The Hillsdale Forum October 2013 by Dale Form

LIKE US ON FACEBOOK • FOLLOW US ON TWITTER @HILLSDALEFORUM

d s l ck t o H i l a b e m o c l We

le!

The Hillsdale

Forum October 2013

INSIDE THIS ISSUE: Pragmatism: For and Against • 4-7 Short Story Contest Winner • 16 Gold in the Library • 19 New Feature: Tragically Hip • 21

Volume III, Issue 1—October 2013

Contents CONSERVATIVE FEATURES

4 Grounding Meaning in Pragmatics Mike Pope Pragmatism is a legitimate, and sometimes neccessary, method of inquiry. Pope writes that conservatives have nothing to fear from the philisophical school. 6 Pragmatism’s Problems Sarah Albers Williams James’ Pragmatism is contrary to the classical belief in objective Truth, in this essay by our resident music columnist. A rare chance to see a Catholic claim a Pope is wrong. 8 Redeeming Morality Wes Wright When political disagreements and positions become moral statements, arguements turn ugly, our editor argues. Wright shows how an less moralizing discourse helps win arguments. 10 Books vs Movies Anna Wunderlich Why are movies so popular? Wunderlich tells us why books are the better form of fiction, and tells us we best get reading. 12 Who Would Jesus Deport? Haley Halverson Christians too often place their politically-inspired beliefs over true fidelity to the message of the Bible, Halverson argues.

CAMPUS FEATURES

14 Campus Smackdown: Smoking Walker Mulley A fun hobby or cancer sticks? Smoking is popular on campus, but it’s certainly not without it’s detractors. Austin Collins and Natalie deMacedo weigh in. 16 Short Story Contest Winner Anonymous Our first short story contest has a winner! Read her (or his) anonymous work—and maybe submit your own for our next issue! 19 Library Gold–A Film Review Lauren Wierenga & Chris McCaffery Wunderlich may argue that dusty tomes fulfill the telos of fiction better, but what if you just want to fulfill the telos of havin’ a laugh? 21 Tragically Hip Sarah Albers In a new regular feature, Albers gives us some music picks and takes a look at Arcade Fire’s Reflektor. 22 EDU 419: Advanced Techniques in Coursebook Satire Andy Reuss Hillsdale students are used to getting marks in their classes, but the campus Reuss imagines in this column is filled with more Marx (and Harry Potter) than we might be used to. What if Hillsdale began looking to other schools to fill the course calalogue? 3

Staff EDITOR-IN-CHIEF Wes Wright

MANAGING EDITOR Chris Mccaffery

HEAD DESIGNER Lauren Wierenga

FEATURED ESSAYISTS Mike Pope Anna Wunderlich Haley Halverson

STAFF WRITERS

Lorryn Cruz Sarah Albers Savannah Tibbetts James Inwood Andy Reuss Walker Mulley

EDITORS Chelsey Schmid

PHOTOGRAPHERS Laurie Barnes Caroline Green Olivia File

LAYOUT AIDES Grace DeSandro Meg Prom

BUSINESS MANAGER Ryne Bessemer

Letter from the editor

have a confession to make. Hillsdale College strives for academic, athletic, moral, and spiritual excellence. It recruits brilliant students, employs stellar professors and coaches, cultivates a wise appreciation of the higher things, and provides the resources required for students to attain an education. One of those resources is access to opportunities for student journalism. Hillsdale boasts several undergraduate publications: The Collegian is the oldest college paper in Michigan, The Tower Light is a beautiful literary magazine, The Winona yearbook is a classic chronology of Hillsdale’s history, and The Pape is a witty, newsy departure from everyday Hillsdale life. As the youngest publication on campus (The Pape first hit the streets in 1899), The Hillsdale Forum does its best to meet the standard set by its fellows. In the last issue, however, I marred The Forum’s reputation by printing flagrant inaccuracies. I did far worse than that, writing a batch of falsehoods while representing the magazine’s staff in my Letter from the Editor. The first line sets the tone: “This will be my final Letter from the Editor, at least for The Hillsdale Forum.” You may note that I am in the midst of writing such a Letter at this very moment. Indeed, I am still Editorin-Chief, contrary to what I explicitly claimed last May. Further, Chris McCaffery will not be Editorin-Chief this year, as it conflicts with his job at The Collegian—he has been relegated to Managing Editor, where he will hunt down deadline-dodgers and their ilk. Instead of piling falsehood upon falsehood, I am going to stop slandering The Forum’s readership and explain to this year’s freshmen what this magazine is. The Hillsdale Forum is an entirely student-run magazine of conservative political thought. It has, since 2003, provided students a place to voice their well-reasoned thoughts about politics, student life, and the liberal arts. We publish twice a semester. The Forum is traditionally divided into two parts: Conservative Features and Campus Features. Conservative Features are thousand-word, academic-

style opinion pieces on a wide variety of subjects, while Conservative Features highlight individuals and topics of student interest. Regular Campus Features include the Campus Smackdown, in which two students (Austin Collins and Natalie DeMacedo, in this issue) get feisty about a Hillsdale Controversy. The Spotlight section contains interviews with talented students. Sarah Albers has a music column, Andy Reuss writes humor and satire. We also reserve a page for interviews with the most eligible Hunks and Hotties at Hillsdale. A notable addition to this year’s Forum is the short story contest. Our panel of judges selects the best student story submitted for inclusion in the magazine; this issue’s winner is Anonymous. To enter the competition for the next edition of The Forum, send an e-mail to theforumshortstory@gmail.com. If you are a conservative and like to write, design, photograph, joke, meet deadlines, or seek out advertisers, please let us know, and come to our next planning meeting, Oct. 23 at 7 p.m. in Lane 123— we publish in December. We are always looking for contributors. If you take issue (pun fully intended) with an article, send us a response; we may run it. Either way, we hope you enjoy the culture and commentary we have assembled for you. If it adds to both Hillsdale’s excellence and yours, we have succeeded. F

Mission Statement The Hillsdale Forum is the independent, studentrun conservative magazine at Hillsdale College. The Forum, in support of the mission statement of Hillsdale College, exists to promote a return to limited government as outlined in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. We publish conservative opinion, editorials, and campus features. The Forum is a vehicle to bring the discussion and thought of the intelligent students and professors at the heart of the conservative movement beyond the classroom.

Conservative Pragmatism Grounding Meaning in Pragmatics:A Conservative Take

By: Mike Pope — Featured Essayist

o many conservative idealists, few venoms paralyze the rational soul’s pursuit of truth more than pragmatism. Such a response is not without warrant, for the terms ‘pragmatism’ and ‘conservatism’ are frequently misused. Nevertheless, a more charitable reading of the pragmatist project and a thoroughgoing understanding of its trajectory enables a deepened grasp of conservative principle. Certainly, someone emphasizing pragmatics in politics will neither be labeled an idealist, nor claim the idealist’s definition of selfevident truth, but this stance does not require the rejection of truth and its authority. For the pragmatist, truth attaches to or rejects one’s ideas based on a correlation and attentive viewing, interpreting, and assimilating perspective of reality. It is an inarbitrary construct of man, in accordance with the real world through application, not comparison to an absolute, immovable standard. Indeed, reality governs and validates the self-evidence of an idea through observation, experience, and comparison— self-evidence requires pragmatics. For this relationship, tradition must serve as the foundation for meaningful action. As one backs into the future, one sees experience lying behind and uses it to face the problems ahead. Conservatives often fear that once truth is denied a static, impersonal status—that which is, untainted by opinion—one wanders the wilderness of moral relativism. Nevertheless, alternatives exist between these traumatic poles. The conservative and pragmatic barrier to moral relativism forms by doing

providing the meaning for saying. Fundamentally, application dictates meaningful discourse, not arbitrary, capitalized words. The meaningful use of a term arises from common heritage and a cultural vocabulary inherited subsidiarily by each practitioner. Meaningful discourse relies on common, cultural, and often unspoken meaning, especially in political debate. That is, a pragmatic account of meaning is naturally conservative. With this account in mind, consider conservatives’ revulsive reaction to William James’ blunt and oversimplified statement in “Pragmatism”: “truth is what works.” As a conservative, one immediately hears consequentialism and the vulgar utilitarianism worthy of a philistine—not the virtue practiced by a principled person and required in discovering the Good. First, in an effort to understand the foundation of such a claim one must understand how language stands at the center of knowledge in the pragmatic worldview. That is to say, a person’s “semantics must answer to pragmatics.” The early American Pragmatists lack any serious semantic account, but in the general pragmatic view, when one commits to the truth value of a claim, validation arises through application. For example, the difference between two claims concerning “Justice” is found in the application of the commitment and quality judgment of the outcome. Accordingly, terms function as tools for performing tasks; different situations require particular words that will produce better results than others. For the conservative, the best defense of ideology is not attempting to transplant an idealist political

“A PRAGMATIC ACCOUNT OF MEANING IS NATURALLY CONSERVATIVE.” vocabulary, but rather a firm understanding of how political principles or maxims have worked in the past. When the Founding Fathers chose, within their particular political and philosophical context, to place the individual at the center of principle and policy they did so not arbitrarily, but because they believed in an ordered world where government works best as such. They committed to the principle, that man could govern himself. They certainly hoped their idea would produce the desired result—good government—but only application and observation would ease their anxieties. These commitments, upon which the nation stands, must be held dear not because of their pretty, platitudinous nature, but because for nearly two and a half centuries they have produced the most desirous government on earth. This understanding comes forth not from our semantics alone, but from our pragmatics—they return a desired result in action. However, as time drifts on, problems will certainly arise that require address, and a pragmatic account is prepared to respond. As James puts it, “True ideas are those that we can assimilate, validate, corroborate and verify.” That is, while traversing the precarious landscape of history, one assimilates new information into held knowledge. This new information drawn from the real world propels new ideas and aids in problem solving. A pragmatic understanding of the world allows one to purposefully and methodically address the problems faced in society, but the methodology is crafted by (and in terms of) the culture’s trajectory. For example, even the most radical revolutionary carries with him the terms of the society he wishes to transplant or destroy. When the Bolsheviks overthrew the Russian autocracy, their success relied on meaning from a context they sought to destroy—is it any surprise that they reverted to despotic government? Thus, when such problems confront a given context, semantics rely on certain crafted vocabularies—on pragmatism. These vocabularies

pragmatism

culturally and subsidiarily transmit the meaning lying behind words. As such, political discussions are guided by “public vocabularies [which] articulate the norms that govern our answering to each other.” For this pragmatic account, tradition is central to meaning in discourse, not something that falls away. When a pundit calls for “justice,” he invokes a connotation—an elementary, unspoken, and presuming meaning. This connotation conveys the power of the term within the vocabulary. In short, despite the misinterpretation inherent in differing conceptions, desires, and personal vocabularies, communication occurs within an inherited, meaningful context. Furthermore, the pragmatist account yields for government not strictly relative principles, but rather an objective philosophy that accounts for intellectual desires and perspective. Now, it is reasonable to worry that in relying on application and our judgment of principle, all objectivity is lost. However, this feared result is not the case precisely because the objective world remains the target and standard for application in a community focused on the application of ideas. Different cultures will certainly demand different results from their ideas and agree upon different desires, but are we prepared—based on our own desires, of course—to deny the supremacy of some cultures over others? Just as it is a mistake to view America’s founding principles as static or absolute, one misplaces oneself in presuming the ability to make such a claim. One must deny one’s culture and the intellectual desires of tradition. Nevertheless, ranking a maxim as universal is not impossible—it occurs all the time—but performing what the claim requires is impossible. One must always remember, in the spirit of pragmatics, how a cultural tradition holds saying accountable to doing, in practice. This culture is particular and operates within a specific, limited reference of meaning. That is to say, one carries one’s tradition as a map for an excursion through time and space, but one cannot make judgments without relying on its past value—knowing always that amendments may be required in future swamps, valleys, or forests. At this point one might ask what

continued–page 18

4 3

Pragmatism’s Problems By: Sarah Albers — Columnist

he problem with pragmatism as a philosophy is that it is not philosophy. One might call it a philosophical method, as it seeks to correlate known phenomena, but it is nothing more than that: a method of correlating truths, of securing Truth only as far as it is manifest in particular, ‘useful’ truths. It seeks to appropriate knowledge for purposes unrelated to the knowledge itself. James perfunctorily sets aside absolute Truth and would have us guided only by the tenets of observed phenomena. In Pragmatism: A New Name for Some Old Ways of Thinking, James defines for us what he thinks it is to be a good philosopher: A pragmatist turns his back resolutely and once for all upon a lot of inveterate habits dear to professional philosophers. He turns away from abstraction and insufficiency, from verbal solutions, from bad a priori reasons, from fixed principles, closed systems, and pretended absolutes and origins. He turns toward concreteness and adequacy, towards facts, towards action and towards power. Here it is made abundantly clear that James seeks to eradicate the pursuit of abstract Truth and turn the efforts of his philosophers towards those truths that are empirically observable—a modernized approach to apprehending reality. The problem with this method of philosophy is that Truth and knowledge

are two different things. Plato addresses this directly in The Republic. Through Socrates, Plato asserts that knowledge as we know it is nothing more than a finite apprehension of what actually is. In 508a-509c, Socrates examines reality in terms of its illumination by the Good. He comes to the conclusion that the very state of being known or knowing something implies identity beyond the fact itself. Knowledge, for Plato, is not merely an observation—a useful fact or theory—but the apprehension of some greater Truth. Knowledge is necessarily related to those things that are True. Knowledge is the perception of things as they exist, not as they are met. We do not accurately assert that we know something until our conception of that idea or thing accords with it, as it is naturally. Therefore, perfect Knowledge would correspond exactly with reality. In application, however, knowledge only approximates reality. It is here that James runs off-course. Although most knowledge is mere approximation, this very approximation implies the existence of an absolute Truth that can validate knowledge. James argues that knowledge is validated not by correspondence to reality, but by utility, reasoning that if there is a sufficient disparity between the theory being tested and reality, it will cease to be a ‘useful’ truth and will subsequently be discarded. What James fails

to realize is that by circumventing what he views as noisome abstraction, he has effectively conflated Truth and knowledge. What James puts forward as truth is nothing more than conditional theory based on finite knowledge. What is True if truths are only valid insofar as they are useful? Why pursue Truth at all, if the only purpose of philosophy is to grease the works of your miserable little mind? We may as well ignore it at all and do as we see fit. Plato likens this kind of relativistic truth to ‘knowing’ an animal. By observation, the handler may come to know causes and effects—as Plato puts it, “how it should be approached and how taken hold of, when—and as a result of what—it becomes most difficult or most gentle.” This knowledge is flawed, however, because it apprehends mere phenomena, not Truth. The animal’s handler has learned only how to formulate convenient theories, much like a politician. Once these theories are successfully applied, they are accepted as wisdom and taught to successive leaders. The classical philosophy that James so consciously rejects posits reality itself as guide and impetus for the pursuit of Knowledge. Realization of Truth is not a matter of utility, but of necessity. We must by our very nature seek to articulate ourselves and the world around us. For classical philosophers, our self does not exist independently of our self-perception. How we see ourselves and our world is intrinsically tied to what it is that we are: we cannot exist inarticulately. As rational beings, we are obligated to search out what our reason tells us is true, not what we feel to be convenient. Our philosophy cannot be one of utility. If you prescribe adherence to dogmatic belief for the sake of personal and societal stability, you deny man the fulfillment of his most fundamental trait: the capacity for rational thought. Our reason was not intended to justify our behavior, but to mold it. Our nature is not one that seeks the functionality of dogma, but the guidance of Truth. While the arguments of James and Plato may seem utterly irrelevant to current political life, they embody the disparate approaches to political thought of progressivism and conservatism, respectively.

truth The classical notion of permanent Truth applied to political life is one of the foundational tenets of conservatism. The Founding Fathers were steeped in classical philosophy, drawing heavily from the writings of Aristotle, Cicero, and the like. True modern conservatism continues in this vein, arguing for policy from principles founded upon absolute Truths. James, on the other hand, introduces a distinctly anti-conservative mode of thought. Deliberately parting ways with the notion of absolute Truth, James makes the case that man and reality change according to the developments of human knowledge. As our knowledge of ourselves changes the way we see the world around us, so too does it change the way we must regard truths.

“WHAT JAMES PUTS FORWARD AS TRUTH IS NOTHING MORE THAN FINITE KNOWLEDGE” While this abstraction may seem to be of little import, the implications of the two worldviews are extensive and cut to the core: after all, law is a direct reflection of how a nation views justice. What of Justice, then, when Truth is reduced to a kind of utilitarian transience? How are leaders to legislate when deprived of an objective and permanent standard by which to judge the justice of a law? According to the classical philosophers, law and the justice of its application were determined not by men but by nature itself. Classical rulers did not define law, they conformed to and enforced it. Nature as apprehended by man’s reason was the arbiter of justice. Contrary to this viewpoint is James, vanguard of the progressive movement, who believes solely in justified truth, not inherent Truth. For progressives, truth exists only as far as it is applicable to the issues at hand. As society changes, so does truth. Justice becomes subject not to the objective standard of principle, but the arbitration of an ever-changing, ‘enlightened’ man. So, which will you have? Arbitration by nature or mankind? Truth itself or truth confined to utility? F 7 3

Redeeming Morality By: Wes Wright — Editor-in-Chief

n an 1808 letter to his grandson, Thomas Jefferson wrote, “In stating prudential rules for our government in society, I must not omit the important one of never entering into a dispute or argument with another…It was one of the rules which, above all others, made Doctor Franklin the most amiable of men in society, ‘never to contradict anybody.’” Jefferson reveals that the wise man avoids political argument because it is indecorous and needlessly divisive. Though today’s politicians are less likely to duel one another over perceived slights, the modern political sphere is far more caustic and impassioned than that of Jefferson’s day. This change—driven by a tendency to view all issues as questions of morality—has hurt the political and dialectic processes, inhibiting good government and discourse. By acknowledging that people act rationally in response to incentives, the economic way of thinking can solve this problem. In revealing how it might do so, it is helpful to outline a historical narrative of American discourse. In The Ethics of Rhetoric, Richard Weaver describes “God terms”: words that have vague meanings but strong positive associations. They change over time, reflecting cultural shifts. A modern God-term is ‘Organic’; it means “grown without pesticides” but it connotes natural, healthy, and environmentallyfriendly. In policy discussions, people refer to God-

terms as they would an authority. For example, a government program is better if it is more likely to yield Prosperity. One can differentiate particular eras by their God-terms, which can be helpful in creating a historical narrative. In the time of the Founding, two of the Godterms were ‘Liberty’ and ‘Reason’. Americans were also highly interested in limited, constitutional government. Common interpretation of the Constitution restricted government to occasional interaction with the private sphere. As such, most politics and policies dealt with the function of government, like a Bank of the United States to hold federal funds. Political discourse was civil because the topics were impersonal; government regulated itself and attended to foreign policy. Politics only hit home when sailors were impressed or the government tried to tax whiskey. Strict interpretation of the Constitution waned over time, and the federal government grew more intrusive. Some of the old God-terms disappeared, so from the late nineteenth century to the middle of the twentieth century ‘Liberty’ had to compete with ‘Progress’ and ‘Science’. Proponents of federal expansion justified their policies by appealing to Progress, and the ever-practical political Science supplanted politics as the study of man in society. As the scope of government widened, regulation

of industry—and, by extension, livelihood— became standard practice. When policy can strike one’s pocketbook, political discourse becomes far more personal. As political discussion heated up, Americans found that not everyone shared the same God-terms. With different sources of authority in their word-choice, philosophical leaders developed religious- and moral arguments to give authority to their policies. In this venture they succeeded, because the vast majority of Americans shared their higher moral authority. Today, ‘Diversity’ and ‘Freedom’ have replaced ‘Progress’ and ‘Liberty’ as American God-terms, while governmental policies now touch all aspects of life. All citizens are minorities or special interests of some sort, which makes most political points seem like personal attacks. Further, ‘Freedom’ is less precise than ‘Liberty’, and has several equally-vague senses. Thus, when Americans pursue arguments from authority, they appeal to God-terms that differ. Failing there, they turn to higher authority. That highest appeal to authority also fails, however, because during the last century Americans slowly lost their shared moral and religious beliefs. Society fragments as people with common Godterms and shared morality circle the wagons against their opponents. While policies once had universallyrecognized purposes, now successive administrations must debate and implement policies with teloi based on God-terms from other sub-cultures. In the absence of shared morality, relativism takes hold: each man his own moral authority. Unable to discuss in common terms and holding roughly equal moral authority, debaters must leave the realm of logos. To use the descriptions from Aristotle’s Rhetoric, they are left with two options: appealing to pathos by seeking the sympathy or pity of their audience and attempting to undermine the ethos of their opponents. Ultimately, political discourse degrades into anecdotal evidence and ad hominem attack. Further, there is a growing tendency to view all issues as moral dichotomies. Because each person thinks the moral belief true to him is universal Truth, those on the other side of the dichotomy strive to spread the False, the Immoral, the Evil. From that view and attacks on ethos comes the myth of monstrous, evil opponents with an agenda of evil, which just exacerbates the problems of modern

morality political discourse. Though economics can be a dismal, heartless science, its manner of thinking can actually humanize political discourse. Where the moral view creates dichotomies of good and evil, Economics reveals that no rational person would support something he finds morally abhorrent, because morality takes precedent over prudence. Immorality is an enormous disincentive to action; no one actively, intentionally promotes Evil. There is no liberal conspiracy trying to destroy the family, indoctrinate children, and make everyone dependent on government. Instead, rational people who wholly believe that they are doing Good promote marriage equality, effective public education, and basic human rights. The economic approach breaks the moral dichotomy and grants perspective. It forces one to discover how others think, which is the first step toward understanding their beliefs. Engaging with and understanding the beliefs of one’s opposition is the heart of dialectic; one cannot find the Truth in opposed arguments if those who disagree are loathsome foes. Further, if one seeks Truth only in one’s own philosophy, without logos interaction with other views, one is likely to miss nuance and Truth in one’s own views, bogged down in the number of angels on a pin. When one understands the views of one opponents, one can grow to understand their Godterms and their morality. By using their own terms to press at tensions and doubts, one can convince them that a different policy is superior. After one changes their opinion on number of issues, they will join one’s camp. Only at that point can one advance up the persuasive ladder, closer to their core philosophy: Person Values/Principles Beliefs Attitude Action/Policy The economic view, then, is the lynchpin of political discourse; without it, rhetorical and philosophical advancements are nearly impossible. Only by adopting it and engaging with our opponents can we return to limited and shared policies, shared God-terms, and shared morality. F 9

Books Versus Movies

By: Anna Wunderlich — Featured Essayist

veryone loves The Princess Bride. Fencing, fighting, torture, revenge, giants, monsters, chases, escapes, true love, and miracles abound—it has all the elements of a truly great story. But did you know that The Princess Bride is based on a book? It’s not the only movie to be based on a book; The Godfather, Forrest Gump, Schindler’s List, the James Bond franchise are all based on books. In fact, some thirty percent of the most popular movie franchises are based on books. This statistic may seem disproportionate, but the reason behind it is simple. Books are better than movies. Something which is better is “more good” than another thing, and, as Aristotle claims in the Nicomachean Ethics, a good thing makes people happy. Fiction exists for two purposes: to entertain and (more importantly) to edify the soul. As a form of rhetoric, good fiction, no matter the format, entertains and edifies the soul. The better one is the one that accomplishes this more successfully. As far as entertainment is concerned, movies have two considerable advantages over books: they are easier to consume and more economical. As the old adage goes, “a picture is worth a thousand words.” Humans are primarily visual creatures—a full sixtyfive percent of the population are visual learners, which is why Windows has transformed into a heavygraphic, light-text operating system. Movies present a bouquet of visual stimulation that the audience

3 10

only need sit on their couch and ingest. This massive dose of stimulation does not cause increased mental activity, only increased alertness, meaning that while the brain is more active while watching television, this activity is unfocused. Because movies are a passive form of entertainment, the audience does not have to exert their mental energy in order to understand the story. This passive entertainment makes movies more readily consumable than books. You can either spend two days reading the three hundred fifty-some pages of Pride and Prejudice, or you can spend two hours on the 2005 movie—in the end, you’ll come out with the same basic story: Elizabeth Bennet meets Mr. Darcy, at first she thinks he’s an insufferable snob, but eventually she changes her mind. Most people are economical creatures; they will choose whatever gets them the most bang for their buck. Since movies are easier to consume, people naturally prefer them to books. While books may not entertain as easily as movies, they are still superior because they edify the soul. This edification is accomplished through the three elements of narrative, as laid out in Aristotle’s Rhetoric: audience, message, and speaker. Good fiction is balanced between these three elements: it involves the audience, creates realistic plot and context, and contains well-developed characters. First, books force the audience to actively think,

process, and interpret information. According to a recent study by Stanford neurologists, reading increases the flow of blood to the brain, which in turn increases attention span. Furthermore, reading allows the audience to actively participate in the story by imagining the locations, characters, and other such aspects of the story that movies provide for their audience. Thus, books are better able to involve the audience in the story. Not only are books able to involve the audience in the story, they can create a better, more realistic context. The setting of Pride and Prejudice is the highly structured society of eighteenth-century England. This setting creates the premise and conflict for the entire story: why and how a girl finds a socially and financially suitable husband. The book sets this up very clearly from the first line, “It is a truth universally

fiction

explaining the reflections of her various characters, in particular those of Mr. Darcy and Lizzy. In the movie, the audience only catches glimpses of how Mr. Darcy becomes attracted to Lizzy—a lingering glance, a close-up on her face, a remark on her “fine eyes.” In the book, however, the audience learns that Mr. Darcy finds after a few days of Lizzy’s company that he is too attracted to her for his own liking, and that he intentionally tries to avoid her, only to find himself struggling not to stare at her. The movie shows nothing of this developing attraction. Furthermore, without the introspection of the interior monologue, characters in movies become nonsensical and even appear irrational. This is most clearly evident through Lizzy’s change of heart regarding Mr. Darcy. In the movie, the audience is shown that Lizzy does not like Mr. Darcy at all “FICTION EXISTS FOR TWO because he seems proud. H o w e v e r, PURPOSES: TO ENTERTAIN AND TO EDIFY THE Lizzy goes SOUL.” from hating acknowledged, him at the time of his that a single man in possession of a good fortune proposal to making puppy dog eyes when she meets must be in want of a wife.” This rigid class structure him at Pemberley. This makes no sense. In the book, moves key plot points, particularly Wickham’s poor this change of heart begins after Lizzy sees Mr. character and Lydia’s unseemly marriage. The 2005 Darcy with his friends at Pemberley and realizes movie never explains this rigid social structure that his pride is merely a facade for his shyness. The beyond a few passing comments about the Bennet book’s superior ability to create realistic characters family being poor, and the audience is left to wonder is even more evident in the pivotal scene where why the Bennet girls cannot simply marry as they Lizzy discovers that Mr. Darcy helped ensure Lydia’s please. The book better explains the impropriety marriage. In the movie, the audience has the shocked of a woman marrying outside of her station in life. look on Keira Knightly’s inarticulate face. In the book, This lack of background is not the only plot hole the audience learns that Lizzy is not only shocked, in the movie—other scenes are just as lacking in but wondering why he was at such a disreputable background information. It is clear that books allow wedding and conjecturing why he might have been for more and better context than movies. there, finally coming to the conclusion that he cannot Finally, books allow for better, more rounded be as proud as she thought him to be. Thus, Lizzy’s characters than movies. The reason for this is simple: change of heart towards Mr. Darcy is better explained the interior monologue. In the movie, there is simply in the book than in the movie. no good way to transfer the thought processes of Though movies more easily entertain an audience, the characters to the audience. The audience may books more successfully edify the soul. Movies are watch what a character is doing, or they can listen easy and economical to consume. However, books to what a character says, but they cannot see or hear are better than movies. They better involve the a character’s thoughts. The book, on the other hand, audience through active participation, they create allows the reader to “get inside the head” of the more complete context and plot, and they contain character and understand the reasoning behind their more realistic and consistent characters. F behavior. Jane Austen spends considerable space

11 3

Who Would Jesus Deport? By: Haley Halverson — Featured Essayist

oes the Bible call all Christians to abandon the enforcement of immigration laws? The potential economic, cultural, and national security threats posed by illegal immigration fuel the common conservative conviction that all undocumented workers ought to be brought to justice. Yet often believers instinctively support a political view, assuming it is Biblical, before they test it against precepts laid out in Scripture. On closer examination, the question “Who Would Jesus Deport” does not have a clean three-point packaged answer but instead requires a nuanced and submissive practice of study and prayer. The Old Testament says, “When a foreigner lives with you in your land, you must not oppress him. You must regard the foreigner who lives with you as the native-born among you. You are to love him as yourself, for you were foreigners in the land of Egypt; I am the LORD your God” (Lv. 19:33-4 Holman Christian Standard Bible). Further, in the New Testament, Jesus refers to welcoming strangers in a parable where the king says “Truly I say to you, as you did for one of the least of these brothers of Mine, you did it for Me” (Mt. 25:40 HCSB).

3 12

Treating the foreigners amongst us like “nativeborn” citizens, let alone as we would treat Jesus Himself, is not the first thing you hear from most Christian conservatives discussing illegal immigration. These verses, and several others, seem to convict individual believers to stop lobbying, petitioning, or even fully enforcing immigration laws. Beyond a humanitarian level, the Bible also addresses the practical threats posed by illegal immigration. Psalm 33 reads: “The Lord frustrates the counsel of the nations… The counsel of the Lord stands forever, the plans of His heart from generation to generation” (10-1 HCSB). Should Christians allow fears for national security instead of trust in God’s ultimate plan and will to drive their political actions? But the thought of trusting God with the dangers of illegal immigration and abandoning any enforcement of immigration laws is alarming to many Christians; there are several arguments against the above interpretation of Scripture. One such argument is based on the word “foreigner” in Leviticus 19. Some claim that the word ger in Hebrew is translated into English in ways that confuse its actual meaning. Sometimes ger is written as “stranger,” and other times as “foreigner” or “sojourner” depending on the

translation. However, these are unclear definitions. James Hoffmeier, a professor of Old Testament at Trinity International University, states that ger specifically is a newcomer in a country who has obtained a certain legal status and must obey the laws. While other scholars, including members of the interfaith organization Odyssey Networks, disagree with this interpretation, it is an academically respected view that Leviticus 19:33-34 is at peace with immigration laws. Further, the Bible is clear in Romans 13 that Christians must yield to the laws of their government, so long as it does not contradict God’s law. Specifically, Paul states that “Everyone must submit to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except from God, and those that exist are instituted by God. So then, the one who resists the authority is opposing God’s command, and those who oppose it will bring judgment on themselves” (13:1-2 HCSB). Since scripture never expressly declares immigration laws immoral, many believe it is just to enforce and advocate for them. While these arguments tend to give conservative Christians more wiggle room in their opinions, several gray areas remain. Jesus still tells His followers to realize that “as you did for one of the least of these brothers of Mine, you did it for Me.” Christians are repeatedly told to care for the sick, the poor, and the lonely without any regard to social status in the community (Mt. 10.8,1 Mt. 5:44,2 James 1.273). Caring for an illegal immigrant by tending to their health, lending them money, and establishing a loving relationship doesn’t seem to coincide with obeying the law and reporting someone to Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

faith One possible solution to resolve these different positions is the concept of separate spheres of responsibility. On a macro level, a Christian must obey the just laws of the government. So then a Christian can vote or petition for more strict immigration laws, or even enforce the laws if they are a member of the appropriate government agency. These actions are all part of a duty to citizenship. Nevertheless, on a micro level a Christian must work to love and spread the Gospel to all people no matter their class or status. This requires an attitude of grace instead of suspicion. Instead of distancing oneself from the immigrant community, it means actively engaging with it and serving its members as individuals and fellow children of God. Separate spheres of responsibility do not immediately resolve all conflict between these two views, but that 1makes considering these topics all the more important. In the first chapter of his book, The Four Loves, C. S. Lewis writes, “…we all know now that this love [patriotism] becomes a demon when it becomes a god. Some begin to suspect that it is never anything but a demon” (22). Often Christians on both sides of the political spectrum become entranced with patriotism or pet political issues and find themselves clinging to those ideas more ferociously than the Word of God. Although the Sermon on the Mount doesn’t include a subsection on undocumented workers, it is clear that political beliefs must not be held religiously. Ultimately, Scripture calls for prayerful reflection and submission of patriotism and politics to the one, true King. F

“JESUS STILL TELLS HIS FOLLOWERS TO REALIZE THAT ‘AS YOU DID FOR ONE OF THE LEAST OF THESE BROTHERS OF MINE, YOU DID IT FOR ME.”’

Matthew 10:8: Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse those with skin diseases, drive out demons. You have received free of charge; give free of charge. 2 Matthew 5:44: But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you… 3 James 1:27: Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself unstained by the world.

breathing easy v NATALIE deMACEDO

Compiled by: Walker Mulley Photography: Laurie Barnes HOW DO YOU FEEL ABOUT SMOKING? I think smoking is dangerous, I think it is gross, and I think that it is a harm to most people. Or all people, for that matter. Especially babies.

WHY? Smoking regularly can take 14 years off of your life. That’s a huge chunk of life that you’re losing, and that you’re losing with your family members. I feel like that in and of itself, that fact right there is enough that should make people who smoke say, “Wow! I should stop doing this,” because what could you do with those 14 years of your life, that you’re going to lose because you decided that “Hey, I wanna smoke a pack a day.”

ANYTHING ELSE? I think it’s unattractive. And specifically I’m talking about smoking cigarettes. People smoke cigars, which I don’t think is as smart, but I don’t think you can make the same health arguments per se as you could for cigarettes in particular.

y s

HOW DO YOU FEEL ABOUT SMOKING? It’s a good hobby. It’s something, like anything, that should be done in moderation. It does have health risks but the big thing is there’s a huge difference between cigarette smoking and pipe and cigar smoking—two different sets of health risks and different reasons to smoke. It’s really two different hobbies. Someone who’s smoking cigarettes is trying to get a nicotine hit, and that’s why they get addicted—you’re inhaling through the lungs. Pipes and cigars, it’s a hobby. It’s just like enjoying wine or enjoying good food. There are health risks associated with those, too. There are health risks with alcohol. Good food—you can get obesity and cholesterol problems. All good food is very unhealthy. So, pipes and cigars— it’s about flavor and relaxing. Just the fact that you have take the time to sit down and enjoy a pipe or cigar, which is anywhere from 30 minutes to two hours, depending on the pipe, depending on the cigar—that’s taking time out of your day. It’s relaxing. It actually has very positive health effects when it comes to stress levels, heart health, and whatnot, so, for me, it’s something I do, that I enjoy, that is also social.

AUSTIN COLLINS

v s smoking m a c k d o w n ANYTHING ELSE ?

I will say I really like this campus, and how we’re allowed to smoke here, even if it’s not in the buildings. I think that makes perfect sense, partly because it’s a law.

RY O T S ORT

Relic By: Anonymous

-Nothin’ like losin a tooth, said Lance. Cole examined his cupped hands, sieving away the blood through his fingers. He spat pink phlegm into the brassy lake and watched it bob against the side of the canoe, watched it melt away from itself and dissipate in the water. -Goddamn, he agreed. Lance had laid down his pole and grimaced at his brother. Afternoon sun gleamed lurid off the ripples. -Big sumbitch though, said Lance. -Sure. -Shame to lose im. Cole tried to respond but it came out bloodthick and incoherent and he spat again over the gunwale. -What? -We can’t keep usin that shitty line or we’ll snap ever time. -You bought it. -For you. The wind was picking up and their canoe arced slowly around to face it. Regiments of submerged pine stretched their brittle fingers offshore. A pair of buzzards spread their lank wings and basked on the dead limbs, sunlight filtering through their parasitethinned feathers as they raised their raw throats to catch the last rays. The mudbanks were high and desiccated with myriad cracks spidering down to the low waterline, where a coagulate layer of dying string algae stilled incoming ripples. -Wanna head in? Cole held his cheek. Squinted out at the lake. -Not while he still out there. -Well alright. How’s your mouth? -Aches. Bite me another sinker. Lance looked up, doubtful. -Sun’s gettin low. -Then swim back, Lancelot. They stayed out and fished until the color drained out of the pine hills. Lance rowed back while Cole let his sad little mess of bream wriggle behind on the stringer. The reefs of horizon clouds proffered their redness to the still water, and by this spare trail between the black and rippling trees they

! NER

IN W T ES

CON

3 16

glided shoreward. When they reached the shallows they stopped to watch the day expire. Cole trailed his fingers in the water, letting the refraction break each one as it entered. A dying bream drifted by his nails and gasped slow and blankeyed. He watched its brindled dorsal oscillate strange and fluid and rhythmic. -Cole. Cole. He turned. Lance was leaning over the gunwale and the boat rocked gently. Cole whispered a response but his brother did not move. He carefully swung his legs around and peered over Lance’s side. At first he saw nothing in the dusky waters, but the shadows gradually sifted apart. He could see a wooden beam furred with algae and grime receding into silty darkness, a few minnows darting. He was about to ask what the matter was when he saw a deeper shape. It was strange, oblique, fleeting, but he caught something down there, some decaying sign of artifice. The slats of boards and the curve of a handrail. A pair of lean bass wove through the supports. The subtle gradations of dark began to clarify into a structure of curious geometry. It was a whole damn porch, muttering streams of bubbles up to dimple the surface. Cole saw something else, and blinked. His eyes settled on the head and neck of a whitetail buck emerging from between two broken handrail supports and stuck there, suspended in frantic vandalism. Its forelegs jutted out before it. Tattered rags of algae waved from the antlers. Minnows and perch traversed its eye sockets like sheltered avenues, nibbling at swaying strings of flesh. Its lips were gone and it grinned out at the haze. Minnows kissed its teeth. Bream tugged at dissolving patches of fur. Cole spat blood and there was a flat slap and ripples distorted the scene back into anonymity. He reached down and released the little mess of bream, running the stringer needle back out of their gills, but they yawed belly-up in the tiny currents and arced sleepy and graceful into the opaque. The two bass torpedoed after. The brothers stirred the surface with their paddles without looking down. Cole’s blood spun down and disappeared in the whirlpools and eddies. Stars chipped away into the dusk. They pushed away from that shore and rowed home. F

Ripples By: Ethan Showler

t first they appear as a pair of trees, limbs criscrossing and wound around each other, fused together by the natural progress of time and nearness until they had grown, one into the other. Trunks and limbs. No heads or even faces visible because the waterfall veil of her hair, silk strands of night, shade them both. Their stillness is refusal. Refusal against the crowd of passengers drifting through the terminal in a slow current to the small door which leads to a small way, a small seat, and then to everywhere and for him and her, to nowhere in particular but away. Refusal to step into the flow of people, there signifying and embodying the flow of time that for them has abruptly, though with bitter anticipation, split into two streams, dividing left and right into two different rivers, then two different oceans of time. Time for him—and time is never bereft of place and therefore tied to and therefore forever mobile—shifting off, and away from her, puddling into a massy drop in the ocean of human lives, miles and leagues away from the drop that is her time here on land, her time accumulated and collected from the small bright stream, whisper-thin that started with a brief, infantile squall and grew wider with the trickle of moments: sundress, brown hair lightening in August, freckles dotting both cheeks, dirty, child’s feet; torn jeans, hair darker now, falling in a sheet around her face, and the blush of her cheeks as she says yes and moves to take his hand; hair dark as deep night, smiling at the unexpected shock of sudden love; hair an ink cascade that covers them, now, from the world of strange eyes that do not look only because they are busy scanning seat numbers. The streams begin to pull apart, constant speed measured in moment heartbeats felt echoed in two chests at once, molecules of water, brief neighbors in the run-off of days and weeks, pull apart. Limbs unwind like the slow growth of time played backward, slower every moment until just the tips of fingers are touching, identity meshed still, now, here only in the prints interlocking, freezing. A beat. They hope a little. Time may look away, he may not see. Frozen still as the crowd drains out into the long passage away. We might stay. Like this. Only just the tips of

SHORT STORY

our fingers touching and we will never move and will be happy. And then the grainy squawk declares, “Zone 2 will board, Zone 2,” and both inhale and would take it back because that breath has started time again for them and the friction of their gaze slips and their fingers slip and he falls back into the crowd and pulls away toward the long tunnel into the sky and he is wiping his eyes, left then right and she hasn’t moved and he turns back to see and walks and turns again, eyes demanding that the crowd part, that he see her and he does and is swept down the tunnel into the air and she pauses. Stuck. The last threads, strong as love, sing in the tension. And then very softly, snap. And she walks, and her head follows the progress of her feet on the ground and her face disappears, because the waterfall veil of her hair, silk strands of night, shade her. And then with the simple, absurd perfection of a Monday, the flight delays. The obscurity of a single wire, switch, some fuse in the bowels of the mind of the plane, breaks. The exhaust temperature gauge refuses the flow of heat across its sensors, remaining still in the face of the demands of the order of things. And two small streams of moments, carried on the ripples from the tiny rock of an ornery temperature gauge, intertwine, arms grasping, eyes and lips locking, heartbeats matching again in the mirrored rhythm of each other, and then, laughing, un-frozen in a moment that continues to stretch and bubble around them as they move, they begin to run down the terminal for him to catch another flight away… but away is in the next moment, and this one stretches out still, into a single, perfect, stream. F

RUNNER-UP

17 3

continued from page 4 happens when one gives such a map to someone who lacks the ability and vocabulary to interpret it? Would not the unfortunate alien soon become the victim of cultural and semantic disorientation? The point which must be stressed in this broad oversimplification is that from each application of ideas an implied tradition follows—one based in the real world, on the facts. If a group of individuals in a similar culture fail to see the origin of such meaning, they lose far more than culture: they lose themselves. What, then, must a conservative do with dear principles in the face of modernity’s inevitable assault? Some might suggest a form of collectivism to preserve and guide our ideals, while others propose the abandonment of preservation altogether and recklessly pursue forward momentum. Is not the conservative pragmatist the best prepared to confront the future’s problems? Understanding meaning’s origin in the vocabulary of discourse and what is required to employ a meaningful vocabulary, the

conservative pragmatist reconciles current problems through constant reference and assimilation to held knowledge. For this pragmatic understanding, tradition and free thought become not only elements, but requirements for the survival of culture. You may reject this form of Pragmatism, but do so gently and charitably. Remember that when the guiding principles for society are removed from their moral context and given absolute status in themselves, freedom will inevitably fall to totalitarianism. The insidious attraction of idealist philosophy common in collectivist states comes not from pragmatism rightly considered, but a vulgar pragmatism cloaked as absolute, unquestionable truth—a false, static, and collective knowledge guiding all mankind towards a hopeful future and perfection. For preserving American principle, we need merely push beyond the games of debate and meaningfully rely on what works. F

Gold in the Library

review

By: Lauren Wierenga — Head Designer

n “Books versus Movies” (page 10) Anna Wunderlich argued that books are a superior form of fiction to movies. We won’t bother summarizing her arguement here (go read it!), but instead offer for consideration a different persepective on what makes a work of fiction good. Anna writes about the ability of truly great books to sway the soul and fulfill the true purpose of fiction—here’s a short piece on a movie that does nothing of the sort, but at least one person thinks is worh watching anyway. F Have you ever noticed that few of the library’s movies are worth watching (aside from the Star Wars DVDs that are scratched enough to take on a new life as postmodern art)? The other day, while thumbing through the DVDs and trying in vain to find something worthwhile to watch, I stumbled upon a little-known classic: Wild at Heart starring Nicholas Cage. I’m sure we can all agree that Nicholas Cage’s terrible “acting” skills are only surpassed by Keanu Reeves’, but the two shine on as Hollywood’s example of two actors who somehow manage to find parts despite having the emotional range of a toothpick. Just the name of the film, a reference to Nicholas Cage himself, was enough to immediately dumbfound me as I pulled it from the shelf. The movie was a perfect storm of everything that shouldn’t have ever happened in a movie, but then somehow did. It is about a couple from North Carolina who goes on the run from the heroine’s domineering mother, who hires the mob to kill Nicholas Cage (staring as a man named “Sailor”). The best part: how seriously the actors took themselves when we’re talking about Nicholas in a snakeskin coat ravishing a “hot babe.” This is about as natural of a combination

as a porcupine preforming CPR on a balloon animal underwater…on the moon. It should never ever have been done, and heaven knows why it was produced in the first place. To add to the ludicrous nature of the movie, in a later interview Cage said that he was “always attracted to those passionate, almost unbridled romantic characters, and Sailor had that more than any other role I’d played.” If seeing Nick Cage attempt to be “unbridled” and “romantic” in a snakeskin jacket doesn’t sound like the height of movie magic, I don’t know what does. Questions like, “who wrote this script,” “who in the blazes was in charge of casting,” and “why would somebody actually spend money to make this,” can be saved for later. A moment needs to be spent on the contemplation of just how ridiculous Cage looks in this film. The star of the show is clearly his chest hair. It is like an untamed beast crawling up his chest and out of his black t-shirt. And if that didn’t already make you throw up a little, look at his overly inflated moistened lips, and his eyebrow(s) about three hairs away from touching. Who can take this man, this acting career, this movie, or that less-than-attractive, trying-way-too-hard-tolook-sexy babe in his arms seriously? This movie is a travesty not only in terms of the film industry, but in terms of its complete flippancy towards even directing a friendly nod to the true, the good, and the beautiful. So, the next time that you’re in the mood for a good laugh, or, for that matter, in the mood to see a tragedy, pick up Wild At Heart. Because we all know that the only thing wilder than Nicolas Cage’s heart is…well…everything. Chest hair excluded. Call number: 0770. 19

Hillsdale’s

Hunk

TRANSFER STUDENT EDITION

and

Compiled by Savannah Tibbetts

Hottie Alex graham

of the month

Junior, biology Major

Junior, Enlgish Major IF YOU COULD CHOOSE ANYBODY TO BE ON THE COVER OF TIME MAGAZINE FOR PERSON OF THE YEAR, WHO WOULD IT BE & WHY?

IF YOU COULD CHOOSE ANYBODY TO BE ON THE COVER OF TIME

The brilliant Vladamir Putin. He benevolently governs a bastion of liberty.

Dr. Gamble because he is super fly and I generally love whatever he says/does/thinks.

IF YOU HAD TO TAKE A POLITICIAN ON A DATE, WHO WOULD IT BE, WHERE WOULD YOU GO, AND WHY?

I would take Vladamir Putin to the Rainforest Café, and try to get a table by a mechanized tiger display.

Probably Rand Paul because of his luscious locks and accent. We would go to a food truck in L.A. and eat some Mexican food and chat about politics because I like SoCal, Mexican food, & chatting. It would be pretty romantic & delicious… despite that elephant in the room of his wife & children.

CREWNECKS OR HOODIES? Definitely hoodies. Having a bad day? Throw on the hood; it’s instant comfort. Having a good day? Throw on the hood; it’ll amp up your swagger. Find yourself caught in the rain/hail/tornado? No problem, you have a hood.

CREWNECKS OR HOODIES? Crewnecks. But I would definitely layer those guys.

IF YOU WOKE UP FROM A 10-YEAR COMA & YOU FOUND OUT YOU WERE MARRIED TO CHANNING TATUM, HOW WOULD YOU REACT?

I would go back to sleep. Or: I would drive away in Bumblebee. Or: I would have my Camaro transform into an Autobot, and have him put her in a coma. My parting remark to her would be “tag off!”

I’d roll with it.

Gender Studies. I have a deep respect for their careful attention to the Biblical understanding of masculinity and femininity.

MAGAZINE FOR PERSON OF THE YEAR, WHO WOULD IT BE & WHY?

IF YOU WOKE UP FROM A 10-YEAR COMA & YOU FOUND OUT YOU WERE MARRIED TO MEGAN FOX, HOW WOULD YOU REACT?

THEY SAY THAT SOMEBODY’S PERSONALITY CAN EITHER MAKE OR BREAK THEIR LOOKS. ARE THERE ANY PARTICULARLY HAWT MAJORS OR MINORS?

Carly Hubbard

THEY SAY THAT SOMEBODY’S PERSONALITY CAN EITHER MAKE OR BREAK THEIR LOOKS. ARE THERE ANY PARTICULARLY HAWT MAJORS OR MINORS? To quote Ashton Kutcher, “Smart is the new sexy.” I think the English major has a certain mysterious aura around it. But that BioChem major usually leads to a job, which is pretty hawt. There is also something a bit elusive about the Finance major—nobody actually knows what they do but they make a lot of money.

Tragically Hip By Sarah Albers — Columnist

his is a new regular feature for The Hillsdale Forum, taking the place of our “Professor’s iPod” feature of years past. Sarah Albers ran a music blog for several years before giving it all up to… study, or whatever it is Hillsdale students do that takes all their free time. We hope to receive many tidbits of smarmy hipsterness from our new contributor, and we hope you enjoy our venture into what will be, like, so overplayed in six months. When I’m not taking up space editorializing, this space will be hers to have her way with, and yours to look forward to. Enjoy! —Chris McCaffery, Managing Editor

Track Recomendations • RAC remix of MSMR’s “Think of You” • Superhumanoids cover of NIN “March of the Pigs” • Beats Antique cover (feat. Charles Butler) of Daft Punk’s “Get Lucky” • Say Lou Lou cover of Tame Impala’s “Feels Like We Only Go Backwards” • Phantogram’s new single “Black Out Days”

Album Review: Reflektor If Arcade Fire does one thing well, it’s getting buzz going. For proof, look no further than what has happened recently: David Bowie appears in the video for the lead single, “Reflektor.” James Murphy (of LCD Soundsystem) produced the album. Celebrity guests were everywhere the night that Arcade Fire appeared on Saturday Night Live to perform “Reflektor.” They even made an interactive music video. Whether critics love it, hate it, or are just giving it a token nod in order to maintain their precious indie cred, everyone has been talking about the Reflektor campaign. Publicity started ramping up at the end of August, when the mysterious Reflektor logo began appearing internationally as street art. It then went viral. Arcade Fire confirmed on August 26th that they were the artist connected with the guerilla marketing by releasing the lead single and album art. Now the question remains, though: was it worth it? The single itself is a

sprawling, experimental track that reflects James Murphy’s significant creative influence. Arcade Fire’s original work was organic, spacious; Murphy brings a modern, more clipped energy to the table. The resultant style is not altogether foreign for Arcade Fire fans, but neither is it familiar. As with all departures from formula, there are a few false notes. Some criticize what they see to be cliché-ridden songwriting. Others take fault with the vast and meandering song structure. But despite this glut of criticism, fans and critics turn time and again to the universal accessibility of Arcade Fire. The band may have changed its aesthetic, but the message of the band is still the same. They are just as real and vulnerable and human now as they ever were. F

Album Review: Bad Blood Bastille rocketed from obscurity to number one status in under three years, supporting acts like Emeli Sande and Muse, performing at the Reading and Leeds festivals, and finally—and most recently—releasing a full-length album titled Bad Blood. This meteoric rise is certainly nothing to snuff at, but if you

are looking for originality, you might be better off listening to someone else. The album, much like the lead single, “Pompeii,” is catchy, listenable, and insanely conducive to blogger buzz. Earnest act of artistry? No. Car dancing music? Absolutely. F 21 3

satire By: Andy Reuss — Columnist

Course Catalogue

What if Harry Potter is Real?

believe notion of reality? Are you ready to ed ceiv con pre ry eve and any lose Are you ready to may be able . While Appalachian State University you for s clas ng wro the is this so, If in magic? Potter tales, too few s of the possible truth of the Harry to offer a course on the implication rrogation seen the movies, to make such an inte ne alo let es, seri the d rea e hav s ent Hillsdale stud witchcraft if it were theory and methods of eradicating the uss disc l wil we , tead Ins e. sibl pos cticed by adolescents or the elderly. found in America, particularly if pra

of Dramatic Cross-Dressing Interrogating Gender: Centuries , will focus on the rich tradition of cross-dressing lege ics course, first offered at Swarthmore Col

ant This in their comedies to the flighty Rom eks Gre t ien anc the m Fro ld. wor in the Western g list includes a nts Buchanan and Taft), the readin side Pre n eve d (an re ratu lite an ope of Eur anding of the lesserwill give the student a familiar underst treasure of transgender sources that ition, here at tradition: and aren’t we all about trad It’s e. itag her an Rom coGre the of known side Hillsdale College?

Street-Fighting Mathematics

snap. When that it’s only a matter of time until you w kno all We . ent stud lege Col le lsda You’re a Hil any confrontation es of giving you a fighting chance in hop the in red offe is rse cou this do, ording you Through the MIT-inspired analysis acc d. min of e stat d dle -ad arts ral libe r you start in you level of the most to street-fight will improve from the lity abi r you s, tern pat l tica ma be the to ma school valedictorian. (It’s Hillsdale, let’s lic pub st ghe tou the of t tha to ler lovable home-schoo thugs in this school.) honest – there are no street-fighting

Taking Marx Seriously

not even a comedy ously. Amherst might offer this, but ...Hahahaha! Sorry, I can’t take this seri would take Marx seriously. article can say that Hillsdale College

Knitting for Noobs

e s (homemaking and mocking overus ent stud le lsda Hil of es tim pas rite Combining two favo grateful for t the men of the College are forever tha ure ens l wil rse cou this g), slan of popular of scarf, shawl, and study and practice of the ancient art nse inte An rts. rpa nte cou ale fem ir ed and the ay, and Koon will be truly well-round low Gal n, pso Sim from en hm fres sock-making, in of this class, ition to the Core Curriculum. The orig add new this of lt resu a as ed ver well-co life-saving skill as much as our beloved this iate rec app er nev l wil , lege Col al Oberlin Experiment Hillsdale will.

Learning from YouTube

l be ular video-sharing site, students wil pop st mo ld’s wor the of n atio min Throughout this exa ic viewing of crastination habits. In addition to bas pro ed rain -ing ady alre ir the in d encourage students can garner l hold contests to determine which a video user-generated content, the class wil an argument over the Internet, find win ely ctiv effe nt, me com a on the most “likes” section. Unlike s from a sketchy link in the comment viru a ad nlo dow and l, vira s goe it before ght by the oldest and least tech-savvy tau be l wil le lsda Hil at rse cou the , Pitzer College, though oughout the over humanity sure to be found thr r pai des the te tiva cul to er ord in professor students’ wanderings of YouTube. F

Spotlight on on Novellists Spotlight Actors Compiled by Chris McCaffery Compiled by LorrinPhotos Cruz by Jacob Shalkhauser Photos by Laurie Barnes and Caroline Green

Peter Kistler

Pat D’Amato

David Krueger

What do you enjoy about theater? I’m always excited by the opportunity to get onstage and bring a story to life for people. There’s a conception, especially in the 21st century, I think, that movies and TV are more convenient outlets for that kind of experience, but being in a room with these living characters and being able to watch their reactions--whether I’m acting with them or watching them, is always rewarding for me. How has performing influenced you as a person? Studying acting has definitely made me a better communicator. A big part of performance is paying close attention to the people you’re working with, and responding to what you get from them. The acting I’ve done has made me much better able to read people and generally get along with them. Doing anything in the theatre is such a great way to meet new people and have fun with them. Do you see the performing arts as part of your future? Absolutely. Theatre is my only major and is the field in which I’m going to be looking for jobs after graduation. Whether or not I end up there for life is going to depend on what opportunities come my way. I’m looking forward to getting out in the world and seeing what I find. I will always be making theatre, though, whether I’m paid to or not.

What roles do you typically play or would like to play? Mostly character roles, right now I’m basically playing a fat, stupid, drunk person so that’s pretty fun. In general though, I don’t really do main roles, but supporting ones. What significant or impactful theater experiences have you had? I would have to say going to Stratford for the first time. They put on a production for Waiting for Godot, by Samuel Beckett; we read that here but watching it at Stratford was so much more incredible because it brought a whole new level of meaning to the play. I was speechless and couldn’t believe what an amazing job they’d done. This was definitely a reminder of why I love to do theater. What advice do you have for those who would like to be involved in theater? Just audition. Don’t worry about not being cast, take any role you can, with backstage or crew, there’s definitely room to be involved and the people in this program are so incredible, it’s worth it to put yourself out there.

How did you become involved in theater? I’ve been doing choir since I was in sixth grade, and since then it’s just been something I’ve enjoyed doing. I went to a big public school and so we were lucky in that we had quite a bit of funds for the theater department, and so we were able to put on a couple of pretty big performances. I’ve gone from choir into musicals into acting workshops; last year Aaron Sandford and I helped Missy Osmond run opera shop and we’re continuing that now, which I enjoy. What is your favorite play? It would have to be Joseph and the Amazing Technicolored Dreamcoat. I saw that with my family when I was very little and since it was the first show I watched, it has some sentimental value. Is there anybody in particular that motivates or inspires you? Well nobody in my family is really that involved in music, but I’m really grateful for the fact that my parents have come to all of my performances. Like when our school did Les Mis, I think there were eight shows, and they came to all of them. I want to make my parents proud; that’s definitely something that drives me a little bit.

Senior

Hillsdale In Photos

Photography: Olivia File