There is a morbidity that comes with taking a new job. It's not something we often think about because, hey, we just got offered a job, and we love money. But the cold, heartless reality of the majority of job offerings is that they come come as a direct result of someone else no longer having said job.
Say what you will, maybe he got promoted! Maybe she left for a better job somewhere else!
But, someone, somewhere got fired and now you have this job. Or maybe they died.
And more importantly, imaginary person who said "maybe she left for a better job somewhere else!" Do you really want to take the job that someone left for a better job? I want the better job in the first place.
In accordance with this subject I was having lunch with my colleagues (I say, pretending that I'm not an assistant who sits around and waits to see if anyone needs help all day--if I'm not proctoring, of course.)
As is the case with most lunches, we ate food. With our food came conversation, and the slight discomfort one gets when they know that they don't quite yet have gas, but it is most assuredly on the way...
So we had a conversation. It was a pretty good conversation. We talked about girls, until actual girls showed up, and then we talked about sports and students and why Chik-fil-A pissed us off or what we loved about it. (Sundays. Chicken.) The discussion finally turned to various projects and assignments we (sigh) had been giving our (siiiiigh) students. I told them some of my ideas on how to handle things and looked around to see if this would, indeed, be a good way to handle said things.
Everyone seemed impressed, as if they were all simultaneously (generously) thinking, "Hey, this guy might not be an idiot!" (But he probably is, so keep watching him.)
One of the teachers spoke up and said, "Why don't you talk to the Principal about taking his job." Emphasizing the "him" by jabbing her fork in another teacher's direction.
I immediately felt uncomfortable. Fears of gas and eating a little too much aside. That just seemed like a hurtful comment.
He (the teacher in question) looked slightly put out by this entire conversation.
She (the fork pointer) said, "He won't be with us next year, you could just take over for him!"
He (feeling forced by my look of curiosity and her fierce waving of cutlery) went on to tell me about his future Mission and how he'll be raising money to plant a new Church in Vancouver and see if it grows. He used this terminology exactly and I was only slightly bothered by the cascade of questions that rushed into my head.
You can plant a church? Do you add water or does the plumbing help? Do money trees actually exist? Is my mother, in fact, made of money? Will I ever know the meaning of GCB? (And no, I will not google it.)
It turned out he hadn't been put out by her lack of empathy towards his leaving, in fact, he was rather sure I would make a great replacement and the team of people he worked with already know and like me. How perfect.
No he was upset because he would have to find a summer job, and Canadian women and waving cutlery aside, that downright sucks.
Tuesday, April 24, 2012
Tuesday, April 17, 2012
ESPN First Take takes on the Wrong Debate
There is a running debate on ESPN First Take-- 
Home of Skip Bayless and Skip Bayless' well documented eyes. They are in fact, right there.
--that there aren't enough African American head coaches in the NCAA Division 1 programs. They discussed how you could possibly change this travesty.
This debate is stupid. It is wrong. In so many ways. But mainly, they're simply asking the wrong question. (They being ESPN First Take.)
I have multiple problems but let's start with the beginning. This is a census. This is another, more Wikipedia(d) form. It states that around 12.6% of the total American population is African American. The stat they were throwing around on ESPN was that there were about 19 Head Coaches out of 120 something that were black, even assuming that it was 130 total D1 Head Coaches, we still are seeing a 2% higher ratio in total black coaches vs. total black people. That seems like a step in the right direction.
My second issue with this is that the entire conversation is racist. What do these men want? Do they want the Universities, and NFL teams for that matter, to hire black coaches because they're black? Is that why a black coach wants to get hired? Sure. Anyone wants the D1 Head Coaching contract (slash paycheck) but for that reason? Of course not. Coaches want to get hired because people believe they can win.
This kind of conversation is what sets us (the American People) back. The fact that this is even an issue is the problem. The best person for the job should get hired period. And in a job that is all about money I tend to believe this is the case. Most companies (and that's what University Athletic Programs are) won't hire (or choose not to hire) someone because of his or her race, they'll hire them because they can do the damn job. In this case coaching.
Now, I understand that the big successful programs have had predominantly black players for the past twenty or so years, but we seem to be forgetting a couple of factors that I find to be pretty important:
1) Coaches can coach a lot longer than players can play. It's not like head coaching jobs open up every day, and most of the time schools want to hire proven coaches. It's not a young mans game, period. Black or white young men.
2) Just because there are a lot of black players doesn't mean there are a lot of black coaches. And with a population that is mostly white (Talking America here) it's simply statistically more likely that there are more white coaches than black applying for head coaching jobs. (And most of them get ignored for the Urban Meyer's of the World. Dude won a Championship or two, dude is getting hired.)
This is the face I use when I'm plotting my retirement. And subsequent un-retirement and hiring at Ohio State. Booyah.
Here's the argument ESPN First Take should have had:
Is it harder for prospective black//African American coaches to get hired as Division 1 Head Coaches than it is for white coaches?
Because if it is? If it's found that that's true, then that is a problem. That needs to be fixed and addressed. Racial equality is not about getting more black, Asian or purple coaches hired. It's about making sure that race and racial perceptions play no role whatsoever in the hiring process.
The goal should be (should always have been) that the person who is best for the job gets hired. Period.
The way this debate was handled was backwards and accusatory. It will cause more problems then it will solve. Way to start some High School drama, First Take.
But I guess that's just good television.
--that there aren't enough African American head coaches in the NCAA Division 1 programs. They discussed how you could possibly change this travesty.
This debate is stupid. It is wrong. In so many ways. But mainly, they're simply asking the wrong question. (They being ESPN First Take.)
I have multiple problems but let's start with the beginning. This is a census. This is another, more Wikipedia(d) form. It states that around 12.6% of the total American population is African American. The stat they were throwing around on ESPN was that there were about 19 Head Coaches out of 120 something that were black, even assuming that it was 130 total D1 Head Coaches, we still are seeing a 2% higher ratio in total black coaches vs. total black people. That seems like a step in the right direction.
My second issue with this is that the entire conversation is racist. What do these men want? Do they want the Universities, and NFL teams for that matter, to hire black coaches because they're black? Is that why a black coach wants to get hired? Sure. Anyone wants the D1 Head Coaching contract (slash paycheck) but for that reason? Of course not. Coaches want to get hired because people believe they can win.
This kind of conversation is what sets us (the American People) back. The fact that this is even an issue is the problem. The best person for the job should get hired period. And in a job that is all about money I tend to believe this is the case. Most companies (and that's what University Athletic Programs are) won't hire (or choose not to hire) someone because of his or her race, they'll hire them because they can do the damn job. In this case coaching.
Now, I understand that the big successful programs have had predominantly black players for the past twenty or so years, but we seem to be forgetting a couple of factors that I find to be pretty important:
1) Coaches can coach a lot longer than players can play. It's not like head coaching jobs open up every day, and most of the time schools want to hire proven coaches. It's not a young mans game, period. Black or white young men.
2) Just because there are a lot of black players doesn't mean there are a lot of black coaches. And with a population that is mostly white (Talking America here) it's simply statistically more likely that there are more white coaches than black applying for head coaching jobs. (And most of them get ignored for the Urban Meyer's of the World. Dude won a Championship or two, dude is getting hired.)
Here's the argument ESPN First Take should have had:
Is it harder for prospective black//African American coaches to get hired as Division 1 Head Coaches than it is for white coaches?
Because if it is? If it's found that that's true, then that is a problem. That needs to be fixed and addressed. Racial equality is not about getting more black, Asian or purple coaches hired. It's about making sure that race and racial perceptions play no role whatsoever in the hiring process.
The goal should be (should always have been) that the person who is best for the job gets hired. Period.
The way this debate was handled was backwards and accusatory. It will cause more problems then it will solve. Way to start some High School drama, First Take.
But I guess that's just good television.
Sunday, April 15, 2012
Boring Jobs -- Does the Title go to "Test Proctor?"
I've been thinking a lot about jobs lately. I work as a tutor and test coach at a High School. It's a pretty enjoyable job--and a rewarding one. I get a chance to coach football as well, and I get a real opportunity to make a difference.
But then they make me proctor.
Being a test proctor is a lot like watching paint dry in a room full of televisions that only show baseball (and golf on Sundays.)
To proctor a test in Florida you have to have a certificate to be a teacher. So they can hold the certificate over your head if you do anything wrong.
"Oh, you thought that you would be able to look at your cell phone, crack open a book, or skim through a magazine after you do a walk through? Think again."
In a standard test, that is to say, one that lasts about an hour, it's no problem. You walk around, maybe offer some vague words of encouragement and make sure no one is cheating or taking pictures of their screens so they can sell test questions.
But in the retakes the kids get the entire day to take the test. From 7 am until 2:20 pm I am walking around in a room with maybe 10 kids in it. And I'm not allowed to do anything.
In honor of this torture, my sullen fate during the time that is owned by FCAT, I've begun a list of jobs I consider worse, more boring, or slower than this.
Feel free to add your own to my list.
1) Retail sales employee at a major company on a slow day. You're still expected to "work." So you basically walk around dusting and talking to your "friends." You get yelled at by your managers who are doing the exact same thing, but don't want to get in trouble with their bosses. Also at the average retail establishment you have more bosses that Cal Ripken Jr. has career hits.
2) Video Game Tester. I know it sounds fun, but (apparently) you mainly just end up playing the same level over and over again and looking for "bugs" in said level. Name a game you love. Now go into that game and play the same level over and over again for one hour. See if you still love that game. Even if that level is perfect, it's perfection will eventually get to you. Driving you mad.
3) Front counter at a slow hotel, or overnight shift. Yeah, you're the face of the hotel. You have to stand there and look pretty, or at least professional. Until the invention of the smart phone this was job probably seemed a little bit like the Chinese Water Torture of the Hospitality Industry. (Imagine if you didn't like reading.)
4) In that same vein of thinking, overnight shifts at grocery stores. After the third month you've done all your homework, written an unsuccessful novel and you know every damn thing about every damn celebrity. You haven't seen the sun in the past six weeks and your girlfriend left you and didn't bother to tell you. In the eyes of the World, you no longer exist.
5) Traffic cop (on an empty road.) Think about it. Traffic cop is the punishment that is handed down to the rebel cop by his stern, yet caring, Captain in every cop movie before rebel cop gets a break in his case and solves it off duty. Somehow making everything better rather than getting him fired and sued.
6) Substitute teacher once you've finished the reading material you've brought. This is why most subs bring movies along, God forbid the teacher actually has the class working when s/he is away.
7) Tech support. It's not that it's boring. In fact, I'm sure there's always something to do. But how many times can you run someone through a list of possible problems to find out that the machine isn't plugged in or that they were using the CD player as a cup holder or that the computer's built in fan wasn't keeping the room cool enough before you go just a little bit insane?
I'll come back to this later. Maybe throw a cartoon in. Just some thoughts.
But then they make me proctor.
Being a test proctor is a lot like watching paint dry in a room full of televisions that only show baseball (and golf on Sundays.)
To proctor a test in Florida you have to have a certificate to be a teacher. So they can hold the certificate over your head if you do anything wrong.
"Oh, you thought that you would be able to look at your cell phone, crack open a book, or skim through a magazine after you do a walk through? Think again."
In a standard test, that is to say, one that lasts about an hour, it's no problem. You walk around, maybe offer some vague words of encouragement and make sure no one is cheating or taking pictures of their screens so they can sell test questions.
But in the retakes the kids get the entire day to take the test. From 7 am until 2:20 pm I am walking around in a room with maybe 10 kids in it. And I'm not allowed to do anything.
In honor of this torture, my sullen fate during the time that is owned by FCAT, I've begun a list of jobs I consider worse, more boring, or slower than this.
Feel free to add your own to my list.
1) Retail sales employee at a major company on a slow day. You're still expected to "work." So you basically walk around dusting and talking to your "friends." You get yelled at by your managers who are doing the exact same thing, but don't want to get in trouble with their bosses. Also at the average retail establishment you have more bosses that Cal Ripken Jr. has career hits.
2) Video Game Tester. I know it sounds fun, but (apparently) you mainly just end up playing the same level over and over again and looking for "bugs" in said level. Name a game you love. Now go into that game and play the same level over and over again for one hour. See if you still love that game. Even if that level is perfect, it's perfection will eventually get to you. Driving you mad.
3) Front counter at a slow hotel, or overnight shift. Yeah, you're the face of the hotel. You have to stand there and look pretty, or at least professional. Until the invention of the smart phone this was job probably seemed a little bit like the Chinese Water Torture of the Hospitality Industry. (Imagine if you didn't like reading.)
4) In that same vein of thinking, overnight shifts at grocery stores. After the third month you've done all your homework, written an unsuccessful novel and you know every damn thing about every damn celebrity. You haven't seen the sun in the past six weeks and your girlfriend left you and didn't bother to tell you. In the eyes of the World, you no longer exist.
5) Traffic cop (on an empty road.) Think about it. Traffic cop is the punishment that is handed down to the rebel cop by his stern, yet caring, Captain in every cop movie before rebel cop gets a break in his case and solves it off duty. Somehow making everything better rather than getting him fired and sued.
6) Substitute teacher once you've finished the reading material you've brought. This is why most subs bring movies along, God forbid the teacher actually has the class working when s/he is away.
7) Tech support. It's not that it's boring. In fact, I'm sure there's always something to do. But how many times can you run someone through a list of possible problems to find out that the machine isn't plugged in or that they were using the CD player as a cup holder or that the computer's built in fan wasn't keeping the room cool enough before you go just a little bit insane?
I'll come back to this later. Maybe throw a cartoon in. Just some thoughts.
Friday, March 30, 2012
Former Stars to Help Fix Major League Baseball
As some of you who follow sports may know, Magic Johnson (and Friends!) recently bought into become a partial owner of the Los Angeles Dodgers. Many people in sports think that this is the most important thing that baseball can do to make itself more accessible to it's slowly declining fan base. This "celebrity" or "super star" involvement has most certainly proven itself to work for teams like the Pacers (NBA) and Penguins (NHL), but it is not a "sure thing." Otis Smith of Magic fame (infamy) was an NBA player as well. And I hope I'm not alone in saying that I ha--that he should no longer be a part of the Magic Organization.
So while, indeed, Magic Johnson's (he's already a minority stockholder in the Lakers, and the fans love it) move is definitely a stroke of genius by and for the Dodgers (on par with the Rangers hiring Nolan Ryan as their Fearless Leader and the failure of the Jaguars to acquire Tebow,) it's not going to fix the core problem that the MLB is having in regards to business...
Baseball is freaking boring.
It's nearly impossible to watch an entire game of baseball without wondering why you aren't doing something else. Didn't I need to mow the lawn or something?
I'll even take you a step further, why watch an entire game of baseball (even if it is the Braves, I know you really really love the Braves) when you can turn on Sports Center in the morning and see every important play that happened in the entire game. Sure you run the risk of hearing something along the lines of "This is the 15th game in a row the Clippers have won at home on a Tuesday when Magic Johnson ate a hot dog with his left hand in Boston." But thems are just the breaks.
Assistant: Pssst. Dude. The boss wants you to tell them about the amount of sodas consumed this year in relation to last year in Los Angeles as a factor in how the Orlando Magic are playing this season as compared to last.
Stuart Scott: Well, I just don't see how that's relevant at all. In any way.
Assistant: Relevant? Dude, this is SportsCenter.
Moving on. I read an interesting article last year (it was actually written in 2000) about how much baseball is actually played during a Major League Baseball game.
It was not pretty. The most important quote I found in the article (although there are so many interesting tidbits) was this:
"Time the baseball was actually in play, including pitches, batted balls, foul balls, pickoff attempts, relays, throws to bases and anything else even Bob Costas might consider actual sporting activity (and I was being generous with the stopwatch): 12 minutes, 22 seconds."
This is baseball's core problem. It's not fun to watch. Is it fun to play? Of course. Why else would we make it easier and change the rules so you could drink alcohol while you play?
The future of sports. Only bowling could possibly be better.
But I'm not the one who has to worry about how baseball can save itself. I don't need to figure out how management needs to change, ownership needs to change or even what rules they need to change.
All I need to do is change the channel.
So while, indeed, Magic Johnson's (he's already a minority stockholder in the Lakers, and the fans love it) move is definitely a stroke of genius by and for the Dodgers (on par with the Rangers hiring Nolan Ryan as their Fearless Leader and the failure of the Jaguars to acquire Tebow,) it's not going to fix the core problem that the MLB is having in regards to business...
It's nearly impossible to watch an entire game of baseball without wondering why you aren't doing something else. Didn't I need to mow the lawn or something?
I'll even take you a step further, why watch an entire game of baseball (even if it is the Braves, I know you really really love the Braves) when you can turn on Sports Center in the morning and see every important play that happened in the entire game. Sure you run the risk of hearing something along the lines of "This is the 15th game in a row the Clippers have won at home on a Tuesday when Magic Johnson ate a hot dog with his left hand in Boston." But thems are just the breaks.
Assistant: Pssst. Dude. The boss wants you to tell them about the amount of sodas consumed this year in relation to last year in Los Angeles as a factor in how the Orlando Magic are playing this season as compared to last.
Stuart Scott: Well, I just don't see how that's relevant at all. In any way.
Assistant: Relevant? Dude, this is SportsCenter.
Moving on. I read an interesting article last year (it was actually written in 2000) about how much baseball is actually played during a Major League Baseball game.
It was not pretty. The most important quote I found in the article (although there are so many interesting tidbits) was this:
"Time the baseball was actually in play, including pitches, batted balls, foul balls, pickoff attempts, relays, throws to bases and anything else even Bob Costas might consider actual sporting activity (and I was being generous with the stopwatch): 12 minutes, 22 seconds."
This is baseball's core problem. It's not fun to watch. Is it fun to play? Of course. Why else would we make it easier and change the rules so you could drink alcohol while you play?
But I'm not the one who has to worry about how baseball can save itself. I don't need to figure out how management needs to change, ownership needs to change or even what rules they need to change.
All I need to do is change the channel.
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
The Twitterverse is Buzzing about Something, Let's Write an Article About It!
Twitter, or as I like to think of it, New Media's bastard child with illiteracy, is getting out of hand. I use Twitter. I'm sure you can see that, it's over on the side thing (oh my God, follow me! Follow me!) but I use it specifically to call attention to my blog and my generally awesome sense of humor. Not because I feel like I can say anything meaningful or World changing in 140 characters or less.
However, the reality of Twitter (aside from its aforementioned existence) is that it is incredibly useful to those of us who are in the entertainment and media industries. (I say in, in my case I really mean, fitfully running around a locked house looking for an open window or a hidden key.) The majority of Twitter accounts are held by high school kids who use them as quick facebook status updates and random people trying to get that mystical Justin Bieber retweet. (If he retweets anything you say, you gain a level in real life.)
Twitter has launched quite a few careers and even spawned multiple books and TV shows, I give you "Shit my Dad says." You may remember it as the one funny preview with William Shatner a few years back on CBS. The book is actually fantastic as the majority of it's entries are longer than 140 characters and it actually tells meaningful stories from Jim Halpern's life. (So I guess he tells them.)
Look for this:
Not for this:
So why am I on this random Twitter spiel? Well, I find a lot of my funny news via twitter links and the like (I follow a lot of people that are funnier than me, and a few that just have more followers.) However, I get the majority of my news from credible news sites, i.e. Yahoo! News, MSN news, and so on and so on. (I used to do NPR, but then my iPhone software updated, and I never re-downloaded the app. Odd time for that revelation to hit? Or meaningful? I'm going with meaningful.)
So the two news stories that struck out to me today were not truly news stories. They were bullshit hidden in a news story-like article on MSN. The first was about Tebow's trade to the Jets...and what it was doing to Twitter. I'm not altogether unhappy with the move (for Tebow), but going to Twitter and and quoting three Tweets is not a news article. Reputable media outlets should not begin quoting something that inspires poor (I mean non-existent) grammar and odd little abbreviations that rarely make sense.
The second was either a complete space filler or a shameless plug for this writer's personal Twitter project (it only has [currently] 363 followers, one of whom is me) GoddamnDora. That's right. Naughty Dora the Explorer, something that I feel has taken far too long to come into existence. And while I agree with the sentiments of a cursing Dora, or a Depressed Darth Vader, I just can't get behind actual news reporting on Twitter trends. That's ridiculous.
It's like the media is turning into one big Entertainment Weekly website.
It's freakin' depressing. And I'm not featured, which is also lame.
However, the reality of Twitter (aside from its aforementioned existence) is that it is incredibly useful to those of us who are in the entertainment and media industries. (I say in, in my case I really mean, fitfully running around a locked house looking for an open window or a hidden key.) The majority of Twitter accounts are held by high school kids who use them as quick facebook status updates and random people trying to get that mystical Justin Bieber retweet. (If he retweets anything you say, you gain a level in real life.)
Twitter has launched quite a few careers and even spawned multiple books and TV shows, I give you "Shit my Dad says." You may remember it as the one funny preview with William Shatner a few years back on CBS. The book is actually fantastic as the majority of it's entries are longer than 140 characters and it actually tells meaningful stories from Jim Halpern's life. (So I guess he tells them.)
Look for this:
Not for this:
So why am I on this random Twitter spiel? Well, I find a lot of my funny news via twitter links and the like (I follow a lot of people that are funnier than me, and a few that just have more followers.) However, I get the majority of my news from credible news sites, i.e. Yahoo! News, MSN news, and so on and so on. (I used to do NPR, but then my iPhone software updated, and I never re-downloaded the app. Odd time for that revelation to hit? Or meaningful? I'm going with meaningful.)
So the two news stories that struck out to me today were not truly news stories. They were bullshit hidden in a news story-like article on MSN. The first was about Tebow's trade to the Jets...and what it was doing to Twitter. I'm not altogether unhappy with the move (for Tebow), but going to Twitter and and quoting three Tweets is not a news article. Reputable media outlets should not begin quoting something that inspires poor (I mean non-existent) grammar and odd little abbreviations that rarely make sense.
The second was either a complete space filler or a shameless plug for this writer's personal Twitter project (it only has [currently] 363 followers, one of whom is me) GoddamnDora. That's right. Naughty Dora the Explorer, something that I feel has taken far too long to come into existence. And while I agree with the sentiments of a cursing Dora, or a Depressed Darth Vader, I just can't get behind actual news reporting on Twitter trends. That's ridiculous.
It's like the media is turning into one big Entertainment Weekly website.
It's freakin' depressing. And I'm not featured, which is also lame.
Bookworms to Arms! Literary Criticism Gets Physical
People are finally starting to take literary pursuits seriously. It's been so easy for everyone to just judge literary criticism by its multi-colored cover.
And occasionally by it's less threatening cover as well.
But finally, after years of quiet debate in near empty classrooms populated only by angsty (Screw you, spellcheck, angsty is a word, and a correct one at that.) hipsters and creative writing majors struggling through a sleep deprived professor's sleep inducing course, literary criticism has gotten physical.
Hell yes, fellow Bookworms! That is real! The shit be on now, yo! Now we rollin'. And any other such phrases that inspire a "to arms" response! Yeah!
Here's a picture of puppies, getting ready to throw down. Cry havoc, again, and all that.
(Yes it's the same picture as before, and yes I love it that much.)
What's that article actually say for all you non link-clickers out there? Basically some nerds got into a fight over in Ann Arbor. Boom. Over what? Books. The argument was said to be over Tolkien and (or vs, it all depends on perspective, I suppose) C.S. Lewis. (Oddly enough, both were decidedly Christian thinkers and members of the Inklings, a very non-violent group.)
Apparently somewhere during a "conversation about books and authors" (quoted from this website) "The 34-year-old man was then approached by another party guest, who started speaking to him in a condescending manner." (The "34-year-old man" was the one who was attacked, by the by.)
Really? Imagine that. Someone who reads (Let's just assume he's also an aspiring writer himself.) and discusses books got condescending. Who da' thunk, a literary enthusiast thinking he was better than someone else, even a fellow wordage connoisseur. For shame.
And humor.
But finally, after years of quiet debate in near empty classrooms populated only by angsty (Screw you, spellcheck, angsty is a word, and a correct one at that.) hipsters and creative writing majors struggling through a sleep deprived professor's sleep inducing course, literary criticism has gotten physical.
Hell yes, fellow Bookworms! That is real! The shit be on now, yo! Now we rollin'. And any other such phrases that inspire a "to arms" response! Yeah!
Here's a picture of puppies, getting ready to throw down. Cry havoc, again, and all that.
What's that article actually say for all you non link-clickers out there? Basically some nerds got into a fight over in Ann Arbor. Boom. Over what? Books. The argument was said to be over Tolkien and (or vs, it all depends on perspective, I suppose) C.S. Lewis. (Oddly enough, both were decidedly Christian thinkers and members of the Inklings, a very non-violent group.)
Apparently somewhere during a "conversation about books and authors" (quoted from this website) "The 34-year-old man was then approached by another party guest, who started speaking to him in a condescending manner." (The "34-year-old man" was the one who was attacked, by the by.)
Really? Imagine that. Someone who reads (Let's just assume he's also an aspiring writer himself.) and discusses books got condescending. Who da' thunk, a literary enthusiast thinking he was better than someone else, even a fellow wordage connoisseur. For shame.
And humor.
Thursday, March 15, 2012
The Ides of March (And Substituting)
Last week I substituted for an English teacher whose class was doing Shakespeare's Julius Ceasar.
For $9.95 you can get this "Julius Ceasar" wig and also look like the great Ceasar himself, re-imagined as a lesbian.
I was so excited! This was my first chance to really get into the stuff I love about teaching English. Writing, reading, plays! Yes! The kids were going to love this!
They didn't.
Not even a little bit.
I had to pick students to read in each class. One student volunteered that she was by far the best reader in the class. Everyone else agreed. I made her Brutus, chose a Cassius and a Marcus Antony (We were in Act II) and I narrated.
Brutus, as you may have guessed, has quite a few large verses in this section of the play. And while I wouldn't say the student lied to me. I would say that she is not the best reader of a play. It was Shakespeare as read by Ben Stein.
Yeah, you thought you were getting a picture of Ben Stein or maybe an irritated eye? Balls to that.
It was horrible. And to think, this was my little social activist in the class, she was all about saving Uganda and finding Kony and blanket days, and she couldn't muster up any emotion when it came to the death of a friend, hero and tyrant.
About twenty minutes into our (incredibly boring) reading, I asked the class what had happened so far in this scene.
They all just looked back at me blankly. Finally one of them said "Marc Antony is trying to get Ceasar's body for a funeral thing."
I was impressed. I was about to ask her why that was important. Before I could open my mouth another student interrupted, "Wait. Ceasar's dead?"
Were I a dragon, this is the face I would make.
"Yes, sir. He died on the second page of the reading."
"But no one mentioned that!"
"I'm pretty sure I did."
"When?"
"When I read the line, 'they all stab Ceasar.'"
"Oh."
So I asked again. "Alright, Class. What is happening right now?"
Blank looks. It was time for a break down.
"OK. So Ceasar was kind of being a jerk. He had taken over Rome, right? He was this tyrant, he had taken the title 'Dictator for Life, yo.' He was the Ancestor of the first OG (Original Gangster for all my non-80's kids.) So Brutus, who really really loved Roman society, Rome and the Roman Republic, was convinced into a plot to murder him. This could be argued to be a great crime, but more than that it, was one of the World's greatest betrayals, as Ceasar had given Brutus nothing but chances, leniency and friendship over the years. (That link is about Brutus, he stirred up some anti-Ceasar shit before.) After they kill him, they need to immediately explain it to the Roman people, and their rivals, like Marc Antony."
"So, Marc Antony was Ceasar's friend? Why did he come back and grovel then? Shake hands?"
"Grovel, good word. And I would say, because he didn't want to die. If your friend, your best friend, was murdered and the ten dudes with knives asked you, 'hey, you cool with this?' Would you say 'no' or 'yeah, guys, totally.'?"
"Marc Antony was smart. He was humble to their faces but when they left, it was all 'Cry Havoc' and dogs and stuff. It was about to be on. As they said in the lingo of my youth."
And I was all "HAVOOOOOOOOOOC!" and then I let them loose.
"Then he gives this really great speech about friends and Romans right?"
"Well, he opens up a speech that way."
"What's the speech about?" Asked one of the students.
"Dude. You read the Marc Antony part out loud."
"Oh. Yeah. Sorry."
Roman statue facepalm.
I was so excited! This was my first chance to really get into the stuff I love about teaching English. Writing, reading, plays! Yes! The kids were going to love this!
They didn't.
Not even a little bit.
I had to pick students to read in each class. One student volunteered that she was by far the best reader in the class. Everyone else agreed. I made her Brutus, chose a Cassius and a Marcus Antony (We were in Act II) and I narrated.
Brutus, as you may have guessed, has quite a few large verses in this section of the play. And while I wouldn't say the student lied to me. I would say that she is not the best reader of a play. It was Shakespeare as read by Ben Stein.
It was horrible. And to think, this was my little social activist in the class, she was all about saving Uganda and finding Kony and blanket days, and she couldn't muster up any emotion when it came to the death of a friend, hero and tyrant.
About twenty minutes into our (incredibly boring) reading, I asked the class what had happened so far in this scene.
They all just looked back at me blankly. Finally one of them said "Marc Antony is trying to get Ceasar's body for a funeral thing."
I was impressed. I was about to ask her why that was important. Before I could open my mouth another student interrupted, "Wait. Ceasar's dead?"
"Yes, sir. He died on the second page of the reading."
"But no one mentioned that!"
"I'm pretty sure I did."
"When?"
"When I read the line, 'they all stab Ceasar.'"
"Oh."
So I asked again. "Alright, Class. What is happening right now?"
Blank looks. It was time for a break down.
"OK. So Ceasar was kind of being a jerk. He had taken over Rome, right? He was this tyrant, he had taken the title 'Dictator for Life, yo.' He was the Ancestor of the first OG (Original Gangster for all my non-80's kids.) So Brutus, who really really loved Roman society, Rome and the Roman Republic, was convinced into a plot to murder him. This could be argued to be a great crime, but more than that it, was one of the World's greatest betrayals, as Ceasar had given Brutus nothing but chances, leniency and friendship over the years. (That link is about Brutus, he stirred up some anti-Ceasar shit before.) After they kill him, they need to immediately explain it to the Roman people, and their rivals, like Marc Antony."
"So, Marc Antony was Ceasar's friend? Why did he come back and grovel then? Shake hands?"
"Grovel, good word. And I would say, because he didn't want to die. If your friend, your best friend, was murdered and the ten dudes with knives asked you, 'hey, you cool with this?' Would you say 'no' or 'yeah, guys, totally.'?"
"Marc Antony was smart. He was humble to their faces but when they left, it was all 'Cry Havoc' and dogs and stuff. It was about to be on. As they said in the lingo of my youth."
"Then he gives this really great speech about friends and Romans right?"
"Well, he opens up a speech that way."
"What's the speech about?" Asked one of the students.
"Dude. You read the Marc Antony part out loud."
"Oh. Yeah. Sorry."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)