God of wind, word, and fire, we bless your name this day for sending the light and strength of your Holy Spirit. We give you thanks for all the gifts, great and small, that you have poured out upon your children. Accept us with our gifts to be living praise and witness to your love throughout all the earth; through Jesus Christ, who lives with you in the unity of the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever. Amen.
from Tirabassi & Tirabassi’s Before the Amen: Creative Resources for Worship
It’s not a bad movie. True, the first four were better. This fifth film is just a bit of a mess. The plot is slightly disjointed, leaving us wondering at different points why what is happening is happening. There are parts of the plot that are underdeveloped – why are the Kligans necessary? Some loose ends when it comes to character development – why tell us about painful pasts if its not going to make a significant difference? There is a lacking in storytelling that explains how we got from A to Z.
But maybe this is the difference between a film directed by William Shatner, like this one, and J. J. Abrams. Loose storytelling verses tight, consistent storytelling. Not to mention the scenes which Shatner had to have been inspired from other films from the time. The bar scene on Paradise City, looks like, feels like, and even sounds like the bar scene in Star Wars: Empire Strikes Back. Towards the end of the film as Kirk, Spock, and McCoy get closer to “discovering” God, it feels like, looks like, sounds like Indiana Jones. Does William Shatner want to be George Lucas?
And its a shame, really. The fifth film promises to truly go where no one has gone before: beyond the Great Barrier, where it is believed God (or as the credits say, “God”) resides. Shatner starts the film off with religious allusions. As the film opens, a mysterious figure clothed in what looks like a Biblical costume. He meets a man who is about to shoot him. “I though weapons were forbidden on this planet,” says the mysterious figure. He proceeds to touch the man with the gun in a healing fashion telling the man that his pain runs deep. “Share your pain . . with me.” The man immediately feels as if some pain has escaped him. “How can I repay you for this miracle?” he inquires.
The mysterious man reveals himself to be a Vulcan and the man who was healed commits to following him on his mission of peace and healing. At first glance, it appears that this mysterious Vulcan, who we later learn is Sybok who is Spock’s half-brother, is a Christ-figure. Which isn’t a far stretch, as we have already seen Spock as a Christ-figure in earlier films. Even though Sybok seems to possess power to heal deep, emotional pains, that is where the Christ-figure allusion ends.
Sybok takes hostage three delegates – General Korrd a Klingon, Caithlin Dar a Romulan, and the earthly St. John Talbot. The plan is draw a Federation starship to Paradise City. But, it turns out that all three delegates are in on the “hostage.” They want the Enterprise for their epic adventure in search for God.
In the meantime, Captain Klaa of the Klingons, proceeds to seek after the hostages to free General Korrd. But when he finds out that Captain James T. Kirk is involved, he changes his plans to go after Kirk. Klaa’s obsession with Kirk seems to serve no purpose other than as a distraction, until the end of the film.
The God figure that Sybok seeks turns out to be more of a Satan-like figure. While the figure appears to look like God in the Judeo-Christian tradition, he does not act like God. He is demanding, wanting the starship to escape the place he has been locked into. “What does God need with a starship?” Kirk asked. Furthermore, this figure is destroyed by the Klingons who are hunting after Kirk.
For a moment it would appear that Shatnar’s Star Trek is making a science-over-religion statement. The implication is that those who search for God are searching in vain. And that sentiment is echoed by so many in our world today. Why bother with the search for God, because once you find him, you will be greatly disappointed.
And yet, as the crew celebrates on the Enterprise on the return home, we find a glimmer of hope in the galaxy. As Spock and McCoy look out into the vastness of the unknown frontier, McCoy asks, “Is God really out there?” A question we have all probably asked at one point or another in our lives.
It is Captain Kirk that offers the final word. “Maybe he’s not out there at all. Maybe he’s right here,” he says as he touches his chest, “In the heart.”
Perhaps we are looking for God in all the wrong places.
Chuck knows . . . .
As the second film, Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, draws to a close, the crew of the Enterprise bid farewell to their beloved officer of science: Mr. Spock. In a final scene, Spock’s body is released from the starship to the bagpipes of “Amazing Grace.” He has died and has been laid in his tomb.
In the third film (the third of the eleven films in the franchise), the saddened crew return to Earth, only to realize that Bones, or Dr. McCoy, is going slightly crazy. It turns out that while Spock’s body was left on the new planet Genesis, all of his memories flooded into Bones. Bones is not himself, because Spock is occupying part of Bones’ mind.
Spock’s father, the respected Ambassador, requests that the Enterprise crew retrieve Spock’s body and bring it, along with Bones, to Vulcan. In the process, Spock’s memories will be reunited with his body. In order to achieve this, Kirk (William Shatnar) and the others must take the Enterprise without permission from the Federation. Their risk pays off, but not without encountering a Klingon Bird of Prey. The Klingon warrior Kruge (Christopher Lloyd) is on his own search; a search for the secret to Genesis. A secret that he believes will give him absolute power.
The crew of the Enterprise is still shaken by the sudden death of Spock. Mostly because he willingly gave his life to save them all.
Spock: The needs of the many outweigh the . . .
Kir: The needs of the few.
Spock: Or the one.
The Christ-figure imagery continues in Search for Spock. As a science team (the main scientist being David, Kirk’s son) searches for life on Genesis, they discover Spock’s burial coffin in the forested, garden-like part of the planet. They open it and only find his burial robe. The scientists eventually find a small, Vulcan boy in the forest. The Vulcan scientists are quick to realize that this child is Spock. “He’s not himself, but he lives.”
New life. Resurrection.
This theme of new life continues in the film, as Kirk comes to terms with the knowledge that Spock is worth the risk. “The needs of the one outweigh the needs of the many,” he says as he risks all to save Spock. Kirk embodies the shepherd in the parable that Jesus tells in Luke 15. The shepherd counts his sheep and notices that he only has 99 out of 100. He takes the chance of leaving the 99 behind to go in search of the 1. To the Holy One, every stray soul is worth searching for. And like Kirk’s, the search includes risks. Jesus’ parable of the shepherd in search of the lost sheep was a metaphor for what Jesus was doing at that moment to fulfill the Kingdom of God. In a post-resurrection context, we are the shepherd risking all we have to search for those who are lost.
Roger Ebert called Superman III a “cinematic comic book,” and he didn’t necessarily mean that in a good way. Richard Lester’s direction took the film series from complex, thoughtful elements to more campy, silly moments. Ebert is correct in his assessment: this third film is not nearly as good as the first two. On one hand, Superman III can stand alone and can be watched without the foundation of the first two films. Yet, it does nothing to support the story-line that the first two films worked so hard to develop. Perhaps this is the cost the studio had to pay when they shifted direction in the second film from Richard Donner to Richard Lester (who directed Superman III as well).
One of the areas in which there is a disconnect from the first two films and the third, is the complex relationship between Kent/Superman and Lois Lane (Margot Kidder). Lois leaves for a vacation at the beginning of the film, and it is clear that Clark didn’t know anything about her plans. Clark, meanwhile, heads back home to Smallville for his high school reunion and to cover a story about small town life. It is at the reunion that he begins to spend time with Lana Lang (Annette O’Toole), his high school crush. And so begins a relationship between Clark and Lana that includes picnics.
Richard Pryor plays the brilliant, yet befuddled, Gus Gorman. At first, this may seem like a brilliant casting move in 1983. And it is. But Lester doesn’t seem to tap into the smartness of Pryor. Pryor seems limited and reserved. He pretends to be a liquor salesmen and General, which Pryor does well, but seems so out-of-character for Gus. When we first meet Gus, he is in the unemployment line to get his check for the week. But he is denied because the thirty-two weeks are up. When he asks someone for a light for his cigarette, the matchbook is from the company owned by Ross Webster (Robert Vaughan). He suddenly feels that he can be a computer programmer, even though he could not keep a job at a fast food restaurant and other such places. And he gets the job.
It is his job that introduces Gus’ secret gifts to Webster, who wants to use them to gain power and control of the earth’s resources. First, he sets his sights on coffee, and then on oil. There is only one problem: Superman (Christopher Reeve). Webster and his colleagues recall that there is one thing that will destroy Superman, kryptonite. That small, green rock that can bring the Man of Steel down. But they have no such rock. Webster has Gus use a weather satellite to scan kryptonite that is floating through space to see what it is made of. One of the elements is “Unknown.” Gus, worried to submit such a report to his boss, fills in “Tar” for “Unknown.”
The tar-laced kryptonite results in Superman becoming a big ole meanie. At first, it appears that Superman is being selfish, wanting to spend more time with Lana Lang, and arriving at an accident too late. “If only you had gotten here sooner,” the rescue workers say to him when he finally arrives. We watch as the transformation happens. Superman’s tidy hair and clean shaven look disappear. Even his uniform appears darker and dirtier than it usually does. It is obvious that even Superman is not exempt from the struggles of this world.
It gets so bad, that in one scene a crowd that includes young Ricky, Lana’s son, is gathering outside a bar, watching Superman get drunk and smash bottles with peanuts. Ricky is the only one who can see Superman beyond the meanie he is acting like. In a pivotal scene to the messy plot-line, Superman lands in a salvage yard. He begins to destroy junk, frustrated that he is behaving the way he is. In the midst of destroying junk, Clark Kent emerges from meanie Superman. The two then fight. The scene is filled with very little dialogue, which at first may seem odd, but is actually quite brilliant. It is not a fight between meanie Superman and good Superman, it is between meanie Superman and Clark Kent—the humanity of the Man of Steel.
The scene captures well the struggle that Paul describes in Romans, “I do the things I know I should not do, and I do not do the things that I know I should do.” Oftentimes when we struggle with making good choices or bad choices, we too struggle with ourselves. The scene depicts what many of us feel when this struggle takes place; the struggle between living in the Light and dwelling in the Darkness; the struggle between holiness and sin. The dark, dirty look the film gives meanie Superman reminds us of the ways in which sin leaves us dark and dirty, while the clean, bright Superman reminds us of how grace leaves our dark and dirtiness bright and clean.
Eventually Clark defeats meanie Superman, and things go back to normal. He works to fix all the destruction he made when he was meanie Superman. And he prevents the world from being destroyed and controlled by the Big Bad of this film: Ross Webster. In doing so, Superman fulfills his calling as the messiah from another world.
It is 1943. Europe is now five years into what will be known as the Second World War. Germany establishes a number of prison camps to house the growing number of war prisoners. At the same time, there is a growing number of escaped prisoners of war. Germany responds by opening its first maximum security prison camp. Built on the promises of no prisoner escaping, officials send the most known escape artists.
One of these prisoners if Captain Hilts (Steve McQueen), who is also known as “The Cooler King,” for all the time he spent in the solidarity confinement (the “cooler”) as punishment for escape attempts. Escape, in fact, is the first thing on Hilts’ mind when he arrives at the camp. He closely investigates the fence line and guard booths, searching for a blind spot.
And Hilts is not the only one with escape on the brain. There is a whole cast of characters who are longing for escape. They see is a part of their vocational duty as military men. Among them is Hendly (James Garner) who can unearth any item you need, Danny (Charles Bronson) who is the digging champ, and Sedgwick (James Coburn) the manufacturer.
The climate on the camp changes when Roger Bartlett (Richard Attenborough) arrives. Roger is a legend of sorts among the prisoners. They all see Roger as their leader, all expect Hilts. At least not at first. Roger empowers the men to use their skills in a huge exodus of the prisoners.
The film, released in 1963 before the country was engulfed by the conflict in Vietnam, is not like most war films. It is not as dark and gritty as most war films, like Apocalypse Now (1979) or Full Metal Jacket (1987), These post-Vietnam films, we could argue, were colored by the events that changed the world and how we viewed it.
The Great Escape has more of a light-hearted, comical tone to it for a war film. You chuckle a little bit when Hilts walks back to the cooler or when his prison-mates hand him his baseball and glove, the only two things that will accompany him. There are other similar moments, along with the kindness of the Nazis, which you do not expect. In fact, I wasn’t sure who the Nazis were when the film first started, because they were portrayed in a more kinder fashion.
World events like war remind us that we are all prisoners of sin. Our own personal sin, but also corporate, communal sin. The sins of establishment, institutions, governments, or cliques. These sins imprison us, with hopes to paralyze us. We long for escape and freedom. We work together to make escape and freedom a reality. It becomes our mission and purpose.
A handfull of the prisoners manage to escape through a tunnel they dug, through a hole they created, into the woods. Most of them were either captured again by the Nazis or killed. At first, it is striking to see this happen. Where is the happy ending to this true story? They worked together for a common goal and we rejoiced. They managed to trick the well-trained Nazi guards and we rejoiced. Some escaped and we rejoiced. But death? Recaptured? That wasn’t on the back of the Blu-ray cover!
And maybe that’s the reality. The return to sin, personal or corporate, is never foretold. We never see it coming, and yet it happens. Does it mean we should not attempt escape? Hilts and the others in The Great Escape would plead that we do not. We should not cease to escape from sin’s prison camps.
The previous episode was the emotional cliff-hanger that HIMYM has become known for. It gripped us to the point that we were anxious to know what was going to happen in those extra 45 days before Ted met Mother, and for the moment when we could stop referring to her as “Mother.”
This episode, while it may have been a necessary evil, really did not do much to move the story along. It did not fulfill the emotional cliffhanger we were left with. If anything, it has left us with more questions, especially knowing there are only about three episodes left to this season and the show has been renewed for a 9th season.
As the episode opens, Ted’s voiceover is describing how Marshall and Lily’s life. He says, “Life was a well oiled machine.” Which is the first clue that something is about to change. The Captain calls Lily to inform her that he is going to Rome for a year and wants Lily to come with him. Lily freaks out a little bit. She can’t even imagine that he would ask her to make such a move when she has a baby and a husband with a great job. Without talking with Marshall first, she declines the offer. When she goes to surprise Marshall at work, she quickly learns that Marshall’s great job isn’t all that great.
Marshall convinces the Captain to offer the job to Lily again, which he does. But Lily declines the offer once more. While Lily says no a second time, Marshall is in Little Italy preparing himself for his new home. After some urging from her friends, Lily finally talks to Marshall and they decide that they will in fact move to Rome.
What does this mean for season 9? Is it possible to have Marshall and Lily in Rome while the others are in New York, especially when Ted meets Mother? Or will Ted meet Mother before the end of the season 8?
In the meantime, Ted and Barney are at MacLaren’s when a woman Ted recognizes from his yoga class walks in. According to Ted, her body is “redonkulous.” But she is wearing a huge winter coat. Barney becomes almost obsessed with finding a way to get her to take her coat off to see how “redonkulous” she is. Turns out, she is Robin and Barney’s wedding planner. Barney eventually asks her if she wants to take her coat off, showing confidence in his love for and relationship with Robin.
Is this woman in the oversize coat the Mother? Or she is just a distraction? And for those fans who are longing for Ted and Robin to get back together, there was this small exchange between Ted and Barney:
Ted warns Barney that he should be careful how he acts around Robin. Barney very boldly and sternly replies, “You’re not getting married in three weeks, Ted. I am. Robin’s marrying me, not you.” And that put an end to Ted offering Barney advice.
Is this some strange foreshadowing on the writers part? We have been promised a wedding, but will we get a marriage?
We never know for certain what life will throw our way. But each of us has a vocation, a calling, a purpose in life. It is challenging, as Lily experienced in this episode, to discern that vocation. And if we’re lucky, we have a spouse or a friend who will sit with us on the sidewalk as we ponder our way through what God is calling us to. Thank God for those sidewalk sitters in our lives.
Thursday
the world bid farewell to one of the greatest and most honored film critics: Roger Ebert. Ebert wrote for the Chicago Sun-Times for 46 years and was on television for 31 years. It was some of those years on television with his on air partner Gene Siskel, that I learned who Roger Ebert was. He watched 100′s of films a year and wrote and talked about them with great passion and purpose.
It was then that I wanted to be Roger Ebert when I grew up.
Of course, God had other plans for my life, and I did not become Roger Ebert. But there was something about the way Ebert would talk about movies that made me want to explore these stories. Because that’s what film is – a form of storytelling. And Ebert knew what was a good story and what was not so good. And he had the courage to tell you so. And in many cases, he could do so with the simple turn of a thumb.
I have read his reviews for years online. And in way, it has taught me how to “read” a film. I learned from Ebert that a great storyteller makes use of everything he or she has at their disposal. From the actors to the cameras, from the lightening to the soundtrack. Everything has a voice in the story. Some films do this well, and others don’t.
The most interesting reviews of Ebert’s were often the ones for films that weren’t very good at storytelling – or simply sucked. Ebert had the courage to be completely honest, not just that the film didn’t work, but why. The plot made no sense. A camera angle was all wrong. The lighting communicated one thing, while the dialogue another. All of these things mattered to Ebert, and they should matter to us – the patrons of the cinema – as well.
For those films that received his coveted 3 1/2 or 4 stars, all the voices come together to give the story meaning. A deep, rich, truth that speaks it our lives. That, Ebert taught us, is what a great film does. It speaks truth into our lives. The film becomes more than just entertainment, to connects to some deep part of ourselves and causes us to think differently about ourselves and the world around us.
But most of all, I learned from Roger Ebert to keep going, no matter what life throws at you. After being diagnosed with thyroid cancer in 2002, Ebert did not give up or stop doing what he did best. He continued to write film reviews, blog, and even wrote a cook book. And even still, when losing portions of his jaw after cancer surgeries, Ebert kept going. He always seemed to have a smile. He lived his life without fear of death. He did not live in fear, but in hope. He did not let something like fear, cancer, or anything else paralyze him from the vocation he was called to.
He wrote this in his memoir, Life Itself:
I know it is coming, and I do not fear it, because I believe there is nothing on the other side of death to fear. I hope to be spared as much pain as possible on the approach path. I was perfectly content before I was born, and I think of death as the same state. I am grateful for the gifts of intelligence, love, wonder and laughter. You can’t say it wasn’t interesting. My lifetime’s memories are what I have brought home from the trip. I will require them for eternity no more than that little souvenir of the Eiffel Tower I brought home from Paris.
I still want to be Roger Ebert when I grow up.
Every Wednesday I spend part of my evening at the L’Arche community in Lynchburg. There are L’Arche communities all over the world made up of individuals with intellectual disabilities. Wednesdays is the Lynchburg community’s Spiritual Life Night. Since October I have been leading this time which we spend in prayer, scripture reading, and singing.
Last night at the L’Arche Spiritual Life Night, we sang a bunch of songs, as we usually do. One of them was Jesus Loves Me, which we sing almost every week. It is a song we often think is just for children. As we sang it last night, one of the residents, Steve, was in a different part of the house. As we sang, he stopped what he was doing and walked into our space. He stood next to me and uttered sounds that told us he was singing along. He looked in the direction of my songbook, and I handed it to him. He took it from me and started “singing” louder. As the song started to to come to an end, Steve moved on.
He knew the song and wanted to sing along.
It reminded me of a story I heard Connie Hopper tell once about visiting her older brother. She would take him recordings of her family group’s gospel music to listen to. The recording that got the most use, was that of their version of Jesus Loves Me.
No matter what our mental capability, state of our memory, or place in life, there are great hymns and songs of faith that help us remember that Jesus loves us. And there is none better than the song most of us learned growing up in the church as young children. And it reinforces the work of those Sunday school teachers and children’s ministers who teach the essence of the Christian faith, without all of the complexities: Jesus loves me.
The story goes that a student asked the theologian Karl Barth to summarize his theological in one sentence. Barth is reported to have said, “To quote a song I learned from my mother’s knee, ‘Jesus loves me this I know, for the Bible tells me so.’”
As “Target” (episode 15) starts, Alexis is gone. To college. Martha makes Alexis’ favorite pancakes because she misses Alexis so much. Castle is trying to be the parent who successfully lets his child leave the nest. But when there is a murder of someone who is supposedly a student at Alexis’ university, it becomes difficult for Castle to “let go.” As the case unfolds, it is believed that a young Egyptian student was kidnapped. The victim was hired as a discrete bodyguard. Her father is extremely wealthy. As they continue the investigation, they find out that Alexis knows the kidnapped girl, and has been kidnapped as well. Was Alexis in the wrong place at the wrong time?
This two-part episode is intense. Nathan Fillon delivers as a dad who is emotionally torn. We have not seen this side of Castle. And while we often prefer the silly side of Nathan Fillon, this was a good side to experience. More importantly, it added another layer of Richard Castle that we can relate to.
A ransom is offered for the two girls, but only one girl is delivered. Alexis is still missing. When it seems evident that the FBI are not going to do a whole lot after they find out that the girls are being held in Paris, Castle goes to the city. He meets up with a man who helped with research for a Derek Storm novel, who sets him up with a guy who seems to know a lot about everything. The guy is able to track down where they were holding Alexis, but they had already moved Alexis.
The drama continues as the guy Castle hires turns him over to the kidnappers. The whole thing doesn’t make a lot of sense. And it only gets crazier. Beckett learns that Alexis was the target from the beginning. She cannot get through to Castle to let him know. But, he’s learning from his . . .wait for it . . . father.
ABC
The mystery man in Castle’s life has finally revealed himself. James Brolin plays the spy. The initial moment is too much for Castle, he is torn between “oh my gosh, you’re my father,” and “we need to save Alexis.” His father knows so much about him and Castle knows very little about his father. But, they set that aside to work together to rescue Alexis. And they do, following Castle’s father’s plan. And eventually Castle gets Alexis home where there is a package awaiting for him. It is a copy of Casino Royale. He learned from his father that the last time they saw each other was when Castle was 10 and his father helped him pick out Casino Royale at the library. The book that made Castle want to be a writer.
Does this mean we will see more of James Brolin? Will get to find out more about Castle’s father? It seems that this has been the last missing piece to who Castle is. Much as Kate’s mother’s death haunted her, the identity of Castle’s father loomed over him. There have been episodes where you got the sense that Castle was uncomfortable without this knowledge. In the little bit of time we had to learn about Castle’s father, I think we got a better sense of who Castle is, like why he wanted to become a writer.
But, we needed more than we got too. I hope that the writers give us more of this relationship.
CBS
“The Time Travelers” has to be one of the better episodes of HIMYM. It combines the creative, funny storytelling with the deeply moving storytelling. Two reasons that make the show what it is. It starts off with Ted and Barney sitting at their booth discussing going to see robots verses wrestlers. Then, 20 years from now Barney and Ted show up to convince Ted he should go to robots verses wrestlers.
Not to be out done, 20 hours from now Ted shows up with a hangover to convince Ted not to go to robots verses wrestlers. Then, 20 minutes from now Barney shows up to try and stop Barney from making a mess with his food, but also to get Ted to pay attention to who walks through the door. It is coat check girl from seven years ago, played by Jayma Mays (from Glee). Ted questions if he should go talk to her, and all of the Teds and Barneys yell, “Yes!”
On his way to talk to Coat Check Girl, Ted is distracted by 20 months from now Coat Check Girls. Yep, girls. Neither she will be so desperate to keep Ted she becomes some what obsessive or she will become so disgusted with Ted she will break it off. When Ted goes back to his booth, he learns from Barney that the whole thing has been a memory. It didn’t actually happen. “Ted, you’re all alone,” Memory Barney tells him.
And that’s the reality that pulls us in. Ted is alone. We have all been there. Everyone else around us is with someone, has found their partner in life, and we are still sitting in the booth alone. Wondering if we will ever find that joy.
Ted tells his kids that if could have done this or he could have done that. But if he could travel through time, what it would do would be to run through the streets of New York, into an apartment building, and knock on the door of 7A, which we can only assume is the apartment of Coat Check Girl. But, we don’t know. Whoever opens the door, is not made known to us. Ted, though, gives one of his best Ted speeches yet, making it one of the best show endings.
Hi. I’m Ted Mosby, and exactly 45 days from now, you and I are going to meet… and we’re going to fall in love. And we’re going to get married. . . .I want those extra 45 days. I love you. I’m always going to love you. To the end of my days and beyond.
These closing minutes of the episode offer us hope that the show will be able to deliver on the emotional goods. But how long will be the 45 days be? How will we have to wait to finally meet The Mother. And Ted’s poor kids, this has been a loooong story.
If you could go back into time to do something differently in a relationship, what would you do? Sometimes we think if we could just see 20 minutes from now, 20 months from now, 20 years from now, it will change everything. But how much will it change? If Ted teaches us anything, this looong story was worth it. Look at all the experiences Ted has gleaned, all the stupid things he will never do again. Ted has a story worth telling. If he skipped it all, we wouldn’t have this story.
A Girls Gone Wild producer is found murdered in a night club bathroom. Strangled. With a bra. And the crew is not lacking in suspects. One of which is Scarlett, played by Kelly Hu. Scarlett catches Eposito’s eyes, and we have to wonder, will Eposito’s judgement be affected. Scarlett seems to have uncovered a video that features one of her friends.
This episode was not the smoothest of Castle episodes. A few things just didn’t add up and the flow was a little off. But the kicker was when Castle learns that Alexis has her own Vlog (a video blog). It has to be a set up for future episodes. Castle’s reaction may be a little bit of an over reaction. But considering what Castle has been exposes to in this case, its understandable. When you put yourself out there for all the world to see, there is no telling who might find you.
We all have a story to tell. And telling our stories, as Dean Borgman as often pointed out, can promote healing. For some a medium like blogging can be a way to achieve that. But, precaution is a good thing. Writing helps me, for example, process the many things that are going through my head and heart. And sometimes when I don’t write, like the last few months, my thoughts and feelings get clogged up. I need to unclog it, and the more I write, the more pours out of me. But I am fully aware that the only filter this medium has, is myself. I choose how much that is going through my head and heart is posted for all the world to see.
I think it is helpful to remind teenagers that when they use social media to tell their story, to remember to post only what you really want people to see. Think through what you’re processing before you post it. Do not share personal information about yourself or your family. And, for that matter, don’t post things on behalf of your family members. Tell your story, let them tell theirs (unless they give you permission). Cite your work, for example, a lot of these suggestions come from the site Teen Learning 2.0.
Blog, vlog, tweet, post responsibly.
