Those who can't do teach?

Teaching is the preparation of young people who are expected to excel in some field. The sad fact is that whether a child is taught carpentry, biology or economics, there is a good chance that he or she turns the subject into a profession and might even become an expert on the matter, while his/her high school teacher continues teaching the basics to the next generation.

Teachers are the ones that stay behind, that don't go chasing glory or the money bag. Sure, they can advance as well. They can make it as principals or maybe even professors, but they still haven't got the slightest opportunity to change the world. They can publish books of fiction and non-fiction, but then it's in their capacity as authors or writers, not as teachers, that they instigate change.

And yet teaching is probably one of the most important professions in the world, alongside health-care, engineering and public administration, because education is a prerequisite to gaining a position. Thus the impact of teaching any single student has the potential to indirectly change the world. Herein lies the job satisfaction for many teachers; the knowledge that one kid might make it big and make a difference.

I have personally long harbored a desire to go into teaching myself. Of course, like everyone else, I would prefer the fame and money, or at least the recognition and self-realization of a rock star, author or film director. But if I am to be realistic about my future, there really is no other path; teaching means indoor work with no heavy lifting, working with academics and theoretical subjects and, of course, it is work that does some good in the world. A child needs guidance, carrots and whips, and to be able to supply that to just one of the saviors of the future, would truly be an honor.

"The blood is the life..."

The character of Dracula has seen more appearances on the silver screen, in comics or even on high-sugar cereal boxes than perhaps any other fictional character. He's a figure instantly recognizable, an integrated part of Anglo-American culture. This is perhaps why, lying bedridden with the flu in 2007, I felt compelled to read the original novel. Since then I have read the novel twice more, in English and Norwegian, and, having already considered picking it up again when our teacher instructed us to find a book to read this spring, I reread it for the third time.

"Dracula" belongs to the now more or less extinct genre of the epistolary gothic romance. That is to say, it is a dark, romantic narrative structured as a series of notes, journal entries, newspaper articles and correspondences. This was common in much of English gothic fiction, notably including Mary Shelley's "Frankenstein", and served as a tool to make the unlikely plot seem more realistic.

The basic story follows young Johnathan Harker, sent by his employer to negotiate the estate purchases of Romanian nobleman Count Dracula. Harker gradually realizes that he is to be kept prisoner and later murdered by the Count, who only needs him to formalize the contracts and teach him aspects of life in London. He escapes, and is taken to a nunnery where he is cared for, having contracted brain fever.

Meanwhile, Harker's fiance, Mina Murray is staying with her friend Lucy Westenra in Whitby. Coincidentally this is where Dracula's ship is scheduled to dock. However, to remove all witnesses and slake his blood-thirst, he murders the entire crew.

Dracula takes a liking to Lucy, and attacks and infects her with the curse of vampirism. This brings Lucy's former suitors and fiance to Whitby; nobleman Arthur Holmwood, Texan adventurer Quincey P. Morris and Dr. Jack Seward, who, again coincidentally, runs an asylum that neighbors Dracula's estate in London, Carfax Abbey. Seward, unable to explain the symptoms of blood-loss, contacts his Dutch mentor, Abraham van Helsing. Van Helsing determines that Lucy is dying from vampirism, and that after her death she must be purified by removing her head and staking her heart. Lucy dies, and soon after her funeral the local newspaper reports that several children have been kidnapped and attacked by a "bloofer lady". The four men carry out the exorcism, and Lucy is given peace. But van Helsing warns that they must still find the source - the Count, hiding somewhere in London.

Harker returns home and he and Mina marry. The team compare and assemble their notes and journals, and conceive a plan to hunt down the vampire. However, Dracula escapes to Romania, after having infected Mina. And so the stakes have been raised - by destroying Dracula, they will not only rid the world of great evil and avenge Lucy's death; it is also the only way to save Lucy from damnation.

"Dracula" has been seen as an exploration of the Victorian era's fear of female sexuality, a demonstration of the xenophobic "invasion literature" genre, and even as a commentary on the divide between rational science and superstition. Personally, I can agree to some extent with all these interpretations. For one, there is certainly something sexual in the behavior of Dracula his three "brides" and Lucy when she rises from the grave. Feminists like to interpret this as Stoker's warning against female insubordination - when a woman becomes too sexually unrestrained, she must be "staked".

As to the "invasion literature" interpretation, which, like the feminist approach, is tinged with modern, politically correct distaste for the novel, the point often made is Jonathan Harker's comments on the strangeness of the Romanian countryside and Dracula's gypsy mercenaries and dreams of conquering England.

The advance of science idea sees the victory of modern men over an age-old monster as the primary theme, and, differing from other interpretations, applauds it. The vampire hunters employ typewriters, short-hand, blood-transfusions, telegraphs, psychiatry, and are overall modern and progressive. This is contrasted by Dracula, who looks back on the glory days of his ancestor Attila the Hun.

Not to criticize these critics, but they all seem to base their indignation, distaste or even respect on late 20th century ideals and morality. First of all, if female sexuality is the premise of the conflict, why is Dracula, both a polygamist, rapist and the main villain, a male? If the novel is xenophobic or racist, why is it van Helsing and not Dracula who speaks broken English? If the happy ending indicates that technology and science prevails, why does the wise van Helsing warn that "It is the fault of our science that it wants to explain all; and if it explain not, then it says there is nothing to explain"?

I'm not saying the novel isn't racist, sexist or enthusiastic about the future. But this novel was published in 1897, before universal suffrage had arrived, before the colonies were liberated, before the World Wars and the hippies and legalization of homosexuality. To criticize a novel is to examine its merits and defects, not to pull it out of its time and place and then wag your finger at the author for what he has "revealed" about himself. To analyze a novel is to examine what has been deliberately inserted to underline a theme, not to pick apart contemporary norms and moralize.

"Dracula" is an entertaining, melodramatic story about courage, purity and the bonds of love. It is based on a highly original idea, and has a twisting, suspenseful plot. The mood, from the creeping revelation of unnatural horror in its first act, to the mystery of the hunt, is engaging and constantly dark.

"Dracula" endures because it gives us hope as much as it scares us. It is light, entertainment literature, that much to the chagrin of the snobs and politically correct has been elevated, more or less thanks to Hollywood, to the status of literary classic. And it is worth the read in these days of castrated, glitzy high-school or stripper blood-suckers; Dracula still reigns supreme among the undead.

You have my word.

We Built This City On Rock And Roll

Urbanization is a prerequisite for industrialization. However, it doesn’t necessarily mean that industrialization and development will occur, given an increase in urban population. The increase is dependent on available work for migrants in order to be beneficial.

Population growth

The problem is that in developing countries there is a general increase, not just in the urban population, but in the national population. While modern industry makes for more job opportunities in graphic design, service and communication, these are new lines of work that require a certain degree of education. Migrants from rural areas relocate to the cities in hopes of finding jobs they are not qualified for, abandoning work in the primary sector, thereby both impoverishing themselves and contributing to a deficiency in food and natural resources, also a major prerequisite for industrialization and development.

What would you do?

However, moving from poverty and famine to a habitat associated with wealth and opportunity is completely understandable. This is exactly what happened in the West during the Industrial Revolution. The view that citizens from, until recently, LEDCs like Brazil or India have no right to attempt to transcend traditional economic classes is pure hypocrisy. A migrant can’t be blamed for wishing to escape poverty; increases in CO2-pollution, food deficiency and increased consumption are as much the fault of prosperous Westerners as the Hispanic, Asian or African migrants’.

The unsustainable situation is nevertheless troubling. While estimates of 8% more of the world’s population living in urban areas from 2015 to 2030 may seem farfetched or even over-dramatic, the transfer to 45% more of the world becoming urban residents over the last 200 years should tell us something about our children’s future. If the trend continues, future generations may witness a completely metropolitan world – or rather, it is a mathematical possibility.

Economy vs. Environment

Luckily, civilization isn’t calculable. Leaving environment and climate aside for the moment, any economy is dependent on capital, management, labor and land. By land we mean natural resources – all raw materials needed to manufacture a product, be it an iPad, T-shirt or Hershey-bar. On this concern alone, the need for something to sell, rests the paradoxical hope for both the global economy and environment. The primary sector will be the point of emphasis and priority in every nation. Consumption, today most rampant among the well-educated middle –to – upper classes, won’t reach the extremity that it, mathematically, could, thus CO2-pollution won’t increase dramatically either. The increasing demand for environmentally-friendly technology and products will create a new industry and job-market – a boost both for the climate and economic development.

Depending on what deals and conventions are signed and ratified in the immediate future, as well as on the policies adapted by development and industrialized countries alike, both poverty and climate concerns could become marginalized problems. It all comes down to how we handle urbanization – and what kind of industry will feature in the next Industrial Revolution.

The Kite Runner

"I wondered if that was how forgiveness budded, not with the fanfare of epiphany, but with pain gathering it things, packing up, and slipping away unannounced in the middle of the night."

This is the novel that I saw in every bookshelf in every liberal Norwegian's home. The novel people with coffees and cigarettes read at bus-stops. The novel I had decided to dislike and never read, because to me it was a symbol of the guilty liberal conscience of Western Europe.

And then I had to read it for school.

Yes, it's about Afghanistan. It's topical, it's melodramatic, it can be used both as an argument for NATO's intervention and against the growing islamophobia on both sides of the European political spectrum.

It is also a story built on the thematic. The novel I read is about guilt, atonement, nostalgia, love, culture, morality, class and war. Especially fascinating for me was the epic conflict between Amir and Assef, the coward and the fearless, lover and fighter, creator and destroyer. This story plays out on the individual level, but I find it tempting to see it as part of a larger political context. Khaled Hosseini might have meant to write a story about a group of characters from, as any debutant author is prone to do, a culture or society he is very familiar with. Then again, these characters may be Hosseini's attempt to give a close-up of what Westerners can only experience through the media. The fate of the pure and honest Hassan echoes the fate of Afghanistan. Hosseini might have meant to say that the country was, to put it bluntly, raped by extremists and abandoned by the privileged elite.

The quote that I found most poignant comes from the very end of the novel. Amir contemplates whether forgiveness is a force of its own, a revelation or revolution that causes dramatic change, or simply the exit of the pain caused by the action forgiven. There is no way of explaining the quote other than paraphrasing it, as its meaning is clear and concise. While the war against the Taliban is as of yet still raging, it is not too early for the Afghan people to consider how best to rebuild and heal their torn and tattered nation.

Christian fantasy and fantastic Christianity

It's a well-known fact that C.S. Lewis and his famous contemporary and close friend, J.R.R. Tolkien, infused their fantasy classics with Christian symbolism. Both feature benevolent guiding figures, reminiscent of Jung's senex archetype, who sacrifice their lives for the good of the world and are rewarded with the chance to return. This nod to the Jesus myth is painfully obvious. But beside the common denominators of mutual experiences, Christian convictions, and fantasy worlds, there are a few substantial differences between the two authors that depend on two important facts: Lewis was a late convert to Anglicanism and enjoyed using metaphor and allegory, while Tolkien was a Catholic from childhood, detested allegory and restricted the use of metaphor to poetry.

Thus, while the Christian influence in Lewis' work has been the subject of much discussion and criticism, Tolkien's spirituality is left largely untouched. Tolkien's world has an all-powerful God, it has angels, one of them a fallen one, and it has a Paradise for the virtuous. And the Professor leaves it at that. Beside the Christ-like sacrifice of the wizard Gandalf, little else in his works can with accuracy be determined a Christian element. The evil in Middle-Earth isn't gluttony, lust, or sloth, but destruction and industry; the morality that guides Tolkien is environmentalist, not religious.

Lewis, on the other hand, wrote fables of morality. His religious views are blatantly expressed; we are told that vanity in a woman removes her innocence, that the Eastern God Tash (Allah) is not the same as the lion Aslan (God), and that lack of faith in the lion is a sin. As an apologist, Lewis was new to Christianity; it wasn't a natural part of his identity, as the case was with Tolkien, but a burning passion. Lewis wanted to teach his readers; Tolkien wanted to entertain them. And that has made all the difference.

Veritas vos liberabit?

With this recent eruption of international diplomatic scandal, WikiLeaks.org has demonstrated the awesome and awful power of free speech. Though little has been revealed that can be deemed truly shocking, the reports on Admiral Qhadafi’s or Silvio Berlusconi’s sexual escapades from the pens of American diplomats are enough to shake the brittle frameworks of international diplomacy.

While ordinary citizens might shake their heads at the mostly harmless nature of these documents, and comment that the leaks are only stating the obvious in most cases, it is the case with good diplomacy as it is with any good marriage; the more smiles that are faked, the better. These documents, along with the recent surveillance scandals in Europe, are likely to cause a diplomatic crisis for America, the likes, perhaps, of which we have not seen since the Cold War.

This should be cause for celebration. However, the western media (with the Rupert Murdoch battleship at the forefront) have painted a clear, yet distorted, picture; that of the alleged sex-offender Julian Assange on the run from Lady Justice and the disturbed, fanatical homo Bradley Manning, with his hubris and contempt for national security. While the right-wing media extremists are calling for capital punishment for the hackers and administrators, Bill O’Reilly and Glenn Beck going as far as accusing multi-millionaire George Soros of aiding and abetting these” traitors”, the left-wing does not applaud Assange and co.’s efforts either.

The whole situation is in reality a reminder of what happens to the naïve and careless idealist; if he raises his hand he is in danger of seeing it chopped off. It is a reminder that those who expose the truth will be hunted and painted black by those who conceal and distort it.

Advice to fellow students!

New research by Professor Paul Kirschner from a Dutch university has apparently discovered that being logged on to Facebook will affect your test results in a negative way. That is, there is a 0.76 grade difference between the averages of those who don't use social-networking and those who do.

Now, what came first:

Professor Kirschner assumes that poor test results are a result of social networking. But as far as I can tell from the conduct of his research, and you can read the same article I did here, there is nothing that suggests it could not be the other way around. Could it not be that less-disciplined, less-motivated or even less-skilled students are more inclined to hang out online while studying than the disciplined, intelligent and dutiful ones? Maybe they scored lower because they don't work as hard or understand the subject as easily?

I don't really doubt Kirschner's conclusion, but I am exasperated by how he has arrived at it. My fellow students, beware of the biased researcher who declare his opinions fact in the name of science.