Tuesday, March 31, 2009

Public Speaking 101

Something I learned while taking Public Speaking a couple summers ago is that it really is a two-way communication. While you might be the one who's talking, your audience constantly communicates non-verbally. This was magnified in our class where we could easily see everybody so if someone was putting their head down sleeping or texting, it was pretty apparent.

One thing we learned was adapting to the audience response. For example if people looked bored or uninterested, you're probably not doing a good job speaking in a way to engage them or maybe you're just boring when you talk. This on its own isn't necessarily a bad thing, at least not as bad as completely ignoring these signs, not changing at all, and then wonder why everyone else was so rude while you were speaking.

Of course the opposite is also true. Seeing an audience that truly looks entertained and invested in your speech is pretty gratifying and empowers and encourages the speaker for the rest of the time.


Basically this is all kind of fluff as I lack the words to express my frustration with my Macroeconmics teacher. I guess I shouldn't be too hard on him since he is not originally from America and is teaching his first class.

However, there's something to be said for trying to improve at something you're new and maybe not as good at. He's been lecturing the same way the whole semester, a very dry, boring style based off his powerpoints.

People routinely text in class and a good number of people bring laptops. Considering he hands out a notes page, I'd wager none of them, or us, rather, are using our computers for academic purposes.

He's seen the low homework and test grades, so I'm wondering why it doesn't bother him that no one ever has any questions in his class. I've tried paying attention, and it really is kind of confusing the way he lectures. Actually I'm kind of surprised that there are less questions asked. Or at least I would be if I wasn't able to tell that half the class is zoned out each time.

One incident that I thought was really funny happened last week. He was talking about...something and said, "Remember this part," and then uttered something that basically no one understood. I thought it was just me, but then I noticed that no one else was writing. He mumbled it again after someone broke the silence and asked him to repeat it.

I also thought it was amusing today (not more than 15 minutes ago) when he asked if there were any questions and there was a dead silence. In fact, the same thing happens when he asks a question and look for an answer. Doesn't that suggest that people might a) not be paying attention or b) not understanding what you're saying?

It does to me. Apparently not to him. Looking around just now I see a couple people working on a crossword in our school paper. Other people are just looking down, playing with their nails, not even pretending to care about their notes. And then there are people like me. Now I'm pretty sure not everyone on a laptop is blogging right now, but I guarantee they're not thinking about economics at all.

The fact that I took the time to type up this post (which, looking back, probably doesn't make much sense) speaks to how bored I am and how pointless I think this class is.

I don't like to bash teachers and professors. I really don't. But what I do bash is incompetence, and sadly, that's the one word that stands out when I think about this class.

Tuesday, March 17, 2009

How Picky am I?

You the reader are about to find out. I think that it some ways I am kind of a stickler for certain things (see previous post), but I feel that while it can be minor gripes, I do have practical and logical reasons for these peeves. I'm going to use "Watchmen" the movie as an example.

Briefly, I will say that I really enjoyed the movie. As a fan of the graphic novel, I thought the transition was handled really well by director Zack Snyder. And the score...well: http://www.asuwebdevil.com/node/5101.

Shameless plugs aside, there are a couple bones I have to pick with the movie in terms of how things were changed. Like I said, these are minor things, but I think they do matter. Of course, I won't mention obvious things such as the removal of "Tales of the Black Freighter," which is getting its own release and will be cut back into Ultimate Watchmen, nor things I know were done in the interest of time such as the removal and/or downsizing of characters like Rorschach's psychologist and his landlady.

Anyway, here are the three things. And I won't just leave them alone so you all think I'm some kind of psycho purist. I will attempt to explain the problems I have with them.

Be warned. There are some plot spoilers coming up so if you haven't read the novel or watched the movie, perhaps you'd like to stay away. Or perhaps you'd like to read anyway. The choice is yours. I'll leave a little buffer zone of emptiness as a spoiler warning.



-- SPOILERS AHEAD --

Is this really necessary for a 20 year old novel and 2 week old movie? Oh well.












1. Jon Osterman: "If there is a God, I'm nothing like him."

This is so small, it probably went unnoticed even for people who have read the graphic novel. But the original line (I think, left my copy at home in Irvine) goes, "I don't believe there's a God, but if there is, I'm not him."
Slightly different, but I think the line in the movie makes him sound a little more arrogant whereas in the novel, he's just stating it as a matter of fact. Though people are saying he is a god, he is denying it. To me, his line in the film kind of set him up as an opposing force to a god, if one exists in his world.
It's a small, small issue, but that's all the more reason why I think they should have kept the line as it was in the original. I don't see why they changed it.

2. The watch in the lab coat

In the movie, what leads to Jon's accident that eventually turns him into Dr. Manhattan was his leaving his watch inside the intrinsic field separation chamber. This makes it seem extremely coincidental and, to me, kind of weak. It's a little more nuanced in the novel as it's Janey Slater's watch which he had left in his lab coat in the test chamber. The story goes that at the fair, a fat man stepped on and broke the watch. Jon offered to fix it, which somehow led to romantic sparks between them. Later, she asks about the watch and he realized he left it in the test chamber, goes to get it, and the rest is history.
The thing I really liked about that was it clearly shows the progression of events which led to Dr. Manhattan and that goes great with his perception of time as simultaneous. Instead of just a coincidental accident as in the movie, the novel shows a near fatal chain of events over which Osterman had no control. And that the watch was broken also set up the great "hands frozen in time" image and line in the novel.
Also, in the movie, he basically walks back into the test chamber after just having left. How could he not have known there was an impending test? That seemed a little unbelievable to me.

3. Creation of Rorschach

Rorschach's origin story with the child killer was kept pretty much the same from the graphic novel. However, there was one part that they did change. Unfortunately, it was my favorite and probably the most awesome part of the whole thing.
What's kept from page to screen is basically Rorschach finds the girl's remains in the furnace, dogs chewing her bones, then decides to kill the dogs, throw them through the windows at their owner (the kidnapper), and then handcuff him to the furnace. Here's where it got awesome in the book and not in the film.
The guy is begging for mercy as Rorschach is pouring kerosene around the house. He drops a hack saw by the man and tells him he probably won't be able to cut through the chain. The murderer realizes what he means and is terrified. Then Rorschach lights a match and sets the house on fire before walking out. He stands there, watching. No one got out.
In the movie he simply takes a butcher knife, listens to the man beg for a little bit then plants the knife in the man's head repeatedly, telling him men go to jail, dogs get put down.
The movie version is more brutal, or more bloody at least, but the book version is far, far more chilling. The image of Rorschach facing the burning house, just watching it burn, is pretty incredible. And the line (which I will butcher) that goes something like "Kovacs closed his eyes. It was Rorschach who opened them," is another one I love too.


Anyway. I probably thought about this too much. But those were the main, little things that bothered me about the movie. But it's still fantastic and I loved it, although it probably is aimed more towards fans of the book.

Wednesday, March 4, 2009

A Pet Peeve

Just a quick little post, mainly to convince me (and readers, if those exist) that this is not totally dead.

One huge pet peeve of mine I was reminded about in class yesterday (er...the 2nd, that is) is when people over- and misuse the word "literally."

I don't know why this happens, but I think people like to say it to sound smarter or something. But let's all take a step back and look at what it means. Well, it's mainly just me spouting out what I think it means. But you're all free to disagree of course.

Anyway, when I think of "literal," I take it to mean the opposite of figurative. Something that is figurative is something that doesn't actually exist or isn't actually happening in the sense that it is metaphorical, an analogy to something, or something like that.

For example. If I said ASU's last second loss to Washington State on Sunday was a heartbreaker (it was), I mean that figuratively. And I don't have to say that I meant that figuratively because it is obvious.

Now let's look at that if I had said "was literally a heartbreaker." Well now having (very) roughly stated what something that is figurative is and having said that something literal is the opposite of that, saying "literally" would imply that it is actually happening. In this case, my heart is actually breaking. And not the way Natalie Portman meant when she said it to Hayden Christensen at the end of Revenge of the Sith. Breaking as in physically falling into pieces. Or something like that.

You wouldn't use "literally" if it's obvious you meant it to be literal and there's no way it could have been figurative speech. You also wouldn't use "literally" if that's not what you mean. Surprisingly, to some people, that's not as obvious as it sounds like it should be.

So it's 2 AM and I realize this is rambling and probably doesn't make much sense. So let's just review.

If you wanted to talk about a performance by a stuntman, you might say, "He was on fire, literally!"
Since the term "on fire" can be used figuratively to describe someone who is performing well, "literally" works in that case.

But if you wanted to talk about what happened to him, you would not say, "He was set on fire, literally." How could you be figuratively set on fire? You can't.
I know already someone will be thinking of a case where someone is described as "on fire" (The Machine draining 3s for example) and being "set on fire" would be the point at which he became "on fire." Of course then this is just using the wrong idiom since "caught fire" would suffice.

And of course the worst is not when "literally" is used redundantly, but inappropriately. So let's use the example that I heard in my class which drove me nuts. From a discussion of "Danton's Death" by Georg Buchner.

"Danton has been literally cancelled to zero."

What? I wanted to stop the discussion and point out how little that made sense. I can't even begin to describe how little sense it makes because there is not even enough sense in that statement to start (or as I might say, less than a penny of sense. read it out loud). Now unless Danton has been crossed out and become a big, round shape with a whole in the middle, I'm pretty sure he's still a man and not "cancelled to zero" or whatever the heck that would entail.

Good grief.