Week One, Question One:
xxx.jpg


Hello, everyone! I'm Emily Russell. My major is tentatively declared as Anthropology, and I'm living on-campus at Redondo Village. I spent my senior year at Cleveland High School, and my sophomore and freshman years at Rio Rancho High School and Mid-High, respectively. I didn't have a junior year because I graduated one year sooner than I should've. (High school was not my thing.) I love spending time outdoors; hiking, fourwheeling, swimming, camping, fishing, and hunting are some of my favorite things to do. I'm also very into art- I scuplt, draw, paint, and craft whenever the opportunity presents itself. Because my dad is retired Air Force, I've lived in New York, Maine, South Carolina, Alaska, and here, in New Mexico. Alaska was by far the best, and I would STRONGLY recommmend everyone take a visit once in their life. :) My favorite book isn't actually The Secret Life of Bees, like I said in class.. I forgot about my new favorite, Room! Another little something I would very much recommend! I have an older sister who also attends the University of New Mexico named Hannah Russell.. If anyone is interested in becoming an Emerging Lobo Leader, she's the director of the program! Tell her I sent you. ;) That's about all I think of for now. I'm looking forward to getting to know you all!

Week One, Question Two:
Regardless of the fact that it's a children's movie, I think The Batman/ Superman Movie was a fantastic choice for the introduction to villainy. It provides a very extreme, easy to catch juxtaposition between the heros and the villains. A very noticeable example of this occured in the very beginning, when the Joker made his lady sidekick (name, anyone?) carry the extremely heavy kryptonite statue after they had stolen it. This lack of chivalry became even more obvious as Batman and Superman stepped in, both on the opposite end of the spectrum- constantly trying to save the women, like gentlemen should! Another reason the children's movie was appropriate is because, unlike non-animated movies, there was a physical difference shown between the heros and villain. While Batman had soft, blue eyes, The Joker's were black and- quite frankly- evil looking. While this difference in countenance doesn't occer between heros and villains in reality, it provides a symbolic view of the inner differences between the men. After all, "the eyes are the gateway to the soul," right? :)


Week Two, Question One:
“The true rule, in determining to embrace, or reject any thing, is not whether it have any evil in it; but whether it have more of evil, than of good. There are few things wholly evil, or wholly good.” -Abraham Lincoln
It's unfortunate that Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Lincoln didn't have a run-in, because the former definitely could've used this little nugget of wisdom. It's true that there are few things in this world that are wholly evil- moths, for one, but more to the point: Mr. Hyde. Although Dr. Jekyll understood the nature of Mr. Hyde from the beginning, he still chose to embrace him. This sheds some light on Dr. Jekyll's balance of good and evil; he chose to repeatedly let pure evil roam loose through London, to satiate his own greed and selfish wishes. Yes, the novel says from the start that Dr. Jekyll had a division in his soul, but I think this quote helps to reveal which side of his nature is prevalent. Would a man consisting of more good than evil tolerate the release of such a monster? Or would he stop the experiment, realizing- despite the benefits of anonymity- that a purely evil alternate ego was never his desired effect? I believe for a good man such as Mr. Utterson, it wouldn't have been a hard question- of course you would rid the world of the heinous beast you've created; after all, acting with humanity involves righting wrongs, not creating and embracing them as Jekyll did.

- sdimpfel sdimpfel Sep 5, 2011 I agree that in the same position Mr. Utterson would not have let Hyde out however I also feel that Mr U never would have had the creativity to come up with the expirement that got Jekyll into the mess. I also feel that Mr. U did not feel nearly as restricted by the society as Jekyll did and I feel that many other people who felt restricted by the society would have jumped at the chance to shed the restrictions even for a short while regardless of the cost.


Week Three, Question One:
Although there are many necessary characteristics of being a good king, I don't feel as though being a successful villain is as demanding or as straightforward. To be a successful villain, you must be: shameless, destructive, and unsympathetic. But there's a plethora of helpful qualities you can add in for successful villainy- callousness, anger, self-pity, superpowers, an evil mastermind, minions, a hero to fight. However, as a general rule, I feel most successful villains are also mentally or physically damaged in some way; Grendel was damaged by the sounds of joy, Dr.Jekyll was damaged by the demands of society.. For every villain, there is something, some detrimental and painful experience, that made them that way. Evil is an accident.



Week Three,Evil-o-meter! Each villain will have an average score, consisting of his or her scores on the following scales.
Enjoyment of Destruction: 1-10
Amount of Destruction: 1-10
Awareness of Destruction: 1-10
Justification for Destruction (inverted scale*): 1-10
Empathy (inverted scale*): 1-10

Ender- 3.6
Dexter- 4.2
Jason- 4.4
Dr. Jekyll- 4.8
The Buggers- 5.0
Graff- 5.0
Ozymandias- 5.4
Lex Luthor- 5.6
Medea- 6.4 (I don't agree with this, but unfortunately she didn't enjoy her destruction much. I'm also fairly sure she was mentally unstable, so I can't justly say she was more than a 6 as far as being aware of the extent of her destruction. She's also not the least empathic person ever.. :/ )
Grendel's mother- 6.6
Vizzini- 7.8
Humperdinck- 8.0
Grendel- 8.0
Dragon- 8.2
Captain James Hook- 8.4
Iago- 8.6
Count Rugen- 8.8
Maleficent- 9.0
Joker- 9.6
Mr. Hyde- 9.6
Voldemort- 10

*The inverted scale means that the more it qualifies, the lower the number. For example, Dexter is very justified in his killings, and therefore received a 1 on the Justification for Destruction scale.

*So Rorschach scored a 5.2, but I love him, so he's not going on the villain scale.

Week Three, Question Three:
I would characterize a successful class discussion one in which everyone speaks, everyone is respectful towards one anothers' opinions, and we all leave with a new perspective or idea regarding the material. Yelling, complete silence, and agreements with no evidence are absent, while inside voices, contribution, and enlightened debates take their place. :) I feel as though our discussions aren't too far off from this, however if we stay mindful of what is required, I believe we will get closer and closer to this "ideal discussion" as we get to know each other a little better.



Week Four, Question One:
The idea of Dexter is so obvious and simple, yet creates such a novel character composition- a serial killer who kills serial killers. Perfect! Wouldn't it be nice if they all did that? Killing each other to extinction rather than praying on the innocent? I believe the depth of this idea is but one of the appealing qualities of the show. Dexter, with his almost cannibalistic nature (preying on his own 'kind'), perfectly epitomizes the "fuzzy line" between villain and hero that we discussed in class. Honestly, for every person Dexter kills, he's probably saving around three or four. How many future innocent deaths need to be prevented before he's justified, or even heroic? That nagging question, the ethical dilemma that Dexter provides, is what keeps people coming back. We as the audience are horrified, yet we secretly root for Dexter to continue killing the bad guys, regardless of whether it makes him one or not. After all, the rules are simple- if you don't kill, you're safe. Plus, Dexter has the whole monster-trying-to-be-less-monsterous thing going on (quite similar to any given Twilight character). The ladies love a tortured soul, someone they can help, and our culture as a whole puts stock in self-discipline and the ambition to better oneself. Dexter, and many other villains who seem to be straddling the line, restrain their inner monster- they want to be good. So they try, and we sit by, observing the milder versions of our fears. I don't believe this shows would have succeeded in many other time periods because a particular cultural change has provided a phenomenal segue for shows such as Dexter: the ever-worstening desensitization to violence. In the 60s, people wouldn't have been horrified and intrigued by a show like Dexter, they just would've been horrified. However, as our morals have become explorable and our tendencies violent, Dexter is now the perfect candidate to occupy our attention and fulfill the role of villain-hero. Not to mention he's smokin' hot.


Week Four, Question Two:
For all four, Dexter, Superman, Batman, and Dr. Jekyll, sticking to the shadows holds a great deal of importance. All are masters of blending in and going unnoticed as their "alter-egos," whether it be cop, small town boy, business tycoon, or simply an appropriate member of society. This ability to radiate normalcy in their everyday lives is key in keeping those around them completely unsuspecting. Beyond that, all four are expert secret keepers. They understand beyond a doubt the meaning of being discreet, and are experienced in covering their tracks. The charismatic and inconspicuous nature of Dexter, Clark Kent, Bruce Wayne, and Dr. Jekyll separates them from characters like Beowulf. Throughout Beowulf, he boasts and spreads the word of his past and future glories. He wants the opposite of the sneaky four; he wants to be widely known, to be praised and rewarded for his actions. If this were the case with either Dexter, Batman, Superman, or Dr. Jekyll, they would most likely be hunted down, their vigilante (or mad scientist) regimes halted.

(Gosh, something went wrong with my formatting from here on... All the titles got messed up!!)

Week Four, Question Three:
Dracula is a very sexual character in that he charms and entices women to get close to him, to trust him, and then in the midst of his seduction, he attacks. People are intrigued by his mystery- the accent, the pale skin, (often times) the cape- and because of the dangerous air he exudes. Vampires are powerful, strong, charismatic, and exhibit just about every other quality of the ideal dominant male. As I mentioned above, women tend to love the 'tortured soul' or the bad boy, and Dracula qualifies as both. The forbidden nature of vampires make them, in turn, exciting. An adrenaline rush, if you will. And that's exactly what bored housewives and preteen girls are looking for!


Week Four, Question Four:
Jack the Ripper was notorious in his time, and for good reason. The murders he committed were gruesome and unprecedented. So, despite all the media coverage of the incidents, it isn't surprising no one really wanted to go patrolling the dark alleys at night, looking for a serial killer with a machete. People were ruled by fear, and although they were horrified at the thoughts of a murderer running loose through the streets, they were probably a hell of a lot more worried about their insides staying where they should be. Inside.


You're a good writer and your answers make me laugh. Haha I love "the ladies love a tortured soul" bit. Because we so do, and we never seem to learn. I was also intrigued by how you described Dexter's actions as 'cannibalistic'. It's a very interesting analogy to think about. - samanthaprina samanthaprina Sep 17, 2011samanthaprina

You have a good point about why Jack the Ripper was never caught,that people were afraid of their own insides being taken out, hoever I find it interesting, that prostitutes were still roaming around looking for men when they new Jack the Ripper was killing Prostitutes and grown mean wouldn't even go looking for him.- Jamie

I agree with the idea the the police looking for Jack the ripper were ruled by the same fear he held over the rest of London.
- tylerjames1992 tylerjames1992 Sep 20, 2011

I like the idea and your opinion on Dracula. It is actual very true even in todays society women want to be taken care of and want the bad boy in life. It seems like mostly every girl wants a man of mystery and power.
- CarolineNess CarolineNess Sep 20, 2011



Week Five, Question One:
Medea should actually be called: Life: How Not To Do It. No one in Medea seems to understand much about consequences or morals, and this pretty much affects their judgement in everything. The gross lack of action by those who knew of Medea's plans to murder her children can most likely be blamed on Euripides' pre-dertermination to have the children die by Medea's hand. Either that, or everyone knew Medea was a little homicidal and would probably come after them to get revenge for her ruined plans. Hopefully the gods were busy that afternoon, or perhaps not in a punishing mood. Approval would be implying gods who, hypothetically, would be way too upset over someone else's husband being an adulterer if they would seriously approve of that woman killing her children as revenge. Disapproval would be preferable, however would imply that the gods somehow didn't have the power or desire to discipline/ intervene or couldn't have an effect on Medea. (Perhaps a spell or potion of some sort?) However, even if they did approve, 99% of the population DOES NOT, and therefore the gods would be overruled..
Not cool, Medea, not cool.


Week Five, Question Two:
a) Mao Tse-Tung's quote, "In this world, revolution is the mainstream," is absolutely still true today. Because the human race is constantly changing, evolving, and revolving, any effective institution created by humans, for humans, has to be as well. Revolutions are constantly happening throughout the world's governments- from small ones, such as the gradual de-criminalization of marijuana, to large ones, such as the overthrow of Mubarak or the Darfur Rebellion. Whether you define a revolution as a coup or a significant social change, or even the movement around a circle (i.e. The Circle of Life ;D ), they are still continuously occurring, and will be so long as humans are around.
b) The justness of the deaths depend on the innocence of the victims! (Hint, hint: Dexter)


Week Five, Question Three:
My inner beast would probably be an elephant. Elephants are clumsy and conspicuous (just like me), but have a great capacity for feelings. They bond strongly with others, take down obstacles in their way, and live mostly in peace with their surroundings. This describes me better than any other animal I could think of.




Week Six, Question One:
Female villains are, in many ways, more malicious. We expect females to be, well, feminine- sweet and lovely. An evil female is not usually what we expect, and her abilities to enchant her victims with feminine charm and slither about unsuspected sincerely help her villainous causes.

Week Six, Question Two:
Like in most Disney movies, color is extremely important, mostly in the portrayal of evil. The Queen is most represented by black, purple, and red; the colors of death, power, and pain, respectively. Although this is a subconscious message to viewers, it is still effective, as we see The Queen as deadly, powerful, and cruel.



Week Eight, Question One:
I think how scary something is depends more on the amount of human control more than whether it is natural. As for cars and computers, they were made by humans, programmed by humans, and are very predictable to humans. However, in movies such as IRobot, the computers turn on the humans, and we find this scary. Even natural things that humans can't control can be scary, such as a hurricane or a volcano eruption. "Natural" to humans seems to mean able to be predicted, monitored, and/or controlled. The unexpected is "unnatural," such as a mother killing her children, or the awful contortions of the girl in The Last Exorcism. Basically, humans qualify anything they fear as "unnatural" because we see ourselves at the top of the evolutionary chain, food chain, and whatever other cycles or chains exist. Being number one is "natural" for humans, and anything that shakes or challenges that belief.. well, it obviously just defies nature!

Week Eight, Question Two:
Batman is a scary dude in The Dark Knight- he is cloaked in mystery, has a deep, terrifying voice, and kicks a lot of ass. But, when looking at his actions, it becomes pretty clear that Batman is the hero. Not all of his actions are perfectly heroic- who's are?- but his intentions are what makes him the hero. He wants Gotham to be protected, and so, he stands up and does it himself. He isn't Superman, he is entirely human; therefore, it is important that he performs the actions necessary to not only stay alive, but to eradicate the bad guys without fear of revenge. Batman does this well, and he does it for the good of his city. Now where's the villainy in that?
I don't really see a lot of villain in batman either. His intentions are always good and he never does anything strictly for selfish reasons- lduran02 lduran02 Oct 18, 2011

Week Eight, Question Three:
Does Batman's appearance make him seem more villainous? Would he seem less shady and more like an unfailing hero if he wore something else, or talked in a different way? How much do we let appearances affect our perceptions?


Interesting perspective on why we find some things scary. I hadn't thought of our ability to control things making them natural. I'm not sure, however, that everything we are afraid of we see as unnatural. Is that what you're saying? - Kayleethegr8 Kayleethegr8 Oct 17, 2011Kaylee


Week Ten
1. There is a standard of morality that can be applied no matter what. For instance, killing someone- if a baby killed someone, you wouldn't be like, "Ohh, the baby didn't know what it was doing, it's okay." You'd probably say something along the lines of: "WoOOOAAaah. Fucked up killer baby!!" Same with eating someone. Ancient Mayans ate people, but even though I respect their right to have that practice in their culture, it's weird. And immoral, because eating humans is wrong. As far as things being inherently good or inherently evil, I think all living things are inherently good. Humans who are evil were changed to be so. Animals who humans consider "evil" are only evil because of standards imposed by humans. Except moths. They are spawn of hell.

2. I think Voldemort was born with evil in him, but his circumstances led him to become as evil as he did. I can imagine how hard it would be on the psyche of a child to be alienated and feared in an orphange, along with having magical abilities with no mentor or explanation for them. However, I think Tom Riddle could have turned himself around at Hogwarts. Also, I think that to become the extent of evil that voldemort is requires the individual to be evil by nature. Harry Potter also grew up alienated, feared, and mistreated, but he was good-natured and the good in him triumphed over any evil.

3. Well the primary vampire tales of today are Twilight and The Vampire Diaries. Although I've never seen The Vampire Diaries, the main vampire characters in Twilight are essentially good vampires who try to blend into their community. Maybe this means our society has an excessive tendency to assume the best in people. Or that our people as individuals are willing to accept more varied people into our circle? The next era's vampire lore could be anything.. Maybe the vampires will be able to walk in the sun, or maybe they'll age. There's infinite possibillities, but really no way of telling what the next generations will think of.

Your idea about how it was kind of both voldemorts upbringing and his natural evil that led him on the path he took is pretty interesting. I kind of feel the same way because it is pretty possible that voldemort was inherently evil and he definitly did go through a lot as a child.- Droybal Droybal Oct 31, 2011

I agree with your idea on vampires today. Our society is becoming more sympathetic towards them. They are starting to love vampires instead of fearing them. - HeyThereAri HeyThereAri Nov 1, 2011Ari

hahaha I love your examples on morality. I certainly agree that even though I respect the culture of the mayans eating people is very weird. I do have this urge to compare it to other animals eating their own species, but it really is just not the same at all. - Jamiea.book Jamiea.book Nov 7, 2011



Week Eleven1. I think looking at children's work has been great so far. All the children's books were thought of and written by adults, and also inspired by the lives of adults. This means, quite simply, some of the complexities of the stories cannot be recognized or comprehended by the mind of a child. I know when I would watch Batman as a child, I wouldn't be thinking, 'Wow, that Batman is slightly more villainous than most heros. I wonder why he's that way.' Batman was the good guy, because he beat the bad guys. Simple, easy, and my childhood conclusion. But the deeper into children stories we get, the more and more I see villain in heros I thought were good, or subplots and references I had never recognized, or character complexities and quirks which mirror those of society.

2. I believe people are fascinated by things that are gruesome and morbid because they are traditionally hidden. I don't think people always had such a fascination with violence and death, but our curiousity towards seeing these things that we normally don't has grown. The average person doesn't see a lot of gruesome sights, so we're interested in what they're like. Also, (as inspired by Lawrence's answer) maybe humans just want to prepare. We all know death is coming. It is taught to us from the beginning, whether it's through the circle of life from Lion King, or the first time a relative dies, etc. So, as could be expected, we want to be able to pick death apart. It is the one big mystery of the human state: What happens as you die? What happens AFTER you die?? Humans have been able to decipher and pick apart almost everything around us- understanding the inner workings of the stars, learning the experiences of the nature and animals around us, even building a miles-long machine that collides infinitismal particles and monitors the effects. But death, why everyone who knows about it is dead! So, we try to get as close as we can get (without getting too close) and try to piece together the mystery of death from the few and minimal clues we can observe.

3. It's a very easy excuse, that's why. People claim they are or have been possessed because it can't be proven. Like Dr. Jekylls transitions into Mr.Hyde, the transistions of normal people into being demon-possessed isn't proveable, save to see the actual demon enter the actual body, right in front of your face.


Week Twelve 1. Peter Pan.. I love him, but that doesn't excuse all the pain he has caused others. Frankly, he's probably caused more pain to others than any other character in the story. He entrances those around him, and because of that he is able to take children away from their parents, and keep those children distracted from going home. This obviously hurts the parents- lost children, how could it not?- and in the long run hurts the children too, for it keeps them from being parented- in some cases for very long periods. He does this for his own pleasure; just for the sake of having playmates. It's sad, Peter's situation. He's lonely, and yet the only way he can have friends is by causing pain to others. And even worse still, he disregards the effects his actions have on others, either from lack of understanding, lack of memory, or lack of interest. This in itself is probably more painful to his victims than the initial pain! Gosh, but I still love him.

2. Shhhnape?. Nonsense, Snape was no villain. Snape was a man who was stuck in the pains of his childhood, who couldn't let go of his past enough to embrace the present, or future. When it really counts, he is on the side of our hero and protagonist, Mr. Harry Potter. Even if he doesn't wash his hair, that doesn't make him a villain!

3. Well, the automatic response to this question is no. I think rape is a brutal, digusting crime. But in the end, redemption really lies in the hands of those who deal it. I can't say whether or not Buffy should forgive her on-again-off-again-bf, and I'm really in no position to judge whether Spike should get his soul back. Completely out of my expertise. I don't feel confident in judging the appropriateness of redemption for any, other than those who have trangsressions against me.

I didn't even think about the pain he was causing the parents and all those left behind. You really painted him as being very pathetic and I bought it completely. I also like the answers to your other questions. Like that you stepped back when you didn't have all the info in the third question. Good stuff.- lduran02 lduran02 Nov 14, 2011

I agree with you on Peter Pan causing pain to others, and it was made worse by the fact that he didn't remember/know/care that he was causing this pain...but yeah he is still lovable. And he is a child, so I feel like this makes it a little bit more okay. - reinada reinada Nov 10, 2011Reina


Week Fourteen
1. I don't really think Ender ever lied. It's not like he said "Okay, guys, I wrote this book out of my imagination. This stuff was NOT told to me by an unborn alien queen." So, he can just tell them the truth again- he knew humanity couldn't accept the rebirth of the bugger race at the time he found the egg. He wrote the book to tell the true story, and to encourage empathy. This is entirely speculation, but I think it would be hard, if not impossible for the buggers to lie. They communicate their thoughts to one another, and in order to lie, you have to think about that lie. The queen wouldn't be able to lie without the knowledge of the lie also being revealed. Soo, if that was true he could say that. :)

2. It's hard to say that Rasputin was a holy man or a man possessed by the devil, because neither of those things really coincide with my beliefs.. But he was an above average gambler, if his healings were luck. And superior to most in his abilities to withstand bullets and beatings and poison. I don't think you can really fraudently heal people though, so maybe he was just some sort of holistic healer or something? Perhaps he took an herb mixture everyday that made him super strong.. Who knows.

3. Well, Hercules had to have an antagonist. No one else in the story is.. It makes so much sense, because the god of the underworld is essentially the devil, and meg made a deal with him, thereby selling her soul- something bought often by the devil. Hades being the god of the underworld reflects the beliefs and knowledge of 20th/21st century life.


1. The Princess Bride has multiple villains. Dicuss how each one reflects/matches a heroic character.

2. Why does Westly adopt the outside semblance of a stereotypical villain, and does it help him to succeed?




Last Week's Questions!1. WELL. I guess I'll start with Count Rugen. Count Rugen spent much of his life studying his favorite craft- torture. In much the same way, Inigo spent his life studying his respective craft, swordfighting. How perfect it is, that the villain reflects the hero who kills him. Just as Rugen was the right-hand man of Humperdinck, Inigo was the right-hand man of Vizzini. Both spent their lives striving towards something- for Rugen, it was the perfection of his life sucking torture device (causing the destruction of those who encountered it), and for Inigo, it was the perfection of sword fighting (causing the destruction of Count Rugen). Secondly, Humperdinck and Westley! Humperdinck acts as though he is a bland, but kind, prince, but then later we find out he is a MEAN, MEAN, MAN. We first see Westley as a meek, obedient farmboy, then later find out HE'S A BADASS. I think both these characters had the biggest changes in audience perception. Once we find out that Westley is the Dread Pirate Roberts, we're thinking, 'Holy moly, is our hero a villain??' (But no, he's not. Just a bamf.) And once we find out Humperdinck is trying to kill Buttercup, we're thinking, 'Shoots! Is this Westley stand-in ALSO a villain??' (Which yes, he is.) Plus both are powerful leaders, one a prince and another a widely feared pirate captain.

2. I think this is partly because of Westley's intelligence, and partly just because he has been the Dread Pirate Roberts for so many years, he has become the real deal to some extent. But, if he had come as a sultry-eyed blondie whose only response is "As you wish," he would've gotten his butt kicked. Instead, dressed in all black and being mysterious and whatnot, Westley was viewed as a threat. Because of this, Vizzini left behind Inigo, whose defeat was "inconceivable!" After Westley beat Inigo, Vizzini left behind Fezzik, whose defeat was even more "inconcievable!" Both Inigo and Fezzik could've beaten Westley, but as they were gentlemen and fought him in a sportsmanlike manner, Westley succeeded. Left alone with Vizzini, Westley must have known Vizzini wouldn't be sportsmanlike, as he relied on his brawn rather than his brains. Essentially, without being initially viewed as a threat, Westley would have been unable to contest each man inidividually, and also unable to confront Buttercup regarding her infidelity.

I realy love your first answer I think it really captures the characters and how perfectly balanced the good vs. evil quotient in this movie.-sdimpfel




Oh, shoots! The Lectures!

1. SO. My first lecture is a lecture given to my International Studies class by the leader of a nearby mosque. This very calm and peaceful man told us about the

realities of Islam. I learned that people who aren't Islamic aren't allowed to enter the true mosque, only the room before it. He clarified that you don't need to be middle


eastern to be Muslim (obviously), and that the majority of Muslims do not support terrorism (also a bit obvious). He told us about the prayer rituals of the Islamic people,

and also fed us THE MOST DELICIOUS PASTRIES I'VE EVER HAD. The only thing that slightly bothered me is that the woman who was with him is the one who

served the food and drinks, and she didn't really talk. Also, all the females in our class were required to cover our hair. I know, I know, it's just a tradition of the religion,

and I respect that; however, I did feel slightly marginalized by it.


2. Next lecture, not actually a lecture... But rather multiple mini-lectures! This was presented by one of the Study Abroad programs at UNM, and I was able to hear from

quite a few students who are currently studying abroad at UNM. I got to hear all about their experiences here, from their realtionships with their host families (which only

some have), to their involvement on campus. Each student also gave a brief presentation on their country. After they had finished, the audience had about fifteen minutes

to address and of the speakers with any questions. From this lecture, I've decided I want to go to Rome for an art, italian and history program. <3


3. Last but certainly not least, I went to the "What You Don't Know Could Eat You!" zombies lecture!! The presenter, Matt Mogk, explained the difference between living

and dead zombies, along with what can cause them. He also conveys what the best options of action are in a zombie showdown. He listed the best weapons to use against

zombies, where they come from, how they got their name... Even the scientific possibility of zombies. Matt Mogk basically went over EVERYTHING zombie, and it was
glorious.