Sunday, May 3, 2009

English Department to Host Gothic Social Event

The University of the Cumberlands' English and Modern Foreign Language Department is hosting a "Gothic Gala" for all of its English majors and minors. Although the party is designed for the British Gothic Tradition class (currently taught by Dr. Gina Herring), the invitation has been extended to all English majors and minors as well as all lovers of Gothic literature and culture.

The "gala" will be held April 30 in the foyer of the Grace Crum Rollins Center at 7:00 p.m. There will be refreshments and an opportunity for attendees to costume as elaborately or minimally as they choose. Dr. Herring has issued the following invitation:

"Enjoy Gothic glamour, fiendish feasting, and cryptic conversation in an atmosphere of eerie elegance and spine-tingling splendor unsurpassed this side of Transylvania! Please join us for a horrific evening of frightful frivolity!

The novels (or musicals) from which the Gala will draw its inspirations are the same as those studied in the British Gothic Tradition class: Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, Emily Bronte's Wuthering Heights, Robert Louis Stevenson's Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, Henry James' Turn of the Screw, Bram Stoker's Dracula, and Daphne DuMaurier's Rebecca to name a few. The decorations and refreshments will be influenced by the works, and the guests are encouraged to costume to the same effect.

Each spring, the English and Modern Foriegn Language Department hosts one or more literature-themed events. Last year, the department hosted a Victorian picnic, a birthday party for Shakespeare, and a Regency-style tea party in honor of Jane Austen. This year, the department is hosting an unprecedented social event: a celebration of the dark side.

For more information about the majors, minors, and individual courses offered by the English and Modern Foriegn Language Department, visit the deparment's website.

UC Professor Opens a "Window"

What if all writing were looked at as a window into the soul of the author? It would certainly change the perspective of the college student working late in the night to meet the minimum requirement assigned for a research paper.

Students often spend countless hours in front of their computers, typing away bits of their soul, and pouring morsels of themselves ontothe page. A teacher then inspects the work line by line, making sure it is structurally and logically sound. This transaction is mostly just a formal exchange of ideas and nothing personal.

Nancy Jensen, an Associate Professor of English at University of the Cumberlands, knows a lot about this transactive writing. She also knows about a window into one’s soul. In fact, she had one published.

On Jan. 25, Jensen’s book, entitled Window, was released in a soft cover, 160-page edition, the cover of which depicts a young woman dressed in white, looking out a full-length window into a blurry, indiscernible vista. The likeness of the girl can be seen in the open window, mirroring her reflective stance.

The cover illustrates the stories within, all of which provide insight into Jensen’s mind. Jensen’s editor, Sena Jeter Naslund (who is editor of Fleur-de-Lis Press and has had several works of fiction published nationally), describes eloquently the vista that is in store for the reader:

“Nancy Jensen’s stories and essays allow readers to see into the rooms of her mind. Flung wide open, these pieces even serve as doors through which we can step inside, turn, and look out with the author at previously unviewed vistas. Whether looking inward or outward, Jensen’s prose always illumines.”

Window has been hailed by Dianne Aprile, author of Making A Heart for God: A Week Inside a Catholic Monastery, as a book that “blends the self-examining voice of the personal essay with the scalpel-like precision of the modern short essay.”

This is an accurate description of the book, which is written in two sections; the first section contains five short stories, and the second section holds five insightful, panoramic views into Jensen’s personal experience. The effect is a collection that “illuminates the common tradition of storytelling that informs fiction and nonfiction alike,” according to Aprile.

The praise for Jensen’s expert combination of story and essay continues with Sydney Lea, author of Ghost Pain and Pursuit of a Wound, who congratulates Jensen’s “essays with the lyricism of the best fiction, fiction with the inquisitiveness of the best essays.”

Jensen shares her expertise in her craft with writing students at University of the Cumberlands. In the biography provided by the publishers of Window, Jensen is credited with developing and implementing “a highly successful mentoring model for courses in the undergraduate creative writing program.”

In fact, several of Jensen’s students here at University of the Cumberlands have been published in national literary journals and have gone on to study in graduate writing programs. Students in Jensen’s classes often remark on the astounding amount of criticism and advice
awarded them about their creative writing.

For aspiring writers, this indefatigable dedication to the art of writing and Jensen’s proven skill in her art make her the perfect source from which to draw invaluable knowledge in the how-to’s of writing.

Asked when she decided that she was a writer, Jensen replied: “I can hardly remember when it wasn’t that way. My grandmother taught me to write when I was three…it was in late elementary when I started thinking about it seriously.”

This is Jensen’s first book. In fact, her publisher, Fluer-de-Lis Press, only publishes first books. Furthermore, it only publishes works by authors who have been published in the Louisville Review, which is the sister publication to Fleur-de-Lis.

Jensen began writing the essays in 2003 and 2004, but it was Jensen’s publisher who tapped on Jensen’s window by approaching her about making a compilation of essays and stories.

When asked about the initial idea to compile the works into a book, Jensen comments that “the editor of the press approached me about a mixed genre collection because she wanted to do something different.”

The book nearly didn’t come to fruition at all: “At first I resisted because it wasn’t cohesive, but in the end I found that there were thematic connections.” The stories and essays in Window were written over six years ago, but the actual publishing process for the book took a little over two years.

Jensen
described the publication process: “The longest span of time was spent waiting until the press was ready. I presented the final manuscript in January 2008 and it was sent to press in September.”

The actual release date was pushed to Jan. 2009. “We delayed the actual release date so that the book could be new for an entire year,” Jensen chuckled.

One of the striking features of the book, especially in essays, is the remarkable candor and honesty that Jensen provides the reader. It is a fairly generous insight into Jensen’s experience. Her detailed account of her failed marriages, for example, provides a clear view into her painful past.

When asked whether there was a time when she felt too exposed or vulnerable, Jensen remarked: “Putting essays into book form suggests a wider readership. Of course there is the fact that my friends and family will read it, but for the most part it is an audience that I’ll never see or know. I started writing the essays in 2003 and 2004 and made peace with it then. As far as vulnerability, I was over it years ago and worked through a lot during the writing process.”

The essays are, of course, non-fiction. But what about the stories?

“Certainly fiction is born of seeds from my life, but non are directly biographical. The underlying feelings are,” Jensen explained.

Praise for Window has not been in short supply. Neither has it been scare for Jensen herself. Author Richard Goodman wrote that “Window is written with fire and ice by a courageous, brilliant writer…Her writing is brave, and graceful, and deeply affecting.”

Jensen’s first book has opened a window for the reader, but it has also opened doors for Jensen as a writer. Jensen’s closing statement is one of future plans: “Of course the goal is to continue writing books. I just hope someone will want to publish them.”

Jensen who received outstanding feedback for Window, has nearly completed another pane, this time a novel.

Know1ng When to Quit


Knowing, or Know1ng as it's called in its promotional title, is a cerebral thriller that is never lacking in twists, turns, and surprises. As a member of the thriller family, it isn't an exceptional movie. Children hear voices, planes fall from the sky, creepy men in black trench coats drive around in an old car handing people strange objects.

The movie can, however, lay claim to a truly exceptional ending in that it will leave viewers talking about it... perhaps not in a good way. I left the cinema feeling that I had been cheated in some way. I turned to my fellow moviegoers, and all I could say was, "Really? I mean...really?" My experience with this movie is not a unique example. As the credits rolled, the man behind me said, "The director must have been on crack when he wrote that ending."

The director may have also been in this state when he decided to cast Nicholas Cage as the leading man. Director and producer Alex Proyas, who has directed 15 films (including his only well-known movie, I Robot), displayed either brilliant or mediocre casting.






Cage's performance in the movie is startlingly similar to his roles in the National Treasure movies. Instead of searching for buried treasure in an Indiana Jones-esque way, he is trying to save the world. Instead of following clues about United States history that no man could possibly know, he is following a set of numbers.

As the movie opens (in the 1950's), a time capsule is buried at a school. It contains a letter writen by each student about their views of the future. Most kids draw pictures. One child writes an entire page of nonstop numbers. Fifty years later, when the capsule is opened, a father, Nicholas Cage, takes his son to the commemorative unburying of the capsule. The son, of course, ends up with the numbers. Nicholas Cage, of course, cracks the code.

Knowing has haunted me for several weeks after viewing it, and I wouldn't consider myself one of the faint of heart. But it wasn't the intense action, the doomsday images, the creepy children who hear voices, or Nicholas Cage's ghost of a repeat perforamce that sent chills down my spine.

There is a nameless character, only referred to as The Stranger in the credits, who constantly appears throughout the movie. Who he actually is is up for debate (refer to comments above concerning the ending of the movie). He is played by D.G. Maloney and was cast, I'm convinced, only because he is the scariest human being alive.

I'm not sure what disturbed me more: his role in the movie or the fact that there really is someone out there who looks that creepy. Maloney has appeared in only one other movie: Eternity Man. Where Proyas failed in his casting of Cage, he excelled in his casting of Maloney. Well done, Mr. Proyas, and bravo. We're all officially scared.

As for Cage's performance, it would certainly win an Oscar were there a category called "Best Harrison Ford Imitation." However, it isn't Cage's mediocre performance that will have audiences chattering: sorry, Nicholas Cage, but you've been outshined by a scary minor character and some kids who hear voices.

Thursday, April 2, 2009

Shameless Product Placement (and more revisionist editing)


On the 13th episode of The Biggest Loser: Couples, three contestants that had previously been voted off were allowed to come back for a chance to vie for a spot on the Biggest Loser Ranch. Out of the three contestants, which were David, Nicole, and Estella, only Nicole was allowed to remain on the ranch (because of the 87 pounds she had lost at home).

During every episode of The Biggest Loser: Couples, there is at least one scene in which the trainers and/or contestants discuss one of the products of one of the companies sponsoring the show. In most episodes (in fact, nearly all), it is Extra Sugar Free Gum that receives plenty of air time.

It isn't the prominent placement of these products that is so insulting to viewers (after all, society is inundated with subtle, or not so subtle, advertising daily). It is the fact that the producers make a point of airing a commercial within the show and expecting viewers to believe that it is really just Bob's and Julian's (the trainers) helpful hint of the day.

In this particular episode, there were no fewer than three of these commercials (not including the always-present Extra floating around the Ranch). Three scenes in the show were set aside expressly to promote Multigrain Cheerios, Ziploc snack-size containers, and 24 Hour Fitness's current no-membership-fee offer.

As if sending viewers into commercial overload weren't enough, the producers continued to blatantly edit the interviews to make viewers think that they had taken prior to the weigh-in when, in fact, they had been taped after the elimination.

As Nicole walked up the stairs to the scale, a voiceover was played that sounded like she said "I want to prove that I deserve to be here." However, it was easily noticeable that she had originally said "I wanted to prove that I deserve to be here." This sloppy editing is only insulting. The viewers know the truth. It doesn't need to be hidden.

Later still in the episode, before the elimination, a clip from Nicole's interview was played. There were clearly tear stains on her cheeks, which eliminated any doubt in the viewers' minds that she was the one that would be eliminated.

The full episode, in all its shameless glory, can be viewed at http://www.nbc.com/The_Biggest_Loser/video/categories/season-7/928221/.

Friday, March 27, 2009

Has Celebrity Gone to Jon's Head?

Millions of people tune in to Jon & Kate Plus 8 every Monday. In fact, 4.6 million tuned in to watch the series' season 4 finale: the finale that announced the possibility of no fifth season...ever.
Since Star magazine published an article about Jon's alleged night out in which he partied "the night away with a bevy of college cuties," speculation and disbelief have run rampant.

In the show's four seasons, Jon has never once alluded to any sort of dissatisfaction. In fact, he always seems to be cheerful, even when he is being hen-pecked by Kate. During some of the "All You Wanted to Know" specials, viewers even e-mail in to ask for advice about parenting.
True, Jon has used his celebrity in the past for aesthetic gains. In March 2008, Jon received a hair transplant to fix his premature balding.

But is a man's desire for hair proof of discontent?
Jon's alleged night out with co-eds may not be true (in fact, other than a couple of college girls, there is nothing to back up the story- especially no pictures), but it has certainly taken a toll on his life (and the show). In fact, in an article in EW , readers learned that the show was taped just as accusations of Jon's exploits surfaced.

Does "Reality Sanity" Have a Four-Season Limit?






TLC's Jon & Kate Plus 8, which aired its 4th season finale on Monday, March 23rd, is one of TLC's most popular reality series. At the end of the finale, viewers were shocked to hear that Jon Gosselin was contemplating the possibility of not returning for a fifth season.
Gosselin, the father of eight who seems to be happy-go-lucky (even when there is pure chaos in the house and his wife, Kate, is nagging him), cited a lack of privacy for one of the reasons he has doubts about returning: "We don't have any privacy...it's tough."

It's true that since the first season of the show, the Gosselin family has become one of the most recognizable families and, to Jon's apparent dismay, celebrities. Also since the first season, Jon has been able to quit his job and work from home, and the family has been able to move into a $1.3 Million home. Kate has written two books, Multiple Blessings and Eight Little Faces. The family has also appeared on Fox News's morning show and The Oprah Winfrey Show.

In most reality shows, participants are only involved for one season, and then they either move back into the world from which they came or embrace their new-found celebrity. For Jon and Kate and their eight kids, having a film crew in their home has been a fact of life for four years. Maybe they've just met their Reality TV expiration date. Millions of fans certainly hope not.

Wednesday, March 25, 2009

Necessary? Or Just Insulting?

While watching The Biggest Loser last night, I finally took a stand against something that has been bugging me for years about reality television: the way producers blatantly insult our intelligence.

During the parting interview with Aubrey, the contestant sent home last night, I realized (like oh so many times before) that it was taken from the same interview in which Aubrey explained her pre-weigh-in anxieties as though she hadn't weighed in yet at all. One could brush it off as the producers' necessity to save time and prevent the hassle of multiple interviews, but why insult the intelligence of the viewer by pretending it hasn't happened?

This revisionist editing might not be so irritating if it weren't for the fact that five minutes in the show later we saw Aubrey returning home to a house full of people who greeted her as though they hadn't seen her in months when, in fact, she was home just the week before. In interviews with her family, her husband and sister commented on the "remarkable" change they had saw in Aubrey since the last time they had seen her. (You can watch the entire episode or just the elimination on nbc.com.)

But we, the keen-minded viewers, know the truth. Aubrey had only lost four pounds since they saw her last: the same four pounds that let her fall below the yellow line and be eliminated.
Perhaps these editing strategies wouldn't be so irritating if it weren't for the fact that most producers do the same thing (i.e. Hosea's "Bacon is a vegetable" shirt in EVERY interview during Top Chef: New York).

They may be tiny discrepancies, but shouldn't "reality" television be held to a higher standard?