Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 24



Pragmatism: For and Against 4-7
Short Story Contest Winner 16
Gold in the Library 19
New Feature: Tragically Hip 21
We l

ck to
The Hillsdale
Octobe r 201 3
Volume III, Issue 1October 2013
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 Pragmatisms 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 fction, and tells us we best get reading.
12 Who Would Jesus Deport? Haley Halverson
Christians too ofen place their politically-inspired beliefs over true
fdelity to the message of the Bible, Halverson argues.
14 Campus Smackdown: Smoking Walker Mulley
A fun hobby or cancer sticks? Smoking is popular on campus, but
its certainly not without its detractors. Austin Collins and Natalie
deMacedo weigh in.
16 Short Story Contest Winner Anonymous
Our frst short story contest has a winner! Read her (or his) anonymous
workand maybe submit your own for our next issue!
19 Library GoldA Film Review Lauren Wierenga & Chris McCafery
Wunderlich may argue that dusty tomes fulfll the telos of fction better,
but what if you just want to fulfll 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 Fires Refektor.
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 flled with more Marx (and
Harry Potter) than we might be used to. What if Hillsdale began looking
to other schools to fll the course calalogue?
Wes Wright
Chris Mccafery
Lauren Wierenga
Mike Pope
Anna Wunderlich
Haley Halverson
Lorryn Cruz
Sarah Albers
Savannah Tibbetts
James Inwood
Andy Reuss
Walker Mulley
Chelsey Schmid
Laurie Barnes
Caroline Green
Olivia File
Grace DeSandro
Meg Prom
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: Te
Collegian is the oldest college paper in Michigan,
Te Tower Light is a beautiful literary magazine, Te
Winona yearbook is a classic chronology of Hillsdales
history, and Te Pape is a witty, newsy departure
from everyday Hillsdale life.
As the youngest publication on campus (Te Pape
frst hit the streets in 1899), Te Hillsdale Forum does
its best to meet the standard set by its fellows. In the
last issue, however, I marred Te Forums reputation
by printing fagrant inaccuracies. I did far worse than
that, writing a batch of falsehoods while representing
the magazines staf in my Letter from the Editor. Te
frst line sets the tone: Tis will be my fnal Letter
from the Editor, at least for Te Hillsdale Forum. You
may note that I am in the midst of writing such a
Letter at this very moment. Indeed, I am still Editor-
in-Chief, contrary to what I explicitly claimed last
May. Further, Chris McCafery will not be Editor-
in-Chief this year, as it conficts with his job at Te
Collegianhe 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 Te Forums readership and
explain to this years freshmen what this magazine
is. Te 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.
Te 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.
Te 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 years Forum is the
short story contest. Our panel of judges selects the
best student story submitted for inclusion in the
magazine; this issues winner is Anonymous. To enter
the competition for the next edition of Te 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 Hillsdales excellence and yours, we have
succeeded. F
Mission Statement
Te Hillsdale Forum is the independent, student-
run conservative magazine at Hillsdale College.
Te 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.
Te 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
Conservative Pragmatism
Grounding Meaning in Pragmatics:A Conservative Take
By: Mike Pope Featured Essayist
o many conservative idealists, few venoms
paralyze the rational souls 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
idealists defnition of self-
evident truth, but this stance
does not require the rejection
of truth and its authority.
For the pragmatist, truth
attaches to or rejects ones
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 ofen fear that once truth is
denied a static, impersonal statusthat which is,
untainted by opinionone wanders the wilderness
of moral relativism. Nevertheless, alternatives exist
between these traumatic poles. Te conservative and
pragmatic barrier to moral relativism forms by doing
providing the meaning for saying. Fundamentally,
application dictates meaningful discourse, not
arbitrary, capitalized words. Te 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 ofen unspoken meaning, especially in political
debate. Tat is, a pragmatic account of meaning is
naturally conservative.
With this account in
mind, consider conservatives
revulsive reaction to William
James blunt and oversimplifed
statement in Pragmatism:
truth is what works. As a
conservative, one immediately
hears consequentialism and the
vulgar utilitarianism worthy
of a philistinenot the virtue
practiced by a principled person
and required in discovering
the Good. First, in an efort
to understand the foundation
of such a claim one must
understand how language stands
at the center of knowledge in the
pragmatic worldview. Tat is to
say, a persons semantics must
answer to pragmatics. Te 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 diference 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; diferent 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
but rather a frm 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. Tey committed to the principle,
that man could govern himself. Tey certainly hoped
their idea would produce the desired resultgood
governmentbut only application and observation
would ease their anxieties. Tese 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. Tis understanding comes forth not from our
semantics alone, but from our pragmaticsthey
return a desired result in action. However, as time
drifs on, problems will certainly arise that require
address, and a pragmatic account is prepared to
As James puts it, True ideas are those that we can
assimilate, validate, corroborate and verify. Tat is,
while traversing the precarious landscape of history,
one assimilates new information into held knowledge.
Tis 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 crafed by
(and in terms of) the cultures 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 destroyis it any surprise that
they reverted to despotic government?
Tus, when such problems confront a given
context, semantics rely on certain crafed
vocabularieson pragmatism. Tese vocabularies
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 connotationan elementary, unspoken, and
presuming meaning. Tis connotation conveys the
power of the term within the vocabulary. In short,
despite the misinterpretation inherent in difering
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.
Diferent cultures will certainly demand diferent
results from their ideas and agree upon diferent
desires, but are we preparedbased on our own
desires, of courseto deny the supremacy of some
cultures over others? Just as it is a mistake to view
Americas founding principles as static or absolute,
one misplaces oneself in presuming the ability to
make such a claim. One must deny ones culture and
the intellectual desires of tradition. Nevertheless,
ranking a maxim as universal is not impossibleit
occurs all the timebut 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. Tis
culture is particular and operates within a specifc,
limited reference of meaning. Tat is to say, one carries
ones tradition as a map for an excursion through
time and space, but one cannot make judgments
without relying on its past valueknowing always
that amendments may be required in future swamps,
valleys, or forests. At this point one might ask what
continuedpage 18
Pragmatisms 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
Tinking, James defnes 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 insufciency, from verbal
solutions, from bad a priori reasons, from fxed
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
eforts of his philosophers towards those truths that
are empirically observablea modernized approach
to apprehending reality. Te problem with this
method of philosophy is that Truth and knowledge
are two diferent things.
Plato addresses this directly in Te Republic.
Trough Socrates, Plato asserts that knowledge as we
know it is nothing more than a fnite 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 observationa useful fact or theorybut
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. Terefore, perfect Knowledge would
correspond exactly with reality. In application,
however, knowledge only approximates reality.
It is here that James runs of-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
sufcient 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 efectively confated
Truth and knowledge. What James puts forward as
truth is nothing more than conditional theory based
on fnite 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 ft. Plato likens this kind of relativistic truth
to knowing an animal. By observation, the handler
may come to know causes and efectsas Plato puts
it, how it should be approached and how taken hold
of, whenand as a result of whatit becomes most
difcult or most gentle. Tis knowledge is fawed,
however, because it apprehends mere phenomena,
not Truth. Te animals handler has learned only
how to formulate convenient theories, much like a
pol i t i c i an.
Once these
theories are
applied, they
are accepted
as wisdom and taught to successive leaders.
Te 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 fulfllment 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.
Te classical notion of permanent Truth applied
to political life is one of the foundational tenets of
conservatism. Te 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
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.
While this abstraction may seem to be of little
import, the implications of the two worldviews
are extensive and cut to the core: afer all, law is a
direct refection 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
defne law, they conformed to and enforced it. Nature
as apprehended by mans reason was the arbiter of
Contrary to this viewpoint is James, vanguard of
the progressive movement, who believes solely in
justifed 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 confned to utility? F
Redeeming Morality
By: Wes Wright Editor-in-Chief
n an 1808 letter to his grandson, Tomas
Jeferson 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 anotherIt was one of the rules
which, above all others, made Doctor Franklin the
most amiable of men in society, never to contradict
anybody. Jeferson reveals that the wise man avoids
political argument because it is indecorous and
needlessly divisive. Tough todays politicians are
less likely to duel one another over perceived slights,
the modern political sphere is far more caustic
and impassioned than that of Jefersons day. Tis
changedriven by a tendency to view all issues as
questions of moralityhas 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 Te Ethics of Rhetoric, Richard Weaver describes
God terms: words that have vague meanings but
strong positive associations. Tey change over time,
refecting cultural shifs. A modern God-term is
Organic; it means grown without pesticides but
it connotes natural, healthy, and environmentally-
friendly. 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 diferentiate particular eras
by their God-terms, which can be helpful in creating
a historical narrative.
In the time of the Founding, two of the God-
terms 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 justifed 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
Redeeming Morality
of industryand, by extension, livelihood
became standard practice. When policy can strike
ones pocketbook, political discourse becomes far
more personal. As political discussion heated up,
Americans found that not everyone shared the same
God-terms. With diferent 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. Tus, when Americans pursue arguments
from authority, they appeal to God-terms that
difer. Failing there, they turn to higher authority.
Tat 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 God-
terms and shared morality circle the wagons against
their opponents. While policies once had universally-
recognized 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 Aristotles Rhetoric, they are lef
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
political discourse.
Tough 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 fnds morally abhorrent, because morality takes
precedent over prudence. Immorality is an enormous
disincentive to action; no one actively, intentionally
promotes Evil. Tere 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, efective public
education, and basic human rights. Te economic
approach breaks the moral dichotomy and grants
perspective. It forces one to discover how others
think, which is the frst step toward understanding
their beliefs. Engaging with and understanding the
beliefs of ones opposition is the heart of dialectic;
one cannot fnd the Truth in opposed arguments if
those who disagree are loathsome foes. Further, if one
seeks Truth only in ones own philosophy, without
logos interaction with other views, one is likely to
miss nuance and Truth in ones 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 God-
terms and their morality. By using their own terms to
press at tensions and doubts, one can convince them
that a diferent policy is superior. Afer one changes
their opinion on number of issues, they will join
ones camp. Only at that point can one advance up
the persuasive ladder, closer to their core philosophy:
Te 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
Books Versus Movies
By: Anna Wunderlich Featured Essayist
veryone loves Te Princess Bride. Fencing,
fghting, torture, revenge, giants, monsters,
chases, escapes, true love, and miracles
aboundit has all the elements of a truly great story.
But did you know that Te Princess Bride is based
on a book? Its not the only movie to be based on a
book; Te Godfather, Forrest Gump, Schindlers 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. Tis 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 fction, no matter the format,
entertains and edifes the soul. Te 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 creaturesa full sixty-
fve percent of the population are visual learners,
which is why Windows has transformed into a heavy-
graphic, light-text operating system. Movies present
a bouquet of visual stimulation that the audience
only need sit on their couch and ingest. Tis 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.
Tis passive entertainment makes movies more
readily consumable than books. You can either spend
two days reading the three hundred ffy-some pages
of Pride and Prejudice, or you can spend two hours
on the 2005 moviein the end, youll come out with
the same basic story: Elizabeth Bennet meets Mr.
Darcy, at frst she thinks hes an insuferable 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. Tis edifcation is accomplished through the
three elements of narrative, as laid out in Aristotles
Rhetoric: audience, message, and speaker. Good
fction 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 fow 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. Tus, 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. Te setting of Pride and Prejudice is the
highly structured society of eighteenth-century
England. Tis setting creates the premise and confict
for the entire story: why and how a girl fnds a
socially and fnancially suitable husband. Te book
sets this up very clearly from the frst
line, It is a truth universally
that a single man in possession of a good fortune
must be in want of a wife. Tis rigid class structure
moves key plot points, particularly Wickhams poor
character and Lydias unseemly marriage. Te 2005
movie never explains this rigid social structure
beyond a few passing comments about the Bennet
family being poor, and the audience is lef to wonder
why the Bennet girls cannot simply marry as they
please. Te book better explains the impropriety
of a woman marrying outside of her station in life.
Tis lack of background is not the only plot hole
in the movieother scenes are just as lacking in
background information. It is clear that books allow
for more and better context than movies.
Finally, books allow for better, more rounded
characters than movies. Te reason for this is simple:
the interior monologue. In the movie, there is simply
no good way to transfer the thought processes of
the characters to the audience. Te audience may
watch what a character is doing, or they can listen
to what a character says, but they cannot see or hear
a characters thoughts. Te book, on the other hand,
allows the reader to get inside the head of the
character and understand the reasoning behind their
behavior. Jane Austen spends considerable space
explaining the refections
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 Lizzya lingering
glance, a close-up on her face, a remark on her fne
eyes. In the book, however, the audience learns that
Mr. Darcy fnds afer a few days of Lizzys company
that he is too attracted to her for his own liking, and
that he intentionally tries to avoid her, only to fnd
himself struggling not to stare at her. Te movie shows
nothing of this developing attraction. Furthermore,
without the introspection of the interior monologue,
characters in movies become nonsensical and even
appear irrational. Tis is most clearly evident through
Lizzys change of heart regarding Mr. Darcy. In the
movie, the audience is shown that Lizzy
does not like Mr. Darcy at all
because he seems proud.
Howe v e r,
Lizzy goes
from hating
him at the time of his
proposal to making puppy dog eyes when she meets
him at Pemberley. Tis makes no sense. In the book,
this change of heart begins afer Lizzy sees Mr.
Darcy with his friends at Pemberley and realizes
that his pride is merely a facade for his shyness. Te
books superior ability to create realistic characters
is even more evident in the pivotal scene where
Lizzy discovers that Mr. Darcy helped ensure Lydias
marriage. In the movie, the audience has the shocked
look on Keira Knightlys inarticulate face. In the book,
the audience learns that Lizzy is not only shocked,
but wondering why he was at such a disreputable
wedding and conjecturing why he might have been
there, fnally coming to the conclusion that he cannot
be as proud as she thought him to be. Tus, Lizzys
change of heart towards Mr. Darcy is better explained
in the book than in the movie.
Tough movies more easily entertain an audience,
books more successfully edify the soul. Movies are
easy and economical to consume. However, books
are better than movies. Tey better involve the
audience through active participation, they create
more complete context and plot, and they contain
more realistic and consistent characters. F
Who Would Jesus Deport?
By: Haley Halverson Featured Essayist
oes the Bible call all Christians to abandon the
enforcement of immigration laws?
Te 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 ofen 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.
Te 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
Treating the foreigners amongst us like native-
born citizens, let alone as we would treat Jesus Himself,
is not the frst thing you hear from most Christian
conservatives discussing illegal immigration. Tese
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: Te Lord frustrates
the counsel of the nations Te 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 Gods
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
Who Would Jesus Deport?
translation. However, these are unclear defnitions.
James Hofmeier, a professor of Old Testament
at Trinity International University, states that ger
specifcally 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 Gods law. Specifcally,
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 Gods
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,
Mt. 5:44,

James 1.27
). Caring for an illegal
immigrant by tending to their health, lending them
money, and establishing a loving relationship doesnt
seem to coincide with obeying the law and reporting
someone to Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
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.
Matthew 5:44: But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for
those who persecute you
James 1:27: Pure and undefled religion before our God and
Father is this: to look afer orphans and widows in their dis-
tress and to keep oneself unstained by the world.
One possible solution
to resolve these diferent 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.
Tese 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. Tis 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
confict between these two
views, but that 1makes
considering these topics all
the more important. In the
frst chapter of his book, Te
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). Ofen Christians
on both sides of the political
spectrum become entranced
with patriotism or pet political
issues and fnd themselves clinging to those ideas
more ferociously than the Word of God.
Although the Sermon on the Mount doesnt
include a subsection on undocumented workers, it is
clear that political beliefs must not be held religiously.
Ultimately, Scripture calls for prayerful refection
and submission of patriotism and politics to the
one, true King. F
breathing easy

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.
Smoking regularly can take 14 years of of your
life. Tats a huge chunk of life that youre losing, and
that youre 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 youre going to
lose because you decided that Hey, I wanna smoke
a pack a day.
I think its unattractive. And specifcally Im
talking about smoking cigarettes. People smoke
cigars, which I dont think is as smart, but I dont
think you can make the same health arguments per
se as you could for cigarettes in particular.
Compiled by: Walker Mulley
Photography: Laurie Barnes
Its a good hobby. Its something, like anything, that should
be done in moderation. It does have health risks but the
big thing is theres a huge diference between cigarette
smoking and pipe and cigar smokingtwo diferent
sets of health risks and diferent reasons to smoke. Its
really two diferent hobbies. Someone whos smoking
cigarettes is trying to get a nicotine hit, and thats
why they get addictedyoure inhaling through the
Pipes and cigars, its a hobby. Its just like
enjoying wine or enjoying good food. Tere are
health risks associated with those, too. Tere are
health risks with alcohol. Good foodyou can
get obesity and cholesterol problems. All good
food is very unhealthy. So, pipes and cigars
its about favor 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 cigarthats
taking time out of your day. Its relaxing.
It actually has very positive health efects
when it comes to stress levels, heart health,
and whatnot, so, for me, its something I do,
that I enjoy, that is also social.

I will say I really like this campus, and how
were allowed to smoke here, even if its not in the
buildings. I think that makes perfect sense, partly
because its a law.
Compiled by: Walker Mulley
Photography: Laurie Barnes
-Nothin like losin a
tooth, said Lance.
Cole examined his
cupped hands, sieving away the
blood through his fngers. 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. Afernoon sun
gleamed lurid of the ripples.
-Big sumbitch though, said Lance.
-Shame to lose im.
Cole tried to respond but it came out bloodthick
and incoherent and he spat again over the gunwale.
-We cant keep usin that shitty line or well snap
ever time.
-You bought it.
-For you.
Te wind was picking up and their canoe arced
slowly around to face it. Regiments of submerged
pine stretched their brittle fngers ofshore. A pair of
buzzards spread their lank wings and basked on the
dead limbs, sunlight fltering through their parasite-
thinned feathers as they raised their raw throats to
catch the last rays. Te 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. Hows your mouth?
-Aches. Bite me another sinker.
Lance looked up, doubtful.
-Suns gettin low.
-Ten swim back, Lancelot.
Tey stayed out and fshed 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. Te reefs of horizon clouds profered
their redness to the still water, and by this spare
trail between the black and rippling trees they
glided shoreward. When they reached the shallows
they stopped to watch the day expire. Cole trailed
his fngers in the water, letting the refraction break
each one as it entered. A dying bream drifed by his
nails and gasped slow and blankeyed. He watched
its brindled dorsal oscillate strange and fuid and
-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 Lances side.
At frst he saw nothing in the dusky waters, but
the shadows gradually sifed 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, feeting, but he
caught something down there, some decaying sign of
artifce. Te slats of boards and the curve of a handrail.
A pair of lean bass wove through the supports. Te
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 fesh. 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 fat 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. Te two
bass torpedoed afer. Te brothers stirred the surface
with their paddles without looking down. Coles
blood spun down and disappeared in the whirlpools
and eddies. Stars chipped away into the dusk. Tey
pushed away from that shore and rowed home. F
By: Anonymous


By: Ethan Showler
t frst they appear as a pair of trees, limbs cris-
crossing 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.
Teir stillness is refusal. Refusal against the crowd
of passengers drifing 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 fow of people, there signifying
and embodying the fow of time that for them has
abruptly, though with bitter anticipation, split into
two streams, dividing lef and right into two diferent
rivers, then two diferent oceans of time. Time for
himand time is never beref of place and therefore
tied to and therefore forever mobileshifing of,
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, childs 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.
Te 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-of of days and weeks, pull apart. Limbs
unwind like the slow growth of time played backward,
slower every moment until just the tips of fngers are
touching, identity meshed still, now, here only in the
prints interlocking, freezing. A beat. Tey 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
our fngers 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 fngers slip and he falls
back into the crowd and pulls away toward the long
tunnel into the sky and he is wiping his eyes, lef then
right and she hasnt 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.
Te last threads, strong as love, sing in the tension.
And then very sofly, 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 fight delays. Te obscurity of a single
wire, switch, some fuse in the bowels of the mind of
the plane, breaks. Te exhaust temperature gauge
refuses the fow 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 fight away
but away is in the next moment, and
this one stretches out still, into a
single, perfect, stream. F
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?
Te point which must be stressed in this broad
oversimplifcation is that from each application of
ideas an implied tradition followsone 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 modernitys 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 futures problems? Understanding meanings
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. Te
insidious attraction of idealist philosophy common
in collectivist states comes not from pragmatism
rightly considered, but a vulgar pragmatism cloaked
as absolute, unquestionable trutha 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
continued from page 4
n Books versus Movies (page 10) Anna
Wunderlich argued that books are a superior
form of fction to movies. We wont bother
summarizing her arguement here (go read it!), but
instead ofer for consideration a diferent persepective
on what makes a work of fction good. Anna writes
about the ability of truly great books to sway the soul
and fulfll the true purpose of fctionheres 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 librarys
movies are worth watching (aside from the Star
Wars DVDs that are scratched enough to take on a
new life as postmodern art)? Te other day, while
thumbing through the
DVDs and trying in vain to
fnd something worthwhile
to watch, I stumbled upon
a little-known classic: Wild
at Heart starring Nicholas
Im sure we can all agree
that Nicholas Cages terrible
acting skills are only
surpassed by Keanu Reeves,
but the two shine on as
Hollywoods example of two actors who somehow
manage to fnd parts despite having the emotional
range of a toothpick. Just the name of the flm, a
reference to Nicholas Cage himself, was enough to
immediately dumbfound me as I pulled it from the
Te movie was a perfect storm of everything that
shouldnt 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 heroines domineering
mother, who hires the mob to kill Nicholas Cage
(staring as a man named Sailor). Te best part:
how seriously the actors took themselves when were
talking about Nicholas in a snakeskin coat ravishing a
hot babe. Tis is about as natural of a combination
as a porcupine preforming CPR on a balloon animal
underwateron the moon. It should never ever have
been done, and heaven knows why it was produced
in the frst 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 Id played. If seeing Nick
Cage attempt to be unbridled and romantic in
a snakeskin jacket doesnt sound like the height of
movie magic, I dont 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
A moment needs to be
spent on the contemplation
of just how ridiculous Cage
looks in this flm. Te 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 didnt already
make you throw up a little,
look at his overly infated
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-to-
look-sexy babe in his arms seriously? Tis movie
is a travesty not only in terms of the flm industry,
but in terms of its complete fippancy towards even
directing a friendly nod to the true, the good, and the
So, the next time that youre 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 Cages heart
iswelleverything. Chest hair excluded.
Call number: 0770.
Gold in the Library
By: Lauren Wierenga Head Designer
of the month
Alex graham
Junior, Enlgish Major
Te brilliant Vladamir Putin. He benevolently governs a bastion
of liberty.
I would take Vladamir Putin to the Rainforest Caf, and try to get
a table by a mechanized tiger display.
Defnitely hoodies. Having a bad day? Trow on the hood; its
instant comfort. Having a good day? Trow on the hood; itll amp
up your swagger. Find yourself caught in the rain/hail/tornado?
No problem, you have a hood.
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 of!
Gender Studies. I have a deep respect for their careful
attention to the Biblical understanding of masculinity
and femininity.
Dr. Gamble because he is super fy and I generally love whatever
he says/does/thinks.
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. But I would defnitely layer those guys.
Id roll with it.
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. Tere is also something a bit
elusive about the Finance majornobody actually
knows what they do but they make a lot of money.
Carly Hubbard
Junior, biology Major
Compiled by Savannah Tibbetts
Album Review: Refektor
If Arcade Fire does one thing well,
its getting buzz going. For proof,
look no further than what has hap-
pened recently: David Bowie ap-
pears in the video for the lead single,
Refektor. James Murphy (of LCD
Soundsystem) produced the album.
Celebrity guests were everywhere
the night that Arcade Fire appeared
on Saturday Night Live to perform
Refektor. Tey even made an in-
teractive 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
Refektor campaign. Publicity start-
ed ramping up at the end of August,
when the mysterious Refektor logo
began appearing internationally as
street art. It then went viral. Arcade
Fire confrmed 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? Te single itself is a
sprawling, experimental track that
refects James Murphys signif-
cant creative infuence. Arcade
Fires original work was organ-
ic, spacious; Murphy brings a
modern, more clipped energy
to the table. Te 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 crit-
icize what they see to be
clich-ridden songwrit-
ing. Others take fault
with the vast and mean-
dering song structure.
But despite this glut of
criticism, fans and critics
turn time and again to the
universal accessibility of Ar-
cade Fire. Te band may have
changed its aesthetic, but the
message of the band is still the
same. Tey 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
fnallyand most recentlyreleas-
ing a full-length album titled Bad
Blood. Tis meteoric rise is cer-
tainly nothing to snuf at, but if you
are looking for originality, you
might be better of listening
to someone else. Te album,
much like the lead single,
Pompeii, is catchy, lis-
tenable, and insanely
conducive to blogger
buzz. Earnest act of artist-
ry? No. Car dancing music?
Absolutely. F
Tragically Hip
By Sarah Albers Columnist
Track Recomendations
RAC remix of MSMRs Tink of
Superhumanoids cover of NIN
March of the Pigs
Beats Antique cover (feat.
Charles Butler) of Daf Punks
Get Lucky
Say Lou Lou cover of Tame
Impalas Feels Like We Only Go
Phantograms new single Black
Out Days
his is a new regular feature for
Te Hillsdale Forum, taking
the place of our Professors
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 Im not taking up
space editorializing, this space will
be hers to have her way with, and
yours to look forward to.
Chris McCafery,
Managing Editor
Course Catalogue
What if Harry Potter is Real?
Are you ready to lose any and every preconceived notion of reality? Are you ready to believe
in magic? If so, this is the wrong class for you. While Appalachian State University may be able
to ofer a course on the implications of the possible truth of the Harry Potter tales, too few
Hillsdale students have read the series, let alone seen the movies, to make such an interrogation
possible. Instead, we will discuss the theory and methods of eradicating witchcraf if it were
found in America, particularly if practiced by adolescents or the elderly.
Interrogating Gender: Centuries of Dramatic Cross-Dressing
Tis course, frst ofered at Swarthmore College, will focus on the rich tradition of cross-dressing
in the Western world. From the ancient Greeks in their comedies to the fighty Romantics
of European literature (and even Presidents Buchanan and Taf), the reading list includes a
treasure of transgender sources that will give the student a familiar understanding of the lesser-
known side of the Greco-Roman heritage. Its tradition: and arent we all about tradition, here at
Hillsdale College?

Street-Fighting Mathematics
Youre a Hillsdale College student. We all know that its only a matter of time until you snap. When
you do, this course is ofered in the hopes of giving you a fghting chance in any confrontation
you start in your liberal arts-addled state of mind. Trough the MIT-inspired analysis according
to mathematical patterns, your ability to street-fght will improve from the level of the most
lovable home-schooler to that of the toughest public school valedictorian. (Its Hillsdale, lets be
honest there are no street-fghting thugs in this school.)

Taking Marx Seriously
...Hahahaha! Sorry, I cant take this seriously. Amherst might ofer this, but not even a comedy
article can say that Hillsdale College would take Marx seriously.

Knitting for Noobs
Combining two favorite pastimes of Hillsdale students (homemaking and mocking overuse
of popular slang), this course will ensure that the men of the College are forever grateful for
their female counterparts. An intense study and practice of the ancient art of scarf, shawl, and
sock-making, freshmen from Simpson, Galloway, and Koon will be truly well-rounded and
well-covered as a result of this new addition to the Core Curriculum. Te origin of this class,
Oberlin Experimental College, will never appreciate this life-saving skill as much as our beloved
Hillsdale will.
Learning from YouTube
Troughout this examination of the worlds most popular video-sharing site, students will be
encouraged in their already-ingrained procrastination habits. In addition to basic viewing of
user-generated content, the class will hold contests to determine which students can garner
the most likes on a comment, efectively win an argument over the Internet, fnd a video
before it goes viral, and download a virus from a sketchy link in the comment section. Unlike
Pitzer College, though, the course at Hillsdale will be taught by the oldest and least tech-savvy
professor in order to cultivate the despair over humanity sure to be found throughout the
students wanderings of YouTube. F
By: Andy Reuss Columnist
Peter Kistler
Pat DAmato
David Krueger
What do you enjoy about theater?
Im always excited by the opportu-
nity to get onstage and bring a story
to life for people. Theres a concep-
tion, 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 Im
acting with them or watching them, is
always rewarding for me.
How has performing infuenced
you as a person?
Studying acting has defnitely made
me a better communicator. A big part
of performance is paying close atten-
tion to the people youre working with,
and responding to what you get from
them. The acting Ive 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 feld in which Im going to
be looking for jobs after graduation.
Whether or not I end up there for life
is going to depend on what opportuni-
ties come my way. Im looking forward
to getting out in the world and seeing
what I fnd. I will always be making
theatre, though, whether Im paid to
or not.
What roles do you typically play or
would like to play?
Mostly character roles, right now Im
basically playing a fat, stupid, drunk
person so thats pretty fun. In general
though, I dont really do main roles,
but supporting ones.
What signifcant or impactful the-
ater experiences have you had?
I would have to say going to Stratford
for the frst time. They put on a produc-
tion for Waiting for Godot, by Samuel
Beckett; we read that here but watch-
ing it at Stratford was so much more
incredible because it brought a whole
new level of meaning to the play. I was
speechless and couldnt believe what
an amazing job theyd done. This was
defnitely a reminder of why I love to
do theater.
What advice do you have for those
who would like to be involved in
Just audition. Dont worry about not
being cast, take any role you can, with
backstage or crew, theres defnitely
room to be involved and the people
in this program are so incredible, its
worth it to put yourself out there.
How did you become involved in
Ive been doing choir since I was in
sixth grade, and since then its just
been something Ive 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. Ive gone
from choir into musicals into acting
workshops; last year Aaron Sandford
and I helped Missy Osmond run opera
shop and were 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 frst
show I watched, it has some senti-
mental value.
Is there anybody in particular that
motivates or inspires you?
Well nobody in my family is really that
involved in music, but Im really grate-
ful 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; thats defnitely some-
thing that drives me a little bit.
Compiled by Chris McCaffery Photos by Jacob Shalkhauser
Spotlight on Novellists
Compiled by Lorrin Cruz
Spotlight on Actors
Photos by Laurie Barnes and Caroline Green
Hillsdale In Photos
Photography: Olivia File