them to understand the world in different ways to others of different stages. It's generally accepted that there are very few stage six people who ever lived... one of them is Jesus, another is Mahatma Ghandi. See? Universal! And Religion in schools is about helping people with their faith development so that they can understand the world in new lights. It's all very fascinating, really.
And this is what being a teacher is about?
Well, this is an idea of what being a teacher is about. Contextually, this is really what being an English and Religion teacher is about. Maths and Science teachers wouldn't be as concerned with faith development, I wouldn't imagine! But the workload is the same. It's a lot to do and a lot to teach, and while it's not as easy as people think, so far it's been as fulfilling. And I haven't even taught my lessons, yet!
Why?
Because children don't want to listen to someone drone on about everything day-in, day-out for eight years. They need activities, stimulation, colour, videos, music, and time away from being spoken at about all the subjects they don't care for.
So what does a teacher have to do?
Let's put this into context: I have three classes to teach in January - 2 Religion and 1 English, every day for two weeks. For each of these three classes and for each of the weeks, I need to prepare what's called a Scheme of Work. I normally like scheming. This involves so much more than just minute preparation and a lot of winging it, though. Each scheme needs to cover the AIMS of the week's lessons, CONCEPTS & DEFINITIONS involved in the lessons, RESOURCES that were used to prepare the lesson and a DESCRIPTION of each of the five lessons per class per week.
After that, there then has to be a Lesson Plan for each of the lessons in each of the classes for both weeks. For me, with only a fraction of the work of a fully-qualified primary school teacher, this is still a huge amount of work: 15 lesson plans per week! New teachers would use lesson plans for a while until they had everything more or less prepared for the duration of their time teaching a particular school year, only tweaking things when necessary. However, this means an estimated 8-9 lesson plans per day, which amounts to 40-45 per week, for 37 weeks of the year (I'm told). That's 1,480-1665 per year. Bare in mind that many teachers stay with the same class group for two years, so they don't repeat a year until after they've done the same workload again.
That's a LOT of preparation...
And it's only the beginning! Teachers still have to prepare worksheets and resources for all of these lessons, and... yes, you guessed it: they have to teach the lessons. But it's not over after that. There's also this thing children hate called HOMEWORK and it has to be collected. Fun times, yeah?
And this is what I've signed up for, only with secondary schools instead. This means less freedom for lessons, but less subjects to cover. That doesn't make it easier, it just means that I'd have to teach up to six years worth of material. Yeah, that's more lesson plans the first time around. And with the way the curriculum is in English, it'd mean having to change the plans every year for fifth and sixth class, based on what texts are on for their Leaving Cert exams.
That doesn't sound like fun... why are you doing this again?
I ask myself that every time I have to do the preparatory work. I guess I just want to teach. I want to pass on knowledge, maybe make a generation of people excited about books and reading and, if I'm lucky and good enough, half-way decent citizens. Religion teaching isn't just "Yay God and all that"; it's about encouraging pupils to make an educated choice about religion; it's about teaching morals and values that have real importance in the world; it's about promoting equality and understanding and removing all the presumptions about other religious faiths, which I find to be of high importance given South Park's attacks on Judaism and Islam, even they're meant to just be funny; and it's about helping pupils to progress in their faith development.
Their...what?
Faith development; it's part of Robert Fowler's study of what he calls the stages of faith. They're not specific to Christianity, though a lot of the work was done in a Christian context. The stages of faith present a stage of someone's life, allowing them to understand the world in different ways to others of different stages. It's generally accepted that there are very few stage six people who ever lived... one of them is Jesus, another is Mahatma Ghandi. See? Universal! And Religion in schools is about helping people with their faith development so that they can understand the world in new lights. It's all very fascinating, really.
And this is what being a teacher is about?
Well, this is an idea of what being a teacher is about. Contextually, this is really what being an English and Religion teacher is about. Maths and Science teachers wouldn't be as concerned with faith development, I wouldn't imagine! But the workload is the same. It's a lot to do and a lot to teach, and while it's not as easy as people think, so far it's been as fulfilling. And I haven't even taught my lessons, yet!
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Study Time
I have my first exam in a week. I have started study... eventually. I started by reading two of the three texts I ought to cover for my Varieties of Fiction module; books one and ten of Ovid's Metamorphoses, and the delightful novella by Herman Melville, Bartleby the Scrivener. I've read something of Melville's before, Billy Budd, and I have to say, he didn't fail to impress a second time. In fact, I loved Bartleby even more than I did Billy Budd. It was a funnier story, with a much more powerful voice behind the story. The narrator was fantastic!
I've also prepared a question for my exam on the Pentateuch (that's the first five books of the Bible: Genesis, Exodus, Number, Leviticus and Deuteronomy.) One of the topics we were told to cover was the creation stories in chapters 1 and 2 of Genesis. For those who don't know, that's the stories about the creation of the universe and the Garden of Eden. They are, in fact, two seperate and contradicting stories. Just to show off (well, actually, this also serves as helpful revision...) I'm going to write what I can about the books from memory.
Chapter 1 of Genesis was written by the author known typically by scholars as the Priestly writer, while Chapter 2 was written by the Jahwist writer. There are twelve differences between the two stories, going into detail on the content. For a start, Gen 1 begins with the creation of "heaven and the earth" while Gen 2 begins with "earth and the heavens" being made. The two have subtle differences; heaven is more important in Gen 1, along with the idea of creation, while Gen 2 focuses on the importance of the earth before the heavens, and things being made, such as Man from the earth.
On the subject of Man, there are a number of differences regarding his creation; Gen 1 refers to Man being made in the "image and likeness" of God, while Gen 2 tells of how Man was man from the dust of the earth, with the breath of God being blown into his nostrils. Gen 1 also dictates that Man and Woman were created at the same time, whereas Gen 2 has Woman made last of all God's creatures, from Man (interesting note: Hebrew for Man is ishsh, while Woman is ishshah, meaning "from Man"). Gen 1 tells us that God named all of His creatures, while in Gen 2, it is Man, in this case, Adam (from the Hebrew adam, meaning Earth).
The very name of God is different in both texts; in Gen 1 He is referred to as God, whereas in Gen 2 He is called The Lord God. It is from this point of information that we determine who the author is; "lord" in the Bible is written as LORD when referring to God, which, in Hebrew terms, is displayed as YHWH - this is where we derive the term Yahweh, though the true pronunciation of the term isn't known.
The texts also differ in length; the creation story of Gen 1 ends shortly into chapter 2 (but is generally just referred ot as the creation story in Gen 1), whereas the story in Gen 2 continues into chapter 3, where we meet the Serpent. (side note: at this point, I am now struggling to remember the smaller points - I know there's a larger one, but I want to avoid it for the time being).
Moving on to the creation as a whole, the stories differ on a number of points; Genesis 1 takes place over seven days - 6 days of creation, 1 of rest (the Sabbath) - while Genesis 2 takes place in one day. Over the longer period of time, God's Master Plan is kept, while in Gen 2 the process is more about trial and error. Similaraly, everything in Gen 1 is, at the very least, "good", while something is not right in Gen 2: 'Then the LORD God said, "Is is not good that man should be alone"' - Genesis 2:18.
As a final note (as I've forgotten the 12th point.... I'll check that when I'm done showing off), the order of creation in the stories is different. Genesis 1 portrays creation in this way: Heaven and the earth, and light, on the first day; the dome, Sky, around the earth on the second day (also containing water); dry land and vegetation on the third day; heavenly bodies, such as the sun, the moon and the stars, on the fourth day, though they are not directly named as they are technically, at the time of the story's writing, pagan deities, and therefore not to be mentioned within a then-Jewish text; on the fifth day the fish and all the creatures of the sea; and the creatures of the land on the sixth day, including Man, at the very end of this creation. Genesis 2, on the other hand, tells the story in this order: first earth and the heavens; then Man; Eden and vegetation; water, in the form of rivers; then the creatures of the land and all the birds in the air; and finally, out of Man, he created Woman. It is quite noticeable, the differences between the stories, when the information is presented; much more importance was placed on the world than Man in the first story, whereas the world seemed to have been made for Man in the second story.
As to the forgotten information... the stories present God in two different ways. Genesis 1 tells us of a God being a transcendant being, and therefore without a form for us to worship (as is intended for both Christian and Jewish faiths - there shall be no false idols before the Lord; in other words, no statues). Genesis 2, on the other hand, tells us of an anthropromorphic God, with the shape and form of a human, and the image most used in art.
I hope this hasn't been a boring blog for you all; it's a little unusal, I know, for me to write about religion here, but I think that the topic is the comparison of two stories, regardless of them being from a religious text, is enough to save me from turning completely over to the Christian side; I still very much believe in God, but I'm not a bible-pusher by any means. Each to his own, so long as it is in respect of other people (and everything else too!).
Opinions on the blog post are very much appreciated, but I don't intend on this becoming a religious debate; remember that the Old Testament is largely a metaphorical text to help explain some of the deeper mysteries of the universe, and in the context of the time at which it was written it was an extremely useful text. It wasn't, however, accepted a science; no one truly accepted that the creation stories were absolute truth, but they accepted the hugely important religious messages behind the texts regardless.
days
order of creation
created as intented/trial and error (Master Plan)
Everything good/something not good
I've also prepared a question for my exam on the Pentateuch (that's the first five books of the Bible: Genesis, Exodus, Number, Leviticus and Deuteronomy.) One of the topics we were told to cover was the creation stories in chapters 1 and 2 of Genesis. For those who don't know, that's the stories about the creation of the universe and the Garden of Eden. They are, in fact, two seperate and contradicting stories. Just to show off (well, actually, this also serves as helpful revision...) I'm going to write what I can about the books from memory.
Chapter 1 of Genesis was written by the author known typically by scholars as the Priestly writer, while Chapter 2 was written by the Jahwist writer. There are twelve differences between the two stories, going into detail on the content. For a start, Gen 1 begins with the creation of "heaven and the earth" while Gen 2 begins with "earth and the heavens" being made. The two have subtle differences; heaven is more important in Gen 1, along with the idea of creation, while Gen 2 focuses on the importance of the earth before the heavens, and things being made, such as Man from the earth.
On the subject of Man, there are a number of differences regarding his creation; Gen 1 refers to Man being made in the "image and likeness" of God, while Gen 2 tells of how Man was man from the dust of the earth, with the breath of God being blown into his nostrils. Gen 1 also dictates that Man and Woman were created at the same time, whereas Gen 2 has Woman made last of all God's creatures, from Man (interesting note: Hebrew for Man is ishsh, while Woman is ishshah, meaning "from Man"). Gen 1 tells us that God named all of His creatures, while in Gen 2, it is Man, in this case, Adam (from the Hebrew adam, meaning Earth).
The very name of God is different in both texts; in Gen 1 He is referred to as God, whereas in Gen 2 He is called The Lord God. It is from this point of information that we determine who the author is; "lord" in the Bible is written as LORD when referring to God, which, in Hebrew terms, is displayed as YHWH - this is where we derive the term Yahweh, though the true pronunciation of the term isn't known.
The texts also differ in length; the creation story of Gen 1 ends shortly into chapter 2 (but is generally just referred ot as the creation story in Gen 1), whereas the story in Gen 2 continues into chapter 3, where we meet the Serpent. (side note: at this point, I am now struggling to remember the smaller points - I know there's a larger one, but I want to avoid it for the time being).
Moving on to the creation as a whole, the stories differ on a number of points; Genesis 1 takes place over seven days - 6 days of creation, 1 of rest (the Sabbath) - while Genesis 2 takes place in one day. Over the longer period of time, God's Master Plan is kept, while in Gen 2 the process is more about trial and error. Similaraly, everything in Gen 1 is, at the very least, "good", while something is not right in Gen 2: 'Then the LORD God said, "Is is not good that man should be alone"' - Genesis 2:18.
As a final note (as I've forgotten the 12th point.... I'll check that when I'm done showing off), the order of creation in the stories is different. Genesis 1 portrays creation in this way: Heaven and the earth, and light, on the first day; the dome, Sky, around the earth on the second day (also containing water); dry land and vegetation on the third day; heavenly bodies, such as the sun, the moon and the stars, on the fourth day, though they are not directly named as they are technically, at the time of the story's writing, pagan deities, and therefore not to be mentioned within a then-Jewish text; on the fifth day the fish and all the creatures of the sea; and the creatures of the land on the sixth day, including Man, at the very end of this creation. Genesis 2, on the other hand, tells the story in this order: first earth and the heavens; then Man; Eden and vegetation; water, in the form of rivers; then the creatures of the land and all the birds in the air; and finally, out of Man, he created Woman. It is quite noticeable, the differences between the stories, when the information is presented; much more importance was placed on the world than Man in the first story, whereas the world seemed to have been made for Man in the second story.
As to the forgotten information... the stories present God in two different ways. Genesis 1 tells us of a God being a transcendant being, and therefore without a form for us to worship (as is intended for both Christian and Jewish faiths - there shall be no false idols before the Lord; in other words, no statues). Genesis 2, on the other hand, tells us of an anthropromorphic God, with the shape and form of a human, and the image most used in art.
I hope this hasn't been a boring blog for you all; it's a little unusal, I know, for me to write about religion here, but I think that the topic is the comparison of two stories, regardless of them being from a religious text, is enough to save me from turning completely over to the Christian side; I still very much believe in God, but I'm not a bible-pusher by any means. Each to his own, so long as it is in respect of other people (and everything else too!).
Opinions on the blog post are very much appreciated, but I don't intend on this becoming a religious debate; remember that the Old Testament is largely a metaphorical text to help explain some of the deeper mysteries of the universe, and in the context of the time at which it was written it was an extremely useful text. It wasn't, however, accepted a science; no one truly accepted that the creation stories were absolute truth, but they accepted the hugely important religious messages behind the texts regardless.
days
order of creation
created as intented/trial and error (Master Plan)
Everything good/something not good
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)