Hmm. . .welcome, seekers of knowledge! I've been thinking about starting a blog for quite some time, as I have lots of things to say and no one particular to bombard with these thoughts. Expect posts several times daily, for those compulsive blog-readers out there. I hope that someone I don't know reads this blog and begins to read it daily. I did that, it was actually my first dip in the blogging pool, a girl by the name of Kensington. Very interesting to try to fill in the holes she left with my imagination. Until, alas, she ventured into the world of password protected blogging, and I see her thoughts no more. I brooded for a while, but I think I'm over it. So, the reason why I've decided to come here today is that I was party to many interesting conversations today, one in particular that left me feeling oddly satisfied yet disconcerted, and the other which simply ignited my "passionate nature" or so said the teacher. Good things first: in my wonderful analysis and criticism class, we were discussing Poe's short story The Purloined Letter, which is a very good story, though a bit verbose, as Poe tends to be, for those of you who haven't read him; also, a grasp on the French language is helpful, but not altogether important for reasons I am about to discuss. In the middle of a heated discussion about whether an implied phallus empowers or castrates a woman, Prof holds up a book and asks, in a quite serious voice, "What is this?"; English teachers are known for playing tricks, so wisely, no one answered. He asked again, "What am I holding?", and a brave student ventures, "A book." Exactly the answer Prof desired! Now again, "What does the word book mean?" We guessed and guessed, until someone says, "An idea." "Close!" cries Prof, "but really, a book is a word." Hmm. . .didn't we know that? Why is it when people ask us these questions we can never seem to answer them at the time, but looking back, the answer is so easy. He then places the book behind his back and explains that language is totally arbitrary, and is only used to describe the lack of something rather than the existence of it. Without lacking or wanting, language would not exist. Huh. Which is very very very important to the story, if you read it. You will feel a lacking, and wonder why. Go read it. Tell me why. On to Comparative Literature, which is a cleverly disguised major for people wanting to combine English and Religion. Drew, look into it, I beg you! Yes, I know you're reading. You are a blog addict! Book being discussed: The Dream of Scipio by Iain Pears. Read it. I'm a big advocate of literacy, which is why I'm glad you are here, reading these words I'm offering up to you. We both win. Anyways, this book is set up kind of like the movie The Hours in that is traverses time in order to show connections to three seemingly unrelated people in history through one particular event and/or item. Manuscripts and poetry, it appears in the case of this book. To the argument, then! Saint Sophia, who I think, though I could be wrong, is the patron saint of knowledge (heavy job!), appears as a central character is this book, and she is shown to be a very Greek character in both her manner of living and thinking. (Saint Benedict is alive and well and running around Europe at this time, to give you a frame) She does not have religion, but is more of a teacher of philosophy; her father was a student of Hypatia, and she picked up many of her ideals from him. At one point in the story, she urges her friend Manlius, who is a strict scholar and poet of the classical writers, and thus, as was in tune for that time, also has no religion, to take a bishoping position within the church. She tells him, "[Socrates] replied that he honored all the cities deities. . .Did he believe they were anything but stories, to comfort the unlettered and present the great ideas of the divine to the simple? Of course not, but as they were so believed, then he maintained a necessary decorum in public. . .[Manlius], worship the three gods of the Christians, the father, son and holy ghost. Make them the sacrifices they require (Pears 39-40)". A boy in my class takes this to mean that she does not understand Christianity, because she refers to deities, plural, instead of the one true God. Mind you, this teaching has not been introduced into the church yet at the time of this discourse. Kudos to Matt for that knowledge! Teacher agrees with Christian Boy, saying that we can't accept her as an authority because she has only studied religion from the outside, and not as a believer. Hmm, sounds to me like we're not gonna believe the woman just because she's not a practicing Christian. . .not a good thing, ladies and gents. No one in the class seemed upset that she was dismissing Classic Roman Polytheism as nothing more then stories, but whenever it applies to Christianity, we get all up in arms. Equal treatment, that's all I'm asking for. . .now mind you, this is not a religion class, but a literature class, so I have a right to demand this equality. That's all on that topic for now. It seems I had a lot of pent-up words to write, so if you, faithful reader, have made it this far, then congratulations. I will bore you no longer today, or at least, right now, today, because I'm going to a movie and making some supper. Until next time!