Repent, the End is Near!

Taking literary theory alongside a literature course (American Voices) has enabled me to use much of what I learned in AV as a backdrop to my theoretical studies. Being able to realize that Sarah Margaret Fuller participated in the first wave of feminism and her writing reflects the implications of that time period of the movement changed the way I read the piece- feminist rather than transcendental. Being able to compare early feminist writings to more contemporary ones really helped me understand the theory, too. And, what would my semester have been without the torture and subsequent triumph of tackling only a small piece of Foucault? Learning that "author's intention" means nothing- and that if Mark Twain was a racist, it doesn't mean that his author function was too.

I've enjoyed reading Cloud 9 much more than Mantissa. I feel like Mantissa was a book written for people who have a knowledge of theory, which is enormously pretentious and sort of obnoxious to read. I like Cloud 9, because the theories presented are clearly identifable and problematic, and interesting and discussable, but I think my 16 year old sister could pick up the book and we could talk about it. Whereas Mantissa might make her innocent eyes bleed.


And the blog was ok, too. I still am suspicious of the medium, because its DISCURSIVE!!! but I didn't hate keeping it, although it was much easier to have it in by 10 pm than 5 pm. I don't think I'm a blogger, still, and I do believe that it takes a significant level of self-interest to publish one (sometimes I read ones that make me grab my hair and scream WHO CARES WHAT YOU THINK ABOUT RUSH HOUR TRAFFIC or something along those lines), but I also recognize the fact that I read them, so, basically, I must care about what he thinks about asian woman drivers applying lipstick at green lights.

I also love Dooce.com. If there was one, totally one-hundred percent positve thing I got from this class, it was Dooce.com. Heather Armstrong never disappoints. Check it out if you haven't yet.

I've also been trying to think of a practical role all this stuff can take in my life. I think it probably might not directly have one, though. I'm not going to make theory my career, but postcolonialism and probably feminism will directly contribute to my career, but theory didn't TEACH me stuff, it made me REALIZE stuff. It's not career training, unless I want to be the next Derrida (which I don't), but I think it helps tear down some perspective-limiting walls.

For me, learning theory has been like waxing my eyebrows. Sticky and kind of dreadful and uncomfortable and irritating, but something that needs to be done, and left me satisfied with the end results. I'm prettier and more refined now that I've finished this class.

More on the author function and blogging

So after Dr Crazy responded to my post about the author function, I did a little extra research on it and decided that it was applicable to blogging (after some really serious hemming, hawing and panicking because the paper is due in 3 days) because if I met a blogger, I'd want to know more about them. I can't claim to know who Heather B. Armstrong is, I just know Dooce. I'm friends with Dooce, not Heather. I know she's constantly constipated, but I would never know what to get her for her birthday. The same goes for most other kinds of blogs. We know what these bloggers have to say about politics, theory, life in general, but we don't (and can't claim to) KNOW them.

This reader's guide from a theory class at Lawrence University was really helpful-

http://www.lawrence.edu/dept/english/courses/60A/handouts/author.html

I will also have to address the "Founders of Discursivity" bit, which is what I think was referred to in the comments section with regard to Virginia Woolf. It's put a lot of things in a new sort of perspective...

Anyway. Its coming along. Discursively though, because I'm not an authority, but am desperately trying to look like one.

author function, blogging and the public

My friend Mark recently witnessed a powerpoint presentation regarding blogging and how it could be the way that the Rest Of Us get our news in the future. This worries me for a number of reasons- it struck me that if blogs become our news outlets (and granted, I find little to no validity in the statement) then our already politicized lives can be posted and edited, just like Wikipedia. Then we read Foucault, and learned that the author function of the blogs are different than the people who technically attach their names to the writing itself. We don't "know" these people, so are they trustworthy individuals? I mean, granted, I didn't "know" Peter Jennings, but being an anchor for 20+ years gives someone more cred than some Webgeek typing his or her opinions and having anyone with a computer read that as "news".

My worry is that people will begin to take blogs as seriously as we do the BBC and the implications of this new medium. As I've been reading blogs, I tend to find those people who really think that commenting on the post, disagreeing with the blogger and verging (and sometimes crossing into) the profane. These people take the medium very seriously, clearly, and feel the need to editorialize on editorials that they think are news.

Furthermore, can we "type" people who engage in this kind of commentary? What is their author function? Are they really the people that they portray on the Internet, or are they using the anonymity of the Internet to be aggressive? Can we theorize blogs, and if so, what combination of theories would that include?

Holy...wow...

So, I was poking around my new MOZILLA FIREFOX browser that I FINALLY downloaded so I could use blogger shortcuts to link (it took two days for the thing to install properly, so I am excited) and it has an option to explore the "latest headlines" so I did, and this was the first one:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6545115.stm

Outrage at India Menstrual Form

"Women civil servants in India have expressed shock at new appraisal rules which require them to reveal details of their menstrual cycles."

This is what we were talking about in class yesterday! Reproductive habits becoming property and business of the government. This information has little bearing on the capability of a woman to do her work, unless she has a medical condition that is in conjunction with her menstrual cycle. Seriously, unless the government starts collecting information for male employees' last erection and subsequent ejaculation (amount of fluid in ccs, etc), they have no right to ask how many tampons a woman goes through in a 28-32 day cycle. Furthermore, isn't menstruation "yucky"? I mean, I give them credit for being able to discuss the matter but, honestly. We don't need to polarize the sexes any more, and requiring reports on menstrual cycles is really opening women up to a certain vulnerability concerning a process on which they have no control. The reason that men would require a report on menstrual experiences is really interesting- they don't get them (and i hope to god they dont WANT a period) and every single reproductively functioning woman gets it. It clearly doesn't affect ability because all women get periods and this sort of levels that playing field, unless there are the aforementioned medical conditions. This will will not evaluate fitness, like the government claims. If these reports show anything, it will be that physically, men and women are not equal, which i hope they already knew. It will just polarize a "physical inferiority" and point out yet another difference between men and women.

Wow.

Baudrillard-how is this not Day One Economics/History/English 101?

I think of all the theories we have studied, this discussion has been the most applicable to life (or at least Mr. Rufo has provided us with some fantastic examples). His strains of thought are disputed, that was made clear in the second paragraph, I'd like to challenge a person to find a radical and groundbreaking theorist who had their ideas accepted into the mainstream of literary theory without a significant amount of back-and-forth, are they or aren't they right discussion. That Baudrilard seems to be all over the place, both denying a theory then celebrating it, shows to me, that at the very least, the man knows his theory (in general).
The business about the Economy of the Sign was particularly thought-provoking. Because generics are so prevalant in our world these days, especially in the pharmaceutical industry, the idea of different brand stamps on the same pills and which one is privilidged is interesting to me, as well as somewhat ahead of his time. Here, I thought the Tommy Hilfiger example was interesting, and a tiny bit problematic because his name does not represent him, technically. It's his company, just like I'm sure Calvin Klein did not himself design and manfuacture the eyeglasses I am wearing now, though I understand the point of the statement. That we got that stuff, made from the same fabric as Old Navy or Target clothes, but because Tommy's fake signature is swished across the front, we fork over more money for it.

I like that Baudrillard addresses economic issues in his thoughts. His is an updated analysis of Marxism, which, I think, is a more applicable interpretation of that theory. Marx's writing, well, it's possible to say that something written in the mid to late 19th century might not fit easily into our existences. However, a more contemporary view could freshen Marxism, although at that point, do we call it Marxism? He was writing for a specific audience, and now, how has that audience (and their subsequent worldviews) changed?

The bit about analyses as self-fullfilling prophecy was a nice way to sum up my thoughts so far on theory. If this and this are true, then this will happen, no matter what. All philosophy is designed that way, it seems to me, to make it easier to accept. But, when some rouge theorist like Baudrillard comes and starts thinking about this stuff in new ways, it tends to ruffle some feathers. He seems, so far, to represent the guy that CROSSED THE LINE for a lot of thinkers. The guy that dared compare Marx and Saussure, then turned on a dime and drew question marks across the pages. This connecting theories helps explain both the stregnths of the arugments and the holes in them.

I might write more later, I have some time to think about this while folding Brand Name Tshirts Made In China.

eureka.

now that i actually understand the idea of the role of an "author" and what that word actually "means," i feel a little more comfortable with the removal of the entity from my experience. it also alleviates the responsibility placed upon ME because I am not my writing, my writing is merely a persona of myself. so, if i don't do well on this project, i won't take it too personally, since blog marie and real marie are different. this sort of stripping down can become problematic if you overthink it though (which i aways do) because every image of ourseves is a projection to be interpreted and analyzed with regard to what people already know about me. or something.

at first, this was horrifying and insulting, this removal of the author. the blood sweat and tear of these artists, just washed off their personal histories, given away to the masses by some AUTHORity on the pitfalls of authorship...foucoult...but as we discussed the "blame" aspect of the theory, and the idea that we seem to have to know about this stuff or else.

according to barthes (the theory not the man himself) the known author imposes a limit on a text - which is why bible analysis tends to be so extensive. we don't know who the author was, so we have no idea what his intentions were. we can offer guesses, which we do at legnth, but we don't really have any conclusive answers.

i've been reading this woman's blog, and i think that if her author function is anything like herself, i'd probably like her. i'm trying to explicate her life to some degree, through what she reveals through her blog (http://dooce.com/) but its tough, because it's anecdotal and these things really could have happened to anyone, but are compelling and charming (after i wrote that i found the about me section and it is so worth reading, she needs to write a book, although that would make her a TRUE AUTHOR with a BODY OF WORK embedded in LITERATURE heaven forbid). i am not this charming; she is the type of person i want to have an author function. i'm not this funny, not this pretty, not this clever. my roommates and i were in stitches reading this. AND SHES A MORMON. i am a bored, uninspired lapsed catholic. her experience as a fomer alcoholic mormon stay at home mom LA scum chick have given her this scope and this "dictionary" with which to write. i dont want people to read my blog, because i know they won't if people like her are writing better ones. its not my medium and i'm over it. she is a good blogger. i am not a blogger at all. my author is too functioning and present and not interesting enough for even me to read.

I just can't find the time to write my mind the way I want it to read

while i realize that punctuality is important, i am not prepared to write a blog on this stuff right now. i'd rather write a good post about the topics late than write something muddy and unsure on time. i've been reading the material, and i think its going to take a class for me to digest it. i've been reading other blogs though, and have come to the conclusion that i am not a blogger. it is really exhausting to read people's minds, which is what we're doing on blogs. i mean, seriously trying. that's what i am going to write about in connection with foucoult and barthes (just so you know i'm not posting BS at 4:44, i have it planned, i just need to make it sound before i go tossing it to the public) (which is what some of these bloggers that ive been searching really should do before they throw up all over the internet...ours are among the easiest to like that i've found, so good job).

explosions in the sky time, later babies.

a horse is a horse of course

Normally, most Freud is a little too much for me, and I don't think I've been well-served in my previous experiences with his work. I think some of his more outlandish theories have been so mainstream for so long that people have reduced them to pulp-psychology. Everything I've learned about his theories has been relatively strictly psychosexual, and I've experienced a lot of "Freud said (insert totally outrageous clam about baby poop or women here) and this is totally credible." Why his theories are credible has tended to fall under the radar, though I'm learning a lot about his other, slightly less eyeroll-inducing work, especially this year. I like the idea of psychoanalytic criticism though, because its just like all the other theories-stuff I can accept if I want to. I am also nosy and endlessly interested in other people's dirty laundry, and psychoanalytic theory addresses those nasty little bits of character that we don't often reveal to the public.

I'm reading this play for my FYS, Equus by Peter Shaffer. Its about this kid who stabs the eyes out of the horses that he takes care of (and rides around on naked at midnight after establishing them as dieties in his life)...it might be the weirdest and most disconnected thing I've read in a while. I was googling the title to see what the scuttlebutt was, and the names Daniel Radcliffe and Harry Potter kept coming up...I guess that's the play that has been in the news with naked Daniel/Harry all over it. Anyway. What kind of author is thinking at his typewriter one day "Hey, what a good idea, sexy eroticism with horses and naked teenagers!"? And seriously, the author exists here. Let's not have any of that talk, cause someone had to write this. And its weird. But, the weirdest thing about it is that it ran over 1000 performances on Broadway and won a Tony. People LIKED a play about some nudie teenage weirdo horse worshipper and his boring, lame psychologist (who has his share of slightly more understated neuroses). What does that say about us? I couldn't get it out of my head the entire time i was reading it.

So the author has to be weird (though Wikipedia doesn't mention any stints in institutions or Prozac use or anything), because do normal (and i use the term as loosely as possible in this situation) people think about naked boys cavorting with horses and, furthermore, relate to it (as apparently thousands of theatergoers in the '70s did)? Which makes me also wonder how crazy Freud had to be to dream up some of his theories, so critically reading Freud using psychoanalytic theory might be fun.

But not for me. Not when I have a book about crazy Mormons to read instead.

Goodnight.

And all I have to do is act naturally...

I liked Derrida. I was surprised. It could have been the fact that the documentarians that made the movie were about as cheesy as you can get (voice over? seriously?) and that Derrida openly snarked at them (which is pretty much what I would have done). But hearing him talk about his theory conversationally rather than in a more dense, formalized paper really helped me grasp and appreciate what he was saying. I'd like to be able to watch the film again, because there were so many bits that I wrote down that sparked "I should write my blog on that" thoughts, but it was hard to keep up with the subtitles and write stuff down, and my French only goes so far...
My favorite part of his discussion, though, was the point "do not naturalize what is not natural." Though in reference to him answering predetermined questions "naturally" but in front of a camera, in a controlled environment, the idea really has been making me think a lot. Human nature is a topic that has been inexplicably forced upon me over and over again this year; I can't seem to shake it no matter how hard I try. I wonder if I understand the basics of it, even a little? It seems to me that nothing in life is easy enough to package up into a neat little box and call it human nature. If humans can't seem to agree on what common threads we all share, do we share any at all? Are we naturalizing certain behaviors without knowing it? Is human nature an ISA-based idea that pushes certain "unacceptable" behaviors outside social norms? Or is nothing natural?
I liked that the film tried to capture the mundane activities of his life, the making lunch, the haircuts, the casual pipe-smoking stroll down the street. What else can anyone really expect from an old man? No one would expect him to be livin la vida loca, academic credentials or not. We all have anecdotal lives on the outside, even the best and the brightest. It made me think of the reality tv that exists today, and how it, by definition, cannot be reality. We can't edit our lives to display only the dumb things we say (poor Jessica Simpson) or the Real World (can there really be that many catfights in one day in actual reality?). I love the photos of Angelina Jolie strolling out of grocery stores or Cameron Diaz playing frisbee...STARS, THEY'RE JUST LIKE US!! That we expect otherwise from celebrities (or academic superstars) is hilarious, because we all need haircuts and lunch.
In any case, I respect Derrida's resistance to the structure of the interview process- he said what he thought answered the question and that was that. This wasn't an exam for Derrida, he didn't have to give details. He realized that people wanted something from him and he was only going to give them what he felt was enough, especially considering his past as a person who avoided public displays of himself previously. There's nothing wrong with being left wanting more out of Derrida, he does not belong to us to begin with.

"blog" is a masculine noun in french, according to my widgets.

All this talk about the metaphysics of presence made me think of last semester, when I had a few bald patches here and there from tearing my hair out over philosophy. I was an IA for the FYS regarding human nature, and it made me roll my eyes as much then as it does now. Because I love to torture myself, I went back to the text we used (written by Thomas "Salt of the Earth" Wall, I loved that guy) to see what I was supposed to have learned along with my freshmen.

I remember being very specifically annoyed by the discussion on metaphysics. As far as I'm is concerned, it is useless to yammer on about whether reality is only an illusion or whatever it is these guys worry themselves over. I like Descartes and his je ponse, donc je suis business. I suppose it's nice and reductive, which is really my kind of theory. I think about stuff, therefore I have to exist, because if I didn't, I wouldn't. So when we were discussing the idea of "I'm here, so I exist" I couldn't have been happier. Finally, something that is the truth. We won't even get into the logical existence of God chitchat that some of this stuff leads to, I just ate dinner.

So you can imagine, then, the eye-rolling headache I gave myself when Nietzsche popped up. I had this teacher last semester, a vertiable vampire of a guy, who drew a lot of his heavy, supposedly dramatically life altering quotations (spoken in a halting, sincere voice, meant to impact upon us the importance of the words escaping his lips) from Nietzsche. It could just be the melodramatic style surrounding both Professor Goth's love for the man and 'ol Friedrich's theories themselves, but really any mention of the fella makes me want to hire a medium, have her channel him, and explain that he's as full of BS as anyone else who has ever developed a philosophy. Look what it did to Dwayne in Little Miss Sunshine.

I keep out of philosophy. Except in I Heart Huckabees...Dustin Hoffman HAS to exist, or else I wouldnt have a favorite actor.

Post Monday Pre Wednesday School of Thought.

To apply the word "post" to an ideology or perspective is a really lame thing to do. It seems to be a really easy, almost lazy way to describe one's current state of being, without really explaining much. I am in my Post Dave Matthews Pre Radiohead phase, which doesn't really explain much about my current affinity for Kelly Clarkson, except that I probably will never flick DMB back onto my iPod and Thom Yorke's voice STILL really grates on me, but I might get there eventually. While it does imply a certain outlook on a given aspect of life, to put "post" in front of anything really implies that it had enough of an impact so that for the time being, we gauge the facets of our lives that both directly and indirectly relate to this event on this event, so that everything we do is colored by events of and/or perspectives on the past. My least favorite way of doing this is BC(E, if you're one of those people) and AD. Before Jesus, we were this. What? Pagans? Jews? What does that even mean? After Jesus, we were something else enough to put a name to it. Its very culturally chauvinistic- I'm sure the lives of rice farmers in Southeast Asia didn't have a vast ideological shift after the death of Christ, and its really silly to expect that even most people in the Western World did until the widespread Christianization of Europe, 500 years later.

I live in a posthighschool world. I live in a postmilk-at-dinner world. I live in a postfirst-kiss, postred-as-my-favorite-color, postteenage, postreceptionist period, which might evolve into a postundergraduate, posttea-every-morning, postfirst-serious-relationship, postgreen-is-my-favorite-color, posttwenties, posti-will-never-ever-HAVE-to-be-a-receptionist-AGAIN phase. But what does that really say about me right now? Anything important? Probably, because it chronicles my growth and change, but does it matter what the catalyst was, or that it merely happened? I really don't like to think of my life in terms of the past, but what my possibilities are for the future. Living in a postSomething world doesn't imply a fixed perspective that we have as a result of that SomeEvent. For example, we discussed the term "Post 9/11 world": it doesn't imply that "oops, we really got some group of Middle Eastern guys pissed, maybe we should try to be nicer," although it COULD. To us, it usually is applied to the idea that we are scared of bombs, things that look like bombs but aren't, the word bomb, afghanis, iraqis, airplanes, oilfields, uranium, lower manhattan, and about a million other signifiers (vocabulary alert) that have to do with terror, terrorism, threats, insecurity and war. But it could mean something else, which, to me softens the validity of the term.

I really like this quotation, which I found on Paul Lieberstein's myspace. He plays Toby on The Office, in case you haven't reached your postScrubs phase...

My philosophy is, live life "two days at a time." One day at a time is unrelenting. Two days, well, if I drink too much or eat too much I can just do better tomorrow, on my second day. Honestly, I don't even understand the success that "One day at a time" is having.

I have a headache because of how much I rolled my eyes.

My "understanding" (if you can call it that) of the statement "Signs function not through their intrinsic value but through their relative position" is quite based upon his discussion on the "intrinsic" value of money. That the coin itself represents money, but really isn't worth money if you tried to sell it on eBay for "face" value. Coins = money but coins aren’t worth the money that they represent. I could make that into a cute algebraic expression if only if I could figure out how to make the equals sign with the slash through it.

It's sort of funny that the statement doesn't really need explaining, but the explanation of the statement does. I know I was out of class on Tuesday, so I might have missed a profound definition of the paragraph that shows "even more clearly" the "systematic role of phonetic differences." But when old Ferdinand proceeds to yammer on about Greek, and there is not one series of words I can get my head around until the last sentence, quoted in my first paragraph.

This is not how I think. This is not stuff I care about. I'm glad it exists, because obviously if it didn't, no one would understand each other and literature wouldn't exist in any kind of relatable sense. But, unfortunately, it is going to have to be something that I take for granted. I think this idea is important, because it reduces language to a very simple form, and gives us a basis as to why I can understand English but not Chinese. I can't understand Chinese because the sounds, and subsequent written representations of those sounds, mean nothing to me; there are no touchstones in the Chinese sound that can link me to English.

I suppose it's all a little too clinical for me. Packaging up my appreciation for language and literature into my superior sound-processing abilities is a little bit gray and depressing. I like to think that my brilliant literary mind comes from my ability to really get to the heart of a piece and analyze it through the various channels that make up my perspective. That this perspective is really just my understanding of certain phonetic signifiers is such a mathematical way of looking at something that I had previously considered abstract and applicable to myself as an individual. And anything remotely mathematical is really a turn-off. I suppose it’s nice that, through Saussure's pondering, we can all explain why we love a given work of literature, but are those reasons truly important? Are our phonetic processing abilities really what make the meat of a given work actually strike a chord? Does the fact that East of Eden STILL makes me weep after reading it once twice a year for the last 3 years really SAY anything about my phonetic abilities? I love the book, and is it as romantic to say "Gosh, Steinbeck and I, wow, we really can absorb sounds in a similarly relatable manner?" as it is to say, "Damn it all, why can't I write things like that?"

If reading stuff were a science like Saussure makes it to be, then I think it would be way harder for me to like.

I am my mother's daughter.

Sometimes, when I am positively and overwhelmingly inspired, I tend to channel my mother's facial expressions, diction patterns and hand gestures. I can actually feel myself looking like her, which is sort of funny. I tend to speak in italics like she does and also I chop the air or the nearest horizontal surface with my hands, Jackie Chan-style. This little transformation happened recently when someone suggested to me that all history is a lie. One doesn't just SAY that to a history major without inciting some sort of personal riot; think of telling a math teacher that Newton really didn't know what he was talking about with all that calculus crap. It CAN'T be a lie, because it’s HISTORY. I can't base the next 7 years (and presumably hundreds of thousands of dollars) of my education on LIES...I might as well get an advanced degree in tooth fairy studies! After no small amount of chitchat, it was concluded that the language of history prohibits truth because the written word can never totally, accurately and truthfully represent the event, thus history is not the truth and nontruths are lies. I don't agree with this, simply because all language is rhetorical, and I think that especially with things that are produced as "historical fact" are assumed, in general, to be truth, when the people writing the given "factual" texts all have agendas to push. All of this was in relation to John Smith's chronicles of his adventures in the early colonial period, but can also be applied to this Marxist stuff we're studying here. Which is why liberal arts atmospheres are important. Thanks, Emmanuel.

The Marxist idea that a writer's social class (and subsequent "prevailing ideology") has a significant bearing on what is written by a member of said class (i.e., I could never really write anything about being fabulously rich until I am married to Donald Trump and espouse all the notions and lifestyle of those who are also terribly wealthy). These authors are not autonomous and inspired, but are chained by their class to a literary style and even a basic form rife with political overtones. If this is actually true, then our entire notion of the history of the world is written from perspectives directed at certain classes. Which also means that history is only "true" to those who share the same class as the author of the text studied, which makes history a "lie" to those who are beyond the pale. According to Marx (and the guy I was talking to on Monday) no literature (or written text, for that matter) is timeless, or represents constants in human nature. It all has context and overtones based on the experiences of the author, because the author can't escape his or her social placement. Liberal humanists believe in established truths and, based upon my understanding, Marxist readings "prove" that the only truths that exist spring from stratified social classes, and that the liberal humanist school participates wholeheartedly in this class-ridden literary ideal.

So maybe it's true, that history is a lie...


...Or maybe I'm not a Marxist.

so wait, the old post is there now? this is lame.

This is precisely why I do not blog

It bothers me when some things can be both verbs and nouns. i don't telephone people, because i have a telephone. i don't text cause i can get a text. but i don't blog, cause sometimes you post these posts (HA!) and they erase themselves. bitterness aside, i am marie and i'm a junior history and english double major. i read a lot, and am always trying to find more interesting ways to look at what i read, so that's why i took this class. i kind of think that taking a class in straight theory must be tough to both teach and sit through, merely because texts are never really clean cut enough to apply one perspective to perfectly, so i'm looking forward to seeing how things pan out when things get muddy.

babies,

i'm marie, junior history and english major. this is my first real, live english class in about a year and a half, i really liked the theory section of persuasive strategies, and also enjoy analyzing texts, and it will be a nice outlet for my endless yapping about the various philosophies i run across while reading. i'm not sure what my "vision" will be, considering i am not really a "blogger" and am sort of baffled by this trend. i'm thinking that until i get comfortable, this will basically look like a short sort of response paper. so it might be boring. sorry.

i hate mice. how do you get rid of them?