17 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
(04/18/13 4:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>“Indicud,” an exercise in solo production, lacks the personality from Kid Cudi’s first two albums, but it has beautiful moments. I replayed “The Resurrection of Scott Mescudi” immediately after hearing it the first time. This and the album’s other two instrumentals (“New York Rage Fest” and “The Flight of the Moon Man”) are strong narratives. The rapper creates vivid, spooky sceneries using sound alone, continuing his voyage through space. For me, “New York Rage Fest” produces the image of a militia marching through a lollipop carnival. “The Resurrection of Scott Mescudi” feels like swinging your arms in slow motion through the ocean — in a good way.The production is amateur at times, but the rapper should receive credit for his commitment to evolution. Despite his forward progression, however, “Indicud” generally explores tired hip-hop staples: ego parades, odes to bitches and crews, etc. Songs that begin strongly are quickly bogged down by repetitive and imitative lyrics and auditory movements. “Girls” is probably the most grating example.The rapper’s vulnerable, hazy perspective livens up the many dull moments on the album. Aided by a droning robot chorus, he explores the recurring theme of self-medication in “Just What I Am.” There are sharp lines and bits of insight throughout the album, but “Solo Dolo II” probably showcases the smartest of them.The singing is obviously done best by the featured guests, especially Haim on “Red Eye.” Kid Cudi’s off-key, off-kilter voice aids some songs (“Cold-Blooded” in particular) but ruins others. Often his delivery oscillates into a disturbing arena, especially in creepy anthems like “Young Lady.” His enthusiasm is admirable, but fans should probably encourage him to stop singing.What’s missing from this album that worked so well on the last is a cohesive narrative. I’m a big fan of the way each song cuts off the previous number, of these abrupt shifts in sound and thought, but these musings never really come together.The album, overall, demonstrates Kid Cudi’s talent and vision. It both fascinates and disappoints. Many tracks are easily avoidable, but this production effort is valuable and promises great things from a rapper who continues to develop his range.
(03/07/13 5:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Kate Nash is a cool girl going in a new direction with her most recent album, but I don’t quite follow her all the way. The croaking, screaming vocals that carry the songs on “Girl Talk” are a far cry from her usual sweet trills and hums. Nash was never a stellar vocalist by any means — it was her accent that gave melody to her limited vocal ability. But this album tends to abandon singing altogether. Sometimes it really, really works.“Sister,” for example, is made more believable and heartbreaking by Nash’s squealing, shrieking and shouting. I can hear her hurt in this number. It was the only moment on the album that truly sold me on Nash’s new, pseudo-punk alter ego.The rest of the album, however, makes me miss her simple, singsong voice and the days of her piano pop. With these songs, Nash treads instead into Ida Maria and Switchblade Kittens territory with punk, bass-centric tunes. Generally she keeps the conversational, sarcastic and witty lyrics that make her past albums so relatable. But on this album, they are mostly lost into the whining wails or overshadowed by the pretty choral harmonies.What I really do appreciate about this new style, though, is how little Nash cares about sounding “pretty.” She makes all sorts of weird noises. She widens her vowels to the point where words are mangled. But these songs aim to provoke more than they aim to please, so the odd choices make sense.Most tracks on “Girl Talk” are worth skipping. They alternate between sleepy and shrill, often in the same number, and they aren’t anything that artists like Ida Maria and the Switchblade Kittens haven’t already done and done better.A track that people ought go out of their way to buy, however, is “You’re So Cool, I’m So Freaky.” A crowd of people joins Nash on the choruses, singing loudly and proudly the song’s sad admissions. “I’m a waste of space,” they all chant gladly. “I’ve never been cool.” This song sounds like Nash performing live in a bar where everyone in the audience knows and loves the words. It’s cheerless and strangely liberating.Overall, the album was an average expedition. I can certainly see how it might be someone else’s cup of tea, but I’ll admit to preferring more sugar in my Kate Nash albums.
(02/07/13 2:09am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Honestly, “Love Songs” was a pointless release. Fans could have easily compiled these familiar and frankly forgettable songs into a playlist had they felt the need, but instead Destiny’s Child decided to release them as a “new” album. Michelle Williams and Kelly Rowland suddenly appeared from the depths of Beyonce’s long shadow to generate even more hype for the star’s highly anticipated Super Bowl performance. Hopefully Beyonce will leave these unremarkable songs off her set list.Destiny’s Child works best when they are up-tempo, audacious and leaving their men at home. “Love Songs” assembles their slowest, sleepiest and most despairing numbers. These songs find the trio twiddling their thumbs waiting around for their men as in “Killing Time.” Or they are mindless slaves for their men with “Cater 2 U.” Sometimes they complain that if these men leave, no one else is left in the world for them, such as in “Emotion.” Anybody searching for this group’s standard girl-power anthem ought to look elsewhere.This particular brand of R&B, the lethargic sort with an acoustic shimmer and sparkle, is not the group’s forte, but if you’re not one to worry about the lyrics, the album is overall, weak and disheartening.What’s worse is they are generally delivered with thin, unimpressive vocals, which is atypical of three powerful singers with lovely, warm and distinct voices. Of course Michelle, Kelly and Beyonce still weave in and out of harmony expertly. With more energy, their synchronization is electric. But this album showcases Destiny’s Child at their dullest. Even with skilled harmonization, their vocals cannot save these unmemorable love songs.The only new track on the album, “Nuclear,” will rattle no bones, following a familiar formula. “Say My Name,” the most recognizable number, becomes a butchered remix. The very best song is probably “If,” the perfect vehicle for Michelle’s sweet voice and features the finest harmonies. “Brown Eyes” is another humm-able number.That being said, we’ve heard all this before. It’s best to skip this album, cross our fingers and hope Destiny’s Child will deliver a real album sometime soon.
(01/31/13 7:40am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>“Heartthrob,” Tegan and Sara’s seventh studio release strips everything from the twin sisters’ voices that makes them interesting. The quirky timbres of their voices are swallowed and lost in the synths and basses of an album that strays far from their usual acoustic endeavors. On past albums, their voices mingled in a brilliant and odd way, but every track on “Heartthrob” finds one or both sisters disappearing into the background. Their voices seem smoothed over, devoid of their standard eccentricities.The songs suffer most from immature and shallow lyrics that depend too much on clichés and universal themes. Unfortunately many current artists’ attempts to achieve universality result in vague, inaccessible and unmoving songs. Tegan and Sara’s songs are limited by the fact that they are too open and too familiar. “Drove Me Wild” and “Shock to Your System” — misleadingly titled — are two of many bland, forgettable tracks plagued by clunky lyrics.Many songs begin promisingly, especially those with echoing piano introductions, but neither follow through nor swell to a moment of interest. There are no riveting movements. The few songs with energy would stand a chance at being interesting if only the lyrics weren’t so empty and lazy.Generally the songs follow one after another like an endless pity parade. Break-up albums, while not rare, can still be very valuable, but if they are to stand out from the many weepy albums circulating the globe, they must explore deeper questions than “How Come You Don’t Want Me” and dispense ancient sentiments like “there’s nothing love can’t do.” This album would have benefited from an evolving story arc but barely shifted from a single stage of sadness.In an interview about the new album, Sarah Keirsten Quin told Rolling Stone, “I love the idea that we make these albums, and that they feel so in the moment and modern and vibrant and relevant, and then in two years, you feel it sort of like slip away.” The album definitely lacks staying power and will likely slip away before Sara’s two-year mark.All in all, “Heartthrob” is half-hearted. It won’t drag anyone to the dance floor, but kudos, I guess.They definitely have potential within the electronic genre, but this album failed to showcase their distinctive voices and usually perceptive lyrics.
(01/31/13 5:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>I admit it: I am unable to detect significant differences between the “Rumours” originals and its remastered versions. To me, the album sounds as perfect as it did when it was released 35 years ago. Perhaps it is now more acoustically pleasing for the musical devices used today. Very critical and determined listeners may appreciate the fine differences and tweaks that are made in this stage of an album. Overall, my listening experience of “Rumours” wasn’t noticeably improved by the remastering. I’ll stick with my original, thank you.The additional features strip down the legendary album down to its baby stages, presenting early takes, instrumentals and demos. It’s lovely to be privy to each song’s evolution, to hear the singers try out the undetermined vocals before they were set and to hear piano pieces before they were solidified. Of course these features would appeal most to consumers already familiar with and who already worship the original “Rumours,” and even then, not many fans will go out of their way to listen to the early versions more than once when the finals are perfect.
(12/05/12 5:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Rather than emphasizing standardized test scores or a dull résumé of extracurricular activities, IU should consider requiring personal essays in the admissions process.I found it curious I was not prompted to write anything for my application.I submitted my materials to IU wondering if they would really learn anything about me. What kind of formula must IU follow if admissions officers can glimpse at a student’s list of extracurricular activities, test scores and grades and decide which applicants will benefit from studying here?The many hours high school students put into rehearsals and practice are reduced to a few bubbles on a screen.Prospective students click to indicate what they have done but say nothing of what the activities meant to them, if anything.A few filled bubbles don’t make students well-rounded.They don’t signify the level of dedication students put into these activities or how these activities would enhance the projects and coursework they would assume at IU. Including small essays in this section of the application would encourage applicants to put their experiences in a meaningful context.Personal essays don’t necessarily need to follow this route, either. IU can skip the uninspired questions about the best advice you’ve ever been given and who, in the special cast of people in your life, has influenced you the most.Why not make an applicant respond to something they’ve seen in the world? A car accident. A work of art. A weird-looking animal. Make a prospective student tell the story of what they imagine would be the perfect first day at IU. Or the worst.Ask students how they would react to aspects of a university setting to which they might not have had previous exposure. How they might benefit from sharing a class with students from across the state, the country and the world. How they would feel about a middle-aged man condemning them to hell between classes.Instead of following a formula for bland and forced well-roundedness, the Office of Admissions should search for students who take a sincere interest in the world and are actively engaging that world.IU could better gauge how it might shape a student and how a student might contribute it through a personal essay more than any other submitted materials, yet it is the one material the University doesn’t require.If we want to continue to rise in the ranks of public universities, perhaps being more selective could be advantageous.I would rather sit in class with a student who wrote a thoughtful essay about the Loch Ness monster than someone who exhausted his or her school’s club offerings to look good on paper.— ambhendr@indiana.edu
(11/28/12 5:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>The following is a list of everything you should do during your time at IU that you probably won’t think of:Cross your fingers and ask that weird kid in your K201 class to go to Culture Fest with you. Aww, snap, your first non-high school friend!Leave Culture Fest after five minutes when you realize how underwhelming it is despite all the hype created by Bloomington tour guides and the cute older brothers of your high school friends.Awkwardly avoid people you barely knew in high school and resist the temptation to scream at them the first week, “Oh, God. Please be my friend. We have to stick together.”Have a fight with your roommate because no one should touch the thermostat but you. She doesn’t even know how to turn it on.Find a temporary home on an Indiana Memorial Union couch after you lose the argument.Be asked to leave by the building manager because, seriously, you don’t live here.Discover the IMU “basement” after failing to find a table with an outlet at Starbucks. Good luck, suckers. Those outlets rarely work.Sit front row at the Comedy Attic. Become the comedian’s target. Laugh good-naturedly. Cry hysterically at home.Avoid Panda Express at all costs, but become jealous of the rich kids living above it.Consider graduating early. Realize that’s stupid. The real world sucks. Become a fifth-year senior.Relish the beautiful IU campus that made you say, “Screw you, Purdue! I don’t need an engineering degree to get a job!”Hear Purdue cackling madly 100 miles away now that your campus has been overtaken by multiple eyesore construction projects.Consider transferring to Purdue.Consider changing your major. Change your major. Change your major again.Get into a fight with your parents about your major. Really? English? Who do you think is going to hire an English major? Just become a pharmacist already.Politely surrender your change to the well-dressed kids raising money for breast cancer awareness. Secretly wonder who isn’t aware of breast cancer.Be told you’re going to hell by Brother Jed. Tell Brother Jed you are in hell.Feel guilty the first few times you hold up traffic crossing 10th Street by the B-school. Then adopt the motto “Students always have the right of way.” Become accustomed to pissing off drivers on a daily basis.Tailgate. Never attend a football game.See a dog. Miss your dog. Move out of the dorms so you can get another dog. Just kidding. Semester abroad. Ain’t nobody gonna watch that dog for you.Dress up for 8 a.m. classes for the first couple weeks. Blow-dry your hair. Put on makeup. Just kidding. Stop showering for 8 a.m. classes. Stop showering for finals week.Get a job at the Indiana Daily Student. Gloat because you are a hotshot journalist. Discover how massive the staff is. Just kidding. You’re not special.Stare blankly at your screen. Beg it for a thesis. A sentence. Rest your head on the table, and consider escaping to Disney World.Learn that the beret-wearing, mustached guy from MythBusters graduated from IU. He was a Russian major. Regain a sense of hope. Forge ahead bravely.— ambhendr@indiana.edu
(11/14/12 5:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>In honor of Veterans Day, I want to dedicate this column to my parents. My mom did 10 years of service in the U.S. Army. My dad retired from the Army last year after 23 years of service. My feelings toward the Army and how it raised me have always been complicated.Army brats are part of an unknown subculture, an “invisible tribe.” Often we don’t know anybody longer than two years. We never grow up with anyone. We are raised in a complex community with its own culture and rules, its own set of standards, its own very serious problems.Emerging from this community, I am conflicted about many things. I am torn between feeling a deep, bubbling hatred for the fruitless war in Iraq and immense pride for the sacrifice soldiers made for it. Service is both horrific and heroic to me.I am both jealous of the students I’ve met here that grew up with their friends and town and grateful that I’ve never had to be still for very long and for the many hands I’ve been lucky to shake.I felt safe in the Army community and also trapped, wondering if I would repeat the sometimes-poisonous cycle, if I would inevitably enlist and sign my life away to this world within a world.I am resentful toward the war and the profession for stealing my father for a year at a time.I am grateful for my experiences overseas, my resilience and adaptability, the tradition and patriotism practiced in this community.My complex version of patriotism is tinged with a growing concern for the mental and physical states of soldiers and their families. I sometimes feel the military is disorganized, unfair and overbearing, but I love it deeply in the same way you love your parents in spite of everything. I will always have this complex relationship with the military, but I wouldn’t trade my connection to it for anything.Before anything else, I identify as an Army brat, and it, more than anything, has shaped who I am.In a poem titled “I am a military brat,” a fellow, anonymous army brat writes it perfectly: “As I stand to honor that flag, so also do I stand to honor all soldiers, most especially to the man whose life created mine — my father. Because of him I have shared in the rich heritage of Army life.”Thank you, Mom and Dad, for your service and for the opportunities it has given me. You can’t know how grateful I am.— ambhendr@indiana.edu
(11/08/12 5:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Satisfying the College of Arts and Sciences natural and mathematics distribution requirement is tortuous for someone who thrives in the arts and humanities domain.I will admit that I’ve taken a “blow-off class” to satisfy that cruel N&M requirement.I won’t let myself do that again.One of the purposes of the distribution requirement is to nudge students out of their comfort zones.We defeat that purpose if we seek out classes that require minimum effort.I used to pore over the course catalog, searching desperately for a tolerable N&M.I wanted to rip the book in half and cry out, “But why? Can’t I just take another poetry class? I will never use quantum physics in a publishing company.”The idea of slipping into a lab coat and taking my chances with fragile beakers and sensitive chemicals was daunting.The idea of poking around a dead animal’s body to locate organs was sickening.I would be much more comfortable discussing the implications of the semicolon in Ezra Pound’s “In a Station of the Metro” for an hour.But in not accepting the challenge that the distribution requirements present, I am doing myself a disservice.I want to encourage students to challenge themselves by taking courses in the departments that have previously scared or bored them.Some students who are single-minded in their career paths refuse to branch out. I am guilty of this.My horizons sometimes remain stubbornly not expanded.But to make the most of our education, we shouldn’t confine ourselves to the study of things we like or the disciplines in which we are gifted.The distribution requirements are meant to engage different modes of thinking, to foster new and surprising interests, to develop a diverse set of skills, to burst bubbles and to bring people out of them.They are not meant to waste students’ time or threaten their GPAs, but I hear that complaint so often, even from myself.But classes will always waste time and threaten GPAs if students don’t genuinely engage the material and give these classes the attention they deserve.If I want to get something useful out of N&M classes, I will actually have to ask questions and meet with professors and not show up to class hungover.What does your education mean to you? It has the potential to be so rewarding if people are willing to put in the effort.College courses can completely reshape the minds that will allow it.Embrace the opportunity to try something new, and don’t try half-heartedly.Maybe we won’t emerge with that coveted “easy A,” but at least we will not have passively wasted our time on a narrow education.So farewell, my sweet and undemanding blow-off classes.And damn you, Department of Physics. I won’t let you intimidate me.I am coming for you.— ambhendr@umail.iu.edu
(10/24/12 4:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Imagine that the highly esteemed Shakespeare joined us for the 2012 election.Imagine that years later he wrote a play about a dastardly, tyrannical President Barack Obama who, after lying about his nationality and inflicting his evil, socialist health care plan upon the country, was overthrown by charming and handsome Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney.Imagine this representation of Obama would be unquestioned and accepted by the masses for centuries afterward.If you can imagine that, the truth of Shakespeare’s “Richard III” won’t shock you.This truth is revealed in IU Department of Theatre and Drama’s production of the apparently slanderous and misrepresentative play.Director Gavin Cameron-Webb’s interpretation of “Richard III” is a lesson of how susceptible people are to propaganda.It deconstructs the truth of the play’s text, which portrays the king, Richard III, as an unquestionably evil, murderous and disfigured villain.On a screen suspended above the three layers of the Wells-Metz Theatre, a “fact check” challenges the audience to consider the truth of what it sees on stage.The audience learns how little evidence supports the accusations against Richard III.Facts are periodically question or completely contradict what happens on stage.We might remember how often things are skewed and falsely represented in the media. “Richard III” is an extreme example of that.The king’s wicked nature has been accepted for centuries as a result of the play’s popularity and the playwright’s respectability when, in fact, the play is an inaccurate portrayal.Shakespeare is a god of a playwright, worshipped by many, and his misrepresentation of the truth concerning Richard III is often considered factual to this day.Think of the many resources we consult and trust to deliver the truth.Think of the ever-growing mass of information to which we have access through our ever-improving technological means.Is it possible that figures like Obama and Romney will be slandered and transformed in history the way Richard III has been?Is it possible that their legacies will be grossly distorted in the way Richard III’s is in Shakespeare’s play?It’s a scary possibility.The overwhelming influence of propaganda has the ability to rewrite history, and the wealth of conflicting information making its rounds through our media outlets often confuses the truth.The theater department’s excellent and provocative production of “Richard III” reminds Bloomington voters that as Election Day approaches, they should carefully consider their resources’ reliability. Our many popular talk-show hosts. Our favorite newspapers and magazines. Even “South Park.”Before “Richard III” opens its first scene, the many allegations both casually and viciously thrown around about our current presidential candidates are played on the “fact check” screen.Audience members should contemplate the messages to which they are exposed.These messages might be approved, but are they accurate?— ambhendr@indiana.edu
(10/17/12 4:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>They ruin my cinematic experience. I don’t know what it is about nudity in films or Anne Hathaway’s unrelenting nudity in general, but it doesn’t work for me.You’d think I’d be more receptive. I grew up in Europe, after all. I didn’t squeeze my eyes shut at nude beaches. It never bothered me at the Schwimmbad to see wrinkly, naked bodies relaxing in the water.In those instances, it felt natural. People were just being people.In film, nudity doesn’t capture people just being. Instead, it feels very affected and forced upon the audience.Nudity is a strange tool.I can understand writers and directors wanting to portray characters at their most vulnerable, but generally these attempts to develop character seem gratuitous and result in a tedious five minutes.Seeing Hathaway’s boobs transformed into hundreds of thousands of pixels on the big screen hasn’t provided me any insight into her characters, so far.When an actor bares it all, does it reveal anything meaningful about his or her character, or does it only reveal the collective success or failure of his or her DNA strands?Nudity is often used comically, with varying levels of success.Getting an eyeful of Jason Segel in “Forgetting Sarah Marshall” admittedly split my sides.Watching Sandra Bullock and Ryan Reynolds have an uncomfortable, unclothed run-in in “The Proposal” felt more like an exploitation of both actors’ god-like bodies than a genuinely funnymoment.It makes me wonder, too, whether an actor’s attractiveness has anything to do with how effective his or her nude scene is.As a means of challenging our society’s prudish standards, I can see in what instances nudity becomes valuable. But, again, these challenges feel more like ploys to garner attention by way of spectacle.Instead of feeling more comfortable with nudity, I feel less comfortable because it’s treated like an apparatus instead of a natural part of our being.I wonder at the differences of using nudity in filmic performances versus other art forms. Posing for paintings doesn’t bother me the same way. In that instance, it feels more like capturing and exposing the human form than exploiting a model’s bare body for spectacle.I am open to the idea of nudity’s useful and productive possibilities in non-pornographic film. As of now, I can’t get past the artifice.Maybe I’m not on the same page as the rest of society. Maybe other people who don’t mind Hathaway’s boobs go to the theater simply to be aroused.As for me, I wish she would put those things away. They eclipse her talent.— ambhendr@indiana.edu
(10/03/12 4:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>J.K. Rowling recently announced to BBC that, although she is finished with Harry’s story, she is not opposed to returning to the universe she created in her beloved magical series. I’m conflicted. This calls for an organized list:IN FAVOR OF RETURNING1. All we have now are “Twilight” and “The Hunger Games.” Many have latched on and believe these are worth following with all the fervor the Harry Potter series received, but for me, it’s just not the same.2. There are more than 600,000 pieces of Harry Potter fan fiction waiting in the wings, all begging to be transformed into the next “Fifty Shades of Grey.” What if J.K. Rowling beat all of her fans to the punch? 3. The pre-Potter world under the reign of Voldemort is often mentioned, but it could be intriguing to experience this world through the perspective of someone who lived through the terror. Preferably, it would be someone not also battling with puberty. Maybe even an adult from the series, i.e. Dumbledore, Snape or Lockhart, if not a newcharacter entirely.4. I was reduced to tears on my 11th birthday when I didn’t receive an invitation to Hogwarts. This is a universe that enthralls children to a point in which they write embarrassing columns about it in their adult lives. In some other corner of this universe, there could be something even more fantastic for young and old readers.5. Rowling always delivers. She told BBC she would make the return only if the idea were absolutely fabulous and only “if (she) genuinely (has) something to say.” It is likely, then, that any story from this universe to which she lends her time would be great. IN FAVOR OF RETIRING1. Could there be someone else in this magical universe with a more interesting story than Harry Potter? Could another series set in the same universe, or even a stand-alone book, ever measure up?2. This is sacred territory, a perfect creation. Maybe it’s better to leave well enough alone. Bless her for seeing the error in creating a prequel or sequel, but even another character with a separate storyline could exhaust her wonderful invention.3. Rowling should not be written off as a one-trick pony. She should be dedicating her talents to other projects, creating different universes. No author should be limited to a single project when he or she could be capable of more.4. Watching somebody else butcher the series through popularized erotic fan fiction could be hilarious. Think of all the wand jokes.— ambhendr@indiana.edu
(09/26/12 4:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Hear that? That’s the glorious sound of my biological clock being smashed to pieces. My reluctance to participate in the reproduction of my species goes beyond my inability to talk to children and my disgust of the bloodbath that is childbirth.“That’s nice, Amber,” I’m told gently. “Go buy some cats and prepare for spinsterhood.” Before I skip off to the pet store, here is some of what I’m considering:1. Overpopulation. The human species will survive without the contribution of my loin fruit. The species is threatened not by limited wombs but limited resources, which will soon be exhausted with our rates of reproduction and consumption. I’d hate to put my kid in a world where the distribution of resources does not sufficiently provide for the people already there. 2. Orphans. If I ever developed an uncharacteristic hankering to raise a child, I would always choose adoption before creating a tiny replica of myself. The idea of giving birth doesn’t appeal to me knowing there are hundreds of millions of children without parents.3. Pressure. To set an example. To navigate them through a world. To help them find a place in it. To answer the hard questions. To let them go when they need to go. To protect them but let them forge ahead.4. Money. College is expensive and not just a way to secure support for myself until someone agrees to marry me and let me have his babies. Children are expensive and would be disappointed by what an English major’s financial prospects can offer.5. #aintnobodygottimeforthat. Often the inflexible workforce does not allow women to adequately integrate work and family life. Many women choose to be better parents and forego advancement in their careers. I can’t do that. Staying at home with the kids would be stifling for me. I want too much to succeed in my work, so I’d rather forego children altogether than be a halfhearted parent. 6. “Biological function.” I’m not solely an incubator. Maternal yearnings aren’t anywhere in my nature.7. Opportunity. Many people think they can’t live a full life without having children. I feel like I won’t live a full life if I do. I would drop everything for a child and consequently regret everything I could have done instead. Parenthood is the proud accomplishment of many, but not something I see for myself.8. My nose. Can’t risk passing on that DNA hiccup. That’d be a mean thing to do to a kid.— ambhendr@indiana.edu
(09/05/12 4:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Richard Millet has solidified his self-proclaimed role as “one of the most hated French authors.” In his new essay, “Éloge Littéraire d’Anders Breivik,” this “exceptional being” appears to sympathize with the motives of someone who is despised globally: Norwegian mass murderer Anders Behring Breivik.Breivik, after an extensive trial, was recently declared sane and sentenced to at least 21 years in prison after murdering 77 people for the purposes of protest theatricality. According to Millet, Breivik’s victims were “mixed-raced, globalized, uncultivated, social-democrat petit bourgeois.”Another gem of his: “European nations are dissolving socially at the same time as they’re losing their Christian essence in favor of general relativism.” It appears as though Millet shares Breivik’s religious intolerance and disdain for multiculturalism, although he claims not to support his murderous deeds in Norway.According to Geir Lippestad, Breivik’s lawyer, the affirmation of the mass murderer’s sanity greatly pleased his client. Breivik feared a different verdict would have compromised the legitimacy of his extreme protests against Muslim extremists and immigration in Norway.Perhaps the legitimacy of Breivik’s racist agenda is not lost on people like Millet, who unfathomably are able to identify with Breivik’s appalling plight. Does that mean we can call him crazy? However appalling Breivik’s plight is, can we call it crazy considering the verdict about his mental health? What does it mean now that Breivik, whose motives were deliberate and infused with insufferable purpose, has been declared sane?It means there is a difference between evil and crazy. People are quick to attach the mentally ill label to people who commit heinous crimes. James Eagan Holmes, who killed 12 and injured 58 in a movie theater shooting, is a more-recent example.The stigmatized mentally ill community is on the receiving end of prejudice because the members are assumed to be violent and volatile. They are unfairly grouped with people who commit acts of violence on par with Breivik’s, which were grossly on the giving end of prejudice.Discrimination does not warrant a stay in a mental hospital. Detainment in prison is the best option for a murderer of Breivik’s nature, so I’d have to say I’m pretty pleased with his verdict, too.Twenty-one years is the maximum sentence in the normally peaceful Norway. For as long as a convict remains a threat, however, another five years can be appended to the sentence, so Breivik could be detained for life.I am interested to see what becomes of him in the progressive Norwegian prison system, which places a greater emphasis on rehabilitation than punishment. What remedy do they propose for prejudice? The status of Breivik’s mental health should be revisited during his detainment.As for Millet, I am eager to see how his role as “one of the most hated French authors” evolves.— ambhendr@indiana.edu
(08/24/12 4:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>I expected to sit in the audience of the IU theater department’s summer production of “The Taming of the Shrew” boiling with feminist rage. I’m normally furious that a play about a woman who is unforgivably abused and compromised continues to find a stage.Instead, I laughed. Hard. It was that sort of laughter that escapes you before you realize maybe you shouldn’t be laughing. In this way, Jonathan Michaelsen’s production was both hilarious and provocative. Even as a feminist swollen with pride, I wouldn’t call it offensive.Michaelsen and his team of actors certainly had their reservations about approaching this play. But it seems Michaelsen is not a director who shies away from a piece because it is difficult or uncomfortable. He wanted to challenge the audience.He selected a bold, new angle, and through his direction and Adam Noble’s exceptional performance, the play’s usually despicable chauvinist was transformed into a sympathetic character. I was conflicted. Should I have sympathized with him?Michaelsen converted the character of Petruchio from a soulless, misogynistic monster into a modern soldier who is damaged both physically and mentally. As the daughter of a veteran and someone who grew up around soldiers her entire life, this quickly tugged at my heartstrings.Watching Petruchio fall to the ground in terror after confusing firecrackers for gunshots did not justify his abuse of Kate. It did, however, humanize him. He is not an invincible character, as most interpretations would have him. He is damaged.In most productions, Petruchio is presented as a misogynistic superhuman who easily endures starvation and lack of sleep so long as it puts his woman in her place. Noble’s Petruchio suffers and genuinely loves Kate, if in a warped way. He hits no one.Kate is often presented as a losing character, a shrew that is tamed, a broken steed. In this production, she receives the final word. She asserts herself. She is quicker-witted than Petruchio, and he is played as someone who appreciates this.This production explores the relationship between two damaged individuals. Both come to understand and even love each other in an unconventional way.This relationship probably warrants an examination of their mental health. There is the fear of people walking away from this believing abuse should be tolerated. There is the fear that people will misinterpret Kate’s final speech about compromise as an obliteration of her former self, that all should be sacrificed to a spouse. There was danger here. The love between Petruchio and Kate in this production was not easily digestible. But it was there. I saw it.Seeing it made me wonder if someone who abuses his or her partner can genuinely love him or her. It made me want to push for society’s examination of military relationships. Or, even more importantly, to push for the examination of abusive relationships. It made me question how harshly I judge other relationships and what is considered “healthy.”Because this play was so successful in making me question previous beliefs, it is still very valuable and relevant and deserves a stage. Michaelsen’s production was a phenomenal interpretation of a play I used to hate.— ambhendr@indiana.edu
(08/22/12 4:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>In the hip-hop world, the aggressive assertion of one man’s dominance against other men is reminiscent of dogs urinating on everything as a means to claim territory and assume the position of alpha dog. By subscribing to this very curbed definition of masculinity, hip-hop fans refuse to reject stereotypical masculine standards and prevent potential progress that would open the community to members who do not fit within this mold.While rejecting anyone who does not subscribe to the “hard” image, the hip-hop community eliminates its own members trying to maintain it. The pursuit of this image ultimately deteriorates the community from the inside. Using violence to assert dominance proves to be a self-destructive method of preserving hip-hop ideals.Hip-hop encourages its community to assert itself and take control, especially through violence and hyper-masculine projections. By doing this, it asserts itself as a dominant figure in its community and takes control by constraining its members to limited societal roles.Originally, hip-hop appealed to people who were victimized by discriminatory authority figures. Its members now victimize each other, discriminating against those accused of presenting feminine traits.This trend is exemplified in gestures like 50 Cent’s boorish slight of Ja Rule and the hostile response Frank Ocean received for embracing his bisexuality. Fat Joe notes they, “can’t go around smiling at each other anymore.” Instead, they turn a cold shoulder to one another to seem “hard.”They seem victims to a system of ideas, like parts of a machine working against one another.Talib Kweli calls hip-hop “ego-driven,” interested in serving the self by dominating others, but this driving ego is more of a collective force. Man’s individual desire for dominance and importance is not only influenced but also eclipsed by the community’s desire for these things. Hip-hop emphasizes the whole and not the parts, with these parts lobbying to consistently represent the image coveted by the whole.The desire for dominance and importance is not restricted to the hip-hop community. It is everyone’s, so it’s conceivable that a musical genre emphasizing this human need would appeal to people outside of the exclusive hip-hop community.Fans ignorant of origins and initial themes still appreciate hip-hop’s present form and current themes, but due to hip-hop’s collective ego, the community seems predominantly concerned with preserving its exclusiveness. This state of affairs has an isolating effect, creating an us versus them mentality that does little to combat discrimination.Because hip-hop figures do not seem interested in transcending stereotypes, the art cannot be thought of as progressive. These stereotypes are ultimately well-maintained illusions and conflict with hip-hop’s effort to represent authenticity.In engaging and posing for these stereotypes, these performers never really stop performing. They keep the show going in their struggle to represent the community ideals accordingly and in turn inspire narrow-minded views about and within the hip-hop community.Through inflated egos and with narrowed minds, the genre’s main figures effectively devalue women and homosexuals, forfeiting their empathy while maintaining that the suffering of the hip-hop community could never be understood.It seems this culture has progressed to a point of no progression, essentially segregated itself and diminished the importance of individual expression. Individual thinking is discouraged if it’s not in accordance with hip hop masculine standards.Hip-hop has become a members-only club trapped in a box, turning away those who dare to think outside it.— ambhendr@indiana.edu
(08/14/12 4:36pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Today women take off their clothes and convince us it’s artistic, that every stroke of their bodies are actually a stroke of genius meant to rouse the creative inclinations of our minds and not at all our sexual desires.Their bodies have become mediums to communicate and ratify their political objectives. In the curvature of their bosoms, you should find something very inspiring. It takes only a gander into their cleavage to discover their thoughts on our economic crisis. Any wardrobe malfunction they stage is not a desperate attempt to revive expiring fame but a demonstration of how something as simple as a right breast can detract from America’s imperialistic invasion of Iraq (see Janet Jackson). And writhing their half-naked bodies all over a car for the cameras is not a blatant attempt to garner attention but an attempt to reclaim, through the handling of a phallic symbol, the power the gender was denied from centuries past (see Shakira). And exploiting and celebrating masochism in their music videos is not intended to entertain the darker side of our sexual psyches. Rather, it highlights what centuries of male psychological abuse can do to a body, how it can force a woman to embrace her vulnerability (see Rihanna). Is partial or full nudity gratuitous? Or is there something beyond the spectacle it creates? Does it draw your attention to why your mind processes the female form as such a spectacle in the first place, why women taking off their clothes would ever set off such a loaded gun?I don’t know if I’ve bought into this wild interpretation. When I see Lady Gaga make an outfit of only a handful of Cheerios in “Marry the Night,” I don’t see a delusional woman broken by tragedy. I see Lady Gaga flaunting her gym-perfect body.Am I a prude? Am I missing the next wave of feminism? I’m very interested in the hypersexualization of women and its connotations, but I think it’s more harmful than empowering. Take Rihanna for example. Ann Powers, a music critic from NPR, said it best: “What’s upsetting for those of us who admire Rihanna’s talent and boldness — and for me as a feminist — is that she has clearly not taken up the narrative of women’s enlightenment and self-liberation. “Quite the opposite — the story she wants to tell is the one in which the endangered woman doesn’t get out, or leaves for a while but comes back, or at best does leave, but can’t resolve the mixed feelings she has about her choice.” Women who insist on sending the report with their bodies might be sending a detrimental message. Or simply fluffing their egos. Regardless, the fact the female form can cause such uproar at all makes me all the more interested to understand the intentions behind exposing it and sexualizing it to this extreme.— ambhendr@indiana.edu