Back to Being Okay With Readers!

Honestly. I like my blog having stats.
It makes me happy. I like to know that not just my friends read my stuff.

/shrug

LIT 103A - Paper #1

This is really colloquial. Don't think I'll get docked for it; nor do I really care. XD
We had to translate Spenser to... something and then explain our choices.

Darlene McCoy

Michael Ursell

LIT 103A

23 January 2012

From Spenser to Valley Girl

Oh em gee[1], Cuddie, stop being depressed,

So we may fish for fine dudes to follow,

So we may pass this endless time in bliss.

You were like, so used to living the life,

The wet t-shirt contest[2] champion, that's you!

Now you keep life in you, and it, like, suffers.

Piers, I have tried so hard to live this life,

But like, all my t-shirts have ripped and worn:

And like, all my attractiveness is spent,

I've gotten a few boys, but gained a name[3].

Yielding myself makes life unfulfilling,

And like, wet games no longer numb the pain.

I will not participate in another frolic,

To indulge those boys in my youthful gifts,

Piers, tell me: What good does that do for me?

They take all the pleasure, I all the pain.

I relinquish the goods[4], and the boys come:

Like, what good may Cuddie gain; doing this?

Translating Edmund Spenser's “October” of the Shepherad's Calender into a different, stylized form is quite the task. I took great care in my translation processes and gave each of my choices considerable thought.

            I understood lines 1-18 of “October” to be a person expressing their anxiety about writing poetry, and questioning if writing poetry is a way to live one's life. I also understood from the rest of the poem that the creation of poetry is innate to human nature.

            I chose to translate Spenser's archaic language into a dialect of English that I find a bit archaic - Valley Girl Speak! My use of "like," "so," dudes," and "Oh em gee" are all colloquialisms found in Valley Girl Speak, and I am using them to represent Spenser's additional "y"s and "e"s, found in his archaic English.

            Since I decided to translate Spenser's work into Valley Girl Speak, I found that two valley girls discussing if writing poetry is meaningful in life does not comply with what I would imagine two valley girls discussing on a daily basis. They needed to be discussing something relevant to their lives, for the shepherds in “October” did so. To remedy this - I decided to translate a discussion of poetry and creativity into a discussion of sex and sexuality. It seemed more fitting to me - and it is not so much of a stretch. Creativity is innate to human nature; as is sexuality. Writing poetry points to a Golden Age, where neither war nor industry rules the workings of the world, and in Edenic images of the Golden Age, portrayals of sexual freedom and fornication abound.

            In Spenser's poem, he uses diction that evokes writing or poetic imagery such as, "rhymes," "ridles," and "Muse." I decided to use diction that would convey sexual imagery; mostly through the use of double entendres. Double entendres are not apparent in Spenser's poem, but I decided to take some liberties, for my translation is more modern, and the comedic value in the double entendres represents the change in culture from Spenser's time to the present.

            One of the few elements of Spenser's poem I decided to keep was his form. This poem is all in pentameter (except for line 6; it is 11 syllables, as it is in Spenser's original), for I feel that verse has the power to amplify a discussion, because it stands out from colloquial prose. While the diction of this poem is rather amusing, the subject matter is graver. A questioning of performing sexual acts and sexuality is one that many a person goes through - and is extremely important to a person's development, especially in the society of the present. A discussion of writing poetry and creativity was important in Spenser's time, for why would generally uneducated shepherds have thoughts on the subject matter otherwise? And furthermore: why would Spenser immortalize their discussion in his verse if it was not a well-discussed thought in his society?

            I hope that my translation of “October” will make it more accessible to more people, for the language has been modernized and made colloquial, and that it will raise a discussion about sexuality, as I feel Spenser's poem facilitated discussions about creativity. My translation changes the subject matter discussion, but I believe that the values given to poetry could be attributed to sex as well. My changes, when read with the original, highlight these analogous instances. I also hope that a reader of my translation enjoys themselves - for I enjoyed translating this work and would love to share a laugh with whoever decides to read it!

---

[1] “Oh em gee” is the pronouncing of each letter of “OMG”; an acronym used in the sending of text via cellular device, meaning, “Oh my God!”

[2] A “wet t-shirt contest” is a contest in which women wear thin t-shirts and then are sprayed with water, in order for their breasts to protrude behind the near-transparent cloth.

[3] Name, in this context, should connote, “slut,” or “sexually promiscuous young woman.”

[4] “The goods” is a common slang term used for the sexually pleasurable aesthetics of a woman’s body.

LIT102 - Paper #1

I think this one is okay. Dunno. Translation theory is hard to work with.

Darlene McCoy

Susan Gillman

LIT102 - Translation Theory

19 January 2012

Translation - the Language Border Assassin

            José Martí, a Cuban national hero, wrote his famous essay, "Nuestra America" in 1891. Since then, many translators have undertaken the task of conveying his message through language barriers; namely the barrier between Spanish and English. Elinor Randall, translator, and her editor Phillip S. Foner performed the task in 1977, and Esther Allen took it upon herself to do the same in 2002. A modern Western mind might not find much difference in the translations - for when read casually, their meanings are more or less equal, which suffice for a casual reading. On the other hand, a further look into the texts reveals some interesting little tidbits that might shake up any notions of equality between the two translations. Not to say that one translation is perhaps better than the other - just that they are two different works.

            "Nuestra America / Our America" focuses on many ideas. One is: Martí calls for his people to reject European and US politics and culture. He declares that his people should value the naturality of their lands and culture, for they are just as wonderful as their counterparts.

            When examined for their fidelity as well as their fluidity, the translator of each translation becomes visible, and the works themselves become distinctly different. In a section of his essay, Randall translated Martí's original word to "plainsman." Allen translated it to "gaucho." These two words roughly translate to cowboy - but a "plainsman" is a North American cowboy, and a "gaucho" is a South American cowboy. This slight difference begins to shed light on the differences in the translation - Randall seems to be more loyal to her English audience, and Allen to Martí. "Plainsman" reads more easily to an English speaker than "gaucho" does - it is fluid - for a native English speaker should have no issue with understanding the word's meaning. Yet, "plainsman" does not convey the same meaning as "gaucho" does in the context of Martí's essay. "Gaucho" remains loyal to Martí's ideas presented in the essay; it is natural and perfectly fine as it is in its original form. Yet, "gaucho" alienates an English reader, making the translation more difficult to read. One might say that Randall values fluidity over fidelity, but if her intentions in creating her translation were to create a semantically fluid text for English speakers, it is clear that she values both. On the other hand, one might say that Allen values fidelity over fluidity, but if her intentions in creating her translation were to create a text that loyally conveys Martí's ideas to English speakers, she too, values both fluidity and fidelity. Who can say that one translation is better than the other? They are simply different works that convey different ideas.

            While "gaucho" and "plainsman" translated to the same semantic meaning, another original word of Martí's essay translated to two words that have different semantic meanings: stagnant (Randall) and sluggish (Allen). Stagnant refers to a fluid in a vessel that is at rest, while sluggish refers to people who are inclined to be slow or slothful. These meanings are similar, but their innate difference points to a problem in translation: not all words are translatable, because one language might not have a word that can semantically translate to a word from another language. Why else would each translator choose a similar, yet different word? It is unreasonable to believe that one of the translators was more upset at the scene of translation so she decided to be more negative with her translation. The translation machine is not a consistent function, nor will it ever be, because the inputs do not always produce the same outputs. Therefore, each original work put into the translation machine will come out different than the one entered before it, making the outputs separate entities.

            A translator may intentionally mistranslate a word for some purpose. In Allen's translation she uses the word "mestizo." Randall uses "halfbreed." "Mestizo" is a Latin American word that semantically translates to "halfblood," which is similar to "halfbreed." Yet, "halfbreed" carries an unpleasant connotation. Say if, Elinor Randall had an intense hatred for Martí's people, she could use the word "halfbreed" to connote negative ideas about them. If this were true, then, a reading of her translation could change because of one little word! A mistranslation can change an entire reading of a work - making it different from other translations.

            It is important to note that a translation does not solely depend on the translator. Language itself complicates translation, for language transforms over time. For example: both translators use "Parisian" when referring to a person who hails from Paris in their translation. Yet, as Martí was not fond of French ideas, if he lived today, he might use the term "les parigots," which is a derogatory term to describe a person from Paris. Both terms, "Parisian" and "les parigots" mean a person from Paris, but "les parigots" carries some rather nasty connotations with it. "Les parigots" did not exist in Martí's day - he could have never used it; but the fact that it exists now is evidence for the transformation of language over time. Because language transforms over time, a translator cannot know the exact historical context and semantic meaning of a word written an amount of time ago. This lack of information can create difference in translation, thus different works.

            Why does it matter that a translation is a bit different from another?  Translation is power. Slight differences in translations can mean big changes for those who read them. A country shows its dominance by forcing others to learn its language. In Allen's translation, Spanish words are simply intergraded into the work. English words are italicized and capitalized. The italicization sets off the English words, making them stand out and seem foreign. The capitalization of "Government" and "Creator" imply that they are English words that convey an idea of "government." In her translation, though it is in English, the dominant language is Spanish, which adheres to Martí's ideas presented in the essay. In Randall's translation, Spanish words are not used, and English words, specifically "government" and "creator" are engrained into the work - they are neither capitalized nor italicized. In this translation, English is the dominant language on all counts. Therefore, it is important to note differences in translation and to give each translation of a work its own existence, because translation is power, and power must be held in check so it is not abused!

LTEL 170C - Essay #3

Final paper that I haven't posted yet. Whoops. It's alright. Got an 85/100. :/

Darlene McCoy

Michael Ursell

LTEL 170C

26 November 2011

Man is a Wolf to Man

Orson Welles, in an interview with Peter Bogdanovich, identifies Lear, of The Tragedy of King Lear fame, as an all-male man by describing him, "Lear clearly knows nothing about women and has never lived with them at all. His wife is dead – she couldn’t exist. Obviously, the play couldn’t happen if there were a Mrs. Lear. He hasn’t any idea of what makes women work – he’s a man who lives with his knights." He further explains that, "He’s that all-male man whom Shakespeare regarded as a natural-born loser in a tragic situation," and then connects this definition to the character of Othello, of Othello, the Moor of Venice fame, "Othello was another fellow like that." Welles implies three concepts: an all-male man does not understand women because he has not been around them much, that Lear and Othello are all-male men, and Shakespeare regarded an all-male man as a loser in a tragic situation.

As stated above by Welles, Lear knows naught of women. He lives with his knights, a rowdy ensemble that follows their king wherever he goes. They follow Lear to his daughters' houses, where each daughter refuses to provide hospitality for Lear and all of his men (King Lear II.4.244-256). There is no Mrs. Lear; she is nonexistent. Lear spends most of his time around men, thus, it is reasonable that his understanding of women is subpar.

Othello knows only of war. He recounts adventure after adventure in war to Desdemona, his soon-to-be bride, telling her of the Anthropophagi, cannibals, and other horrors (Othello I.3.128-170). All that is known about Othello's mother is that she gave him a handkerchief that she acquired in Egypt on her deathbed (Othello III.4.54-67). Othello has spent most of his life in the military, and cannot understand domestic delicacies that women of the time provide.

King Lear and Othello are different texts, but their male protagonists share quite a few common traits. In each play, the male protagonist demands a proof of love, and receives none but the woman's assurance of her loyalty and love by word. Lear asks his daughters to confess their love for their father publically in order for him to judge which would receive more of his property (King Lear I 1.1.50). Unlike her sisters, Cordelia refuses to explain her love for her father in frivolous words, she instead says, "I love your majesty / According to my bond, no more nor less." (King Lear I.1.91-92). Othello confronts Desdemona and demands that she show him the handkerchief he gave her (Othello III.4.84-95). Desdemona cannot produce the handkerchief, but tells him that she is loyal and true (Othello IV.2.34). Because the women were unable to produce a sufficient proof of love, the men’s' fear of infidelity takes hold of them, and they react violently. Lear asks Cordelia if her heart feels the same way as her words do, and when she replies in the affirmative, he becomes enraged and disowns her (Lear I.1.106). In a domestic situation, disowning a child is a very violent and rash act. Lear ends the life of his relationship with his daughter, for he proclaims that he never wants to see her again.

Both men, who are of high social rank, speak most of their lines in verse, but in instances of madness, divulge into prose. Othello's violent reaction to Desdemona's inability to produce the handkerchief and Iago's further poisoning of his thoughts is the first time Othello speaks in prose in the play.

Lie with her? Lie on her? We say "lie on her" when they belie her. Lie with her? 'Swounds, that's fulsome! Handkerchief - confessions - handkerchief? To confess, and be hanged for his labour? First to be hanged and then to confess! I tremble at it. Nature would not invest herself in such shadowing passion without some instruction. It is not words that shake me thus. Pish! Noses, ears, and lips! Is't possible? Confess? Handkerchief? O, devil!

He falls down in a trance (Othello IV.1.32)

This moment is a moment of madness. Othello falls into a trance, which can be defined as, "A state of mental abstraction from external things; absorption, exaltation, rapture, ecstasy." Trance, in Shakespeare's historical moment, was closely linked to the word "ecstasy." Ecstasy, in Shakespeare's moment, is defined as, "all morbid states characterized by unconsciousness, as swoon, trance, catalepsy, etc." The word ecstasy also carries a sexual connotation. Shakespeare's audience, fearful of Ottoman power, associated leaders of the empire, including Muhammed, the Muslim God, with indulging in sexual lust. It was known that Muhammed's bouts of epilepsy were explained as a divine punishment for his lechery (Vitkus 86). Therefore, Shakespeare's audience could see Othello falling into an epileptic attack and with all the added connotation of the audience's knowledge of epilepsy - this reaction would be quite violent for the time. Othello speaking in prose further bolsters the idea that something is terribly wrong, for prose is used to convey irrational, quick, emotional thought. Lear does not escape madness, and has his own moment of insanity. The first time Lear meets Poor Tom, a beggar madman, he realizes what his actions as king have done to his subjects. He feels ashamed, and then attempts to disrobe in the middle of a thunderstorm in order to experience life through the perspective of Poor Tom (Lear III.4.101). This passage is written in prose. Lear is a king - for him to speak prose instead of verse is quite the significant detail - for it denotes a change in Lear's mindset, allowing the audience to observe more deeply the breaking down of Lear's inner workings.

Lear and Othello both challenge their natural roles in society. Lear is an old king who simply does not want the responsibility of being a king anymore (Lear I.1.38-40). The audience of the time would know that one cannot simply step down from being king. Othello, on the other hand, is a Moor of Venice. A Moor, defined by the OED is, "a member of a Muslim people of mixed Berber and Arab descent inhabiting north-western Africa." In Shakespeare's time, his audience would believe that Othello is a convertite. He no longer follows the Muslim path, but is now Christian. Othello exhibits signs of his Christendom in his language. He mentions Saint Peter when accusing Desdemona of being a whore (Othello IV.2.92). Yet, Shakespeare's audience would also believe that converting from one religion to the next is an act of whoring out one's soul (Vitkus 78). Therefore, the audience defines Othello as an outsider of Christendom even before he utters a word. Lear challenges the order of the world, and Othello challenges Christian faith.

Now that Lear and Othello have been defined as all-male men, and associated with each other, why would Shakespeare consider them natural-born losers in the tragic situation?

The women that Lear and Othello fail to understand, Cordelia and Desdemona respectively, function on three virtues: faith, love, and loyalty. Each woman's portrayal evokes Christian imagery and language. Desdemona herself announces that she is a Christian when Othello accuses her of adultery, "No, as I am a Christian. / If to preserve this vessel for my lord / From any other foul unlawful touch / Be not to be a strumpet, I am none." (Othello IV.2.83-7). Her speech here embodies a common Christian value - women must remain chaste until they are married. In Orson Welles' film version of Othello, he uses black and white film technology to create a glowing effect around Desdemona each time she appears on screen. Lights always brighten her face and features. Also, in the movie, while Othello strangles Desdemona, he covers her face in a white veil, possibly signifying that the two never consummated their marriage, and that Desdemona dies an untainted innocent. Desdemona's untaintedness makes her death far more tragic in the Christian mindset, because she dies as a pure, innocent, and almost angelic figure.

Cordelia, Lear's youngest daughter, address her father time and time again as, "lord." The other daughters do not (King Lear I.1.86-103). This distinction in language allows Cordelia to shine in what could be considered a holy light. At the end of the play, when Lear finds that his youngest daughter has been hanged, he takes her in his arms (King Lear V.3). The scene is reminiscent of the Virgin Mary holding Jesus in her arms after his death. Considering how Christian Shakespeare's audience was, this scene would not seem like a stretched connection, but rather, a reading that seems very plausible. Cordelia's portrayal as a Jesus-like figure would make her death be almost as overwhelmingly tragic to the audience as it was to Lear himself.

Each woman reiterates her love and loyalty for her respective man time and time again. Desdemona confesses her love and loyalty to Othello many times in the play, even after he hits her in public,

Othello: Why, what art thou?

Desdemona: Your wife, my lord, your true and loyal wife. (Othello IV.2.34)

To the audience, Desdemona's love is obvious and clear, but Othello cannot understand his wife. This tension creates dramatic irony, which makes Desdemona's death later in the play more tragic. Cordelia confesses her love of her father to the audience twice in Act I before confessing it publically to her father. She says, "[Aside] What shall Cordelia speak? Love and be silent." (King Lear I.1.61) and, "[Aside] Then poor Cordelia, / And yet not so, since I am sure my love's / More ponderous than my tongue." (I.1.75-7). The audience, once again, knows that Cordelia loves her father, so watching him disown her a few line later allows the play to be more tragic. Each woman is in conflict with an "all-male man," and pitting these virtuous, Christian women against their male counterparts makes them seem like quite the losers, indeed.

Lear and Othello pursue an idea relentlessly, until that pursuit leads them to commit heinous acts. Those misguided acts allow for the tragedy in each play to set in. Lear pursues power after he relinquishes it. However, Lear does not want to deal with the responsibility that great power calls for. He exhibits this pursuit in the play by his constant badgering of Goneril and Regan to stay at their estates (King Lear I.4, I.5, II.4). Lear still wants to control them, even after he has stepped down from being king. When Goneril and Regan deny him control by giving him an ultimatum, Lear becomes furious (King Lear II.4.193-297). Lear's madness does not aid him in his pursuit of power; rather, it allows his daughters to take more power away from him. Lear pursues power until his country is at war, and the political system around him has crumbled. This misguided pursuit of power without responsibility drives Lear's actions in the play, and becomes his demise.

Othello, once poisoned and enraged by Iago, pursues divine retribution for Desdemona's perceived transgression. Othello is not akin to the idea that he must now kill his wife, "Yet I'll not shed her blood, / Nor scar that whiter skin of hers than snow / And smooth as monumental alabaster - / Yet she must die, else she'll betray more men." (Othello V.2.6). Yet, Othello will kill her anyway because he perceives himself as a man of the Christian faith, and he must deal out retribution. After Othello kills Desdemona, and then realizes that she had been innocent all along, he kills himself. Othello believes that by killing himself, he is killing the Turk/Muslim that lives inside of him. "Where a malignant and a turbaned Turk / Beat a Venetian and traduced the state, / I took by th' throat the circumcisèd dog / And smote him - thus." (Othello V.2.351-5). Yet, this is the moment where Othello proves how little faith he has. A true Christian would never, ever, take their life, under any circumstances, not even to destroy a Turk. Othello's lack of faith, but pursuit of divine retribution is his ultimate demise.

A common feature of early tragedy is that the main protagonist has a hamartia of some sort. Hamartia is defined by the OED as, "The fault or error which entails the destruction of the tragic hero." Lear and Othello both exhibit signs of a fatal flaw. Each man strives for something: Lear for sovereign power; Othello for divine justice. What they fail to comprehend is that with great power, comes great responsibility, and great retribution comes only with great faith. According to T. C. W. Stinton, another common interpretation of the word hamartia is that it denotes a "moral deficit" or a "moral error," which he concludes that Bible translators have linked to "sin." (Stinton 221). In an incredibly Protestant community, it is quite reasonable that Shakespeare's audience could make the same connections, and thus see Lear and Othello's fatal flaws as sins, making Shakespeare's personification of each character in the situations of Othello and King Lear a negative commentary on power without responsibility and divine retribution without faith. If Orson Welles understood Shakespeare’s commentary in this fashion, it would seem logical that he would state that, "He’s that all-male man whom Shakespeare regarded as a natural-born loser in a tragic situation," for, in Shakespeare's time, Lear and Othello were all-male men who lost in a tragic situation.

I Miss...

The urge to write about how much I'm fucking crazy about someone.

It's not there right now. ._.

I dunno how I feel about anything. Bleeeeh.

Single

also entitled: Sexy and She Knows It, or: Smart and She Knows It.

hehe!

SO, BLOGGER, HOW YOU BEEN DOIN', BABY?

I posted on Tumblr like a week ago that I wasn't okay with confessing my heart on the internet. I still dunno how I feel about it anymore, BUT:

I need to speak. I need to write Goddamnit!

I also need to let some people know what the hell is going ooooon~

'Kay, so;

Ryan and I are not dating anymore. We have broken up.

We're still friends. And we're still having a hard time getting through the break-up, but as friends, we can support each other. While that does make it a little harder to deal with, too, I've seen how we function in a relationship, and I made the decision that we don't function as well as I need us to for both of us to stay healthy. Therefore, we are no longer together.
This doesn't mean that I hate him. In fact, I gotta say, I'm really proud of him for handling this as he is right now. He's trying to be strong, so we can be friends. I hope he can keep this up - Ryan is def a person that I do not want to lose. Yeah, he's a goofball, but that only prevents us from being in a romantic relationship. It doesn't prevent us from being friends nor does it prevent us from loving one another. I tell people I love them all the time - because there's all different kinds of love, and any kind of love felt should be expressed. I 100% still love Ryan. We're just not dating anymore. This decision also does not rule out a future for Ryan and I - it just rules out a future in the present time. (If that makes sense.)
Either way: that's what happened between me and Ryan. I'm obviously getting to be more and more okay with this, considering I'm solidifying my feelings in writing.

I want to address another "mystery" of happenings surrounding me: Jocab Victario.

So, um, one of the reasons why I fell so rapidly out of love with Ryan is because I started to fall for Jacob. He has grown so much, and it's not like he's an unattractive dude, so like, why would I not fall for the person who pretty much understands me better than my mother? The issue is here, though, that I don't know if I fell for Jacob for comfort only. I need crazy passion in a relationship. I'll tell ya right now -- sex is important to me -- and I dunno if he and I can connect on that level as well as I'd like to. It's weird. But that's all I want to say on this. Talking about sexuality makes me blush! I'm unsure of my feelings for him -- unsure meaning I'm not 100%, y'know? Shit is sketchy.

The one thing I am sure of is right now, I don't want to make plans for the "future." I want to live my life right now. I want to meet new people, have new experiences, and do new things (not hard drugs <.

SO: now I'll explain the other titles.

Sexy and She Knows It: lately, I've had a huge surge of self-confidence. I gotta tell ya - me running around in just a bra and cardigan is not a normal Darlene thing. That is a confident and hot as fuck Darlene thing. I'm super down with this. My life has been a whole lot more pleasant since I decided I don't look like a disfigured human being. I'm not afraid of my body anymore - I just fear the power it has over other human beings, 'cause oh baby, I like to abuse me some power. Hahahahahah XD

Smart and She Knows It: So now that I'm more or less okay with my physical appearance, I've become super self-conscious about my intelligence. At dinner the other night, for example, a few of the boys (Can you guess who?) made me feel like I didn't belong in college because I was too stupid to be here. Luckily, I am aware that people do think I'm smart, and just needed to call upon the Facebook Gods to remedy my rather depressed mood. And guess what? I think I'm smart, too. Why? 'Cause I am Goddamnit. I'm smart enough to realize that life isn't about what TV shows you watch, what music you listen to, what books you read, nor any other creation of humanity that humans can use to judge others by. Life is about enjoying it. Guess what? I like Legally Blonde. I will always like Legally Blonde. I will never disown that movie, because it was a part of me growing up as an individual. Whenever I see that film, I think of the bliss I enjoyed when I was a young girl. There's nothing fucking wrong with that, y'hear, world? There is nothing wrong with being happy. And even if I enjoyed Legally Blonde for complete asinine reasons, does that really matter? Newp. Not really. All that matters is that I had a good time. Now -- I'm not saying that having a good time takes precedence over everything in life. Self-discipline is super fucking important. But when all of the day's work is done -- shouldn't you have the right to sit down and do whatever the hell you want without some jackass judging you or calling you stupid for it? Yeah, you, jackass: fuck you. Please accuse me of being naive when your statement is the utter propagation of naivety, so I can enjoy a nice chuckle. Unless you just think the point of life is to be miserable. In that case, I just pity you, you sad, sad soul.

Either way: I'm a smarticle (a smart particle!).

Also: I'm booksmart. I love my major, and have a massive passion for studying literature. Just because I have extra work to do because I didn't receive all the culture I should have as a kid doesn't make me stupid. It just makes me an underdog. And you know what else it makes me? Awesome. Because I'm going to succeed without all of the other shit other people had. AND I'm probably going to do better than them. So fuck you again, you jackass trying to bring me down, f-u-c-k  y-o-u. Laugh at me if you please, darlin', but when you're holed up in your room wallowing in your own self misery and pity, I'll be holed up in mine writing a fantastic book report, listening to bad pop and enjoying every fucking minute of it.

Don't hate me because you can't enjoy life like I can. Learn to enjoy life your own way, dumbass. Jealously is one of the worst -- and arguably most unproductive -- emotions, so why don't you just toss it out the window? It's worthless.

Erg and Steve went out with Casey! What! He's a butt.
(Note here: he could've gone out with anyone and still been a butt.)

UGH.

Word vomit is best vomit.

I Feel so Miserable Right Now...

._.

Stresssssssssss
Emotioooooons
Tired
Bleh.

I Don't Think

I want to be in a relationship with anybody right now.

Breaking Up

...is really, really, really hard.

:(