Forum
A place to discuss topics/games with other webDiplomacy players.
Page 628 of 1419
FirstPreviousNextLast
Conservative Man (100 D)
15 Jul 10 UTC
What did you guys want to be when you grew up.
I'm not an adult yet, and I still am unsure about what job I want. I used the Holland personality codes, and I'm an IES, which suggests pharmacist, but that doesn't particularly appeal to me. Some other jobs it says I might be good at are physician, actuary, and training manager. Of those, actuary and training manager look the most intersting. But this isn't just about me. What dod you guys want to be when you grew up?
62 replies
Open
jodabomb24 (100 D)
12 Jul 10 UTC
Anyone want to do a live World?
Post here if you're interested. After a few people come on, I'll start the game and post the link.
12 replies
Open
BigBlueDart (792 D)
15 Jul 10 UTC
Disband instead of retreat
My understanding of the rules of the game were that you were allowed to simply disband a unit instead of retreating it. Is this also true of webdiplomacy? When the retreat round comes will my pull down menu offer a disband option?
10 replies
Open
Voorhoofd (127 D)
16 Jul 10 UTC
New Participated New game- 8 hr phases
Join http://webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=33701#gamePanel if you like games with 8 hour phrases that might lure you in to DC.
0 replies
Open
Babak (26982 D(B))
14 Jul 10 UTC
Anyone live within a few hours of Gainsville, FL?
If you are interested in a Face-to-Face game, there is an avid Dip player who wants to try to organize sme ftf games in FL. I personally live a few hours away, but we find the 3-4 other players we need, it'd be worth trying to organize a game. write inside if you want to play or live close enough.
7 replies
Open
curtis (8870 D)
16 Jul 10 UTC
live wta gunboat
0 replies
Open
Philalethes (100 D(B))
15 Jul 10 UTC
The Symbolic Forms Strike Again!
WTA, Anon, 3 days phases, public press only, comes with tentacles.

TENTACLES.
9 replies
Open
obiwanobiwan (248 D)
13 Jul 10 UTC
I am so SICK of the Gaga Person!
She's an unoriginal hackjob with no talent except to gratify others through the basest of all techniques (in other words, she'd make Hugh Hefner pretty happy) and for getting her name out with scandals that flood the Web and take away from the important news (Arizona's immigration law? BP Oil Spill? The Economy?)

How do you feel about this...person (and THIS pisses me off): http://new.music.yahoo.com/blogs/stopthepresses/220323/lady-gaga-photo-irks-beatles-fans/
Page 4 of 6
FirstPreviousNextLast
 
obiwanobiwan (248 D)
14 Jul 10 UTC
OH NO!

Even I have my limits, ava, and even I'm sick of battling over the G-Man...or Woman...or Entity...or whatever...or nonthing...or- WHATEVER!

So that was just rhetoric...and I'm not discussing God again for a long, LONG time...

Anyway, it'd seem I have my hands full with Art now.
TheGhostmaker (1545 D)
14 Jul 10 UTC
"And yes, that was me being as succinct as I could be..."

I think you need to work on it then... here's a suggested alternative (with some comments).

Note that my version, with comments, is 952 words long, whilst yours, without comments, is 3,518 words.



My God! [no need for caps, we know the emphasis lies no “God”]

You people are *still* piling on me here! [asterisks for emphasis if you insist on having it]

At least wait for me to get back- I was away for a whole page and you were still posting! Seems like there were both fair objections and constructive criticism on my presentation [note, having not read the whole thread, I’m guessing you meant that rather than argumentation as in “argumentation theory”]. There were others winging about the sins of my many, long posts; surely if your devoting time to calling me a loser that makes you a bigger one?- get a life! [again, no need to use caps, we get the emphasis]


Right, my writing style. I prefer to be as clear and extensive as possible to try to qualify my meaning. (I hate it when people don’t make it clear what they mean precisely when using ambiguous terms- probably because I’m an English/Philosophy major.) Anyway, I’ll try to be concise… here’s a minimalist version of obiwan:

I won’t go through every single point because it would take an age (I can spend an hour writing these posts- I do put effort in because I like testing my ideas. To anyone who says I’m a troller, I put effort into this and am not just flaming anyone or attention seeking. I also reuse some of these posts for other writings). As an alternative, I’ll start from a clean state.

[The next paragraph was more or less unnecessary I’ll go for:] Note: please read my previous posts too because they give my ideas more justice.

I’ll start talking about art (by which I mean *the arts*: literature, music, film etc.) I think it is extraordinarily important. [why? You’ve could do with some explanation, even being concise]. Art is not, imo, about entertainment primarily; I think that that is shallow (albeit a common notion). Sure it is important, but I think (and I won’t give the basis for my views to keep my post brief) that people, objects, thoughts etc. are constantly influencing each other, so you need to evaluate many things, which haven’t intrinsic value, but have intrinsic worth [a brief explanation of what you mean by these is necessary, they seem to be synonyms to me]. Everything influences something else, as Descartes hinted, “empty” glasses have air in them.

Because everything is connected in this way, to some extent everyone and everything is “The artist”, i.e. involved in creating the art, and also “The Art”. Thus everything becomes indistinct, even on a human level we have an identity issue, because we only matter as a part of the whole, like a footsoldier in an army, say. [I think an easier analogy to use]

When the army achieves something, it is part of the monolithic whole, and gives little opportunity for identity and distinction. We need individual accomplishments, creations, ideas etc. Without this distinction, we become mostly “part of the art”, but the artist, although influenced by outside forces, is able to actually shape and create his own ideas (say, like a senior general).

We should be trying to achieve an identity, because we suffer without it. We should therefore aim to become “artists” and use actions to distinguish us. The arts give us an opportunity to do this, as a medium of creation, far greater than Politics, for example. Thus the foremost function of art is to create and express feelings, thoughts and ideas.

Done well, entertainment and pleasure follow from this. Hamlet is enjoyable because of the ideas, not because of the nuts and blots- the stabbings and the speeches. Pleasure is the happy by-product of the ideas, and without it, you have what I would call “Lower Art” (a la J S Mill’s higher/lower pleasures). An example of lower art would be, say, playboy, which is all about the spectacle (like the stabbings and speeches Hamlet), and not about any ideas.

Higher art is about all of plot, characters theme *and* spectacle.

So, with that groundwork done, my opinion of Gaga. Firstly, I really think her voice is awful. Not much to add to that- but regardless of the style, vocal ability can be judged, just as you can judge the accuracy of the metre in Shakespeare.

Secondly, she performs a lower art. She achieves spectacle, yes, and that’s all well and good, but playboy lives of the spectacle too. She has the lights and dancing etc. that pop music demands, and she meets the requirements of a good pop star- but that isn’t what is important to me!

She may have spectacle, but she lacks characters, plot or theme, all of which are perfectly possible in music, just look at musicals, opera or the Beatles. “Eleanor Rigby” was mainstream music that met all of my requirements, it *has* what I’m looking for in good art.

It is not try that there are plots or stories in Gaga’s songs, but let’s suppose that it were. We still need to evaluate her against other higher art to see if it represents the same quality. In baseball there is a Hall of Fame, and to get in, candidates must be judged against those in and out of the Hall of Fame. If they match the level, they get in, otherwise they don’t. Similarly for art, is Gaga’s art of the same level as, say, Shakespeare, Mozart or Michaelangelo? Can anyone really give an example where her art matches or exceeds anyone who would be in a “Higher Art Hall of Fame” (to put it that way)? If so, I would like to hear it.

[Last paragraph was really unnecessary too, btw]
TheGhostmaker (1545 D)
14 Jul 10 UTC
A few things to bear in mind when writing forum posts (all of which should be succinct, this isn't the place for tomes):

1. Knowing what you are going to write before you write it.
2. Making sure that every sentence adds something that you need to say.
3. Make sure that every paragraph you write has a single sentence (possibly two) that could be taken out and used as a bullet point in a summary.
4. Try to put that sentence as the first or second on the page.

Note also that succinct *does not* mean bullet point lists etc.

And finally, please, please, please *stop* using block capitals, and start using asterisks.

(Hope this helps)
sean (3490 D(B))
14 Jul 10 UTC
Wow, Obi yes Obiwanobiwan told us to get a life!
succintly put - )bi " i dotn like gaga"
others "nah she is alright"
abgemacht (1076 D(G))
14 Jul 10 UTC
I've noticed that TGM has stole my thunder and has already derailed this thread to offer you criticism on your writing. I, too, will offer criticism.

Your first two paragraphs (after "so here goes..") consisted of insulting your audience and taling about how succinct you were going to be. In the first two paragraphs, you've already lost most of your audience beause you failed to even mention the topic we were interested in.

Your main weakness throughout your writing is your over-clarificiation of text. In fact, you over-clarify so much, that it usually becomes more confusing. I don't know if you do this because you think the audience won't follow you, or you don't follow yourself. If it's the former, I'd say just stop it. Your audience is intelegent; they can follow your writing as long as it isn't burried in parentheticals longer than the actual paragraph. If you write like this because you're confused yourself, I suggest learning better outlining and drafting skills. This isn't meant as an insult; many people can write very well, but only after they've outlined and drafted. The process doesn't matter, it's the end result and this end result is border-line unreadable.

As to your content, I honestly won't know what you said until I edit it (consider that, if you will). So, let's see how close TGM and I came:

...

To be honest, after I edited it, there was nothing left...

You spent so much time talking about philosophy of Higher/Lower art, that you barely touched on Lady Gaga. Here is what I got out of your essay:

-Bad Voice
-No Character/Plot

We come to an impasse on the Voice, so let's skip it. You've offered no justification for her songs lacking in Plot and Character. Alejandro, Paparazzi, Bad Romance, Dance in the Dark, all have equivalent Plots and Character to Elanor Rigby.

Some more technical criticisms:

Before I realized it was hopeless, I went through and deleted all of you (). By definition, () don't need to be included, and shouldn't, especially when you're trying to be succinct.

I also noticed a number of ramblings about Star Trek. As far as I could tell, they served no purpose what-so-ever.

You spent a large part of your time talking about how succinct you were. No more needs to be said on that.

In short, you were commissioned to produce a work and failed miserably in it. The objective was to create a succinct work outlining your objections to Lady Gaga. You utterly failed in both objectives. I really hope that wasn't the best you could do. If it was, someone has taught you and extermely poor writing style, or they've never bothered to correct the one you developed.

Now, let's try this again:

We all understand your concept of Higher and Lower Art. Why does Gaga not fit the definition of Higher Art?
abgemacht (1076 D(G))
14 Jul 10 UTC
@TGM

I like what you did, but would you also agree with what I had to say?
obiwanobiwan (248 D)
14 Jul 10 UTC
Wow, TGN did a word count lol...

OK, thanks, I'll try to have less CAPS and more *asterisks posing for italics* in the future...and the rest of that...

I just like going into detail more, can't help it, it probably is ridiculously long here because I don't edit it as much like I'd do with a "real" essay...those I have long, at over 30 pages, but that's a cut from around 45 so I do edit...

As for my writing style being bad- sorry, abgemacht, it's served me well all these years and gotten me into class after class (including one's I shouldn't have been able to take because they were a special program, but my essays were so good I got in anyway) so you can see why I'm not apt to change what's worked well for me outside of an online forum.

But I'll *asterisk* more and maybe try to edit more...and I'll revisit and try *again* (there, did it!) on the Gaga question, got a class now...
abgemacht (1076 D(G))
14 Jul 10 UTC
@obiwan,

Would you mind if I read a paper that you've actually submitted for grading? It's very possible that your style is different without you realizing it. For instance, I bet there a significantly fewer Star Trek references.
rlumley (0 DX)
14 Jul 10 UTC
@ Obi: You never even came close (And it's difficult to believe that you didn't address every single possible issue in that post that made War and Peace look like a children's book) to addressing my fundamental point:

You're not familiar enough with Lady GaGa to offer an intelligent opinion of her work. There is a myriad of evidence to support this, but the most notable of it being that your first criticism of her was that she was unoriginal. (See title post) After the entire forum rebuked you as being so completely wrong, you backed off this point and mainly resorted to calling her a slut - a claim that is far easier to baselessly make.
Friendly Sword (636 D)
14 Jul 10 UTC
Obiwan, I am sure you make a good writer. I am sure your longwindedness is sometimes a good thing. But in discussion forums, doing less SHOUTING and trying to be more succinct is a more effective policy.

"When in Rome..." as they say.

In any case, my University Professors reward clarity of ideas more than complexity of expression... and I suspect yours do too. So maybe you could do even better then you already do!? :)
rlumley (0 DX)
14 Jul 10 UTC
"For instance, I bet there a significantly fewer Star Trek references."

QFT.

Your style is fine for an internet forum. (Your style, not length) But if you don't revise it, there's no chance you'd ever be taken seriously at any academic organization.
Friendly Sword (636 D)
14 Jul 10 UTC
Also, can we agree that on the range of classy to not-classy criticisms, slut-shaming is about as non-classy as they go?

It's bad enough that we're virutally a boys club here. Lets not be overtly sexist too. :)
abgemacht (1076 D(G))
14 Jul 10 UTC
@obi,

In all seriousness, though, I'd truly be interested in reading a paper that you've received a good grad on in one of these special classes. I promise to read it with care and offer my honest opinion. If you could give a (help me, God) brief explanation of the assignment, that would help.
rlumley (0 DX)
14 Jul 10 UTC
@ FS: I think you mean lesser classy and higher classy. :-P
TheGhostmaker (1545 D)
14 Jul 10 UTC
Abgemacht, I’m not totally agreed with you. I’ll just quote and respond bit by bit.

“taling about how succinct you were going to be”

Very true, I left (almost) all of that out because it was irrelevant (the first thing to make posts short is to keep them to the point)

“Your main weakness throughout your writing is your over-clarificiation of text. In fact, you over-clarify so much, that it usually becomes more confusing. I don't know if you do this because you think the audience won't follow you, or you don't follow yourself. If it's the former, I'd say just stop it. Your audience is intelegent; they can follow your writing as long as it isn't burried in parentheticals longer than the actual paragraph. If you write like this because you're confused yourself, I suggest learning better outlining and drafting skills. This isn't meant as an insult; many people can write very well, but only after they've outlined and drafted. The process doesn't matter, it's the end result and this end result is border-line unreadable”

Again, very true, even trying to be concise, this happened a lot. You don’t need to say everything five times for people to understand it (just as you don’t need to write in block caps for us to understand the punctuation... how many novelists use block caps (or equivalent) in 100 pages as often as you (obiwan) do in a single post?

“We come to an impasse on the Voice, so let's skip it. You've offered no justification for her songs lacking in Plot and Character. Alejandro, Paparazzi, Bad Romance, Dance in the Dark, all have equivalent Plots and Character to Elanor Rigby.”

In terms of the content, I agree, there was no justification of two things:
a) That plot was a necessary part of a higher art (is a still life painting never higher art?)
b) That Gaga doesn’t have plot.

Also, the argument that she shouldn’t be considered higher art because she doesn’t match up to other higher art is circular- that could only be the case because of the higher art you have already accepted, and you have made a prior decision about how good art needs to be to be higher art.

In truth, your higher/lower distinction is not the same thing as having a good voice/a bad voice. If higher art is about the ideas, a singer who is technically really rubbish can produce higher art, just *low quality* higher art
COTW (836 D)
14 Jul 10 UTC
I'm sure Lady Gaga could care less about these aesthetic scruples. The simple fact is that her music does reach people (and it may be a damnable shame). She's rich and famous, so was Milli Vanilli. Some people don't write music to represent lofty ideas or to lead people to true understanding, they just write it to make money or for kids to dance to. There's plenty of good music out there today to listen to, choose something else. And btw, Bizet's Carmen won't get you laid (unless you're looking for a 60 yr old).
TheGhostmaker (1545 D)
14 Jul 10 UTC
"Wow, TGN did a word count lol..."

I used MS word, if you were thinking I went 1, 2, 3, etc.

"OK, thanks, I'll try to have less CAPS and more *asterisks posing for italics* in the future...and the rest of that..."

Thank you.

"I just like going into detail more, can't help it, it probably is ridiculously long here because I don't edit it as much like I'd do with a "real" essay...those I have long, at over 30 pages, but that's a cut from around 45 so I do edit..."

There is a difference between detail and repetition. Using two analogies for the same think is repetition. Explaining nuances is detail. Being concise isn't about missing detail, its about cramming the detail into as few words as possible. How much actual content is there missing from your post in my reworking of it?

"As for my writing style being bad- sorry, abgemacht, it's served me well all these years and gotten me into class after class (including one's I shouldn't have been able to take because they were a special program, but my essays were so good I got in anyway) so you can see why I'm not apt to change what's worked well for me outside of an online forum."

Firstly, you should have more than one writing style if you're writing in different situations. What is suitable as a first year undergrad in English/Philosophy isn't necessarily suitable when you are writing on a forum. Or for an employer, for that matter; if you ever get work advising someone, for instance, they are going to want to get a clear, to the point document from you, not a great long meditation.

Secondly, you're still only young, and have a long way to run at university and beyond. What is considered excellent now is not going to impress when you are sitting your finals, I suspect.

Finally, your writing style seems to cover up logical weakness in what you are saying. Because you say most things more than once, the repetition gives the impression of logical implication, and then you jump to the next statement and repeat that one several times, and so on.
abgemacht (1076 D(G))
14 Jul 10 UTC
"Firstly, you should have more than one writing style if you're writing in different situations."

QFT
rlumley (0 DX)
14 Jul 10 UTC
"Finally, your writing style seems to cover up logical weakness in what you are saying. Because you say most things more than once, the repetition gives the impression of logical implication, and then you jump to the next statement and repeat that one several times, and so on."

QFT. (Did I start a trend by saying that o.O)

Coincidentally, this was the strategy that Ayn Rand used a lot in her writing... Which is not to say that I disagree with her on most points, just her lines of reasoning.
abgemacht (1076 D(G))
14 Jul 10 UTC
Yes, rlumley, you were, in fact, the first person to use the abbreviation QFT.
abgemacht (1076 D(G))
14 Jul 10 UTC
@rlumley

Earlier in this thread you said you disagreed w. Rand on feminism. What other things do you disagree with her on?
rlumley (0 DX)
14 Jul 10 UTC
I don't really keep a list, but her arguments in The Objectivist Ethics don't really hold ground. My feelings are more along the lines of morality doesn't exist, so you should do whatever you want.
Miro Klose (595 D)
14 Jul 10 UTC
"morality doesn´t exist" strange i see evidence of moral thinking and moral acting every day in my life
TheGhostmaker (1545 D)
14 Jul 10 UTC
Moral nihilism, Miro.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_nihilism

Regarding Rand, I sometimes find that she just defines things and says that they are self evidently true. That said, I agree with her conclusions very often, and her reasoning about half of the time, too.
TheGhostmaker (1545 D)
14 Jul 10 UTC
"Yes, rlumley, you were, in fact, the first person to use the abbreviation QFT."

QFT
Miro Klose (595 D)
14 Jul 10 UTC
"Moral nihilism, Miro." - You´re sure rumley meant this?
obiwanobiwan (248 D)
15 Jul 10 UTC
OK, so *this* is an actual paper of mine, for those who don't like my forum writing (you think you can loosen up for a online forum that allows lols and the like, but whatever.)

Not my best work, and this is the first draft of something from my freshman year of college, but the final draft's only in hardcopy (after my computer crash) and my other ones are either hardcopy-only or the 20 page plus epics.

So here's an obiwanobiwan essay:
obiwanobiwan (248 D)
15 Jul 10 UTC
“Do you ever think of yourself as actually dead, lying in a box with a lid on it… That's the bit I don't like, frankly. That's why I don't think of it. Because you'd be helpless, wouldn't you? Stuffed in a box like that. I mean, you'd be in there forever, even taking into account the fact that you're dead. It isn't a pleasant thought. Especially if you're dead, really.” (Stoppard 54-55.) This description of life (or death) in a box from Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead describes the situation Susie Salmon finds herself in Alice Sebold’s The Lovely Bones- struck dead and stuck in a personal heaven that feels more like a hellish box akin to Rosencrantz’s description, and denied her wish to grow as an individual and come to grips with her state of existence and being; that same idea of the isolating box proves to ensnare, if not so literally, her friends and family as well, and it is only through sexual experiences and discovery of themselves and their existence that Susie and the rest are able to break out of the box and their No Exit-like world to find an entrance into the realms of personal acceptance and understanding.
Susie is murdered at the outset of the story by a Mr. Harvey, who himself had a scarred childhood and harbors Oedipally-driven desires of sexual destruction. Just fourteen at the time she is murdered and pondering feelings about the prospects of high school and the possibility of a sexual prospect in her friend Ray, Susie finds herself in a heaven that is unique and painstakingly so- her heaven is not the Judeo-Christian concept of it, and she frequently “her” heaven, and, for the most part, hers alone. The reactions of the town, her families, her friends, and her murderer all progress with time. All this is seen by Susie, who herself is trying to move on- but she finds that she is unable to, that she wants to live and grow as she had intended, and she “lives” vicariously through the advances in life of those she knows, watching her sister Lindsey graduating and falling in love, rooting for her father as he pursues her killer, all the while remaining stunted in her growth, unfulfilled and unhappy. By the end of the story she finally is able to, through strength of will and the advancement of the mind, achieve her goal of sexual advancement and growth as she is able to share the sensation of her friend Ray kissing a girl named Ruth, and as a result of this advancement and growth, finds herself in a new heaven, open and filled with possibility.
Susie’s life after death is adamantly described as unique and as sterile, and it is because of these factors that Suzie feels isolated and longs for her livelihood, for the ability to grow and change; fourteen years old when she died, she was just about to begin to experience her transition into womanhood, and now finds herself in a place where she can never do so. Susie’s heaven is an existential land in the most basic way- it is where she works to define and shape her existence as she is now and her memory of how she was then, before her death. Yet for all of her musing, Susie’s thoughts amount, in the end, to very little- as, without the experience of sexual advancement she is missing a crucial piece of the puzzle and cannot define herself or come to grips with the nature of her being. Nothing Susie says, does, or even feels matters or carries significance, as it is all post-mortem, and all taking place, essentially, in a box. That, in a nutshell, defines Susie and her heaven, a person stuck in a box, like Didi and Gogo as they haplessly awaiting Godot, or Rosencrantz and Guildenstern flipping coins and passing the time through a game of “Questions.” Any attempt Susie may make to further herself whilst here is futile, for her heaven is but a box; only beyond it lie the answers she needs, and the only way to break through the wall and leave her box is through an understanding and acceptance of the self that she lacks, that she seeks- that she needs sexual reference and experience for. Susie wants to live again, and for her, the next step in life would mean sexual intercourse and discourse, falling in love, true love, and to have that ripped from her by the rape of Mr. Harvey and, just as Rosencrantz so desperately shouts to Guildenstern within the castle as the events of Hamlet inevitably happen, has “no control! None at all… They’re taking us for granted!” (Stoppard 56.) That was her life, and thus to find herself in death again without control, without the power to shape own image and pursue her own ideals, or even adequately shape them, she is told by her onlooker, Frannie, “You won’t experience it” (Seybold 19), and let go of those desires is a horrific discovery, one that leaves her struggling to defy that idea and define her existence.
While all this is occurring with Susie, trapped in her box of spiritual and eternal abstinence, those she leaves behind on Earth must find a way to cope with Suzie’s departure, and all do so through sexual means, in one form or another. Susie’s mother is left on fire internally; she had barely been able to be contented as a housewife before, and with the death one of her daughters, a gruesome death at that, she just doesn’t seem to see fidelity as demanded by the ethical and moral groundings of her society as worth it, and neither is her family anymore. She has an affair with a detective covering Susie’s case, and in the course of her sexual contact with him rediscovers the person she was before she was married, a person she never truly stopped being and never truly forgot- she has alluded to her children when they were young that she feels she is Persephone, stuck with Hades and away from the spring and warmth she craves, and refers to Helen of Troy as “a feisty woman who screwed things up” Sebold (150), a stay-at-home woman who was no good to herself or anyone else. Mrs. Salmon’s Troy has burnt, her façade as a content caretaker shattered, and she, alluding to Edna in The Awakening, leaves her family and the haunting memory of Susie’s demise behind to for a fresh start; all this had simmered beneath her surface before Susie’s death, but it is brought to the boiling point during her affair with the detective- her sexual experience brings forth in her an awakening of her own, and flings open the gates for Mrs. Salmon, allows her to move on and advance in her life.
By contrast, Mr. Salmon is the stark opposite of his wife; where she seeks to mourn Suzie’s death and deal with it all by fleeing it and starting anew, Mr. Salmon will not let himself, or anyone else, forget it, and becomes a man possessed and consumed by his desire for revenge and justice, to see his daughter’s murderer caught, thus soothing her soul- as well as his. No other thought, feeling, inclination resides in him so strongly (or perhaps at all) and his search becomes his past, present, and future, smashing with a tormented mind and extreme prejudice the model ships he and his daughter used to build, forgetting and utterly casting aside the marriage that has now fallen to pieces, and focusing night and day on nothing more or less then absolute resolution. In a novel so steeped in literary references, Mr. Salmon comes across as an Ahab, unswerving in his pursuit of his goal no matter the cost (his smashed ships and his sinking family affairs strengthening this connection to the Captain) or a Lear figure, watching as the family he has loved so dearly and brought up so well disintegrates, as his daughter is murdered, his wife leaves, he is left fixated and near madness. Thus, Mr. Salmon serves as a foil to his wife’s attempt to move on, shutting himself off emotionally and sexually from the world, and thus not being able to move past the or even come to grips with and define his own personal state existence at all.
It is through the relationship between Lindsey and her boyfriend Samuel however, that the characters, especially Suzie, begin to heal and develop and grow again. Lindsey’s relationship with Samuel is a long-lasting one, stretching from the time of their being friends in high school to when Samuel proposes they wed after they graduate from college together. Here is a symbolic rebirth of true love and spirituality for the characters; the horror of Susie’s rape and the trauma of the destroyed marriage and household of the Salmons is put behind them now, as the world about them begins to heal- Susie’s death has not ended the world, has not destroyed love, and now here before them all is the proof of this. Lindsey and Samuel pass the rites of passage that Susie herself longed for and was denied in life- they grow to be a proper couple, they kiss, the grow steady, they complement each other as a couple should, and finally they marry and consecrate their love and vows. All of this is seen by Susie in her heaven, and all to her joy and relief, as she is no longer, the focus of the town, as she was after her murder, stating “It was no longer a Susie-fest on Earth” (Sebold 236) and the world has gone on without her, and now too have her friends and family; while Susie must still seek to define herself and her existence past and present, here is real proof to her that at the very least others are finally beginning to assert and discover their existence in relation to others. However, she is still faced with the task of understanding that existence, a task she simply cannot do without her rite of passage, the next step in her growth as an individual and as a person of mind and spirit- without the spirit of sex, Susie is doomed forever to that small box that carries the label of heaven, no matter how hellish it may be for her.
This finally changes with the incidents between Ray and Ruth. Ray represents everything Susie might’ve enjoyed and everything Lindsey now has with Samuel- a friend and crush in her lifetime, and the source of her one true kiss, the first step towards achieving her goal of enlightenment. He calls himself “the Moor,” an intentional connection to Othello, and true to this allusion, Ray is very much a “tolerated” stranger in town, due to his dark skin and Indian heritage, and for a short while is suspected of being Susie’s killer; all this racks him, as he did consider Susie to be a good friend, and did think much of that kiss, wishing it could lead to more and realizing it now never will. Ray is, in essence, Susie’s other half still walking the Earth as he, too, is caught up in the existential feel of the story, wondering now what he is, what life and love really are if they can die so quickly. Into this situation enters Ruth, who already cannot quite come to grips with herself, as she is a lesbian in a time when that is far from being understood or socially accepted. Ruth, touched by Susie as she drifted from her body and out of the world towards her heaven, also shares a connection with Ray, and the two, attempting to release their pent-up emotions resolve to kiss each other. Susie is able to experience the kiss they share, and achieves her goal- she has finally gotten her wish, her sexual advancement, the glory and sheer delight of being able to finally define and fully realize that part of her being. Here is the penultimate example of Sebold’s using sexual advancement as not simply a metaphor for progression in life, but in fact as synonymous example of it. The existential barriers, from the youths’ search for definition in their existence to Susie’s stagnant heaven, are broken down now; the lid is pulled off of Rosencrantz’s box, and the growth that Susie had so long pined for is now here to be experienced, a progression that could never have been possible without her discovery of that aspect of herself and her being, and as such she is now finally fulfilled and complete.
It is through that completion that Susie and those that survive her in The Lovely Bones are, in fact, fortunate. In spite of the rape, the murder, the separations and years of consternation and angst, they are able to, through their sexual progressions and growths, make sense of their existential circumstances and surroundings, and, ultimately of themselves, their sexual encounters serve as a gateway to closure and allows them to find a peace within their existence that Didi and Gogo, for all their bickering, and Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, for all their coin flips and games of “Questions,” will never know.
obiwanobiwan (248 D)
15 Jul 10 UTC
^
The paragraphs were originally double-spaced with the lines and sperated and indented, but I guess that didn't transfer, so apologies.
abgemacht (1076 D(G))
15 Jul 10 UTC
@obi

I liked it. You didn't continually repeat your self and there were very few parenthetical remarks. More importantly, the few () you did have, served to clarify an issue, rather than confuse it. It has some issues, but it is a freshman draft, so there's no reason to go crazy on it. Your sentences are very long and unwieldy for my taste, but that's more a preference than anything else.

Page 4 of 6
FirstPreviousNextLast
 

171 replies
curtis (8870 D)
16 Jul 10 UTC
live wta gunboat
0 replies
Open
PuppyKicker (777 D)
16 Jul 10 UTC
Point Total:
FINALLY! I hit 777. I've been trying to get here for ages.
With that being said, it's been real, all, but I'm retiring from the site.
Peace out.
15 replies
Open
Kish1000 (100 D)
15 Jul 10 UTC
Purpose of "... 1 hours"
Does anyone know why we have to option to have phases that are "1 days, 1 hours" or "2 days, 1 hours"? I'm just curious why we have that option?
9 replies
Open
ava2790 (232 D(S))
15 Jul 10 UTC
A loss of respect for TIME Magazine
See inside.
59 replies
Open
HafthorS (337 D)
16 Jul 10 UTC
5 min speedy game starts in 6 min!! Need 1 player
http://webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=33680
0 replies
Open
curtis (8870 D)
15 Jul 10 UTC
wta gunboat
5 replies
Open
Thucydides (864 D(B))
15 Jul 10 UTC
Plays
Anyone ever written one? Advice to someone who is dabbling?
8 replies
Open
Kompole (546 D)
12 Jul 10 UTC
Name the cat
You have a chance to name my new cat.
75 replies
Open
stratagos (3269 D(S))
13 Jul 10 UTC
Feel free to ignore this thread
I'm having an *extremely* frustrating day at the office, anyone care to spar verbally? I'd love to tell you why you're a pathetic lazy dirtbag you are, especially if you're not one and can take a razzing without flipping out...
35 replies
Open
Maniac (189 D(B))
15 Jul 10 UTC
So long fairwell.
Just to let you guys know, I'm finishing my current games and then leaving the site. It has been a pleasure knowing most of you :) I have a few new furrows to plough and this game is taking up a little too much of my time. Bye.
18 replies
Open
Crazy Anglican (1067 D)
13 Jul 10 UTC
Istanbul
(not Constantinople)
30 replies
Open
curtis (8870 D)
15 Jul 10 UTC
live gunboat
http://webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=33658
2 replies
Open
Deltoria (227 D)
04 Jul 10 UTC
Corrupt a Wish
The first person makes a positive wish, and the next person plays the role of the djinn granting the wish, and then turning it into a disaster. The second person then makes the next wish, and the cycle repeats itself.
569 replies
Open
Sicarius (673 D)
13 Jul 10 UTC
(NSA) program: PERFECT CITIZEN
Some think it is an innocuous program to shore up America's cyber-security, especially in critical areas such as power and nuclear grids. Some think it is far more sinister, and a raytheon insider called it "big brother" What do you think?
11 replies
Open
Bob Genghiskhan (1228 D)
15 Jul 10 UTC
I hate being Italy
It's a terrible country to develop from. I have no idea how to play it. And yet, somehow, the website seems to think that roughly half the time, Italy's the country for me.
23 replies
Open
ava2790 (232 D(S))
14 Jul 10 UTC
Face To Face Tips
I play my first ever face to face diplomacy game in tournament play against some old toughies this weekend. It is expected to take 5-9 hours. Barring the marathon aspect (I'm fairly used to about 5 hour live games online), any tips from ftf veterans on this site?
33 replies
Open
Xapi (194 D)
15 Jul 10 UTC
Argentinian Congress grants equal-right marriage to same sex couples
This may or may not be interesting to some or none of you, but hopefully it will start one of our nice debates.
12 replies
Open
Padre (321 D)
14 Jul 10 UTC
A'holes leaving the game?
I just had a game where a person left the game for no apparent reason other than it looked like they may not win. This really throws off a game. First, how and why can a person do this? Second, is there a way to flag them or block them from games so they can't keep doing it to you?
13 replies
Open
hopsyturvy (521 D)
14 Jul 10 UTC
Facebook diplomacy - any devs out there?
Hey, I'm a mod on the facebook app for diplomacy, but the person who set me up (and presumably has higher-level access) has gone incommunicado.

There are some problems with the forum and profiles and I wonder if the database needs a clear-out. Can anyone over here work on the facebook app, or is it totally stranded now?
11 replies
Open
jodabomb24 (100 D)
14 Jul 10 UTC
Question regarding a move.
If I have an army in Spain, and, say, Italy has a fleet in Gulf of Lyons and another in MAO, could he support one with the other and take Spain?
7 replies
Open
Troodonte (3379 D)
13 Jul 10 UTC
150 points Gunboat starting soon
WTA, Anon
36h phase (COMMITMENT TO FINALIZE ORDERS!)
Who is interested?
35 replies
Open
LJ TYLER DURDEN (334 D)
15 Jul 10 UTC
WTA game need a few more
Both of these games start in a little over a day. ONe only needs one more guy, the other needs five. Join 'em!

gameID=32991
gameID=32992
0 replies
Open
Page 628 of 1419
FirstPreviousNextLast
Back to top