According to Whom?

Orianthi's "According to Him" is a generally good pop song about the reaction of a woman to a "disparate event" in the way two men in her life judge her. The song is a rant directed at her current partner (inferred from the line where she says he is making her "decide" and by the rather large list of complaints against her made by him that she has gathered). What I think is the best about this song, though, is that way it can be used as a good way of introducing a major problem faced in interpreting historical evidence: sorting facts out of a biased report.

The song begins with a long list of complaints that vary in their intensity:

"According to you
I'm stupid,
I'm useless,
I can't do anything right.
According to you
I'm difficult,
hard to please,
forever changing my mind.
I'm a mess in a dress,
can't show up on time,
even if it would save my life.
According to you. According to you."

As it stands, we have a damning indictment of her current significant other (whom we will refer to as "Octavian" for no important or sensible reason). "Stupid" and "useless" are not nice things to say to people. We don't know if this is abusive or simply things said in frustration or during an argument. We don't know if this was a response to something she said that could have been equally as hurtful, or simply reflects a pattern of anger and bullying, the latter of which seems to be the message relayed by our female protagonist.

However, I have my doubts. The main reason is that there is clearly some reason for her to stick around. We don't know what these are, but the evidence for them is manifest in several places where she says Octavian is "making her decide", asking "what [have] I got to lose [by going to boy #2]?" and "Why can't you see me through his eyes?"

These are all pleas or bargains for him to see her the way this new guy (heretofore known as Escamillo) does. These revealing statements undermine the meanness she is implying about Octavian. The song is also clearly addressed to Octavian, which wouldn't make sense if she really was ready to leave him (or if she was ready to leave him maybe she's not as ready as she thinks). The problem with this theory, which is what Orianthi herself says is the situation ("it connects with a lot of people as it's about leaving a bad situation and moving on to a better one", Orianthi 'According to You' -- Video Premiere), is that she clearly was not leaving this "bad situation." It took the intervention of Escamillo to trigger this change. What is called for then is an evaluation of Escamillo's motivations and role in triggering this change of heart.

According to Escamillo, Orianthi is "beautiful, incredible, he can't get me out of his head." He also says she's "funny, irresistible, [and] everything he ever wanted." In fact according to Oranithi "everything is opposite" compared to her interactions with Octavian, and she doesn't "feel like stopping it."

This last line should signal red flags for anybody paying close attention to her language here, and it should also trigger red flags to Octavian. One might first off wonder in what context Escamillo would be giving such compliments to Orianthi. Anybody can find anybody else funny, but Escamillo is not a good friend becoming love interest. A good friend might even say someone is "beautiful," and if his motives were pure and he was becoming interested in her as more than friends he could innocently not "get her out of his head;" we can't control our emotions.

This escalation in emotion reaches a point for me, though, when he describes her as "irresistible", and in this context not being able to "get her out of his head" takes on a more erotic context. I would not say it is manifestly sexual, but there is definitely an emotional betrayal going on here. Her insistence at the end that she "doesn't feel like stopping it" also heavily implies that there is in fact something going on which might or might not need stopping.

So the question is what is going on that needs stopping? A good friend complimenting her and hoping for it to become something more? This would be I think the interpretation Orianthi is hoping us to believe. He is clearly "making her decide", but if Octavian really was as bad as she says and Escamillo clearly so great, wherein would be the problem?

It is clear that there is something tying her to him, as we addressed before, and the best place to compare her relationship with Octavian is to contrast his invectives against Escamillo's compliments. Other than humor (he says she sucks at telling jokes, Escamillo says she's funny), the compliments provide nothing to say Octavian's invectives are wrong. In fact anything Octavian is quoted as saying according to her are things that will tend to come up in a relationship. Escamillo's, however, are all things that one would expect from a burgeoning infatuation. Even going back to the comparison of humor, Octavian is never quoted as saying she's not funny, only that she gives away the endings of jokes. Taken out of context this might seem like he's saying she's not funny, but in context he is only talking about jokes and this statement may have been qualified by a thousand other ways she is funny (or has a good sense of humor).

What is clear under any interpretation is that she wants this relationship to be over. Instead of ending it she is doing everything she can to transfer the "blame" of the ending onto Octavian. With this implications of her cheating (physically or emotionally) with Escamillo, with the out-of-context way she addresses Octavian's invectives in comparison to Escamillo's non-contradictory (vis-a-vis the invective) compliments, and with the fact that there is clearly something tying her to Octavian (something enough to create the relationship they've developed that would have lasted long enough for Octavian to move out of the star-struck infatuation phase and develop these complaints), I have trouble taking Orianthi's interpretation of events at face value. I have no idea if Octavian is a good or bad person (he surely could have addressed his issues in a way that was more constructive, though on the other hand who knows if he did before frustration/invective set in, especially if she brought up her emotional relationship with Escamillo during these compliments [ex. "Well Escamillo doesn't think that's a problem!" "Well Escamillo doesn't see how hard it is to take you anywhere because you're always late!"]), and I have no desire to make such an interpretation (because as you demonstrated repeatedly we have too little context to decide).

What I do feel comfortable saying is that relying on personal testimony, especially in such an emotionally charged context, makes it impossible to determine the true nature of events. From what I have seen, however, any case where somebody feels the need to assign blame, especially to a third person audience (the listeners), there is some blame of their own they're trying to cover up or divert from.

Orianthi, I am unconvinced of your innocence in the breakdown of your relationship with Octavian. Thank you.

Giving a Test

I think giving a test is the second worst feeling after taking a test, possibly moreso. Taking a test means a temporarily stressful end to a block of learning. It is a concluding act that quantifies the time and effort you put into something, multiplied by some arbitrary factor as determined by prior knowledge and the teacher's (in)ability to adequately assess learning. Giving a test is instead a beacon of stress to come, and while it will still quantify your prior efforts as a teacher, the worst part is that any arbitrary modifier discovered (after averaging the scores and weighting them by each student's prior effort, time, and knowledge) are also a quantification of your ability to adequately assess learning.

Swoopstake

In an indiscriminate manner

Ex: "Will you take all of these cupcakes swoopstake?"

Shakespeare: "Of your dear father's death, is 't writ in your revenge, / That, swoopstake, you will draw both friend and foe, / Winner and Loser?"

Burt Bacharach's influence will never die

This happened February 2nd, but I am missing school something fierce. Fimbulvetr has canceled school yet again for Tuesday, so here's a flashback:

Note confiscated from an 8th grade boy: "what do you do when you fall in love?" Truly, reading that aloud to the class would have been cruel and unusual punishment.

Team x or Team y?

I saw Carmen today, which was very nice, but my first comment to Beth when the play ended was "Team Jose or Team Escamillo?" While this was said in jest (how could anybody not appreciate the endlessly tragic!love of Team Jose?), it made me realize "Team x or Team y" has entered into common vernacular now as a way of representing two sides of an αγων. I can think, off hand, of a million and one precedents for this (Team Achilles, Team Odysseus; Team Virtus, Team Disciplina; etc.) but the representation of these as organized groups with the rigid connotations and obligations of teammates is clearly a reflection of the dramatization that is endemic of any meme coming from a 12-16 year old demographic and a linguistic reflection of a deeper desire in culture to create dichotomies that extend beyond their original focus (Greek and Barbarian, Masculine and Effeminate). This is also reflected best, I think, in this overthought definition at urban dictionary for Team Jacob:


From www.urbandictionary.com heading "Team Jacob", definition #4 by pnayxkay, Jan. 5, 2010

In addition to other definitions, this group of Twilight partisans is also attracted to romantic relationships that begin with close friendships and turn into something more.

In contrast with the intense and potentially dangerous passion that has found favor with Team Edward, Team Jacob is comfortable with the idea of "being with the one who's best for you," rather than "being with the one you can't live without."

This way of thinking stems from Jacob's uplifting friendship and devotion to a depressed Bella in her greatest time of need during the second installment, New Moon.

For these reasons, Team Jacob tends to value qualities like friendship, loyalty, stability, honesty, and a sense of humor.

Team Jacob 1: Can you believe Bella rejected Jacob as soon as Edward came back at the end of New Moon? It's as if everything Jacob's done for her meant nothing.

Team Jacob 2: I can't understand it either. She obviously prefers a suicidal and paternalistic boyfriend over an easy-going and devoted one.

Team Jacob 1: I agree. Jacob makes her laugh, he doesn't underestimate her like Edward does, and their families get along so well. Plus, he's incredibly cut. Team Jacob all the way!

Confusion

If I "confuse x" then I have made x confused, ie difficult to discern.

When x is a person (confuse Steven), it makes the person unable to discern things (The entrance of my evil twin confused Steven; he could not tell which was his real friend).

When x is an object , I have made the object difficult to be discerned. The thing is I can't think of this ever taking a singular object. You always have to cause confusion between two things. So I can confuse papers (by mixing them around), and I can confuse the desk (supposedly with another desk, or a chair that happens to be shaped like a desk), but in general you cannot confuse a thing without having another (possibly implied) direct object with which you are confusing it.

Confuse means different things when used with people and objects. That's neat.

Cleave is its own antonym.

Snowpocalypse

As the second Fimbelvetr sets in, I thought I should comment on the irony that several days after deciding I should in fact keep a log of the events of my career in education, that career should be brought to a sudden and snow-covered end by the coming of Ragnarok, signaled by the endless winters. What other explanation could there be, I ask, for a record breaking snowfall to be shortly followed by a snowfall that any other year would be called "ridiculous"? None other explanation is what. To be fair, however, Mount St. Mary's had a half day today and my sister even drove to her riding lesson. Upon informing her that I had off all week from both Loyola and Howard County (not officially, but practically), she just smiled and said "not for the little school that could". So congratulations, Mt. St. Mary's College. You made sure that despite probably every single school in Maryland being shut down today, somebody was going to learn something no matter how many metric tonnes of snow they had to tunnel through.

Legit

Shortened for "legitimate" with broader meaning. While it can refer to something real, or more specifically not fake/phony (or bootleg) (1), it can also denote "rightness", either moral, legal, or otherwise. In this sense it is similar to αριστος (2). It can also refer to something that is simply true (3).

1. "No, that's legit gold."
2. "Or how about I take my shit back and I don't beat you?" "That's legit."
3. "We were all late from gym, legit!"

Bootleg

A term derived from the English "bootleg" which originally referred to something (usually an alcoholic drink) hidden down the leg of a boot. Later referred to "alcoholic products sold or transported illegally" and eventually any illegally sold or obtained good.

In current slang it is a term linguistically opposite to "legit". By association with the poor quality of "knockoffs", it refers to anything poorly made (1). By extension, and through its relationship with legit, it can also refer to something unfair (2).

1. "You made this test? And it has typos? Man that's bootleg."
2. "I told you to start your drill ten minutes ago; now you can finish it at lunch detention." "Man, that's bootleg!"