I have the funniest brother in the world. I found in my documents that PJ had written and saved this story on my computer two summers ago. Enjoy:
The wind was on my side as I swept away from the fatty menace which is Nick
“GIVE ME YOUR SNACK PACK!!!” The beast cried out, running as fast as his piggy legs could go, trying not to trip over one of his multiple chins.
We were at school, and Nick was hungry; and when Nick is hungry, which he is almost all the time, he needs food. Fast. Nick’s mom owns a Dairy Queen. Figures. To give you a ballpark estimate, I’d say Nick is about 999,999,999,999 LBS… … …
… … … Per square inch.
As I sped away from what looked like a, wait , scratch that. As I sped away from what WAS a fat anti-social geek, I turned around, only to see the skyscraper a couple of miles away, drool dripping down his shirt and sweat under his flabby arms.
I had more than enough time sit back, relax, and indulge on my chocolate-vanilla swirl snack pack while I watched Nick run on his stuffed legs, making earthquakes each step, taking hours on end to get to me, the target.
For a gleaming, fatless moment, victory was at my fingertips. But what was this? Had the pig resorted to a secret weapon? He had started rolling! It is typical. I bet someone that round could just roll his way into the Olympics! That is, of course, if he could fit between the white lines on the track. Fatty.
The time had come. He had rolled over, crushed, and even engulfed people in his navel as he made his way toward me. And now he just within a few yards of me!!! Oh my gosh. This was it. I would soon be crushed under the tons of pure body fat known as Nick! The Boulder had seemingly finally reached his goal.
Then Nick had a sudden heart attack and died before reaching me
THE END.
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Friday, January 15, 2010
Random Average Paper Time
This was for Bible as Lit class. I should have worked harder in that class.
Emerald Guildner
Professor Walker
English 350
10/5/09
The Lord God Himself
The ever famous creation story has been retold in many ways in all different cultures. Genesis chapters one and two seem to be two different versions of the same event. The translation of Genesis to the King James Version is what I have found to give the most insight when held up against the translation in the Pearl of Great Price. The translations of these passages are important in understanding a people’s interpretation of the creation. In the King James Version, there is a third person narrator whose name we do not know. In the Pearl of Great Price we can see one of the most interesting revelations about the creation. We know from chapter one that the account is revealed to and taken down by Moses himself. This builds trust in the reader and gives the account more credibility. Chapters two through four of Moses is written in the first person, with God as the speaker. The fall of Adam and Eve becomes much more emotional and profound to the reader in Moses because this narration switches to the usual outsider quoting God as soon as they leave the Garden of Eden.
The background given in the Pearl of Great Price helps the reader contextualize why we have the creation story in the first place, and who has written it down. Chapter two begins “And it came to pass that the Lord spake unto Moses saying: Behold, I reveal unto you concerning this heaven, and this earth” (2:1). This preface does not exist in Genesis. It dives right into “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth” (Genesis 1:1). The Pearl of Great Price provides more background, but this does more than simply provide extra information. It enhances the effectiveness of the story to make a person trust and believe the narrative. Even if a reader understands that Genesis is a book of Moses, the King James version is more distant because it does not include the same kind of introduction as the book of Moses from the Pearl of Great Price.
The most important difference between the two narratives is the use of God’s own voice in the Pearl of Great Price. The story begins: And the earth was without form, and void; and I caused darkness to come up upon the face of the deep; and my spirit moved upon the face of the water; for I am God. (Moses 2:2). This much more personal account not only draws the reader into the story in the first place, but establishes authority in the writer and in God himself. God is able to speak with Moses, and God is able to tell his own story. He does tell his own story because man could not possibly understand completely enough to find words himself for it. The reader is more invested when reading that “I, God, saw the light; and that light was good”, than “God saw the light, that it was good”. God not only did the creating, but he created his story as well. This also makes Moses sound more respectful of God’s creations. In giving God a voice, he is also giving god authority and reverence. The constant repetition of “I, the Lord God” in Moses is also helping the reader remember God and his position in the heavens and in the creation of mankind.
The nearness of God to Adam and Eve is enhanced by the use of God’s first person voice. The fall of Adam and Eve is made more intense by the change to third person when they are banished from God’s presence. This change happens in Moses chapter five. Adam and Eve have eaten the forbidden fruit. God continues on with his story saying “after I, the Lord God, had driven them out, that Adam began to till the earth…as I the Lord had commanded him” (Moses 5:1). This is the last time the narrative is written with “I the Lord”. Adam and Eve no longer were able to communicate with God in the same way, walking and talking in person with him. The reader more fully feels what they felt while reading the story from the book of Moses because the reader also becomes cut off. God is no longer personally narrating his story. The next time we see God in the story is in verse four: And Adam and Eve, his wife, called upon the name of the Lord, an they heard the voice of the Lord from the way toward the Garden of Eden, speaking unto them, and they saw him not; for they were shut out from his presence”. To be cut off from the Lord is the worst state to be in. This version not only shows the reader that Adam and Eve were cut off, but that mankind is cut off, no longer able to have the story given to them in God’s own voice.
The version of the creation given in Moses is one of the only places in scripture, besides the Doctrine and Covenants, that we see the Lord speaking to us in the first person in scripture. On a spiritual level, this emphasizes that all of mankind is in a fallen state. It makes us yearn for the direct voice of the Lord. It makes us more acutely aware of the fact that we do not dwell in the presence on the Lord. However, it also gives us hope because it gives us a taste of the Lord’s voice. It shows us that we used to be in God’s presence and that our current state is not a permanent one. It gives the reader a goal, to work towards having the Lord’s first person voice in their life eventually back again.
Emerald Guildner
Professor Walker
English 350
10/5/09
The Lord God Himself
The ever famous creation story has been retold in many ways in all different cultures. Genesis chapters one and two seem to be two different versions of the same event. The translation of Genesis to the King James Version is what I have found to give the most insight when held up against the translation in the Pearl of Great Price. The translations of these passages are important in understanding a people’s interpretation of the creation. In the King James Version, there is a third person narrator whose name we do not know. In the Pearl of Great Price we can see one of the most interesting revelations about the creation. We know from chapter one that the account is revealed to and taken down by Moses himself. This builds trust in the reader and gives the account more credibility. Chapters two through four of Moses is written in the first person, with God as the speaker. The fall of Adam and Eve becomes much more emotional and profound to the reader in Moses because this narration switches to the usual outsider quoting God as soon as they leave the Garden of Eden.
The background given in the Pearl of Great Price helps the reader contextualize why we have the creation story in the first place, and who has written it down. Chapter two begins “And it came to pass that the Lord spake unto Moses saying: Behold, I reveal unto you concerning this heaven, and this earth” (2:1). This preface does not exist in Genesis. It dives right into “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth” (Genesis 1:1). The Pearl of Great Price provides more background, but this does more than simply provide extra information. It enhances the effectiveness of the story to make a person trust and believe the narrative. Even if a reader understands that Genesis is a book of Moses, the King James version is more distant because it does not include the same kind of introduction as the book of Moses from the Pearl of Great Price.
The most important difference between the two narratives is the use of God’s own voice in the Pearl of Great Price. The story begins: And the earth was without form, and void; and I caused darkness to come up upon the face of the deep; and my spirit moved upon the face of the water; for I am God. (Moses 2:2). This much more personal account not only draws the reader into the story in the first place, but establishes authority in the writer and in God himself. God is able to speak with Moses, and God is able to tell his own story. He does tell his own story because man could not possibly understand completely enough to find words himself for it. The reader is more invested when reading that “I, God, saw the light; and that light was good”, than “God saw the light, that it was good”. God not only did the creating, but he created his story as well. This also makes Moses sound more respectful of God’s creations. In giving God a voice, he is also giving god authority and reverence. The constant repetition of “I, the Lord God” in Moses is also helping the reader remember God and his position in the heavens and in the creation of mankind.
The nearness of God to Adam and Eve is enhanced by the use of God’s first person voice. The fall of Adam and Eve is made more intense by the change to third person when they are banished from God’s presence. This change happens in Moses chapter five. Adam and Eve have eaten the forbidden fruit. God continues on with his story saying “after I, the Lord God, had driven them out, that Adam began to till the earth…as I the Lord had commanded him” (Moses 5:1). This is the last time the narrative is written with “I the Lord”. Adam and Eve no longer were able to communicate with God in the same way, walking and talking in person with him. The reader more fully feels what they felt while reading the story from the book of Moses because the reader also becomes cut off. God is no longer personally narrating his story. The next time we see God in the story is in verse four: And Adam and Eve, his wife, called upon the name of the Lord, an they heard the voice of the Lord from the way toward the Garden of Eden, speaking unto them, and they saw him not; for they were shut out from his presence”. To be cut off from the Lord is the worst state to be in. This version not only shows the reader that Adam and Eve were cut off, but that mankind is cut off, no longer able to have the story given to them in God’s own voice.
The version of the creation given in Moses is one of the only places in scripture, besides the Doctrine and Covenants, that we see the Lord speaking to us in the first person in scripture. On a spiritual level, this emphasizes that all of mankind is in a fallen state. It makes us yearn for the direct voice of the Lord. It makes us more acutely aware of the fact that we do not dwell in the presence on the Lord. However, it also gives us hope because it gives us a taste of the Lord’s voice. It shows us that we used to be in God’s presence and that our current state is not a permanent one. It gives the reader a goal, to work towards having the Lord’s first person voice in their life eventually back again.
Thursday, January 7, 2010
You can't always get what you wa-hant
I have been thinking about this all day:
"He soon felt that the realization of his longing gave him only one grain of the mountain of bliss he had anticipated. That realization showed him the eternal error men make by imagining that happiness consists in the gratification of their wishes."
Out of context this quote is a very good way to put the famous quote of "happiness is not having what you want, but wanting what you have".
In context it just makes me sad. A man feels unfulfilled in his relationship with his lover. It goes on to say: "When first he united his life with hers and donned civilian clothes, he felt the delight of freedom in general, such as he had not before known, and also the freedom of love - he was contented then, but not for long. Soon he felt rising in his soul a desire for desires - boredom. Involuntarily he began to snatch at every passing caprice, mistaking it for a desire and a purpose".
This made me think of part of a paper I wrote last year about Keat's Odes.
Line 15-18 "Ode to Psyche":
They lay calm-breathing on the bedded grass;
Their arms embraced, and their pinions too;
Their lips touch'd not, but had not bade adieu,
Cupid and psyche are embracing, but not actually kissing or doing anything. This is supposed to be good because fulfillment of desire is apparently what dissipates desire. If you do not actually perform the act, then the act cannot disappoint you or be over. In the next life, that passion will be perfected and will not be lost if you defer it for the present. I think that this idea ignores the possibility of the ability to desire something even when you have it and the ability of something to be even better than what you expected it to be.
I also think that some things make you happy whether you want them to or not. I particularly love that fact.
The "eternal mistake that men make" is a very sad one and causes a lot of heartache.
My lack of further expansion on these things is not laziness this time. I don't want to explain it all. It just makes me very sad.
"He soon felt that the realization of his longing gave him only one grain of the mountain of bliss he had anticipated. That realization showed him the eternal error men make by imagining that happiness consists in the gratification of their wishes."
Out of context this quote is a very good way to put the famous quote of "happiness is not having what you want, but wanting what you have".
In context it just makes me sad. A man feels unfulfilled in his relationship with his lover. It goes on to say: "When first he united his life with hers and donned civilian clothes, he felt the delight of freedom in general, such as he had not before known, and also the freedom of love - he was contented then, but not for long. Soon he felt rising in his soul a desire for desires - boredom. Involuntarily he began to snatch at every passing caprice, mistaking it for a desire and a purpose".
This made me think of part of a paper I wrote last year about Keat's Odes.
Line 15-18 "Ode to Psyche":
They lay calm-breathing on the bedded grass;
Their arms embraced, and their pinions too;
Their lips touch'd not, but had not bade adieu,
Cupid and psyche are embracing, but not actually kissing or doing anything. This is supposed to be good because fulfillment of desire is apparently what dissipates desire. If you do not actually perform the act, then the act cannot disappoint you or be over. In the next life, that passion will be perfected and will not be lost if you defer it for the present. I think that this idea ignores the possibility of the ability to desire something even when you have it and the ability of something to be even better than what you expected it to be.
I also think that some things make you happy whether you want them to or not. I particularly love that fact.
The "eternal mistake that men make" is a very sad one and causes a lot of heartache.
My lack of further expansion on these things is not laziness this time. I don't want to explain it all. It just makes me very sad.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)