Latest Review!

Right so after a super long lapse....

Latest review!

http://www.musicalcriticism.com/opera/eno-roh-traviata-onegin-0213.shtml

Check it out!

Any thoughts? Get in touch!

Mike 

Mozart Bonanza

Although I missed Cosi, I did mange to make it to two of the three Mozart Da Ponte operas at the ROH. You can find the reviews here and here.

Enjoy!

Newest Review!

Check out my latest review here. It was a good Traviata. 


More coming by the end of the week! 

Interview with Celso Albelo

My interview with Celso Albelo, tenor making his debut at the Royal Opera is live on musicalcriticism.com! You can find it here.

Check it out!

A Note on Noam

Noam Chomsky needs no introduction. At the recent International State Crime Initiative's launch of their new journal, State Crime, Chomsky waxed eloquently for about an hour on the "Changing Contours of World Order," a talk that essentially followed the outlines of his recent Al-Jazeera article (you can read it here), but conspicuously lacked any significant discussion of the recent riots in London or--perhaps more importantly--the recent "Occupy" protests. Although Chomsky gave his speech before the worldwide protests began on the 15th of October, one wonders whether or not his credibility suffered a little by not philosophizing on such an important matter.  I was going to summarize his talk but considering that the majority of what he said was lifted out of his AJ article, I'll explore my opinion of his short but fascinating lecture (that's the disclaimer).

Chomsky's presentation style is super dry; it largely consists of regurgitating of facts that he claims are freely available to any one who wants to "dig through the archives" to find them. I have no problem taking him seriously: as an American living abroad I think it's hugely important to  remember that countries and, more broadly, the nation-state (especially the US) are constructions that continually affect our daily lives, both in ways that are obvious and in ways we cannot possibly know, which may indeed be the central problem lurking behind the majority of Chomsky's arguments.

Much of Chomsky's talk explored the ideological motivation behind the previous sixty years of US foreign policy; essentially, he interprets State Department documents, media coverage, intellectual commentary, etc. from a perspective that sees consolidation of government power, both domestic and international, as its chief enterprise. Chomsky wouldn't agree, but I see this perspective to be quite similar to the arguments Foucault makes about power/knowledge, save the fact that Chomsky clearly believes in humanity's supposedly inherent sense of morality. When the riots did come up during question time, and someone asked what could be done about American hegemony and the crimes of a complicit world, he suggested that the we hold those responsible accountable by banding together in a decentralized way to govern ourselves (not particularly surprising from an anarchist), relying on our morality to do so.

This is a great suggestion, however difficult it may be. One need only look to the "Occupy" protests to see the grudgingly labored manifesto they have produced to confirm that this sort of democracy is indeed possible. But what I find inherently improbable about his suggestion and its implied decentralizated governance is the reconciliation of obviously varying moralities that it would require, a necessary requirement if Chomsky claims there is an ideal morality against which to gauge variations.

This is why decentralized governance cannot work in the real world, unfortunately. Still, his talk was both eye-opening and riveting.

Mozart at the Barbican

My review of the Mozart concert at the Barbican:

http://www.musicalcriticism.com/concerts/barbican-crouch-end-mozart-1011.shtml

It was a nice (amateur) concert. 

New Reviews on MusicalCriticism.com!

Check out these two reviews I wrote for musicalcriticism.com!

Rossini Arias:
http://www.musicalcriticism.com/recordings/cd-feast-1011.shtml

Handel's Alexander's Feast
http://musicalcriticism.com/recordings/cd-lezhneva-1011.shtml

Keep watching the site for more of my stuff.

Noam Chomsky lecture review coming soon!

Update

More writing coming soon: some short stories, a few essays, and some short musings. Currently working on two reviews for musicalcriticism.com.

Sorry for the lapse!

Terry Gillam's (Berlioz's) The Damnation of Faust

My title says it all. This evening, I saw Berlioz's The Damnation of Faust (La damnation de Faust), sung in English, in a new production by director Terry Gilliam at ENO. I've not heard the music before and being a HUGE fan of Symphonie Fantasique just had to go see it!

I admit that I'm not familiar with (most of) Terry Gilliam's films, so I was really looking forward to the production since I was very much on terra incognita. After all, it's not often that a professional musician gets to hear music that s/he is not already familiar with. I will admit that I am also a fan of the Faust story generally, whether (Werther? ha ha) Goethe's, Marlowe's, or Gounoud's (which I saw earlier this year, also at ENO), I think the general topoi of the redemption of man, good vs. evil, and sin are (of course) best explored in opera, so I was stoked.

Perhaps I shouldn't have had such high expectations. I wont say that it was a let down, but I'll admit, for a Berlioz/opera lover, I was a little bored. On the one hand, the production itself was great: a sumptuous feast for the eyes that was visually stunning! Terry Gilliam's astoundingly creative influence shined through every detail, however small or large. The attention to the environment--in in terms of both the sets, costumes, and scenes of troop movement--was remarkable. The production was almost too real, a simulacrum of reality and an elusive dreamland impervious to the horrors of Time.

Despite this impressive production, I felt nevertheless that it either distracted from the music in a way that bordered on overbearing or was designed to obscure Berlioz's music because it isn't that great. I don't think it's bad music, and I do believe it can be successfully adapted to the operatic stage (it was written as a 'dramatic legend, something between oratorio and opera), but in this production I'm not sure one would be able to tell, especially not having heard it before. So while I found the production itself to be wonderful, I felt that it failed as an overall dramatic presentation.

Just a few years ago, Gilliam's production would've been highly avant-garde, despite his perhaps unintentional appropriation of historical performance practice. Berlioz's Faust premièred in 1846, when grand opéra--and the Paris Opéra (Opéra-Comique), home and birthplace of the genre--was approaching its zenith. A textbook example of a production that invites comparisons to grand opéra because of its production values as event-theatre, 'epic theatre,' satire, and spectacle would be Gilliam's. Besides these colorful checkmarks, Gilliam also made extensive use of video technology and projectors, placing him at the cutting edge of theatrical machinery used to enhance an audience's opinion of the work. Indeed, the Paris Opéra consistently (due to its huge financial subsidy from the French Government) had backdrops and sets that rivaled those at La Scala, if not surpassed them. 'Deus ex machina' means 'God out of nothing,' a plot device used to save operatic characters from certain death and damnation, often involving elaborate mechanical machinery for which the Paris Opéra spared no expense. The same type of machinery was present at ENO, though I'm not sure it succeeded in fulfilling its role as savoir of the production. Still, Gilliam should receive credit for his perfectionist attention.

I think there is something to be said about the opera itself. After all, shouldn't the music have fought back? At least negated in some way the slowly encroaching noose of the production? Probably. But as a 'dramatic legend,' it was never actually meant to be staged, so the dramatic pacing, musically, is somewhat skewed towards the obvious--Faust is damned (no chance throughout of redemption); Mephistopheles is evil (but for some reason very funny); Marguerite is saved (no development)--at the expense of the abstract. I think the music supports this as well. It is very forgettable music, save one or two moments. Without a moment of approach to an apogee of emotional or intellectual investment, I find it difficult to savor any of the performance. And that is decidedly what this production lacked: drama. A superb narrative! But one without any of that, what I consider to be "true" drama.

Music or drama or any other artistic something should evoke emotion. Yes, I am perpetuating what is perhaps an outdated ideology that relies upon the power of the "work," but seriously: who doesn't expose themselves to art in order to feel, to be moved? This production bordered often on the artificial, it seemed too contrived. I will hate myself for saying this, but it seemed also that the image of the rise of Nazi Germany as allegory for the fall or corruption of man was super stale, almost cliché. The production created a work that was essentially a too-easily-decoded diatribe against the ills of modernity, I think negating any other major message that might be produced by the Faust story set to Berlioz's music. This element was in every scene, and saturated every moment of the opera. Literally from beginning to end. I'm not trying to be high-brow, just honest, since this is my blog. I will admit, however, that the final scene in which Marguerite ascends into heaven from amidst a pile of bodies in a mass grave, the dark moonlight shining down divinely on her eerily pale face, snow "falling" all around, was strikingly beautiful.

Working Out Foucault

Ha Ha I was wondering if anyone was going to mention Foucault, far more apt for this type of question than Habermas. Katie puts it so well by saying that gyms are a "weird vortex of semi-private culture," and I think Foucault can shed far more light on why her evaluation fits than Habermas can.

First, one can look at the social place of privately owned commercial gyms (as opposed to an at-home gym or equivalent space) and question why they exist in the first place. It isn't just a question of "why do certain activities and not others happen inside gyms?" but rather "why do these types of gyms exist?" A gym like Virgin Active (with its high membership costs, opulent facilities, and well-trained staff) can certainly be said to cater to certain groups and not others while serving multiple purposes besides those directly related to personal health.

But I'm not sure Foucault would care so much about arbitrary Marxist distinctions of class (who does or does not gain entry) since theoretically anyone can do so, which is why, in exploring a question such as this--it's more or less the same with nightclubs--we need to abandon notions of the public/private binary and its baggage. Gyms (this type, anyway) are best thought of in terms of "space," "gaze," and "bodies."

Taking this in stride, its important to remember that gyms do far more than provide a space to do, for example, yoga or weight lifting.

Besides activities directly related to personal health, gyms function as a test, or gauge if you like, of the State's control over the individual. The more obvious answer to the above question would be "Gyms exist to ensure personal health and physical fitness." This is very true, but one surely cannot deny that a healthy population--especially one that can afford a membership to Virgin Active--ensures better economic production from which the State obviously benefits. Much of what is discussed below functions, however subtlety, to support these dual elements of gym existence and their embedded presence within our culture. Similarly, gyms are yet another space that one goes before going home, thus creating a space from which the individual can be monitored and possibly observed.

When at a gym, each body has its own space and function within that space. When you're on the rowing machine, you're rowing, isolating specific muscles and only doing so for a specific about of time. Besides space, then, time is also managed: you are allowed only a certain amount of time rowing. Why? Because you want a workout that maximizes efficiency: the least amount of time for the most amount of action, which ensures that others can do the same. These--in addition to the already mentioned "observation"--are classic techniques of discipline; these are the fundamental elements around which our modern society is constructed that date back to the early 17th century and first appeared in the barracks, hospitals, and finally, schools.

Gyms are part of discourse on personal well-being, which makes them a distinct part of the medical profession from both the applied and academic perspectives. "Working out" is a specific manifestation of bio-power, a set of actions (exercise, yoga, weight-lifting) designed to target specific parts of the body (parts the medical profession suggests must be exercised, and of course, exercised in the right way) which in turn effect individual behavior to the point of internalizing certain social norms and not others.

It doesn't matter that you have "free reign" in determining what exercises you do while working out, the important points here are that A.) you are working out in the first place and B.) any exercise you choose to do has already been selected for you by someone else.

Think of the gym as it exists in "collective conscience," in discourse. Discourse shapes the way we see others and ourselves; this is where "gaze" (in part) comes into the picture. The word “gaze” is in a sense misleading, as it implies that it belongs to a particular someone. But this gaze cannot reside with one person or institution; it is taken as both blind and omnipresent: a means of managing subjects through various institutional spaces, in addition to the subject’s own appropriation of the gaze in the evaluation of her behavior. This is one way that anything that could be called a status quo in terms of behavior is established and communicated. This is largely where ideas of image, ideas of self-worth (those relating to "the self" and to "society"), and generally, ideas of what constitutes "normal" come from. Never mind the fact that "normal" is simply a setting on a washing machine.

All these particulars of gym existence come together at an immediate level--to finally and directly address it as an activity--while actually "doing yoga." The considerations of space and time should be fairly clear here: you do not move outside of your space, and you are in each position for a given time. One aspect of this scenario not mentioned earlier was the position of your position: where in the room you are. I guarantee that wherever you are, you can see the teacher and the teacher can see you (monitoring, observation, and distribution of bodies).

Let's explore gaze and body, though. Try wearing men's clothing while doing yoga; better yet, try being a man in a yoga class. You don't actually have to experience either of these things without immediately sensing that both are somehow "wrong." Why? Because there are standards of expectation communicated and internalized by the social gaze and exacerbated by the male and female gazes. When they are broken, or treaded upon, this is a form of resistance to the type of power exerted at the service of an institution within a managed space. That explains, in part, the feelings of awkwardness or vulnerability.

Taking it further, why do both men and women wear (semi-) sluttish clothing while at gyms yet (usually) avoid anything more than quick glances? The former, to show off: for the alphas it’s very much (and this is perhaps too much of a generalization from my own horizon of expectation, to use a Gadamerian term) about boasting, about attracting some sort of mate (sexual or not). The latter works to maintain proper external standards of decency and modesty while also working in the same way for internal self-image. Think also of the ubiquitous presence of mirrors. Mirrors in this context can act as a metaphor for the entire process as described.

This last point leads me to a fundamental observation about gyms: they are without a doubt areas of complex performativity and therefore exist as spaces where there can be no such thing as privacy. This is not just a comment about gyms, but one concerning the dubious nature of the concept, which is why we left that public/private binary behind. While at the gym, you are constantly performing, internalizing, and projecting specific standards of behavior due to the unique place "gyms" hold within the broader social strata. You are always performing/watching in a manner unique to gyms, even if you were to be completely alone within the space because the "norms" constructed through the various mechanisms discussed above are internalized through those same mechanisms. It's really quite circular. This brings us back to the wider picture and our first question, "Why do gyms exist?" Gyms are a way in which individuals are turned into subjects, docile bodies. Gyms are another means through which power/knowledge works to appropriate, mold, and construct the subject at the will of the State. Without a doubt it is one of those spaces in our society that, whether there are CCTV cameras or not, “you” are being watched and constructed.

This is by no means exhaustive; one could say a great deal about yoga as performance, behavior of betas, or about gyms as centers of sexual activity. In any case, this was such a great break from reading about Cortot.

© Michael Migliore, 2011.

Favorite Books

This is a list of my favorite books:

1. Widle: The Picture of Dorian Gray
1. Orwell: 1984
2. Proust: Swann's Way
3. Camus: The Stranger
3. Joyce: A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man
4. Stoker: Dracula
5. Bulgakov: The Master and Margarita
6. Capote: In Cold Blood
7. Vonnegut: Slaughterhouse-Five
8. Dumas: The Count of Monte Cristo

An op-ed

Here is a copy of the op-ed I wrote in the Kalamazoo Gazette in October.

http://www.mlive.com/columns/kzgazette/index.ssf?/base/columns-6/1255704648126600.xml&coll=7

An interesting conversation

This happened a few months ago now, but I have been meaning to post it here. Americans: What is your response? Names have been changed.

John________ April 11 at 1:06am
Now listen, you have an intelligent sense if humour. I was out with all these "theatre" homo, who were as usual "advising" who should sing in what etc. Anyway, one mentioned writing a new musical, and I suggested 9/11 the musical, and the title song could be "it's raining men"...NOW...I think that's funny, but only one other did, who I hasten to add, is intelligent...Answer on a postcard. X

This was mine:
Michael __________April 11 at 12:58pm

Well, I can certainly see why only one person thought that was funny; most Americans are still quite sensitive about 9/11, and I would not expect that to change anytime in the near future. I think your joke is almost funny, but you must admit, it's a bit macabre; you probably would have had more luck outside of NY. Generally, I would assume that making a comical reference to the hundreds of people who jumped out of the towers to their deaths, while the entire world was watching--to people who likely witnessed it--is seen to be disastrously poor taste.

I mean, to suggest that a musical should be produced commemorating 9/11 is one thing--even though it would be a questionable medium artistically to commemorate such a tragic event. But to also suggest that it be funny (since "It's Raining Men" falls well short of serious) is pretty strongly grounded in what most people would likely describe as insensitivity to not only the current, fragile American condition, but also and especially, offensive to those relatives of people who had to wait WEEKS to find out if their loved ones were alive, only to find out that they were peeled off the pavement after jumping to their deaths in desperation.

Now, like you, I am not easily offended. But if I had been present to hear you say that--and I hate to bring this into the conversation, but it's important in this context--especially as a foreign citizen living in the US, I would have launched into a tirade like the one you just read. I would have attempted to explain to you--American citizen or not--why things as tragic as 9/11 or the holocaust SHOULD NEVER be joked about.

Besides those directly affected, the ENTIRE WORLD was indirectly affected by the destruction of the WTC. So an attempt to make it funny--especially so soon--is really not funny at all, but rather quite shocking in the comments' implicit suggestions that mass murder be somehow humorous.

Because it just isn't, John.

It's a little bit funny....

I often wonder why people betray themselves. I see it happen everyday, especially in a drinking-mediocre-apathy championed subculture that seems to flourish in Kalamazoo. I should clarify what I mean by betrayal: a definite set of speech that allows one to appear less intelligent than they really are in order to be successfully assimilated into said subculture. The easiest way to understand this principle is simply by watching people interact at a bar. Conversations so rarely foray into real topics that matter; or admittedly, topics that should matter.

This is not merely my personal opinion that those who possess intelligence have, to echo Lionel Trilling, a moral obligation to exert that intelligence in some way. There are too many in American society that do not possess high intellectual capacity or ability, but believe that they do, as evidenced by this wonderful study: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect
Bertrand Russel's "In the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt" is incredibly apt.

I think the situation must be remedied or at the very least, improved. I suggest to those who notice this phenomenon, especially if they are apart of Russell's "doubting intellectuals," that they try to be a bit more cocksure. I have always championed this approach successfully. True, it does contain the possibility that you might be viewed as a party pooper or know-it-all, but seriously, is that really a legitimate reason to not uphold the truth? Just because something is easy doesn't make it right, and to let people languish in their own under-conceptualized perspective of the world is just wrong. I pursue these conversations because maybe, just maybe, there is a chance that my interlocutors will see a glimmer of the perspective from which I approach the world. For other intellectuals--some of my best friends in fact--it is a worthless enterprise, but for me it is too enticing to ignore.

Naturally, you might be asking yourself: Well, he is awfully sure of his own perspective, what makes him so confident? Besides the fact that I personally love to argue about anything (and it isn't to be a dick; nay, it is in the pursuit of my idealized [naive?] goal above), it is the knowledge that society is an ever changing and relative structure, and is bound by the limits of discourse, institutions, and power. This really touches home for me, because I have been all over the world and seen the accomplishments of our race when we work as a collective of intellectuals. I wish I could describe the awe of gazing up at the largest church dome in the world and knowing that it has been around since the *16th century.* Seriously folks, what happened? Next time you are at a bar, try pursuing a topic of conversation that enhances or challenges a perspective, whether yours or someone else's. To bring us full circle, I think it would be best to end this post with my favorite quote. It is certainly an apt observation of society, and one that I interpret as a call to arms in many ways:

"It isn't evil that is ruining our earth, but mediocrity. The crime is not that Nero played while Rome burned, but that he played badly."--Ned Rorem (1964!)

Battles and Interrogations

My friend posted this as her Facebook status:

____________tries to remember: "Be kinder than necessary; everyone you meet is fighting some kind of battle."

I have problems with this statement for some reason. In attempting to interrogate--perhaps more aptly to deconstruct-- why I have a problem with it, let's examine the premises upon which it is based.

This mantra assumes that day-to-day experiences can be metaphorically represented as battles, which, by definition, must be won or lost by one set of participants. In taking this first assumption, we find embedded within it the connotation that "fighting a battle" is associated negatively with aspects of life; it implicitly suggests that conflict (battle) is fuel for a broader social dissonance, and therefore propagates the admittedly unrealistic view of human interaction as being inherently unconfrontational or peaceful. One is "kinder than necessary," then, in order to prevent the complications inherent in any given or hypothetical personal battle: stress, anxiety, anger, discontent, lost experience, lost knowledge, etc. Perhaps even to avoid "battle" and its complications all together. Since humanity has been conditioned to eschew conflict--examples are everywhere in mainstream media-- it associates negative emotion with anything past the status quo of social interaction. The statement suggests, then, we all must collectively be kinder than usual , kinder than we are. So when one is "kinder than necessary," one is protecting not only themselves and their possible interlocutor from "battle," but their society as well by betraying practical human agency.

So, it is fair to say that this statement has inherent and bold conformist meaning, that is, the statement assumes that:
A.) Everyone interprets life as a series of unending conflicts (Positive [winner] and negative [loser]);
B.) Everyone is only partly kind, rather than consistently kind. (Conditioning)
C.) In order for society to be productive and functional, members of the society must conform to unwritten rules codifying the society's own propagation of consonance between members. By extension then,
Ca.) Members of a society, in order to function within it, must conform to normative social interaction.

In addition to promoting conformist attitudes, the statement also implies that humans--and their interactions--exist normally, within a status quo; and that status quo's outcomes in our lives are directly influenced by another's interference or non-interference in "the battle." Thus, if we label daily conflicts as battles, thinking again that they must be either won or lost by the participating and primary party, then this statement is also implying that when we act "kinder than necessary," we are actually interfering positively, rather than negatively, on the outcome of the battle. To put this a bit more bluntly: the statement implies that alone, we cannot win battles; that we need the help of others to overcome any foreseeable or hypothetical conflicts within our lives. Thus this conclusion dually functions as not only further illuminating the statements conformist attitude, but also furthering the uselessness of human agency. Do not think for yourself; do not cause trouble in society; do not foster negativity; do not ask questions of why, only questions of how. Hence, this statement is arrogant in its idealistic perspective that the world is a peaceful place of cohabitation and coexistence--which we can all recognize as fallacy by simply glancing at today's newspaper headlines.

The statement also preserves and proscribes meaning to itself. Why should we be "kinder than necessary" if not to validate our own and our other's battles? Or, from a broader approach, our own and other's existences? By avoiding conflict and remaining passive, we can not only help others but also help ourselves! Obviously, this is an entirely absurd notion.

It must be said that when I stumbled across this Facebook post, I was immediately bothered by it. The above discussion is my own subjective interpretation of what the statement could mean when taken in a social context, and by no means is it exhaustive. There could be a whole slew of other things that it implies, but it's late and I don't really feel like getting into that.

I am not reflecting negatively on what the person who posted this was trying to say, since when you take the statement at face value it makes decent sense; rather, I am reflecting on what I perceive to be embedded within the statement, that which makes the statement work (so to speak) within a broader contextualized perspective of life. It is my own personal perspective of life that drives these interpretations; a perspective that upholds the necessity of human agency and the many personal connotations that follow it, one that is necessarily confident in the ability of the self rather than the ability of the many. I certainly respect the ability of the many; I am as idealistic as the next guy, but the statement really rubbed me the wrong way, as if it implied that as individuals we do not matter. I have always placed the will of the individual above the will of the collected; so there you have it.

Transition

The title of this post could describe several periods in my life which have already occured. The series of events and feelings that make up what can be labeled a "transition" is a state of being, and we all experience it in phases. This does not necessarily imply a forward progression, but I like to think that with me it is.

I am finding myself in one of these new periods, where very much in my life is the same save one aspect that has been a major part of it for over a year. Of course, I immediately recognized this and did my best to curb its influence, so I believe that this is a minor transition, the first in a progression that will culminate after I have lived in London for about a month to three months.

The transitory period can exert visible influence on us, albeit not always measurable, and does not have to be positive, although I look at it this way. Being able to make efficient use of time during one of these phases is key, especially at this point in my life. Goals should be present and attainable, measurable with each day. A new state of mind and habit develop or evolve, but only if once can embrace it.

I am ready.

Another Successful Encounter

I went to Olga's Kitchen for dinner this evening, and oh boy, what a night. The guy, totally reminiscent of a homeless person, was being ultra rude to his server and the manager after he barked some orders to his server and she did something wrong. The following conversation ensued:

Me: (Quite Loudly) Excuse me, We are both servers (referring to Kristi, who was also present), and it's people like you that make me hate my job.

Guy: (stupefied)

(stupefied)

(stupefied)

We are about to leave when he says:
Guy: Well if you hate your job, maybe you should get some sort of different future!

Me: At least I have one.

Several people verbally thanked me for calling this guy out. This is why the world needs more confident people.
The end.

News

Good News is Great News. Let's be honest.

Winter

Michigan was hit with a blizzard this week. It's horrible, snow everywhere, extreme cold, driving conditions terrible, etc. Snow always makes me feel incredibly isolated, lonely, contrite, and reflective. I have been constantly reminded of Robert Frost's "Stopping by Woods on a Snowy Evening:"

Whose woods these are I think I know.
His house is in the village though;
He will not see me stopping here
To watch his woods fill up with snow.

My little horse must think it queer
To stop without a farmhouse near
Between the woods and frozen lake
The darkest evening of the year.

He gives his harness bells a shake
To ask if there is some mistake.
The only other sound's the sweep
Of easy wind and downy flake.

The woods are lovely, dark and deep.
But I have promises to keep,
And miles to go before I sleep,
And miles to go before I sleep.

Here comes the reflective part. Motivation is hard to find within oneself during times such as these. I suppose for some people motivation is hard to locate at any time, however, I have traditionally never had an issue with feeling motivated or locating my drive to do well. Perhaps it is the snow, which makes me not want to drive anywhere, that is preventing my from studying; from working a little harder to achieve the things I so desperately want from life. However, I could easily study at my house, I simply choose not to. I firmly believe that grounding oneself among realistic goals is really all you need to succeed; that and the motivation to achieve said goals. Immersion in music and scholarship has become an outlet for me in the past four years, and tonight it's unfortunately not working as a catalyst in any way. Feelings of regret wash over me, which disgusts me in ways that few can imagine. Yet, they are there, persistent as little daggers. We all garner thoughts enough to instill us with a sense of restlessness and un-accomplishment, and it's probably best to let those feelings run their course, rather than continuing to push harder or using an escape hatch. Solution?

Reading Proust and a new novel by Tobias Hill.

GRE

So I am in the midst of studying for the GRE, the stupidest test on the planet. All it tests is your ability to take the GRE, it is not an augury of your abilities in graduate school. I was actually reading an article in the NY Times about this exact sentiment, it really is a silly test.