Starkid's Starship and Disney's The Little Mermaid: Similar Stories, But Which is Better?

Let me start off by saying that I am a big fan of Team Starkid. I am a recent fan considering that I am not a huge fan of Harry Potter and they began their franchise with their first ever musical A Very Potter Musical, so I didn't watch it when it first came out. I was inspired to watch it this past summer of 2011 because I was very into "Glee" and Darren Criss, who started off with Starkid, is now a cast member of "Glee," and I was YouTubing "Glee" the same night the final Harry Potter film was premiering, so I figured I'd watch it to see what the hype is all about. I must say I am very impressed with their talents and pleasantly surprised. As someone who did not necessarily grow up with the Harry Potter series like the rest of my generation, I find myself able to enjoy it regardless.

For those of you who don't know who they are, Team Starkid is a theater troupe consisting of a bunch of theater students who attended the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, Michigan, Darren being one of them. They come up with their own original pieces and eventually perform them and put them on their YouTube channel. They have all graduated now but still continue their Team Starkid franchise together. They actually just recently completed their S.P.A.C.E. Tour this past November and their Apocalyptour this past June. I definitely consider them an inspiration to aspiring performers everywhere because of their creativity and passion.

A recent Starkid staged musical is Starship, which is what I am going to focus on in this post. Starship has been compared to the story of The Little Mermaid by the Starkids themselves in this video. I've noticed similarities as well, now that they mention it. So which is better? My vote is for Starship. Here is a nice compare and contrast piece of Starship and The Little Mermaid.

*Beware of Spoilers.*

Bug, played by Joey Richter

The Story
The story of Starship follows a human sized insect, appropriately named "Bug," living on a planet called "Bug World," whose greatest dream is to become a Starship Ranger. He gets inspiration from hanging out in an abandoned starship on his planet and watching the old starship footage he finds there. However, he cannot achieve his dreams because the rest of his bug colony gets in the way. They all, including his best friend Roach, try to convince him that becoming a starship ranger is way beyond his reach and that each bug is supposed to do his or her part for the hive, which is where all of the bugs live (Except for one. We'll get to him soon enough.) The Overqueen, an insect who is the ruler of the hive and looks like a vagina (I just found out as I write this that I'm not the only one who thinks this lol), is the one who dictates what each bug does for a living, though also takes into consideration what the bugs want where reasonable. Bug, unsatisfied with the job the Overqueen gives him, comes across February, a human Starship Ranger who has been captured while doing some inspection of the planet by the bugs to implant eggs inside of her. Her eyes are also covered with bug slime, so when Bug talks to her, she doesn't realize he is an insect as well and thinks he is a Starship Ranger like herself. Bug, seeing that February is just as misunderstood as he, feels that they have a connection and instantly falls in love with her. He then rescues her.

At this point we can make connections to The Little Mermaid. Ariel is a small mermaid, the youngest in her family and the daughter of King Triton. Her greatest wish is to live on land. However, though she has this interest towards the beginning of the film as well, this interest is further instigated by rescuing Eric, a sailor with whom she falls in love, from shipwreck during a storm. Then is the only time we truly see her wish to live on land deepen so much whereas Bug's wish to be a Starship Ranger is strong as soon as we meet him. I feel that meeting February did nothing to trigger a greater urge in Bug. His urge is great from the beginning. Bug's inspiration is falling in love with a career and Ariel's inspiration is falling in love with a man. Though he does fall in love with February, and this does have something to do with it, he was convinced he would become a Starship Ranger one day whereas Ariel's wish to become a human and live on land seems more like a curiosity, though she does have this hope to become a human from the beginning as well.

As I am writing this, I'm noticing that Bug and Ariel aren't as much different as I thought.

The Bad Guys
You know what's really awesome about the villains from both Starship and The Little Mermaid? They are all so devilish. Sometimes you have a corny bad guy with useless henchmen and an even more useless plot, but Ursula and Pincer work their way into the minds of the protagonists to get what they want, showcasing some awesome villain strategies that only Satan himself could influence. They both convince the protagonists that they wish to help them whereas they are just in it for themselves. Plus, they both also have two of the best "bad guy songs" of all time:

What I really find interesting is how both sets of lyrics incorporate the villain coercing the protagonist to "make a choice." Another observation I've made is how both characters have long extensions that float around. Pincer has his claws and Ursula has her tentacles.

The only thing I don't like about these villains is that I feel like they are both poorly developed. Their agendas don't seem too clear. For example, Pincer makes it known that he wants to devour the humans, but he also says later on that he does what he does because he is simply a bad guy. Ursula is pretty much just known as the underwater witch and wants to take over the ocean, so therefore she fits the villain description perfectly. I just keep wondering "What is in it for them? Why are they like this? Why are they outcasts? Why are they defiant? Where is there motivation?" I just don't accept the idea of them simply being themselves as their only motive.

However, I really like how huge Pincer is when he enters the stage. When I first saw him, I was in shock with both fear and awe. When I was a youngster at Disney World, I saw the "Voyage of The Little Mermaid," which is a live action stage production of the movie incorporating with some movie clips in it as well, much like what Starship does. When Ursula came onstage, she had the same affect on me. She literally took up the whole height of the stage. She was both frightening and amazing to look at.

The one thing that's different in regards to bad guys is that in Starship, we also have a human bad guy who eventually teams up with Pincer. His name is Junior. He is originally a Starship Ranger whose father is the captain of the starship. He has his own agenda, which is to use what he finds on Bug-World to get a profit to buy some weed. This is actually another pretty weak motive for a villain, but I really enjoy how Brian Holden plays him.

What the Protagonists Do For Love

Okay so now that we have two such persuading bad guys, what exactly do they persuade the protagonists to do? Well, Ursula makes Ariel trade in her voice for legs and Pincer makes Bug trade in his physical appearance for a human body. They use this machine to transfer Bug's mind into the body of a lifeless Starship Ranger Pincer came across. So the question I pose, which was my initial reason for writing this piece, is, what is worse: giving up your voice or giving up your original looks?

Having a voice is very important, so this is poor decision-making on Ariel's part. A person should be able to have the freedom to speak his or her mind in whichever form. At least Bug has the ability to communicate with others considering he keeps his voice and is able to speak both English and his native bug language. Outward appearances don't necessarily matter when it comes to voicing opinions. Well, okay, that's kind of a lie considering how looks get people's attention in the first place, but I think you know what I mean.

My friend Kelly posted this photo on my Facebook wall awhile ago.
This photo is the inspiration for this blog post.

The Moral of the Story 
When we finally meet the Starship Rangers, we find that they have a lot of issues, especially with robots and insects. At the end, Bug becomes the connection between the humans and the insects, helping them all live in peace and coexist with each other. The lesson I personally learn from this part of the story is to not judge based on rumors and initial perceptions. I'm even going to go deeper and suggest that the moral is to not judge through stereotype and racism.

With The Little Mermaid, I feel there are no morals to learn. For one thing, I'm under the impression that the humans in this movie have no problems with the undersea creatures. In fact, they seem to go after them more than flee from them. Ariel's union with Eric doesn't seem to solve any issue between two groups like it does in Starship with Bug and February's union. The lesson I get from it is that you must change yourself for a man and once you get the man you must leave your family forever to be with him. This is my friend Kelly's favorite Disney princess and film and she feels that these morals are realistic to everyday life. Though I agree with her to an extent, I still find it anti-feminist and unrealistic.

It may seem like I am praising Starship and constantly knocking The Little Mermaid, but there are two different ideas in Starship that I strongly dislike, which I will share with you now.        

Two Minor Details That Annoy Me About Starship
I understand that Starship is a parody of science fiction films much like the other Starkid production are parodies, so perhaps I shouldn't take anything about it too seriously, but I really cringe every time they refer to God as the "dead god." Being a Catholic, I believe in Jesus Christ dying for my sins and rising from the dead and gaining eternal life, and I feel like this is Team Starkid's way of mocking my religious beliefs. We don't believe that He necessarily "died." His spirit was always alive. In other words, there's no such thing as a "dead god." God is never dead.  

Starship is a story about science fiction. Religious beliefs have nothing to do with this. In fact, we constantly have this debate going about evolution (science) versus the Genesis Creation Story (religion). The two are never really connected so I don't understand why this is used at all. They say it often too. I can see if they want an interjection to use, but the "dead god?" I also have been hearing that a handful of the Starkids are Jewish, those who believe in God but not Jesus Christ, the man who "died." I'm not sure if there is any truth to their Judaism, but if there is and they used Starship to poke fun at my Christianity and Catholicism, that doesn't sit too well with me.

Then there's something else about Starship that hits me on a personal level. My aunt passed away four years ago from breast cancer, leaving behind a six-year-old son. Since then my uncle has remarried a woman he met online. She is very good to my cousin, don't get me wrong, but it is still a depressing situation for my family. Starship takes this whole concept and makes it a joke. I think it partially explains why Junior is the way he is. Junior's father, Dr. Space-Claw, has a tendency to keep Junior on his toes throughout the musical. We see them converse only once, via webcam, though we don't see Dr. Space-Claw's face. Dr. Space-Claw nonchalantly reveals to Junior that his mother died right after he left for his starship mission. We then cut to Junior's new stepmother and the back to Dr. Space-Claw, who tells Junior he met her online. There is random laughter throughout this scene. The scene plays from 2:07 to 3:11:

I'm sorry, but this hits too close to home for me! There are certain things you just don't joke about, and this is one of them. This scene isn't necessarily needed either. The only reason for it I can think of is to give Junior another reason to go off the deep end, but he is evil to begin with anyway. Just like my issue with rape scenes, people need to take into consideration who their audiences are, for there is a good chance there is someone who lived the exact same scenario you are portraying. It should be done tastefully. There are times I refuse to watch this scene because I find it so offensive and inconsiderate.

However, to conclude this piece on a positive note, the bottom line is, Starship is a very well put together retelling of The Little Mermaid with a happy ending, produced creatively by young people who are just starting out in the business. I think what makes it better too is the fact that it was performed in front of a live audience as opposed to being a cartoon film. Theater is different from film in the way that every show is always live as opposed to film which is watching the same material over and over again. This, and the fact that it was theatrically performed by upcoming artists somewhat straight out of college. That is just very impressive to me and from what I see, we'll be seeing a lot more from them!

Happy Fourth of July From "Taking it One 'Stef' at a Time!" :D

I love this holiday, don't you? It is such a relaxing holiday. It takes place during the summer, where for some people there are less obligations, and not to mention fireworks and barbecue! And, of course, it is the birthday of our great nation when we got our independence from England. Happy Birthday, America! :)

Here is footage of fireworks from Brookdale Park that I took the past two years:

Enjoy your day everyone! :D

Frank Galati's The Grapes of Wrath Now in my Possession (Sort of)

I've been wanting to show you something. A few weeks ago I went to the library and found this book!

This is the script form of John Steinbeck's The Grapes of Wrath, written by Frank Galati, the one I saw performed at MSU! I had always wanted to read it, and now I am able to! It is actually a pretty quick read as opposed to the actual performance.

I told myself that if I ever got my hands on the script, I would find a particular part and take a picture of it, and that's exactly what I did.

Why this excerpt is relevant...

Isn't it great that this part showed up on a page that is easy to find? I looked for it the night I took it home from the library and found it right away!

I always wanted to find this part written in the script, and now I did it. Another thing I want to do is find this part written in the actual novel and take a picture of that.

I'm going to also see if I can find a copy of the script for myself to own as well. It brings back a lot of memories.

(By the way, in the script, it is actually written that the characters pronounce Rose of Sharon as "Rosasharn." This is something I always wondered as well.)

Heartwarming Animal Stories: Polar Bear and Rhino...Babies!!! :D

I could be writing about humans right now. There are plenty of things I can discuss about humans that need exposure and discussion. However, sometimes humanity has a tendency to annoy me, and frankly, is isn't worth writing about sometimes because of the sheer stupidity it evokes.

I was thinking about writing about stories I've heard lately, especially in regards to the events of child-raising, but I decided to post about something happy to represent my blog for the time being. I've been meaning to show you these anyway, so now is a perfect time.

Here are articles, footage, and pictures of baby polar bears and a newborn rhino! Click on the links below the photos to see the story!

So cute!!! 100 Day Old Polar Bear Cubs!

A baby rhino being born!!! Aww!!

I said this before and I'll say it again. Animal stories that involve only animals are so refreshing from what we normally hear about. They are so natural with each other.

Aren't they precious??? I'm so happy for them! :D I love stories like these and the fact that they are so cheerful compared to the otherwise miserable news we often encounter.

Stef's "So Good You Can't Put It Down" Book Reviews: To Read Entire Book or Not Read Entire Book? That is the Question.

Picture I forgot to include in my original post of this series.

Like my Hamlet reference?

I came to a realization today about my summer reading challenge.

Lately I've been trying to read two books. One, a classic (Northanger Abbey by Jane Austen) and the other, a fiction (The Abstinence Teacher by Tom Perrotta). However, both books are kind of a challenge for me for different reasons, and yet they are both enjoyable for different reasons. I am working on explanations for this for a separate blog post.

The thing is this whole time I was concerned about actually finishing these books in order to write about them. I mean, I know that is the ideal way of reading and it is my goal to actually finish reading more books, but like I said, it depends on the book to keep my attention alive.

I've begun thinking that because these books are kind of annoying me to an extent, perhaps I should move on to another book in my collection. There are certainly many to choose from. Then it hit me. This could be my summer reading challenge. Isn't that what reading is all about too? Just having fun reading randomly? I could sample a bit of every book to see what I do and don't like, to make for a very successful reading experience. And, if I really am engaged in it, I will continue reading it of course. That way I can say that I read a bunch of different books during the summer instead of the few I struggle to get through. That way, as a reader I can feel more accomplished in my reading agenda. If a person struggles to complete reading a book, is it really worth it? Shouldn't the experience of just reading be enough?

Or is it that the ultimate goal of reading with always be to complete the material? What should matter? Should the fact that I am reading anything at all and getting something from the material be what matters or is the whole reading experience considered a somewhat failure because the reader does not finish his or her reading material? Will the experience be incomplete and will the reader him or herself feel incomplete?

Stef's "So Good You Can't Put It Down" Book Reviews: Equus by Peter Shaffer

So far what anybody really knows about this play is that a troubled teenager went crazy one night and blinded a bunch of horses...

Ladies and gentlemen, the reason why I even decided to buy Equus from the Lacordaire Academy Book Sale:

 

That's right! I saw this hanging up in Life Hall awhile ago and decided to take a picture of it for this blog! Apparently, they will be performing Equus in the Spring 2013 semester, so I figured I'd read the play to prepare myself for it, since I very rarely read a play ahead of time on my own before I go see it. Now you have the honor to see me review both the actual script and if I able to, the Peak Performance for The Montclarion. I will write this review based on how I feel MSU will produce it and then down the line we will see if I am right.

BEGAN READING: May 20, 2012

FINISHED READING: May 21, 2012

This is one freaky play that makes for intricate theater (especially the final scene of Act 1, right before the blackout), so it's no wonder that Montclair decided to perform it this upcoming season. I can picture it being performed in Fox, for there is limited setting that can be accomplished with benches, which is actually what the script calls for. Equus includes lighting changes according to mood and flashbacks, background chanting and other sound effects, a singular setting that can incorporate multiple settings which don't require much set, and cast members sitting on the actual stage when they are not in a scene as opposed to going backstage, all of which I've seen happen in Fox before, so therefore I believe that is going to be the choice theater.

There are scenes in which the lead male character, Alan Strang, mimes taking his clothes off or actually takes off some of his clothes. Yeah, this is a Montclair Peak Performance production. There's going to be full-blown theater nudity in this, which is probably another reason why Montclair has decided to include it in the 2012-2013 lineup. If the script calls for it and other productions of this same show have Alan get completely nude, we're definitely doing it too. Chances are this production will be directed by Susan Kerner if this all plays out. However, both theatrical nudity and Susan Kerner productions have only taken place in Kasser, but we may yet be able to see it done in Fox. 

I'm actually going to bring what I learned in my "Major Film Genres" course from this past semester about the hard-boiled detective genre into this review. Martin Dysart, a psychiatrist who has issues of his own and is overworked, is approached by Hester Salomon to help troubled teen Alan Strang. Like hard-boiled detectives, Dysart is approached with an assignment and becomes more and more invested to get to the bottom of the case. The only difference here is we are told right away what has happened (1.2) and Dysart's task is to figure out why it happened and spends the whole play trying to use different methods, such as hypnosis, to get into Alan's psyche. He is trying to solve the case instead of cure Alan. To me, Dysart acts more like a detective than a psychiatrist, because the script leaves you in suspense about what actually happened the night Alan, ahem, blinded six horses with an ice pick. See, usually this is the punchline but here it is revealed when the play begins, getting it out of the way, so it therefore is a bunch of flashbacks and works backward. In normal mysteries, the "what" is discovered along the same time as the "why," but in Equus this is not the case.

The play is pretty much about a seventeen-year-old kid who worships horses. His mother, Dora, is religiously devout whereas his father, Frank, wants nothing of the sort. It is because of the conflict between his parents that Alan connects religious salvation to horses. However, Alan's thoughts and actions seem too psychotic for his mother to be the blame. I could see if Dora was a religious fanatic with him growing up, but from what I see all she really does is teach him biblical verses and the ways of the Lord just like any other religious mother would. In fact, in Act 2 Scene 23, Dora has a very interesting monologue about how she shouldn't be blamed for Alan's actions because she is a parental influence but rather Alan should because he is his own person. To me, Dora isn't to blame because she hasn't done anything abnormal when raising Alan to cause his mental confusion to happen. It's Alan's own perspective of religion and horses that drive him into such a frenzy.

When Alan was a child Dora bought him a picture of Jesus shackled in chains, which hung on the wall in front of his bed, but Frank replaced this picture in the same location with that of a horse looking at him. Alan's young mind connected the horse, Equus, with Jesus because the horse took Jesus's place in Alan's bedroom and they both wear chains, so ever since his childhood Alan was influenced by this, so it was his parent's doing after all, though it was his own perception of everything that caused his confusion and intense reactions. Dora tells him that God watches him all the time and it just so happens that the horses watch him as well, further connecting the horse to God. Christians believe God is in Heaven watching over us, but Alan physically sees the horses always watching him, making it more real for him and putting him under extra pressure. Next time you look at a horse (but ignore the teeth first) think about this. It's a majestic looking animal, so it's very understandable that Alan makes it his deity. 

Horses represent so much for this kid! They represent salvation, sexual expression, freedom, sensuality etc.! There's a whole argument here I can bring up about how sexuality and orgasms bring you closer to God because it gives you an ecstatic feeling of no pain and worry, pleasurable feelings you experience to make you at one with God (I actually read about this idea in an article and really like the analogy.). This is exactly what Alan experiences, but with horses! We can say that this is bestiality, because it's clear throughout the play that Alan is sexually aroused by these horses even though it is not blatantly told to us. It may seem gross at first glance, but if we connect his love for Equus to his love for God, and if sexual love and spiritual love are one in the same, it makes a lot more sense and seems less grotesque. To him, Equus IS God. I definitely think of horses differently after reading this play in this religious sense.

A good thing about this play is that even though Dysart and Alan go into philosophical rants, which are the poetic, somewhat confusing moments of the play, the rest of the play is pretty understandable. It flows well, the scenes being continuations from the previous ones as if they are chapters of a novel, so there is not a lot of pausing and you can understand the issues of the characters. One criticism I have about the play is how Shaffer incorporates Dysart's background story and connects it with Alan's. Normally I would appreciate this and think that the play is lacking if Shaffer left out Dysart's back story, but the thing is, I don't feel Dysart's story is needed in this particular play. Dysart comes to realizations of himself because of his interactions with Alan, but it doesn't' really contribute anything to the plot. Alan's story is interesting enough to keep the play flowing, deeming Dysart's story unnecessary, even if it is connected to Alan in some way. We are there to figure out what the deal is with Alan. In fact, we are at the edge of our seats waiting for the conclusion and Dysart's story, which is presented in lengthy monologues, just interferes and proves as a distraction from the center plot. Alan is the reason why people care about this play and the reason why they go see it. They care about Alan's story because his story is the catalyst and reason of the play. Dysart's story isn't what people care about and audiences may not even know about it going in or remember it coming out. Alan's story is automatically known. I could be wrong about this for I don't speak for the public, but what character is more interesting: the teenager who has been committed in a ward because he rides horses in the nude and has blinded six of them or his psychiatrist whose main focus is Alan and his marital problems come second to his work and are just thrown into the play as random additions? Exactly. Alan is the way more interesting character.

I can't conclude this review without talking about this: 

 

Isn't it kind of sad that my first exposure (pun definitely NOT intended) to this classic play was a nude ex-wizard? From what I remember, the girls of America went wild when they found out Dan Rad would be baring all for the Broadway production of Equus back in 2007. I never saw Daniel Radcliffe's production of Equus, but this is how I first heard of this play's existence and as I was reading the play I kept thinking about him in it. I'm sorry, but I do not picture Radcliffe pulling off Alan Strang well, who is actually a pretty rebellious jerk (Ha! I called him a jerk) of a character. We grew up with Radcliffe portraying the greatest literary hero of our generation, Harry Potter of course, so it's kind of difficult picturing him portraying such a tortured soul as Alan. I feel like Alan is too heavy of a character for Radcliffe, who played a lighthearted yet emotionally mature 10-year-old boy...who grew up in a wizardry school. I know he has the right to expand himself through all different characters, but a sarcastic brat like Alan doesn't seem to suit him well to me. I actually can picture Radcliffe pulling off the highly ecstatic frenzy parts, but not necessarily the snarky mocking remarks Alan makes to Dysart. From what I see, when actors are in the business for a while a trend they seem to inherit is portraying the same archetypal characters, so probably because Radcliffe is fairly new to the acting field, being in his early twenties, perhaps he has not yet found his archetype yet, which is fine, nor is it a requirement. I'm not suggesting that he totally failed at playing Alan but I am saying that there are certain parts I can't see him doing. 

The Harry Potter series was both a blessing and a curse for this guy. It was good that it established a career for him, but it's not good in the fact that we will always see him as Harry Potter and nothing else really compares. The same goes for a lot of child actors. However, his fans seemed to really appreciate his Broadway debut in Equus and still feel the same way about him in How to Succeed (Without Really Trying), in which he is currently starring on Broadway. At first I couldn't really see him singing and dancing either, but people told me he does very well in this musical and then I was really impressed with his performance on the Tonys, so I'd say he's doing well for himself and will continue to do so. The Harry Potter series proved to have been a springboard for him and a variety of roles.

Hey, you think that since Darren Criss has followed in Radcliffe's footsteps thus far, he'll be running around with horses in the nude sometime soon? Hey, just a thought. ;)

Anyway, all in all Equus is a very captivating read. I started this series off by saying that I am not much of a reader but I finished the book in two days, even with people talking around me, something that normally distracts me often, so that's saying something. It's a very small book without the intimidating bulkiness, so that helps. Reading it gave me chills. It's heavy and simple all at the same time, so yeah, I recommend. 

Okay, well there you have it. The very first installment of "Stef's 'So Good You Can't Put It Down' Book Reviews." This is what I take from Equus. I apologize for the length of this. I didn't expect it to be THAT long, so I will try to make my future installments a little bit more concise. I want my next one to be a classic, so I'm thinking Northanger Abbey by Jane Austen. Or, I might write about a fiction that I want to return back to. Already I'm slacking so we'll see. :)

Stef's "So Good You Can't Put It Down" Book Reviews

I was waiting to post this in June. :)

I have a confession to make. This has been a long time coming and I have been wanting to write a blog post about this sooner or later. Here goes...

I feel like such a failure as an English major, not because of my work ethic, but simply because I don't like to read.

Well, it's not that I totally hate reading. It's just that I'm the type of person who has to be REALLY engaged in a book in order to stay focused. It's not really like me to sit there, read, and be totally concentrated on the material. There's always a distraction. There are very few books that I have completed from beginning to end, and normally those books are the ones that I cannot put down and end up completing in a very short time span. The thing is, I don't like reading for school. Every time I have to read for school I always say that I am going to read it but then when the time comes I am never very motivated to do it and then end up not being able to contribute in class as well. I don't know why. Perhaps it is the book itself that just doesn't interest me or the fact that I am forced to read it for a grade, but I think the reason is I don't have a very focused attention span. Then there are the books that I get very invested in by then stop halfway. Again, my lack of attention span.

So this summer one of my main goals is to read more books (and complete them!) since I have more free time. Reading is very important and is something I want to return to. I was inspired to do this awhile ago, but the recent Lacordaire Academy Book Sale gave me even more convincing. I often buy plenty of books there because at the time they all look interesting and I want to collect reading material, but then I end up not reading them, which is a trait of mine that frustrates me. And to force myself to do this, I am hereby promising you some book reviews, whether they be on here or my YouTube channel. They may be plays (my favorite genre for obvious reasons, plus I find them quick, easier reads so it might be best to start off my book review series and summer reading challenge with something simple), classics (a goal of mine is to read as many classics as possible, some of them I have read already and some I am yet to read, so I may do these as special blog posts or do one every so often), fiction books I haven't read yet, fiction books I have read nonstop, completed, and loved, (I was thinking of doing these in their own series or starting off this series with them considering I have already read them), fiction books that I have started and finished halfway, and any other reading material that suits my fancy. I also want to do more movie and TV reviews on here as well, so I have my work cut out for me.

Okay, so there you have it. My summer blog project. We'll see how this goes. Of course, I will be writing about other musings and creating other series this summer as well.

I have just finished reading Equus by Peter Shaffer, so we'll begin "Stef's 'So Good You Can't Put It Down' Book Reviews" with that one, including a special announcement by me in regards to the MSU Department of Theater and Dance productions of the 2012-2013 season. ;)

Speaking of book reviews, check out my friend Janis's blog, where she actually specializes in book reviews.

MSU Website Makeover

Just today parts of MSU's website got a makeover. Can we please take a moment to look at the College of the Arts new homepage?:

Isn't it awesome?? When I clicked on it I was like "Whoa!" It's beautful! :D Click here to see for yourself. Click around. There are a lot of artistic changes. Arcadia is actually the background for a lot of the pages!

They redid a lot of the site. It looks really cool. Check it out! :)

Like, OMG, Boys are Such Jerks!: A Musing About the Slang "Jerk"

Hi Everyone! Stef here and the Spring 2012 semester is finally over and I am officially a senior at MSU!!! "Taking it One 'Stef' at a Time" has been ignored for a while because of school and work obligations, but hopefully this summer I will have more time to write for you. I have been brainstorming new topics and series to write about and I have posts in my drafts that I have worked on during the semesters but haven't had the chance to post until now, so I am excited with what the summer has in store for us, so hopefully it will be a successful one. I have a bunch of ideas planned!

So we begin my summer series of posts with the following thought-induced topic:

"Why are boys such jerks???"

...Okay, this is not a sexist piece against men and you probably do not expect it to be anyway considering how I often defend men on this blog. Also, I do recognize that girls can be "jerks" as well, so this isn't a one-sided argument. I'm just saying "boys" because that is my matter at hand.

So one night a couple of weeks ago I was crying to my friend about a male acquaintance of mine whom is currently upsetting me. Long story short, I met him the semester of Fall 2011 and he was so sweet to me, chatting with me and acknowledging me from time to time. Plus, I find him interesting. More of this continued on into my Spring 2012 semester, when I felt like we were developing our friendship a bit more. But then, after a while, his friendliness toward me started to dwindle. He does still somewhat acknowledge me, but he's just not as friendly as he used to be. Perhaps he is stressed and tired, but that isn't necessarily an excuse (though can it be?). I rarely talk to him, so for a while I've been looking back at our encounters, trying to figure out what went wrong and why things have changed between us so suddenly. I know it's not that serious, but I actually feel kind of bad about it. It's like, "What happened? Did I do something wrong?" I've been nothing but nice to him, though, so I don't think that's the case. It's probably not me.

So anyway I was/am upset about this and my friend simply said, "He's just a jerk," to which I responded, "There must be a better reason. It can't be just that." She then said, "You don't think guys can just be jerks? He's blowing you off. What other reason can it be?"

This brief part of our in-depth conversation stayed with me and made me think about the word "jerk" more analytically. I don't want to just settle the issue by just calling him a "jerk." I feel like that is either letting him off the hook or labeling him as something he isn't. I feel like just saying that a person is a "jerk" is excusing him or her for behaviors, dismissing the person as if there should not be any more thought on the matter and it's just how it is ("Oh, he's just a jerk. Don't worry about it."), whereas I believe that something may be going on with him and there's a reason for his not so friendly treatment of me and so calling him a "jerk" is unfair. Can people just be "jerks" and that is all there is to it? Is that a good enough definitive label to give someone? I don't feel that people can just be labelled as "jerks," as if that is who they are and there's no more to it because I believe we are all bigger people who deserve better descriptions than just being the low "jerks." To me it's a slang, writing a person off by saying "What a jerk" instead of coming up with better adjectives to describe the person. People have both their good and bad sides so being classified as just "jerks" doesn't do them any justice because that word is pretty dehumanizing.

A part of me too doesn't want to accept the fact that this guy in particular is a "jerk" because I just don't see him that way. I feel like he's a good enough guy so therefore my friend's label of him isn't just, since neither she or I know him very well to judge. But then again, since we don't know him well, we can't really say for sure that he is a "good guy" either or defend him from being labelled as a "jerk" simply because we don't know him enough the determine him either way. I just have a good impression of him, okay?!

It's probably best if I don't over think it, just let the chips fall where they may, and not worry about it (because since summer vacation began and I haven't been seeing him I've been concerning about it less and less and gradually have been realizing even during the semester that it is not worth obsessing over), which is what I try to do but sometimes have difficulty with because I am also a believer of taking matters into my own hands (This can actually be a good blog post topic: When to let things happen and when to contribute your own actions.), but I am still curious about the whole "jerk" aspect of it and how the word came into existence in the first place. Should people be demeaned as such by others? Then again, do people present themselves as such and deserve this title anyway? If this is the case, then we should probably determine the following: Is there such a thing as a "jerk" at all? Is being a "jerk" just a personality trait like any other that defines people or do people just have "jerk" tendencies and should not be defined as such? What constitutes a "jerk"? What are the official qualities? What is the definitive definition? There should probably be a common ground.

What do you think? Can people just be classified as "jerks" with no explanation, just an observation of their actions, or do people always have a background reason for their ill-treatment of others and should these reasons be taken into account? Have you ever experienced a friendship like this where you try to befriend someone, it looks like it is going well, and then everything is brought to a halt and you don't know why? Is this just something people do and it's considered normal? Maybe the issue is I never met a guy like this one before and I am just not used to his type. Then again, maybe this is just his personality and I am taking it personally. Now that I remember he exhibited this behavior early on as well and maybe I am just noticing it more because I have been talking to him more. I just feel like he only does this to me and not anyone else, but I can't say for sure. But still, just because people have certain personality traits doesn't make them "jerks!" Or does it?

Or should I shut up and just accept the fact that there are "jerks" in the world no matter which way I turn it?

Or, should we refrain from name-calling and stop calling people "jerks" and disregard this whole argument altogether? I don't have a problem with the word, it's just that I haven't thought much about it until now.

This is pretty much me trying to dissect the word "jerk" and figure out what happened at the same time. lol

Lacordaire Academy Annual Book Sale 2012

I've been wondering what I should post as my first blog post of the summer after my Spring 2012 semester ended and to finally post something in May because May is almost over (Though I've had ideas), and then I received this as a request to write about on here (My first blog request that I am able to carry out!) and figured what better way to open up a summer of blogging than with my high school's annual summer book sale.

I went to high school at Lacordaire Academy and the one tradition in which my family and I continue to participate even after I graduated is the Annual Book Sale. Every year towards the end of May a book sale takes place in the school's gym, the books and other material separated by genre and extremely affordable (the highest cost is $2 for a hardcover book). I love going there because it is such a relaxing atmosphere and gives me a chance to look at all of the different books (which can sometimes be overwhelming because eventually I have to make choices and there are so many to choose from) and encourages me to read more. This year, it is also part of the reason why I want to begin writing book reviews and such for this blog or perhaps my YouTube channel, which is a summer project I've been brainstorming for a while now (We'll see what happens. More about this later.).

Alas, the book sale is wrapping up for this year, but there is one more chance to scavenge for some books and other material. Tomorrow, Sunday, is the book sale's final day of the year, so don't miss out! Check out the photo below for more information! :)