Music I Like, Week 1

Now, I know nobody reads my blog, but I decided to start keeping, for myself mostly, a record of the music I like to listen to, by highlighting a piece or a song or an album every week (ish) that I've listened to and enjoyed. Now, I could probably write a separate blog post every week for about a year on Beethoven's 5th Symphony, since it's my favourite piece of music, ever, in the entire world, period. But that would be boring to read, so I'll pick different things.

This week I've been listening to God Almighty, None Compares by the David Crowder Band, on their Church Music album. This album was released in 2009. I bought it in 2010, and have listened to it often since then. The album itself is fantastic; I highly recommend it. They write interesting music, and put it together in interesting ways. I appreciate that, since I'm easily bored with music, especially 4-chord worship music.

One fascinating thing about the album is that it's continuous. There are no gaps between any of the tracks--and if you put the album on repeat, it loops indefinitely. This does make for some awkward intros and outros to songs if you listen to them individually, but they're cut as well as they could be.

This album is full of fantastic tracks. My favourites are Eastern Hymn; We Are Loved; Can I Lie Here; What a Miracle; and God Almighty, None Compares, but out of the whole album, God Almighty, None Compares is definitely my #1 pick in terms of musicality, lyricism, and sheer enjoyability.

(Disclaimer: I am not a professional musician, nor have I taken many music classes, though I like to read about musical theory occasionally in my spare time. Sorry if some of my terminology is childish.)

This song is divided into two main sections. David Crowder sings in the first part of the song, and the second part of the song is an extended instrumental section that develops the musical themes in the first part.


Part 1 structure: theme 1.1 (6/8), theme 1.2 (4/4), transition (4/4 half-time), theme 1.3 (4/4), theme 1.1, theme 1.2, transition, theme 1.3, theme 1.3

The first thing one notices during part 1 is the time signature changes. The song starts out in a lilting 6/8 signature, the full band joining in to create a melody that feels slow, but full, with building transitions between phrases that add to the full feeling of the song.

Then immediately after the first verse, the band moves to a quick 4/4 rhythm, focused on the melody from the guitar. The second theme uses a half-time section (with the same full feeling as the 6/8 section) to transition to the chorus. The chorus transitions back into a repeat of everything we've heard so far, but adds a few musical touches to develop the themes and build momentum. After the full repeat, the chorus alone repeats once more, and we move to the second part of the song, where the real magic happens.


Part 2 structure (all in 4/4): intro, theme 2.1, theme 2.2, theme 2.1, theme 2.1, theme 2.2, outro

There aren't any lyrics in part 2, nor are there any time signature changes--but part 2 manages to captivate even more fully than part 1. The intro, coming out of the repeat of the chorus in part 1, is a set of long whole notes from the guitars. The drums kick us into the first theme, establishing the basic music that will develop later. Theme 2 opens with a series of sharp chords, interrupting the steadiness of theme 1 with drama and conflict.

Theme 1 comes back with a rebuttal, developing the basic melody of the piece with overlaying notes from the guitar soloist. Once this repeat is over, it repeats theme 1 again, further developing the melody to defend itself from theme 2.

Theme 2 returns with a vengeance, but now theme 1 is strong enough to fight back, and after a short, intense struggle for a couple measures, the themes combine to resolve into one of the best-built-up musical climaxes I've ever heard.

The outro, which feels much less like an outro than like a much-needed breath after the previous drama, takes a few quiet phrases to transition into the next song--as you remember, there's no gap between God Almighty, None Compares, and the next song.


Now that we've gone over the structure, I'd like to say a few things about the key and the lyrics of the song. This song is in the key of B minor. Generally, minor key = sad song. Not in this case. In this song, a minor key is a key choice to facilitate the melody and other musical choices. In fact, on the first listen-through, if you're not accustomed to listening for the key, you may think it's actually in a major key, because you're not left with any sad feelings, like with most minor songs.

The lyrics add to this effect. The message of the song is typical for a worship song, celebrating God's majesty and might. The lyrics of the verse:

"Glory and honour, wisdom and power
Grace and fury, splendour and might
Oh you are splendour and might
Matchless beauty, endless light"

Standard fare for a worship song, for sure. However, the words were chosen for how they sound with the music, not solely for the purpose of conveying a message. David Crowder uses his voice as an additional instrument. He adds a subtle harmony over most of what he sings, to add yet another layer of instrumentation to the music. Even the meanings of the words add to the feeling of grandeur that saturates the full song.

That's the beauty of this song. It was written carefully, with extreme consideration to detail. Every part of this song contributes to the musical themes and their resolution. Every musical choice adds to the dynamics of the themes and their relationships to each other.

Conclusion: this is an awesome song. You should go listen to it right now. And now that I've listened this song on repeat for about two hours in order to write this post, I'm going to stop procrastinating and start in on all the reading I have to do for next week.

God's not a he, and I want to get married someday to someone I'm actually attracted to.

I’m going to assume you’re all familiar with the barely six (being generous) references to homosexual behaviour in the Bible. I’m not going to spend a whole lot of time arguing about why I believe they don’t describe a Christ-centred, God-ordained marriage between two people of the same biological sex. Justin Lee does a lot better job of that than I do. I will, however, briefly go through the main prooftexts. There are links at the end of this post for further reading.

First is Adam and Eve’s marriage, the first marriage, between a biological male and a biological female. This is an extremely common objection to same-sex marriage. I don’t think it holds any water because of the distinction between the idea of an archetype and a prototype. The archetype of something is the ideal to which all others in that category must be upheld. The archetype for marriage, as is the archetype for *all* human relationships of any capacity, is the Trinity. Perfect, selfless, mutual love. A common analogy for this archetype is the relationship between Christ and the church—but more on that later. Adam and Eve’s marriage was the prototype, the first one, not the archetype, the ideal one. Must we take only what Adam and Eve did and claim that we musn’t do other things because Adam and Eve didn’t do them? Bear in mind that Adam and Eve did not read the Bible.

Next is the few passages in Leviticus against homosexual behaviour. I think they are irrelevant. Christ’s sacrifice abolishes the Old Law to make way for the New—to love the Lord with all our hearts/souls/minds/strength and to love our neighbors as ourselves. Why would we hold ourselves to the Israelites’ law if Christ has completely fulfilled it and rendered it null?

Probably the biggest argument against homosexuality is in Romans 1. In Romans 1, Paul was describing to the readers what sin looked like. He used the wild orgies of the fertility cults to describe how sex had been perverted and how it caused damage in the lives of those who participated in them. It was an example of sinful behaviour (and of course reckless orgies are sinful) to make a point. He didn’t address or even mention committed, Christ-centred marriages between two people of the same sex, although many people extrapolate from his discussion of the fertility cults that they’re sinful. Paul does not include any mention of sexuality in his list of real sins at the end of the chapter. I don’t think this is an effective argument. It’s akin to claiming that because extramarital heterosexual sex happens, heterosexual sex within the boundaries of marriage is sinful. I think this passage too is irrelevant.

My main problem with the use of the (extremely scant) references to homosexual behaviour in the Bible as prooftexts that God doesn’t want us to marry someone of the same sex is consistency of interpretation. How can we say that some specific rules apply only to the culture in which they were written and some are valid throughout history? How could we ever determine which exact commands apply? I believe the Bible communicates God’s moral will for our lives through the underlying themes of God’s love for us and God’s desire for us to love other people since we see the image of God in them. I don’t think there’s any reasonable way we could expect to apply the same *specific* rules of the Israelites’ time to our culture.

Let me continue building my case. I think—I certainly hope—we can all agree that racism is bad. What is racism, exactly? Racism means attributing certain character or personality traits to a person based only on their membership in a particular ethnic group—based only on their physical characteristics. This idea has caused multiple problems throughout human history, particularly when speaking of racism and sexism. After all, what is sexism? Sexism means assigning particular character or personality traits to a person based on their sex chromosomes, or their primary sex characteristics, or their external gender presentation.

Historically the church has continually ended up on the side of not prejudicing against people groups because of physical characteristics—such as the fierce debate in the early church over circumcision. Abolition is another example of this, as is interracial marriage. Although there are people who use the Bible to further their own prejudices, it is obvious throughout the Bible and in Jesus’s own words and interactions that God cares about people’s hearts, not their external physical characteristics.

Most reasonable people will admit that in principle it is unfair and unwise to be systematically sexist. However, the church’s attitude toward same-sex marriage is based purely in sexism. God’s rules are not arbitrary. However, the church’s interpretation of the first chapters of Genesis that all marriages throughout all time must be limited to one biological male and one biological female is completely arbitrary.

All Christian arguments against same-sex marriages come down to the complementarian model, a philosophy of marriage espoused by most major leaders of the Christian faith today, and by the majority of Christians. The root of the complementarian model is that biological males and biological females are intrinsically different in their talents and roles in life. Namely, that biological males are “wired” to work hard and be the main fiscal provider for their family, and also the authoritarian spiritual leader, and biological females are “wired” to take care of the children and basically just do whatever her husband tells her to do. Isn’t this the definition of sexism? Isn’t this prescribing to one population certain character traits, talents, and abilities based solely on a set of physical characteristics?

Complementarians’ major prooftext is Ephesians 5:21-33, a passage with which most Christians are familiar. This passage instructs husbands to love their wives as Christ loves the church, and wives to submit to their husbands as the church submits to Christ. While this sounds like a pretty picture, I don’t think it makes much sense.

Marriage is a mutual partnership between two individuals to build each other up, lean on each other, and ultimately point each other to God. (Plus sex, because sex is pretty awesome [or so I’m told].) The strict model of marriage as a hierarchy of the biological male making every decision and being the sole spiritual leader puts far too much pressure on one partner to be perfect. And according to this model, if I marry a man, I’m not supposed to try to be like Jesus? I thought the whole point of *life* is to try to be like Jesus. Why am I not supposed to try to be like Jesus in marriage? The complementarian model encourages manipulation on the wife’s part since she is not “allowed” to make decisions, and undue authoritianism on the husband’s part as he is supposed to be the “head” of the household.

I’m not saying Paul was wrong. The epistles are personal letters and, like the rest of the Bible, need to be taken in their proper context. Paul’s idea of marriage was at the time very progressive and egalitarian, but women as a population no longer rely on marriage for their livelihood. The best marriages are the ones in which both spouses make use of their individual talents to contribute to the relationship and help each other do well in every aspect of life—spiritual, physical, emotional, sexual, financial, mental, etc.

I find the evidence for the idea that one of these spouses must be biologically male and the other must be biologically female *highly* unconvincing. It’s a completely arbitrary, and I would argue unbiblical requirement that does more harm than good.

There is one other point I would like to bring up—in fact, it was the convincing point for me. And that point is that God is gender-neutral. God does not have an X and Y chromosome, testicles, or male secondary sex characteristics. Certainly Jesus did, but no biblical scholar will insist that God is technically a male. Pronouns in Hebrew are somewhat more ambiguous and less consistently used than they are in our English translation.

For that matter, the church is not a woman. The body of Christ does not have two X chromosomes, ovaries, or female secondary sex characteristics. In fact, the two most common alternative names for the church imply this gender-neutrality. The church is both “the body of Christ” (which was male) *and* “the bride of Christ” (the word “bride”, of course, being exclusively female).

The Bible is clear that all humans regardless of physical sex are meant to function best while trying to be more like God. God can’t marry someone of the opposite gender since God does not have a gender. Why should I be forced to marry only someone of the opposite gender? Gender is nothing to God. Certainly biological sex is, but the beauty of creation is in its diversity. Even though the majority of people primarily desire that which could theoretically produce children, I believe that God created some people to like other things, too—and that is beautiful and wonderful since it reflects God’s character in all its gender-blindness.

I’m not saying everyone should marry someone of the same sex. I’m saying that marriage should be between two people who love each other deeply and want to commit their lives to God and each other for mutual support, companionship, and growth in every area of life. I think that God delights in all marriages like that, no matter if the relationship is between two biological females, two biological males, or a biological male and a biological female.

This post is a (very!) brief overview of the basic reasons I believe God wants me to marry an awesome, godly woman, do life with her, and eventually grow old with her. I've been primarily influenced by Justin Lee, from the Gay Christian Network, and Rachel Held Evans. Here's some further reading that explains more eloquently and specifically what I've said here.

Justin Lee

RHE on gender roles

Archive of RHE's posts tagged homosexuality

Cognitive Function Theory > MBTI

The Basics of Cognitive Function Theory

(If I’m wrong please don’t eat me—this is just what I’ve picked up from reading constantly about this stuff the last 6 months or so)

WHY COGNITIVE FUNCTION THEORY > MBTI

When people talk about MBTI, they’re actually talking about a simplified version of cognitive function theory. In Myers-Briggs typology, there are four binary choices: you’re either introverted or extraverted; you’re either a sensor or an intuitor; you’re either a thinker or a feeler; you’re either a judger or a perceiver. It’s a too-simplified, dichotomous way to look at personality and relies on stereotypes.

Cognitive function theory is more precise and nuanced. Cognitive function theory is a way to understand how people look at the world, how they process information and make decisions with it. It doesn’t predetermine your character and doesn’t reduce you to “a thinker” or “a feeler”. That’s why cognitive function theory is awesome. It’s also why it’s complicated, because people are complicated, and the more accuracy you gain in describing them the more complex your theory becomes.

WHAT ARE THE FUNCTIONS?

Cognitive function theory starts with the cognitive functions. There are four of them: sensing, intuiting, thinking, and feeling. Sensing and intuiting are a pair. They describe the way you take in information, and you have a natural preference for one or the other. Thinking and feeling are the other pair, and they describe how you make decisions with the information you took in through sensing or intuiting, and you also have a natural preference for one of them over the other. Sensing/intuiting are the “perceiving” pair, and thinking/intuiting are the “judging” pair.

Sensing vs. Intuiting. As before mentioned, this pair describes how you take in information. A person who has a sensing preference (if they have an S in their type name) is, well, connected to their senses. They see concrete facts and rely on seeing, hearing, tasting, touching, and smelling things. They are interested in things that are real and tend to be detail-oriented because of how they process information—through their five senses.

A person who has an intuiting preference (if they have an N in their type name) tends to gloss over individual facts in the interest of seeing the whole. They process information based on the “feeling” of the situation. (I’m not using the word “feeling” in connection to emotions but rather instinct.) People who have an intuiting preference aren’t generally as detail-oriented as sensors because DETAILS NOT IMPORTANT (points for the reference).

The best way I can think of to describe the difference between these functions is this: a sensor starts with the facts of a situation and tries to see the pattern—they start from the bottom up. An intuitor instead sees the pattern in the situation and tries to fit the facts they see into the pattern they already have in their head—a top-down way of looking at things. Each way of seeing the world is valuable and has advantages and disadvantages.

Thinking vs. Feeling. This pair describes how you make decisions with the information you processed with your sensing or intuiting functions. This pair is easier to explain and understand. People who have a thinking preference make decisions based on logic, and people who have a feeling preference make decisions based on values. Again, it can be tempting to consider one of these functions “better” than the other, but that’s just not true. Each way of making decisions has advantages and disadvantages, and the world needs people of both disposition.

Every single person has each of these cognitive functions. If you have an intuiting preference, that doesn’t mean you don’t use your sensing function. It just means that intuiting is your default. It’s more developed and sophisticated in your personality than sensing. Likewise, if you’re “a feeler”, that doesn’t mean that you never make decisions based on logic alone; it just means that you’re more likely to make decisions based on values and emotions. That’s your default preference, but it doesn’t mean you’re “not a thinker”.

Remember when I said thinking/feeling was the “judging” pair of functions and sensing/intuiting was the “perceiving” pair? Well, just like within each pair you have a preference, you also have a preference for one pair over the other. I can’t fully explain this idea without talking about introversion/extraversion, so just keep that thought in the back of your mind.

FUNCTION STACKS

In cognitive function theory, you hear people talking about “function stacks”. That’s what they’re talking about. Everyone uses all four of those functions, but has preferences for what order they use them in. For example, I’m an INTP, so my cognitive function stack goes: Thinking, Intuiting, Sensing, Feeling. See how the first two functions is a judging function and a perceiving function? That is the basis of my personality: I have one perceiving function (intuiting) and one judging function (thinking) through which I see the world and interact with it. That’s called my primary axis. Everyone’s primary axis contains one judging function and one perceiving function.

INTROVERSION/EXTRAVERSION

Let’s go over introversion/extraversion. In cognitive function theory, it’s not quite talking about the same exact thing as when people talk about introversion/extraversion in the mainstream. Introversion verses extroversion is called an attitude. Each function can be introverted or extraverted. If a function is introverted, it’s directed inward, toward your internal life. If a function is extraverted, it’s directed outward, toward the world outside yourself.

If a person’s primary function is introverted, they generally act like a person who is mainstream “introverted”—they renew their energy by being alone and big groups or long interactions tend to exhaust them. That’s because the primary way they see the world is directed inside, and if it’s overloaded with external stimuli with no time to convert it to internal stimuli, it can be tiring. Likewise, a person whose primary function is extraverted will be frustrated with too little external stimuli.

So you see that I/E and J/P aren’t actually separate functions. Those two letters in your type name just tell you what order your function stack goes in and whether the functions are introverted (directed inward) or extraverted (directed outward).

(This next part is somewhat long and complicated and may require a few read-throughs to understand. It took me a couple days to work through it.)

NUTS AND BOLTS (the fun stuff)

How do you figure out your function stack from your type name? We’ll use INTP as an example, because that’s my type.

Let’s start with the “I” at the beginning. “I” means that your first function is introverted, second is extraverted, third is introverted, and fourth is extraverted.

i e i e

Now, there are only two possibilities when you’re talking about function stacks. The first function is either a judging function or a perceiving function. Going off that, the next two functions are from the other pair, and the last one is from the same pair as the first function. That’s a little complicated—a diagram might help.

Either it goes “p j j p” or “j p p j”. See? The first function is perceiving, so the next two are judging and the last one is the other perceiving function. In the other case, the first function is judging, so the next two are perceiving and the last one is the other judging function.

The “P” or “J” on the end of your type name helps you decide which one you are. If there’s a “P”, that means that the first extraverted function you come to is a perceiving function. When we’re looking at INTPs, that means that it goes:

i ep i e

So you see that the “p j j p” stack doesn’t fit. It has to be the “j p p j” stack.

ij ep ip ej

Remember, intuiting/sensing are the perceiving functions, and thinking/feeling are the judging functions. Since INTP has N instead of S, that means my preferred perceiving function is intuiting and since it has T instead of F, that means my preferred judging function is thinking.

So the first function is a judging function and it’s introverted, so my primary function is thinking, and it’s introverted. The second function is a perceiving function, so it’s intuiting, and it’s extraverted.

Ti Ne ip ej

So then we just fill in the other perceiving function and judging function

Ti Ne Si Fe

So we can see that for an INTP, function #1 is introverted thinking, then extraverted intuition, then introverted sensing, then extraverted feeling.

Let’s practice with another one, say ENFP. The E tells us that it goes e i e i. The P tells us that the first extraverted function is perceiving, so it has to go p j j p:

ep ij ej ip

ENFPs prefer intuiting and feeling, so:

Ne Fi Te Si

See how it works? It’s a little complicated, but it’s pretty easy once you get the hang of it.

COGNITIVE FUNCTION THEORY IS COOL

Let’s review from “FUNCTION STACKS”:

> Everyone’s primary axis contains one judging function and one perceiving function.

“NUTS AND BOLTS” demonstrates why that’s true. Now I want to explain why it’s cool. If you remember from when we were talking about the functions themselves, we process information through our perceiving functions and then we use our judging functions to make decisions with that information. This is why cognitive function theory works: everyone’s primary axis has one perceiving function, to process information, and one judging function, to make decisions with it. Isn’t that cool? It’s precise and descriptive and actually very lovely, in my opinion, because systems that work are beautiful.

JUDGING AND PERCEIVING (extra credit/optional reading)

Now I’d like to address something that confused me for a while, and that is judging vs. perceiving. It took me a while to figure out why it’s a thing. People talk about “judgers” as having a particular set of characteristics—namely that they’re scheduled and self-disciplined and get things done and can be uptight. Likewise with the “perceivers”—they’re go-with-the-flow and laid-back and can be lazy. I thought, if the J/P distinction only tells you which order the functions go it, why do people think it’s a separate characteristics.

Remember from “NUTS AND BOLTS” that the J/P at the end of the type name tells you that the first extraverted function is judging or perceiving. Now remember what introversion and extraversion are: introversion is you interacting with yourself in your inner world, and extraversion is you interacting with the external world. Now remember that perceiving functions describe how you process information, and judging functions describe how you make decisions with it.

Doesn’t it make sense that if your first extraverted function is primarily concerned with processing information, not making decisions with it, that you would be more laid-back and go-with-the-flow? Likewise, if your first extraverted function is used to make decisions, you’re going to tend more towards the “judger” stereotypes. It took me a while to understand this nuance, but it makes me excited, because I love intricate systems that describe the world.

PARTING WORDS

This has been a very long journey. I’m sorry if it didn’t make sense. I tried to explain things clearly, but I tend to either over-explain in my quest for accuracy and precision, or over-simplify because I assume that the audience has more information than they actually do. So, sorry. But I hope you’ve found this an interesting read and that you feel a little more confident in your understanding of cognitive function theory. Because it’s awesome.

Terrible Writing, Terrible Writing Everywhere...

Here at school I don't really have anyone I usually eat meals with, so I bring my Kindle and read while I eat so it's not so depressing. Last week I found a free book called "Verita" that I thought sounded interesting, so I got it and I've been reading it. I'm halfway through, and I’m considering stopping, because it’s a terrible book. Really. The author had such an interesting premise, and then she totally blew it with subpar writing and no discernable conflict besides the typical teenage does-he-like-me-does-he-not "conflict". It's sad--it had so much potential! But it was so poorly executed that I can't bring myself to read any more of it.

The premise is this: Scientists have discovered a habitable planet, called Verita, in our galaxy, hundreds of light-years away. Some agency (it’s never fully explained) has devised a way to send people to this planet and populate it. They recruit teenagers to go. They put these volunteers in cryogenic sleep and send them to the planet. En route, they are given the knowledge they need to be cast into specific jobs on Verita. (As an aside, there have been studies done on learning while sleeping. It produces little to no useful learning, so this part of the book is totally innacurate.)

The main character’s name is Brett. She is an extremely intelligent social outcast who was taken into the popular group at her high school by a back-stabbing friend who drops her when her parents die and she has to go into foster care. She has no family and no friends, and so she is recruited to go to Verita. Once there, she becomes entwined with two boys (everyone is high-school aged) who find her attractive. One is on her research team. One is not. She also becomes friends with a perky genius who is a perfect friend. She displays leadership skills and is therefore selected as research team lead. The boy who finds her attractive who is on her team has a problem with that and acts like a pouty little boy about it. The boy who is not on her team who she is sort of dating is hot and cold and gets upset over little things and is controlling and irritating. She also happens to be a perfect swimmer.

I have many problems with this book. The first is the writing. It is not good writing. It is not even so-so writing. It sounds like a high schooler wrote it. The dialogue is awkward, the word choices are often inappropriate or redundant, and the expositional parts—she tried to blend them in. It didn’t work. It’s done in first person present tense. It didn’t work.

The second is the characters. They girls are Mary Sues. I don’t think Brett was a very good name choice. She is much too perfect. She is appropriately modest and reluctant to take on the job of team lead but although she doesn’t think she’s a good leader, she automatically is perfect at leading and handles everything perfectly. She’s the best worker on the base, apparently, which is also unrealistic. She calls herself anti-social, and yet immediately has a wonderful huge group of friends and two boys falling over themselves to date her. Andi, her friend, is also too perfect. Too perky, too uninhibited, too nice to “anti-social” Brett. The boys, Brody and Ryan, are whiney little babies who are only there to make Brett seem great by comparison and to make her able to whine, “I don’t know why all these boys are interested in me!”

The third problem I have with this book is the premise. Why is this a top-secret project? Why did the government assume that the planet was up for grabs? Why did they choose whiney, emotional teenagers whose brains are not fully developed? (The author tried to give some crappy explanation about how they didn’t want to pressure people to procreate immediately, but that doesn’t cut it. It was a terrible decision for the agency to make and therefore a terrible decision for the author to make.) Why is this planet just like earth? (The author gave some crappy explanation about how it was “how earth could have turned out if the evolutionary process was different”.) Mind you, I could easily suspend disbelief for any of these problems if the writing weren’t so terrible and the characters so unlikeable and mechanical.

The fourth problem, the problem that tips the scales for me, is that there is almost no discernible, meaningful conflict. I’m almost halfway through the book, and the only way Brett has interacted with the new planet is through some purple hairs that a mysterious creature left her. Brett briefly “started DNA testing” on those hairs in two paragraphs a few chapters ago. They even went “out into the field”, collecting data from the area outside camp, and the whole writing time was spent dwelling on the interactions between the team members. The extent of the description of the outside world was that “Jake took a lot of pictures of insects” and “Brett noted a few creatures that didn’t seem big enough to pose a threat to humans”. The time Brett’s team spent “in the field” was an incredible opportunity to let the reader get into the planet and get to know the setting, and the author WASTED it talking about how Ryan was acting childish and Brett was acting saintly. So far, everything could have taken place in a normal high school in upper-middle class America and the story wouldn’t lose anything.

I’m extremely disappointed with this book. It had such promise, but it amounted to nothing. It’s a good thing I didn’t spend any money on it. And that's the end of my rant. Much love.

ZannaBee

Music Critics Hate Hans Zimmer, and so Do I. Sometimes.

Hans Zimmer is a really big name in movies right now. He's produced scores most recently for Christopher Nolan's Inception and also Nolan's Batman trilogy. He's also doing the music for Nolan's new Superman movie, Man of Steel. According to Wikipedia, Zimmer has been doing music for movies since 1987--which is a long time. He's earned a lot of awards and everyone seems to love him. Everyone except for a small, vocal group of critics who aren't fans of his recent works.

Their complaints are these: "All his music sounds the same, and it lacks musical originality." Now, in some areas, they have valid points. Zimmer's most recent scores, which are very popular right now, have similar structures and mainly follow basic four-chord progressions. Another criticism is more specific: "Zimmer's Batman scores lack a superhero theme." They also have a valid point here. One can hum a tune and think of Adam West. There is no tune one can hum to evoke the image of Christian Bale in the Batmobile.

I would like to refute some of these criticisms. First, those who say that Zimmer's music sounds the same in every movie would do well to remember that Zimmer's portfolio is not limited to Sherlock Holmes, Inception, and Batman. Zimmer also wrote the scores for Gladiator, The Last Samurai, The Lion King, Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest, and The Prince of Egypt. Inception and Batman sound similar--nobody can deny that. However, this sound seems to be a very recent trend in Zimmer's work and we should not assume that his future work will also sound similar.

I would present the same argument to those who say Zimmer's work is musically uninteresting. In recent times, his scores do seem to be based on a common four-chord progression, but with such diversity in Zimmer's musical history, we should be cautious in thinking that Zimmer is incapable of producing a technically interesting score. (Because it's not true.)

With the third criticism mentioned I absolutely agree. Zimmer certainly didn't use any variation of "Na na na na na na na na na na na na na na na na BATMAN!", even subtly, in his work for Nolan's trilogy. However, I don't think it's a problem that there's no recognizable superhero theme in the score. In fact, I think it's a good thing. Nolan's trilogy is nothing like the classic superhero movies and TV shows. It's realistic (to a degree) and modern. There are no purple tights in this movie. Batman is not portrayed as a superhero, and so he doesn't need a superhero theme song to play every time he appears on screen in his utility belt. Zimmer's score emphasized the fact that the movies were not supposed to be classic superhero movies.

After defending Zimmer so vigorously, I ought to say that I agree, to some extent, with the first two points raised against Zimmer. In recent works, he has lacked some of the originality that made the music of his early movies so fresh and exciting. I do also notice, as a musician listening to the scores of Inception and Batman, that he relies heavily in both on predictable chord patterns, and even perhaps tries to cover it up with a loud bass line. However, while taking a step back to acknowledge Zimmer's recent shortcomings, I still harbor a deep love for his music. Perhaps it makes me pedestrian, uncultured, mainstream, or unappreciative of "better" music, but even Zimmer's recent work elicits great emotion and appreciation in me.

I hope that Zimmer's future scores return to the glory and perfection of his early work. He's the only reason I will watch Man of Steel when it comes out. I have confidence that he's capable of the same greatness that made him famous. But I will still love his current music, flaws and all, and my inner music snob can take a holiday if it doesn't like that.

So there's my schpiel on Hans Zimmer. I thought I might as well post it since nobody reads this anyway and I had to get it out of my system. Much love.
ZB

King David

Last weekend I went to a friend's church, Temple Bible Church. The sermon series they're in the middle of is a series on David's life and this message was on II Samuel 12-18. These are the chapters covering the aftermath of the incident with Bathsheba, Amnon and Tamar, Absalom and Amnon, Absalom's conspiracy, and Absalom's death. Now, that's quite a bit of material to cover in one sermon, so the pastor, Stephen Cheung (pretty amazing speaker), concentrated mainly on Absalom's death. I enjoyed this sermon. It was very thought-provoking and kept my focused attention even though I was exhausted. Here are my thoughts on the message.

David's sin against Uriah and Bathsheba made ripples that spread through his whole life, reaching far into the future. God, when David confessed and repented, told David this through Nathan: "Now, therefore, the sword will never depart from your house, because you despised me and took the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be your own.... Out of your own household I am going to bring calamity upon you." (II Samuel 12:10-11, NIV) This calamity began with David and Bathsheba's first child, who lived only seven days after birth. But it didn't stop there. Some time later--the NIV isn't clear how much time--David's son Amnon fell in lust with Tamar and raped her. In the Bible, Tamar is described as "the beautiful sister of Absalom son of David". Perhaps Absalom and Tamar were full siblings and not half; I don't really have the motivation to study this in THAT much detail. In any case, Absalom and Tamar were close. Absalom comforted her and thereafter she lived in his house. Absalom was very, very angry at Amnon. "Absalom never said a word to Amnon, either good or bad; he hated Amnon because he had disgraced his sister Tamar." (13:22)

Chapter 13 verse 21 says that David was furious when he heard the story of Amnon and Tamar, but he didn't discipline Amnon. He couldn't bring himself to punish his son, whom he loved, even as his king. Because of this, I think, Absalom started to hate David. First he was angry with Amnon, and then he was angry with David for not doing anything. Two years after the rape, Absalom killed Amnon and fled the kingdom. His anger with David turned into bitterness, and then hatred. Meanwhile, David still loved Absalom, even though he'd killed Amnon. "The spirit of the king longed to go to Absalom." (13:39) Joab, sneaky little thing, David's right hand man, saw that David still loved Absalom. So he devised a plan to bring Absalom back to Jerusalem. The plan worked, and Absalom had his chance. He returned to Jerusalem and saw his opportunity to build up a following so he could overthrow David. I'm not sure exactly how much time passed--it was years at the very least--but eventually Absalom did attempt to overthrow David and the country was thrown into a civil war.

During this time, Joab (the same sneaky little man) was the commander of David's army. They went out to war and David gave the men this instruction: "Be gentle with the young man Absalom for my sake." (18:5) As it was with Amnon, David still loved his son. Even though Absalom was trying to kill him and take his throne, even though Absalom had nothing but hatred for David, David still loved him, and tried to protect him. So, with that instruction, the men ride off and do battle in the forest of Ephraim.

Absalom had a huge head of hair, which I imagine was a pain sometimes. While he was riding through the forest on a mule, his hair got caught on the branch of an oak tree and he stayed there, while that dumb mule kept going. Now this begs the question: why on earth couldn't Absalom get himself undone? His hands were free, weren't they? So why couldn't he reach up and untangle himself? And where were his men? Why didn't they do anything? After they were done laughing, of course.

Pastor Cheung noted in his sermon that in Hebrew, the word used to describe Absalom as he was caught in the tree was not the Hebrew equivalent of the word "midair." It was a bit more poetic than that: "suspended between heaven and earth." Is this suspension more than purely physical? He was suspended between heaven and earth. Between life and death. Between separation from his father and reunion. Might he have repented? How would life have turned out for him if he had lived? He didn't. This hair-catching incident was the last time he would ever be frustrated with his hair. David's men found him hanging in the tree and ran back to Joab, their commander, not sure what to do. "Joab! Joab! We found Absalom hanging in a tree, of all places, not even doing anything, not trying to free himself, just hanging there. This is a perfect time to kill him and end this war, but the king said to deal gently with him. I don't think killing him is 'dealing gently with him.' So what should we do, Joab?"

Well, Joab had only one motivation in this war: loyalty to King David's throne. He said, and I quote from II Samuel 18:11: "What! You saw him? Why didn't you strike him to the ground right there? Ten I would have given you ten shekels of silver and a warrior's belt." He then killed Absalom, because his men just didn't feel right about killing someone with whom the king said to deal gently.

The war was over. The usurper was dead and David was king once again. However, when David found out about it, he didn't rejoice. He didn't say, "Oh sweet! I get my kingdom back and that ungrateful little brat will never try to kill me again!" Absalom was still his son, and he mourned deeply for him. Because the king was in mourning, the entire kingdom had to be in mourning, even though they had no such emotional ties to the man who tried to overthrow their king. When Joab came back, he was absolutely disgusted with David's behavior. Chapter 19 begins with Joab rebuking David.

“Today you have humiliated all your men, who have just saved your life and the lives of your sons and daughters and the lives of your wives and concubines. You love those who hate you and hate those who love you. You have made it clear today that the commanders and their men mean nothing to you. I see that you would be pleased if Absalom were alive today and all of us were dead. Now go out and encourage your men. I swear by the LORD that if you don’t go out, not a man will be left with you by nightfall. This will be worse for you than all the calamities that have come on you from your youth till now.”

And David listened to Joab. He got up, he washed his face, and went out to celebrate and encourage his men.

This passage confuses me. As a matter of fact, Joab in general confuses me. He certainly wasn't very respectful to David, ever. Remember, he tricked David into summoning Absalom a couple years ago, so this isn't the first time he's manipulated the king. What gives him the freedom to act this way? Why does David put up with it? I just don't know.

But that's a side note.

Remember, all this happened because of David's sin with Bathsheba. Why? He repented, didn't he? So that should make it all better, right?

No. Not necessarily. You can't stop the ripples in a pond from spreading by reaching in and retrieving the rock you threw. It doesn't work like that. You have to deal with the consequences of your actions, good and bad. That isn't to say that it was pointless for David to repent. He should have, and it's good that he did. But these bad things still happened as a result of the sin.

His life didn't come back together after he repented for sinning with Bathsheba and sending her husband out to die. All those loose ends weren't tied up in a pretty bow just because he said "I'm sorry" and wrote a couple Psalms and was forgiven. There wasn't a "fix" for his mess because that's not the point. The point of repentance is not to make everything better. Our personal healing should not be the ultimate goal of our walk with God. We still have to suffer and hurt and be broken. The point is not to be a perfect person with a perfect life. The point is to be with God. The point is to be saved from our depravity and to tell others how they too can be saved.

I'm oversimplifying, and I can't express myself exactly as I'd like, but that's the general gist of my thoughts on the message last Sunday. I have more thoughts, but I won't share them in this post because it's already a monster post. I may follow up with a part two, or I may not. It depends on whether I'm motivated. And now I have to go do the dishes, so farewell. Much love.
ZB

Hepzibah

This morning (in an hour and a half, woohoo!!) I wrote a paper for my American Literature class doing a character analysis on one of the characters of The House of the Seven Gables and telling why I identified with that character. I chose Hepzibah Pyncheon, because I like her the best, and I thought I might as well post the essay. (Keep in mind that this is a very informal class and the last two paragraphs are in a perfectly acceptable style for the assignment.)

                                                                          Hepzibah

            First, Hepzibah has a very melancholy personality. She's regretful as she opens the shop, even melodramatic. On the day that she opens the shop, she spends longer than usual on her devotions and on her personal duties, trying to put off the task as long as possible. When she has arranged the shop as needed, she lingers for a moment at the door, hesitating. She opens the door. Then "she fled into the inner parlor, threw herself into the ancestral elbowchair, and wept." (page 42) To her melancholy personality, the opening of the shop represents not prudence, involvement with the world, and a new activity to master, but the debasement of her aristocratic family and of herself.

            She's also quite a loner. The only human contact she has before Phoebe comes into the house is with Mr. Holgrave and her brother, Clifford. The people in her community have seen her as bad-tempered, scowling, and reclusive, and she has come to believe them. As a result, she removes herself from the world, choosing not to interact with other people. She does this out of fear that the people she meets will treat her badly, as if she were bad-tempered, scowling, and reclusive. She also does it out of pride. The Pyncheon family is part of the landed gentry of old. They must not mix with the commoners.

            Consistent with her melancholy, lonely personality, Hepzibah is very hesitant. She finds comfort and security in routine, and doesn't wish to disturb it. When Phoebe comes to the house, Hepzibah welcomes her warmly, as a cousin should. She offers Phoebe her hospitality and does everything in her power to help her. However, she hesitates to allow Phoebe to stay in her house indefinitely. This hesitancy mainly comes from practical reasons, but she is also afraid of the change that Phoebe's presence would bring. Another instance demonstrating many facets of Hepzibah's personality is her flight upon finding Jaffrey dead. Instead of calling for help and bringing other people to help her, she takes her brother Clifford and simply leaves. She's afraid of what will be said about her, afraid that justice will not prevail, and she is also afraid simply of the task of interacting with other people.

            Hepzibah's shyness makes her difficult to understand, but she has many good traits if one cares enough to see them. She is good-hearted, and has nothing but goodwill for the customers of her cent-shop, though she is afraid of them and they are afraid of her. She has a perpetual scowl on her face, not from any ill temper, but from the unfortunate circumstance of being near-sighted. Page 36 says this about her heart, though she is always frowning: "But her heart never frowned. It was naturally tender, [and] sensitive...." Her hospitality is evidence as well of her good heart. Although she describes Mr. Holgrave's friends as disreputable, and she suspects him of illegal activity, she willingly allows him to remain her boarder, and harbors no ill will towards him.

            Another distinct virtue of Hepzibah's personality is her loyalty. She is entirely devoted to caring for her brother, recently released from prison. Although he treats her with disdain, her primary aim remains to make him as comfortable and happy as she possibly can. When we first meet Clifford, it is at breakfast the first day Phoebe arrives. Hepzibah is visibly upset and nervous about whether or not he will be pleased and contented by the breakfast, but she makes her utmost effort to effect his comfort. She knows that "he always liked bright faces" and "could never abide tears" (page 94) so she tells Phoebe to smile and be cheerful, and she herself almost hides from him, as not to upset him with her face, which is neither bright nor cheerful. She is willing to put Clifford's comfort before her own.

            I don't identify fully with any of the characters of The House of the Seven Gables, but Hepzibah is the best fit, I think. I can certainly identify with her shyness. We both are afraid of people and develop very small circles of close friends. I can also identify with her loyalty. I care very deeply for my friends and would do anything to make them happy, like Hepzibah would do anything for her brother Clifford. I'm willing to overlook people's faults and give them the benefit of the doubt, as Hepzibah did for Mr. Holgrave.

            There are some facets of Hepzibah's personality with which I don't identify. If I had been in Hepzibah's position and had been forced to open a cent-shop, I believe I would have thrown myself into it. I would have been excited for the change, for something new to do. I am not nearly as dependent on routine as she is. When I discovered Judge Jaffrey dead in the old Pyncheon's office, I would have first screamed very loudly. Then I would definitely have gone to get someone to help me. I would never have run away; I would be too frightened that they would assume my flight meant I had killed him. I can't identify with her family pride, likely because I'm not from a proud, aristocratic family and don't live in an awesome house with cool architecture. But I can still identify with Hepzibah much more closely than I can with any of the other characters. Phoebe is too perfect; Mr. Holgrave is too secretive; Clifford is too feeble and particular; Jaffrey is too cruel. Hepzibah is my favorite character of all of them, and the one I think I'm most like.