Teaching Talk: Designing a Syllabus

The first assignment I ask my ENG 101 students to write is a two-page brochure on the topic of "So You've Decided to Teach Me English." It's a fun assignment for the students to perform, I think. I have them write a column on their personal biography, their interests, and their writing experiences.

One thing that almost always comes up is that students will invariably say, "I am good at writing about things that I'm interested in, but too often I get frustrated when teachers assign me work that I don't care about." As an instructor, this is challenging, because there's no way that I can tailor a classroom experience to 26 different students and their varying interests.

Not that I haven't tried in the past. When I first started teaching, I let the students write about whatever they desired, as long as the essays were of the type that I'd defined by the syllabus. Paradoxically, the students tended to be paralyzed by indecision. Without having some limit on their field of vision, they ultimately procrastinated on choosing a topic until they selected whatever seemed to be in front of them at the time. Once, I had a compare & contrast essay submitted to me on the difference between shell-toe sneakers and some other kind.

More recently, I've decided that I'd narrow their options some. It's hard. My dad is driven crazy by what I ask my students to do because I'm not asking anyone to write about Shakespeare or something. He doesn't understand that ENG 101 is not, really, an English class. It's definitely not a literature class. Among my one hundred students, maybe five are interested in pursuing English as a major. These students have also been discouraged for the last five-plus years by thinking that the essay is a chore that you write in response to a text that they didn't care about and likely didn't even read. They can put together a five-paragraph essay that you describe to them, but that's not the kind of person that I want to create when they leave my classroom.

So I've given them larger topics for discussion for each essay. The last two years, students have written on sports (with examples from Chuck Klosterman and David Foster Wallace), education, gender issues, and something political that I'm generally deciding at the last possible moment (this year it was evaluating Obama's first 100 days). There are still students who resist, but there's not much I can do about that. My general hope is that I can limit their options, and then allow my own promiscuous interests ("Promiscuous Boy" was nearly the name for this very blog) and my enthusiasm to carry them along the road.

I'm also teaching a summer session of ENG 101, beginning June 1. In the past, I've focused on movies during the summer (for reasons that readers of this blog should find obvious). After doing that for two years, I've come to the conclusion that it's a little much to ask students to focus on movies for five straight weeks and 20-30 pages of writing.

This summer, I'm going to try letting their first two essays be about movies. The first one is about an experience of going to the cinema. The second is one of my favorites: comparing Jaws to a summer blockbuster of their choice. Then I'm going to try something new. I think I'm going to ask them to evaluate their experience as a tourist. I'm not sure what I'll have them read as an example, but I'm thinking I'll give them one of David Foster Wallace's essays, either "Ticket to the Fair" or "Consider the Lobster." Finally, I'm going to ask them to critique an album released in the last two years, adding research as they go.

I'm pretty excited. It's always fun to vary the syllabus. A five-week summer session is pretty grueling for students who have been educated for (likely) the past 14 years. The students really don't have a chance to process what they're learning like they are more able to do in a traditional semester.

I think all teachers design (or should design) their courses to appeal to the students that they were (or they remember themselves being). I think this leads me to challenge my students more than they really expect. But I think the 18 year old me would like the amount of independent work that I ask students to do, even if he would have loathed the peer review process that the college environment requires.

Summer Movie Reviews: Angels and Demons

It's refreshing to go and see a movie that isn't made with people like myself in mind.

I am a 29-year-old, white, upper-middle class male. For over ten years, almost every film and television series has been specially calibrated to appeal to me, or at least, someone like me. When I was in college, I'd occasionally take free movie passes for films that were in post production and the studio would want to preview for test audiences. I saw Pitch Black, Gone in 60 Seconds, Payback, and a couple other movies this way. They were all fine, but the one thing that I noticed that separated me from the studios' ideal moviegoer was that I see upwards of thirty first-run movies a year. I'm guessing this puts me well above the average.

Angels and Demons is the follow-up to The DaVinci Code, and while the original Dan Brown novel takes place before the events of The DaVinci Code, A&D is set a couple of years later, which is alluded to through a handful of knowing glances between the hero Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks) and a handful of Vatican officials (Stellan Skarsgard and Armin Mueller-Stahl). The plot is pretty stupid: the pope has died, and as the College of Cardinals convenes to nominate a new pope, an ancient group called the Illuminati have kidnapped the four most likely successors, as well as a canister of anti-matter, which has the capability of vaporizing Vatican City "in light" (get it? They're the "Illuminati"? Light? This is the level that Angels and Demons functions on). Tom Hanks and a comely physicist (Ayelet Zurer) are enlisted by the Vatican police to locate the missing Cardinals as well as to recover the antimatter before it is released at midnight.

The DaVinci Code worked like a solid puzzle videogame, like Myst. There were puzzles to be solved, unlocking doors and solving riddles to get to the next level of the story. Where The DaVinci Code probably failed was in underestimating the intelligence of their audience. In case you didn't understand that a "V" was the cup, and the "A" was the arrow, director Ron Howard would helpfully(?) highlight the solutions for you. Thanks, Ron.

Angels and Demons is for people who found the puzzles and solutions in DaVinci too confusing. The puzzles are totally absent, replaced with angels who point the way to every solution. The dramatic moments in Angels and Demons is exclusively people standing in various locales around Rome, looking around for the next arrow to point the way. Because the threats only come every hour on the hour, after one puzzle is solved, the heroes stand around for 45 minutes until panickingly deciding that they better go get the next clue.

Leah and I were the youngest adults in the theatre at our 3:30 screening on Sunday. The group in front of us was four women in their late 60s or early 70s. This is a movie designed for them. It's in many ways a big-screen version of CSI: the characters are largely ciphers, but there is an urgent mystery in a foreign locale. These are the kinds of mystery novels that my grandmother adores.

Also like CSI, Angels and Demons is incredibly violent. People are branded, burned alive, drowned, shot, an eye is removed from a corpse's head. It's shocking that this movie earned a PG-13 rating. Apparently you can brand four elderly men and it's okay for the kids to see, but if you use the F-word or show a booby, then that's only safe for adults.

For performances, Tom Hanks brings less to Robert Langdon in this film than he did in the previous one. I wonder, after failing to show interest in adorable Audrey Tatou in the first film and not giving Ms. Zurer a second glance in this one, whether Langdon is supposed to be gay. Perhaps he's just studious? The most enjoyable performances come from Skarsgard and Mueller-Stahl, although Ewan MacGregor is also enjoyable as a young priest invested with the administrative powers of the pope until a new one is found.

If you haven't seen Angels and Demons by now, there's really no reason to. Go see the new Terminator movie.

Final Verdict: Not as good as Stepbrothers, but (probably) better than Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull.

NFL Pre-Camp Power Rankings

The NFL Draft is over, and teams are beginning their offseason Organized Training Activities (OTAs). These are largely voluntary, but there will be a handful of players who are lost for the season during this time, and there will be some stories about players who are staying away because they have contract squabbles (like the Arizona Cardinals' own Anquan Boldin and Darnell Dockett).

But, this little lull between the draft and training camps/rookie contract holdouts gives a good time to put together a little unnecessary, uninformative, premature NFL Power Rankings.

1. New England Patriots - Got younger on defense and return the best player in the NFL in quaterback Tom Brady.
   
2. New York Giants - Did an excellent job in adding to their strength along the defensive line through free agency. The only question is whether Eli Manning can make the big play when he needs to, and whether the weapons are there on the outside for him to be able to.
   
3. Pittsburgh Steelers - The defending champs added depth through the draft, but are beginning a transition on the defensive side of the football. Ben Roethlisberger will continue to present matchup problems to defensive coordinators.
   
4. San Diego Chargers - I'm still not a big believer in Phillip Rivers, but their defense gets better with the return of Shawne Merriman and the addition of Larry English. They will likely get fat off of a down division, as well.
   
5. Indianapolis Colts - Turmoil on the sidelines is mitigated by the calming influence of their Hall of Fame quarterback. Their defense has to get better this season, as well.
   
6. Arizona Cardinals - The Cards should enter the season as the second-best team in their conference. The offense gets better with the addition of RB Beanie Wells, and the defense gets better with the subtraction of DC Clancy Pendergast.
   
7. Philadelphia Eagles - With perhaps the most talented offensive line in the NFL and a great tandem of running backs, Donovan McNabb is running out of excuses to win. If Jim Johnson does not return to his defensive coordinator duties, this ranking could drop.
   
8. Minnesota Vikings - I like the addition of Percy Harvin, and I think the Vikings' defense will remain the best in their division. It shouldn't matter who their quarterback is, because Adrian Peterson should contend for NFL MVP honors in his third season.
   
9. Tennessee Titans - Losing DT Albert Haynesworth will hurt, but this team is too well-coached and well-prepared to slip too much.
   
10. Dallas Cowboys - Cutting WR Terrell Owens should help the Cowboys become a better team by allowing them to get the ball out of the hands of Tony Romo and into the hands of Marion Barber. Whether that actually happens is an open question.
    
11. Baltimore Ravens - I expect QB Joe Flacco to regress some in his second season as teams work to figure him out. I wonder if they have the playmaking ability on offense to make up for the departure of Rex Ryan.
    
12. Miami Dolphins - This is another team that isn't going to surprise anyone. It's possible that winning last season sets this team back in the long term. I'm not sure you can win in the AFC East with Ted Ginn, Jr. and Greg Camarillo as your starting wideouts.
    
13. Carolina Panthers - I like John Fox, I like Steve Smith, and I like the Carolina Panthers. But it's not clear that this defense is ready for prime time, and it's possible that Franchise Player Julius Peppers burns this team to the ground.
    
14. Washington Redskins - This should be the sleeper team of the 2009 season. I like Jason Campbell, and I like Clinton Portis. They have a solid defense and very good cornerbacks. The question is whether this team has the mental toughness to overcome adversity.
    
15. Houston Texans - This is the team that again will be the well-publicized sleeper of the 2009 offseason. They can be very good, but it's asking a lot for quarterback Matt Schaub to stay healthy for 16 games to lead the team.
    
16. Atlanta Falcons - I expect Matt Ryan to experience a slight sophomore slump and for Michael Turner not to be the dynamic back he was the year before. More than that, I don't think that the Falcons' defense is going to be able to keep them competitive as they transition to a youth movement.
    
17. Green Bay Packers - Aaron Rogers can get the job done for the Packers, but it takes a couple years to transition to a 3-4 defense unless you have a very creative coordinator. Another question is whether Ryan Grant is really the runner that can lead the Packers back to consistent achievement.
    
18. Chicago Bears - Jay Cutler isn't going to see anywhere near the kind of protection he got in Denver, either from the running game or the offensive line. The bigger question is whether this aging defense can locate the fountain of youth.
    
19. New Orleans Saints - The offense is there, although they still lack a power runner (New Orleans would make a great landing place for Edgerrin James). The defense remains a work in progress, and may not take the pressure off the O this season until it's too late.
    
20. New York Jets - The pieces are in place. The offensive personnel are largely there (although they could use a more consistent outside playmaker), and the defenive personnel are there. The only question is whether this team will be able to assimilate new systems quickly enough, and how fast Kellen Clemens or Mark Sanchez can mature.
    
21. Jacksonville Jaguars - The Jackonville Jaguars secured their long-term future through their 2009 NFL draft. Unfortunately, I don't think that Jack Del Rio will be around to reap the rewards.
    
22. San Francisco 49ers - I am not a believer in Mike Singletary, because I saw his earlier iteration as Dave McGinnis.
    
23. Seattle Seahawks - This team is just too old right now to succeed. I don't like their defensive personnel, and I don't think they have the running back to close out games.
    
24. Cincinnati Bengals - The departure of T.J. Houshmanzadeh will hurt them more than people expect, and I don't think the defense is going to be there to staunch the bleeding.
    
25. Oakland Raiders - JaMarcus Russell may end up a good NFL quarterback, but I don't think the coaching staff has the wherewithal to let him develop by not passing the ball as often.
    
26. Buffalo Bills - I really want to like this team, but their offensive line is not good enough, and their division is too good.
    
27. Denver Broncos - The Denver defense is going to be a work in progress, as will Josh McDaniels. Knowshon Moreno is going to be very good, but I think this team is a year away.
    
28. Kansas City Chiefs - What about the Kansas City Chiefs is going to scare anyone? This team is going to have to purge their veteran leadership and hope that some of their young players are going to be willing to step up.
    
29. Cleveland Browns - Teams very rarely succeed when they go into the season with a quarterback controversy.
    
30. Detroit Lions - Bold prediction: the Lions will win at least one game this season. Tony Sparano will turn this team around, but the defense just is not good enough to carry the team.
    
31. St. Louis Rams - It's difficult to understand what the plan is with the Rams. They have a terrible defense and a terrible offense.
    
32. Tampa Bay Buccaneers - It's been a long time since the Bucs were the class of the NFL. It's almost impossible to guess who the best player on this team is right now. If your best player was in the Canadian Football League a year ago, you're probably not very good.
    

Summer Movies: Star Trek

On the Saturday when I saw the new J.J. Abrams reboot of the beleaguered Star Trek franchise, Paul Verhoevens's 1997 Starship Troopers was playing on the television at my gym. When I first saw Troopers, I didn't really get it. In part, this could have been because I was 17 and took everything way too seriously at the time. I couldn't get over the fact that all the characters happily accepted fascism and the form of the movie (it's presented in a kind of 129 min. recruitment film) seemed over the top.

Watched today, Starship Troopers seems a masterpiece of prescient satire, not only of the sci-fi military films like Aliens, but also of what cable news would become in the decade that follows. The characters in Troopers are all easily-recognized tropes, and easy to look at. But the movie features a number of excellent action setpieces strung together with rather silly character work by young actors like Neil Patrick Harris, Dina Meyer, Denise Richards, and Casper Van Diem. The movie doesn't beg for deeper analysis; it just exists as fun, escapist entertainment.

Star Trek wasn't originally conceived as escapist entertainment. The original television show and the many, many offspring of it (including the original movies) sought to explore the clash of cultures and responsibilities that come as man explores deeper into the world. There's a self-seriousness about the original series (and cast) that became easy to parody and has become more and more ridiculous as America's horizon became more and more reduced.

J.J. Abrams was presented with a challenge when he was asked to retool the franchise. In part, his goal was obviously to open the appeal to a larger and younger generation. Star Trek certainly has some appeal to the same types of science geeks that have always loved it, but if it going to return to the mainstream zeitgeist, it would have to find a way to speak to a generation of Americans whose parents may not even have been born when the original series aired in 1966. There's some question about whether the Star Trek universe can even be relevant after it was fully deconstructed in the very, very good Galaxy Quest (1999).

What comes to the screen is closer to Starship Troopers than it is to what Gene Roddenberry originally conceived.

The plot is largely a boondoggle for all that gets set up for later: The film begins with the birth of James Tiberius Kirk. His father and mother are on a science mission for Starfleet (Mom is already in labor) when an enormous Romluan vessel appears out of a strange phoneomenon. The Romulan vessel requests an audience with Ambassador Spock, who is unknown to the crew. The Romulan captain (played by Eric Bana in another thankless, almost unrecognizable role) destroys the ship, but not before Kirk's father is able to allow the crew to escape, sacrificing himself in the process. Later, the young Kirk is an Iowa farmboy with a rebellious streak, who eventually is convinced to join Starfleet, where he may be about to graduate in three years. He meets up with the crew that the fans have come to love: Spock, Dr. McCoy (whose presence has really been missed from the Star Trek universe), Uhura, Sulu, Chekov, and, eventually, Scotty.

The movie is beautifully composed. Abrams puts together some incredible images. The Romulan vessel is fantastic looking, and the image of the U.S.S. Enterprise being built atop the vast plains of the American midwest is breathtaking (although nonsensical when you think about it). The U.S.S. Enterprise of the new series looks more futuristic though grounded in a kind of mechanical reality. The bridge looks not unlike the FBI office in Minority Report, but deeper on the engineering decks, the ship looks like the interior of a present-day aircraft carrier, with a maze of piping and stairwells.

Most of the cast members are interesting to spend time with. Chris Pine probably has the greatest burden in playing Captain Kirk, but he resists the urge to do an impression of William Shatner. Of all the cast members, Pine comes off as having the most fun, and can be a successful axis for the franchise to spin. Zachary Quinto is excellent as Spock, although some may be waiting for him to turn into Sylar from the television show Heroes and begin eating brains. Simon Pegg is a pleasant mid-screening surprise as Scotty.

There are tons of inside jokes for casual fans or followers of the originial series or movies to note and enjoy, although this is not a movie that will alienate newcomers. Never don the red jersey, guys.

J.J. Abrams's style here is often hard to follow. Some of the fight scense are choreographed in a way that is difficult to follow for the viewer. The geography of the landscapes is hard to ascertain (personally, I'm perplexed about the scale of the Enterprise, although this has long been difficult to cobble together). The movie in itself is dynamic, but it's hard to tell sometimes what all the motion is getting us toward.

Ultimately, what the audience is left with is an attractive, interesting cast of characters that feel familiar. Abrams moves the pieces into place, but it feels like the game is just beginning. Star Trek probably feels most like (though is inferior to) Bryan Singer's 2000 film X-Men. Everything is ready to go, but there isn't really time left to get the journey started.

The primary cast is reportedly signed for at least two movies after this one. Star Trek is a good summer movie, but it won't leave anyone thinking about its deeper meanings or implications. It's possible that the existential scifi genre has been relegated to small, indie films like Sunshine, but I hold out hope that these characters can give us more to think about in the summers to come.

Just, please, stay away from the whales.

Final Verdict: Not as good as Hellboy 2: The Golden Army, but better than Pineapple Express.

Summer Project: Blockbuster Review!

Summer is here. It was 100-plus degrees in the Valley of the Sun this weekend, and I've given up hope that the heat is going to go away again until after Halloween (when the monsoon always ends).

The best way that Leah and I have made to escape the heat is to go see movies. I love to go to the theater during the summer blockbuster season and see these huge event movies with a bunch of people who I'd usually hate if I saw them in almost any other context. But I enjoy going to the movies with them.

Last summer, Leah and I went to almost every big movie that came out. The season started last May 2 with Iron Man and ran through the August 6 release of Pineapple Express. In those 97 days, I saw 12 movies in the theatre (at the time, it seemed like much more--I think it must have been a pretty crappy season). We caught up on some later on DVD (like the acceptable Tropic Thunder, the seizure-tastic Speed Racer, and the really disappointing Hamlet 2), but if we're not motivated to go to the theatre, then it's probably not going to be that good.

In the final analysis, I would have ranked the Summer Movies of 2008 thusly:

Tier I: Buy it on DVD and You'll Never Regret It

1. Wall-E

2. The Dark Knight

3. Iron Man

Tier II: Won't Change the Channel When It Comes on TNT in Three Years

4. Kung Fu Panda

5. Hellboy 2: The Golden Army

6. Pineapple Express

7. Hancock

8. Wanted

Tier III: Already Forgot I Paid $25 Dollars to See

9. Get Smart

10. The Incredible Hulk

11. Stepbrothers

Tier IV: Can't We All Just Pretend This Never Happened?

12. Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull

It's worth mentioning the movies that seemed like noted misfires that weren't seen during the summer of 2008, and were never caught up to. The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian, Sex and the City, The Strangers, You Don't Mess With the Zohan, The Happening, The Love Guru, Journey to the Center of the Earth, Meet Dave, Mamma Mia!, and The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor were all flicks that We couldn't even garner the interest to go out and see, or even rent.

The project for this summer is to take the blockbusters of this season and see how they'd stack up against the above-average movies of 2008. I'll probably be seeing a movie every two weeks this summer, so after I have a chance to digest the latest summer blockbuster, I'll be giving my thoughts and a final ranking on the film.

My early feeling is that there are going to be a lot more Tier II and III movies this year, and not very likely to be the remarkable number of fantastic movies as there were last year (I hope that The Dark Knight and Wall-E will be remembered as great movies decades from now, and that Iron Man will remain a fun diversion into the future).

The summer blockbuster season really began May 1, with the release of X-Men Origins: Wolverine. While I loved the first 2 movies in the X-Men series, I was so disappointed with X-Men 3: X-Men United and the poor reviews (a 43 on Metacritc currently) of the Wolverine movie that I decided to stay away and hope that enough women see it that full chest hair comes back into style (finally!).

So, the Blockbuster Reviews will begin this week with the new J.J. Abrams reboot of the original Star Trek franchise. I'm going to try and stay away from reviews of these movies so that I'm only subject to the advertising hype but not the criticism until I've had a chance to put together my own thoughts.

Just to give you an idea of how busy this summer is looking for me, here are the other films that I'm looking forward to checking out just based on early buzz and what I've seen or movies that I'm going to endure based on the interior negotiations of my marriage:

Angels & Demons (May 15)

Terminator Salvation (May 21)

Up (May 29)

Year One (June 19)

Public Enemies (July 1)

Bruno (July 10)

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (July 15)

Funny People (July 31)

G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra (August 7)

District 9 (August 14)

Inglourious Basterds (August 21)

Very exciting. Other movies that we might end up seeing if it's too hot outside or we're really bored include The Hangover, Land of the Lost, The Taking of Pelham 123, Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, I Love You Beth Cooper, (500) Days of Summer, and When In Rome (I have a weakness for Kristen Bell).

It's going to be a busy summer.

The Kampmobile

Presently I drive a 1997 Toyota Corolla. I inherited it when I moved back to Phoenix and my wife and I tried to share it once I got a couple of jobs. One job was in Paradise Valley (some 30 miles from our home), and it became clear that we weren't going to be able to share the car. Leah bought a 2006 Honda CR-V, which she loves and I appreciate.

The Corolla has seen better days. When Leah was driving down the US 60 freeway one afternoon, an asshole in an SUV (he was probably wearing an Ed Hardy t-shirt) drove over a section of tire track and threw it into the hood of the car, making a large dent on the passenger side. When Leah was teaching at a Christian summer school in Scottsdale, another asshole in an SUV sideswiped her car in the church parking lot, so the rear driver's side wheel well is a little dented. I tried to change the battery one weekend and I did something to the positive battery connection. Now every few times I need to get the ol' girl running I have to pop the hood and twist the cable tightly in to place. The driver's side safety belt has a jam, so it takes a few minutes to unspool.

Still, the car gets me where I need to go. I am not a recreational driver. I prefer to be able to stretch my legs, and I don't like wasting gas. I try and combine my trips and take care of as much as I can when I leave the house. When I do go out, though, I drive carefully, coasting into red lights and stop signs, trying to idle as little as possible, keeping the engine below 60 miles per hour.

My favorite thing to do in the car is measure my gas mileage and see how far I can go on a single tank. Since it just started getting hot (99 degrees right now at 3:00 p.m., but it feels like 104), I have been able to go through most of the spring without using the air conditioner, driving instead with the windows cracked and the vents open. It's mostly comfortable.

In the last two and a half weeks or so, I've been able to get 369.55 miles on a tank of gas. When I refilled today, I put in 11.682 gallons. That works out to 31.63 miles per gallon! That exceeds the government-stated gas mileage of the car for the same year, which is listed at 23 city, 31 highway. I am super-excited about this new record. I usually am able to get 340 miles or so on a tank of gas.

My mileage was better than a 2009 Honda Civic and only 9 mpg higher than a 2009 Civic Hybrid. I love my little car.