Grows on the wall?

Well, hi.

It's been an interesting few weeks, for certain. I've begun to hear from schools regarding admission, and I've plowed through stacks of paperwork that had to be handled regarding admission, and I'm just waiting to decide where to go.

Really, this process feels like running headlong at a wall. In many ways it seems like the "wrong" time to move, but on the other hand, it seems like when the common consensus is that it's the "wrong" time, someone else has figured out that it's actually the absolute "right" time.

I've heard back from one school already, but I'm maintaining a little secrecy at the moment. Perhaps I'll write a full note about the ins/outs of the situation when everything is settled, but for now still biding my time.

I was thinking, though, this morning about the Ivies. They've got a perilous situation on their hands right now, and it is difficult to interpret how they will handle it.

Certainly there has been a variety of Animosity toward our nations "top universities" in the past few years - hundreds, possibly thousands of voices ringing out with cries against the Ivy League's stranglehold on the image of quality education, noting that one might receive as good a body of knowledge from nearly any decent private University, and many of the top State Schools. This cannot have hurt their admission totals, but it has made the general populous shift their focus on the Ivy League schools from absolute admiration to casual dismissal and possible venomous objection.

I'm wondering how they're going to handle their acceptances for this fall. Consider that an increased percentage of "accepted but declining admission" students is entirely possible, maybe even likely this year. After all, despite their needs-blind admission (for the most part), moving out of state, away from family, incurring any expense may not be feasible for the average student right at this moment, despite the desire to at least test one's mettle where the Ivies are concerned. How shall they react to this knowledge? Widen the acceptance pool a bit to guarantee numbers are up? Ride out the storm with smaller enrollment and the promise of recovery in a few years? Accept even fewer people in hopes of an intentionally smaller student body in order to cut costs?

I'm curious. I mean, I'm realistic about my chances with some of these schools (specifically the ones that only accept, say, 7-15 transfer students per year), but I'm pretty confident that my application is strong and will be something for them to consider.

In other completely unrelated news, I am working on getting an Ex Libris for my books (both the ones I own, and, actually, the one's I write - I like the idea that my written works are, first and foremost, items from my library). I like the idea of bookplates a lot, and designed one for myself, but am not exactly skilled with penciling my visual ideas (I can get the job done, but the result is nothing stunning)... so I'm waiting to see if an opportunity to have it re-illustrated pops up. We'll see.

More as more things develop.

Wait until a star breaks through (funny)

I just tossed out about 10 submissions over the past 48 hours. I was looking at my submission list and realized that I hadn't made any in about 3 months or so. A few rejections were trickling in from ones I made back in November/December, so I decided to get a few more out. I'm not really expecting any results just at the moment, but I have to keep things on the cycle. Finding homes for these stories makes me feel like a caseworker in child services.

There was an interesting news item being discussed on NPR the other day (yes, I listen to NPR) about a man who had lost his eye long ago, and had since become a film-maker, and was currently working with technologists to invent an in-eye camera that he could fit where his prosthetic normally would be. In this way, he planned on making a documentary feature. The NPR correspondent asked him the requisite questions about privacy, voyeurism, legality, etc., and he made a rather brilliant point - we are the worst invaders of our own privacy these days. Blogging, twittering, facebook status updating - these things air our private thoughts to an audience, sometimes a context-less anonymous audience. Is this healthy?

As a writer, I think, perhaps, that sharing too many of these inner thoughts without context is not healthy... at least the twitter/facebook 250-words-or-less variety. The temptation with these sites is to update constantly, lighting up every witty or useful thought we have during the day. That sort of mental exposure is unprecedented... and it is difficult for me to see an sensory difference between obsessively updating twitter and publishing pictures of one's own genitalia. Perhaps in society-at-large we are not terribly far removed from a day when that becomes a reasonable activity as well?

Constructing thoughts in the blog format is not terribly unhealthy for those that are scatterbrains and use these things to collect/condense a set of ideas.

Where are we moving as a society, if we take this story into consideration and use it as a fulcrum point? Increased frequency of voluntary body modifications? Voluntary prosthetic work? Digital enhancements? Injecting ourselves more and more into the "web" realm?

We are perhaps moving toward a meta-life. That's the difficult thing about acceleration in society... you can never tell the shape the world will take next in light of the changes. Historical record might indicate that it will not change all that much, but walking a mile in the shoes of people who passed on long before I, or even my parents were born might indicate that within my own lifetime I may cease to recognize the shape of the world around me. Perhaps that is what it feels like to be elderly. Perhaps that is why the aged surround themselves with the familiar and reject the changed.

Will our enhanced ability to adapt and consume, bred into us by living in a time of massive "buy-culture" and "gadget-boom," save us from a similar fate?