"Rumours of Another World" Notes: "Why Believe?" & "Earth Matters"

Well, for once in my life ~ OK, year then ~ I have finished what I set out to do...on schedule (even if said schedule had to be revised just a little)! Here are my latest notes, which cover Chapters 10 and 11 of Rumours of Another World.

Two-Faced

In tonight’s chapters, Philip Yancey hosts yet another foray into the murky depths of schizophrenia vs. sanity. This time, he shines the spotlight on the “two-faced” nature of reality – a coin, as it were, with two sides: the physical/natural and the spiritual/supernatural. Once again, he touches on what each of the three major views – schizophrenic world, schizophrenic church, and sacramental – has to say on the topic.

• Schizophrenic world view: On the one hand, any idea not based on the concrete here-and-now is suspect; no reasonable person should believe in ancient superstitions. On the other hand, the world is big enough for everybody’s beliefs; whatever you think regarding the existence of another dimension of reality can be right for you – just don’t start insisting that there absolutely is a “spiritual world.” That’s dangerous. (See pages 164-165 & 181-182.)
  
• Schizophrenic church view: Yancey barely even touches on this viewpoint, but shadows of it appear in both chapters. On the one hand, it emphasizes the division between the “two worlds” at the expense of the connection and loudly preaches about the “evil” of the “sinful” physical/natural realm (think of the superstitions perpetuated by the church in the Middle Ages). On the other, all too often, the church as represented in “First World” nations ignores the evils Yancey names as part of affluent societies that have forgotten God. (See pages 164, 167-168, & 186.)
  
• Sacramental view: This view acknowledges a double-edged reality containing two tragically separated yet mysteriously entwined facets, physical/natural and spiritual/supernatural. People of faith can see God at work in both; He seeks to make Himself and the spiritual side more visible to people focused on the physical side, and He wants to use us to fulfill this purpose.
  

How do these views inform your opinions about the following ideas/questions?

• On page 165, Yancey asserts, “Building a society on a myopic view of reality, one that does not take into account a spiritual world, to which we are accountable, can lead to catastrophe.” He then cites several examples – the Soviet empire, the Rwandan genocide, and the WWII prison camp, to name a few. Are symptoms of this “myopic” outlook always so violent and catastrophic? What symptoms do you (and Yancey) see in “civilized” modern nations that are more subtle, but perhaps just as deadly? Can you add to the list Yancey gives on pages 167 and 183-184?
  
• It’s very easy to fall into either the trap of seeing reality as just a one-note existence (the “schizophrenic world” view) or its evil twin, the trap of perceiving only two harshly divided worlds – spiritual (good) and natural (evil) (the “schizophrenic church” view). What effects can you (and Yancey) see (historical or present-day) of falling into one (or both) of these traps? How would people located in each “trap,” in addition to a person of faith, view such events as the Holocaust, the Soviet empire, etc., differently?
  
• What makes it so easy for us to fall into either of the “two evil traps” – especially the “schizophrenic world” one – and so difficult to believe in the sacramental view, according to Yancey? What are some of the rewards of choosing to see with “sacramental” eyes? Do you agree with Yancey that people will see only with the eyes they choose to see with? Why or why not?

"Rumours of Another World" Notes: "The Good Life" & "The Gift of Guilt"

And after Chapters 7 and 8, there were Chapters 9 and 10...believe it or not!

Goodness & Guilt

In tonight’s chapters, Yancey outlines the principles and logical consequences of three different views about sin, guilt, and fulfillment:

• The (schizophrenic) world's view generally sees sin as an outdated concept, guilt as a pesky problem that needs to just go away, and God as the Big Spoiler in the Sky.
  
• The schizophrenic church, or religion-based, view, sees Christianity as a religion that's all about rules, and emphasizes the consequences of disobeying them to the exclusion of all else.
  
• The sacramental, or relationship-based, view sees Christianity as being centered around the person's love-based relationship with God.

I have listed below several concepts contained in tonight’s chapters. What does each view have to say about these concepts? What natural consequences result from living according to each of these views?

• Who is God, and how should I approach/relate to Him?
  
• What is sin, and where do its consequences come from?
  
• What is guilt? How do I deal with it? What is its relationship to repentance?

In addition, consider these questions:

• Do you agree with Yancey’s assertion on pp. 129-130 that modern society has “redefined” sin? If so, what consequences can you think of from the “sin revolution” in addition to the ones he lists? Why do you think so many people still ignore the obvious physical consequences of, say, promiscuity?
  
• Notice that Yancey makes reference to Mormon rules and how they, as well as Christian rules, can help prevent the negative physical consequences rampant in much of the rest of society. Is it true that any religion with certain prohibitions can help prevent these effects? If so, why choose Christianity?
  
• Notice Yancey’s explanation of “cognitive dissonance” on p. 146. Where can you find examples of this phenomenon, both within and outside of Christianity?
  
• On p. 154, Yancey details three responses to sin. Which response comes from each worldview? Why do you feel, as Yancey points out on p. 148, that we will do almost anything to avoid the last and healthiest option?

"Rumours of Another World" Notes: "Out of Order" & "A Word Unsaid"

I started yesterday's posting session with optimistic expectations about getting all of my "Rumours of Another World" analysis notes up before I went to bed, but, as you can see, that didn't happen, mainly because a) I started posting around midnight or so and b) I hadn't anticipated the colossally lovely idiosyncrasies of converting (and re-formatting) a bulleted document from Word to Microsoft e-mail back to Word and then to Blogspot. (Whew!) Therefore, I am (optimistically) hoping to get the job done tonight. So, without further ado, here are my notes from Chapters 6 and 7 of Rumours.

“Sin, Sin, Sin”

Schizophrenia: The Redux (a.k.a., Chapters 6 & 7 from Philip Yancey’s “Rumours of Another World”

* The 'Schizophrenia: Severing, Suffering, and Sacrament' scheme we used to talk about sex last week also applies to the metanarrative (that is, overarching) concept of sin in general, and any good, God-given desire it has corrupted in particular (like, for example, sex).

* In these two chapters, we see the return of the 'schizophrenic world,' 'schizophrenic church,' and 'sacramental' (sorry, 'designer sex' doesn't apply to the 'ideal' view this time around) views.

• The 'schizophrenic world' view (pp. 105-107, 116-121): Yancey says it is forced to acknowledge sin, even if only in terms of 'monstrous evil' such as genocide, terrorism, gruesome murders, etc. However, most other sins are determined OK, even good -- we're just fulfilling our natural desires, even when they lead to the 'seven deadly sins.' 'Healthy-minded' (pp. 122-123)? You be the judge.
  
• The 'schizophrenic church' view (pp. 107, 114-116): This one, according to Yancey, acknowledges but over-emphasizes sin and trades free-flowing desire for hypocrisy. It also makes the fatal error of excluding grace.
  
• The 'sacramental' view (pp. 100-103, 121-125): 'Morbid-minded' (pp. 122-123) as it is, it acknowledges the depth and gravity of sin but doesn't stop there, as the 'schizophrenic church' view does. Rather, it looks deep enough to understand that sins are perversions of our natural, God-given desires, and also makes room for grace.

* Do you agree with Yancey that 'We have a deep intuition about how the world should operate, and how it should not' (p. 100)? Would you agree with his assertion on p. 116 that this concept applies to all humans (not just Christians), who have consciences that can detect sin for what it is? In other words, would you agree that each of the three major worldviews/schools of thought acknowledges the presence of sin/evil in our world? How does Yancey say each one deals with sin? What real-world examples can you think of that apply to each view's conception of sin/evil?

* Severing: Read pp. 99 & 101. How does each view relate the concept of separation to sin?

* Suffering: Read pp. 120-121. How does each view relate the concept of suffering to sin?

* (Anti-) Sacrament: Read pp. 104-105, 115. How does each view see sin in relation to our God-given desires?

* Structure: Read p. 107. Non-Christian worldviews think up all sorts of “cures” for sin. Ironically, both “less structure” (“schizophrenic world” view – i.e., let people follow their inherently good hearts; just give them a good environment to blossom in & they’ll be fine) & “more structure” (“schizophrenic church” view – religious systems, laws, etc.) have been proposed – equally to no avail. Why? What are the motivating factors behind each of the two solutions? Where do they get it right & where do they get it wrong?

* Scripture: What does the Bible say in regard to some of Yancey’s assertions?

• On original sin, see Romans 7:14-20. How does this address Yancey’s assertions of widespread human consciousness of sin and the inadequacy of human structures & rules in dealing with it?
  
• On God’s ways of dealing with sin, see Galatians 3:15-25. After reading this passage, do you agree with Yancey that God used the Old Testament Law (and the saying could also apply to modern legal & religious systems) in tandem with swift, severe punishments as “overt behaviour-modification techniques” (p. 104)? Would it be more accurate to say that all of those things were used by Him as “pointers” or “schoolmasters” to help people see their need for Him? What things (circumstances, events, consequences, etc.) does He use as “pointers” in our world today?
  

"Rumours of Another World" Notes: "Designer Sex"...a.k.a. Promises Kept

In "Homeboys," my previous post, I mentioned Philip Yancey's impressive book Rumours of Another World, which I am currently reading and analyzing every week with my Wednesday night friends. What I didn't mention was that, for the past few weeks, I have been typing notes & questions to focus our discussion on each week's chapter (or chapters). At my friends' behest, I am now posting them here...which is why I have subtitled this post "Promises Kept." To my Wednesday night ladies...enjoy! To everyone else: I definitely recommend this book, whether you read it alone or as part of a study group, because of the authentic, thought-provoking, user-friendly ways in which it addresses human beliefs (or lack thereof) in a spiritual side to reality, as well as the ramifications of those beliefs. The following (& future) notes are meant to serve as supplements, not substitutes, for Yancey's excellent ideas. (Also, I began writing notes during the week we covered Chapter 5, so in case you're wondering where the notes for Chapters 1-4 are, there aren't any, at least not yet; I may write & post them at a later date.)

So without further ado, I now present my notes, beginning with Chapter 5, entitled "Designer Sex":

Sex, Lies, and Rumors:

“Designer Sex” from Philip Yancey’s Rumours of Another World

The Disclaimer

The following viewpoints and thoughts are just that – viewpoints and thoughts that I gleaned from reading this chapter. However, I am human and often wrong. Please feel free to interrupt me, agree, disagree, call me out, add your own thoughts, etc. Discussion is a beautiful, eye- and mind-opening experience, so share – don’t be shy!

"We Three Theorems"

• In this chapter, Philip Yancey discusses three major approaches to sexuality:

* The "schizophrenic world" view (see pages 76-77)
* The "schizophrenic church" view (see pages 74 & 81)
* The "designer sex" view (see pages 85, 88, 92, & 93)

• What are the basic beliefs of each view?

The Severing

• "Schizophrenic" can be used to mean "of multiple personalities" or "out of touch with reality" (thank you, Psychology 111!). In this context, the former is perhaps the better definition. In particular, I see it as implying dichotomy and hypocrisy. It's particularly applicable to the concept of severing/severance. (See page 79.)
  
• The "schizophrenic world" view:

* According to Yancey, "Never has sex been so disconnected from personal relationship." (page 76)

* What does this say about the "severing" of the physical and emotional aspects of sex propagated by the "schizophrenic world" view? Does the spiritual component of sex even enter the picture here? Is either the emotional or spiritual component really needed at all, according to this viewpoint?

• The "schizophrenic church" view:

* What aspects of sex, if any, does this view disconnect from each other?

* Certainly, Yancey sees a great deal of hypocrisy in this viewpoint. Would you agree that this hypocrisy causes the "schizophrenic church" view to be fragmented/schizophrenic?

* Would you argue that this view doesn't suffer from fragmentation/schizophrenia as much as it suffers from the wrong emphases, i.e., emphasis on negatives vs. positives, consequences vs. rewards, etc.?

* Do you agree with Yancey that this view, historically held by the Christian church(es), helped lead to the propagation of the "schizophrenic world" view due to its negativity & repression (see page 81)? What other elements do you think led to the transition from the predominance in Western culture of this view to the predominance of the "schizophrenic world" view (or do you think the "schizophrenic world" view has really always predominated)?

• The "designer sex" view:

* How does this view try to integrate ALL the aspects/components of sexuality (i.e., physical, emotional, spiritual, positive, negative, etc.)?

* What visible results would come from a practical application of this view, as opposed to the "schizophrenic church" view, throughout Christianity today?

The Suffering

• See page 85. Yancey asserts that sex and sexual desires are inextricably linked with suffering. How is that played out in each of the three views?
  
• The "schizophrenic world" view:

* Is suffering even supposed to happen, according to this view? How does the view deal with the actual suffering that does result from fulfillment of sexual desires (i.e., STDs, unintended pregnancies, etc.)

* "If it feels good, do it." Do you think this is a fair summary of this view's attitude toward sex and desire? Why or why not?

• The "schizophrenic church" view:

* Consider the anecdotes on pages 80-81 about how some historical church figures dealt with the concept of suffering in relation to both fulfilling and resisting sexual desires. How does the modern-day Christian church apply the "darned if you do, darned if you don't" concept?

* Does this view go too far to the opposite of the "schizophrenic world" view ~ i.e., glorifying sex-related suffering as opposed to denying it? In its haste to condemn "immorality," has the church intentionally or unintentionally exacerbated the amount of suffering resulting from improper fulfillment of sexual desires?

* “If it feels good, don’t do it.” Is this a fair statement to make about the “schizophrenic church” view?

• The "designer sex" view:

* How do we acknowledge the inherent danger & power in sex & desire – and stay mindful of possible negative consequences – without overemphasizing the suffering aspect of sex?

* What is Yancey’s take on how Christians can avoid the two extreme views on suffering (i.e., either no suffering or constant suffering) and find a happy medium?

The Sacrament

• The "schizophrenic world" view:

* Does this view even leave room for a “sacramental” outlook on sex at all?

* What about the cultural elevation of sex as the ultimate way to personal satisfaction, which Yancey seems to suggest is so pervasive in modern Western societies? Do you agree with his assessment? Why or why not?

• The "schizophrenic church" view:

* Would you say that this view involves a proper appreciation of the “explosive” power Yancey attributes to sex on page 83? If so, where does it go wrong?

* Under this view, does sex come off as a “sanitized sacrament” to you, something the church alternately shuns, sanitizes, and watches like a hawk? Why?

• The "designer sex" view:

* How can we have a proper appreciation for the power and destructive potential of sex while at the same time appreciating it as a good gift from
God?

* What do you make of Charles Williams’s “eternal identity” theory (page 89)? How does this correlate to Yancey’s assertion on page 92 that “In one sense, we are never more Godlike than in the act of sex”?

* According to Yancey, how can we keep this appreciation for sex while stopping short of elevating it to the highest pedestal, as the “schizophrenic world” view does? What are your own thoughts on this concept?

Homeboys

And 13 days later, in the immortal words of Randy Quaid (in this particular instance, playing psycho pilot Russell Casse) at the end of the movie Independence Day, "I'm BAAAAAAAAAAAACK!" (Seriously, that is one of the single most hilarious movie endings I've ever seen. You should check it out some time.)

So every Wednesday evening, I meet with a group of girls at roughly my age and stage of life ~ i.e., 20s-ish college graduates who are now grad students or professionals & haven't yet hit the marriage-&-kids stage. We always discuss a chapter or two of either the Bible or some other written work of philosophy/theology. At present, we're in the middle of Philip Yancey's Rumours of Another World (no, that isn't a typo, and yes, there is a big fat "U" smack in the middle of the word "Rumours" on the front of my book). It paints, in vivid brushstrokes ranging from chord-strikingly, universally broad to intimately, historically detailed, the author's ideas regarding the existence, proof, and significance of the supernatural/spiritual world ~ a world at once above and beyond, and yet inextricably entwined with, the physical world, the here-and-now full of what we humans can see, hear, and touch. Yancey highlights major themes such as sex, sin, and guilt, describes various ways in which we humans experience them, then suggests various ways in which these experiences point to the necessary existence of a second side to reality. That side, suggests Yancey, is an "invisible world" that is no less real than the visible one: a world from which God speaks to everyone, however faintly; a world whose glory is faintly reflected in the insanely perfect and perfectly insane beauty of nature; a world where the consequences of our day-to-day decisions matter and manifest themselves in our consciences and souls; a world that flashes into ours when we experience surging, intense desires for something more than the achingly concrete existences experienced by our five senses.

For an author tackling such weighty and in some cases controversial matter, Yancey presents his ideas in a surprisingly user-friendly manner, reminiscent of Donald Miller's Blue Like Jazz, without sacrificing the necessary intellectual gravity. His insights, I think, would resound with any adult who's lived in the real world for any length of time, and his applications of them flow with a natural logic that I've tried and failed to find in so many modern Christian works, whether they be books, sermons, or other matter. That's the gist of what I told one of the girls in the group when she asked me how I was liking Rumours so far, and that opinion has only solidified as we've read further into the book. In fact, during one recent study session, I blurted out that Philip Yancey was, in my book, approaching "homeboy status."

After everybody had finished laughing at yet another of my absurdly uncensored "insights," I started thinking about the word "homeboy" and why I'd used it. I understood it to normally mean one's friend, or somebody with which one shares a particularly close emotional kinship. In this particular instance, I used it to mean that Yancey was fast on his way to a very special place in my esteemed estimations of authors, speakers, and other purveyors of words and ideas ~ a haven I have reserved exclusively for those whose insights and articulations I consider so eloquent, inspirational and moving without being impossibly intellectual or condescending that I actually take the trouble to remember their words and refer to them often when making arguments or relating my views about important spiritual/philosophical/theological issues. In short, in order to consider somebody a "homeboy" of mine, I must be a different person intellectually, academically, and even spiritually after reading (or listening to) that person's ideas.

After my study-session outburst, I realized that my personal definition of "homeboy" might be all well and good in my mind, but complete gibberish to a more learned member of modern-day society, seeing as how I have this insane propensity to appropriate sweet little law-abiding citizens of Webster's Dictionary (or any dictionary of the English language, for that matter) and use them to serve completely different purposes from those for which their originators intended them. Hence, for example, my insistence on using the word "Glock" as not a noun describing a certain type of firearm, but a verb meaning "to attach" (as in, "Oh, shoot, my printer's missing a cord and I can't print out my blog posting!" "C-H-I-double-hockey-sticks, honey...just glock the thing to my printer, and you'll be fine." Which brings up a very disturbing mental image of a remote-controlled Glock mounted to my computer, making me the world's most dangerously armed blogger, but moving on...). So I figured that before I started going around describing Philip Yancey or C.S. Lewis in a way any normal, sane person would interpret as meaning that those distinguished gentlement actually live in my cute little cellar dwelling, I'd better look it up in the dictionary already. So, child of the Internet age that I am, I went to www.dictionary.com and typed "homeboy" into the search box. Up popped a page with two definitions each from four major sources. The short, gender-neutral description from Dictionary.com Unabridged read:

"1. a person from the same locality as oneself.
2. Slang. a close friend or fellow gang member."

The slightly more descriptive WordNet definition elaborated:

"1. a fellow male member of a youth gang
2. a male friend from your neighborhood or hometown"

Great, I initially thought. I have officially accused some of the world's greatest authors of being gang members. Another Sarah Joan gem. But then I began to focus on the other part of the definition and realized that my original interpretation of the word, the one emphasizing kinship, hadn't been too far off base. When I refer to the following authors as my "homeboys," I am describing them as people who come from the same ideological neighborhood as myself ~ writers whose thoughts have simultaneously mirrored and nurtured mine ~ and they can't do that without hailing from a similar mental and spiritual locality, or neighborhood. It is largely because of reading, questioning, and appropriating their ideas and insights that I have been able to understand, at however basic a level, the principles about faith, good, evil, guilt, inadequacy, hypocrisy, depression, sacrifice, redemption, and salvation that form my own intellectual and spiritual foundation. Their ideas have helped expand my mental horizons wide enough to understand life beyond the tightly-wrapped cocoon of rigid regulatory codes in which I spent my childhood ~ wide enough to understand that faith is more than rules, that God is more than just the Great Big Law-Enforcer in the Sky, and that redemption is more than one formulaic, repeat-after-me prayer. When my rules, regulations, and perfectionism finally failed me, my "homeboys" introduced me to a much more complicated reality: a world where even well-meaning people with the "right" beliefs disagree and screw up; where right and wrong are anything but black-and-white at times; where people labeled "good" in the rulebooks of my childhood act insanely cruel and "evil" people act kind, generous, and open-minded; and where the only hope of surviving this complicated and messed-up existence is knowing that there is another world entwined with the one I can see, a world where I and my choices matter, a world whose Ruler loves me more than He loves all the rules in my head. In other words, I believe the Rumours. They make sense to me.

And now to give a shout-out to my Homeboys:

* St. Augustine (Confessions)
* Martin Luther (anything, especially his letters)
* C.S. Lewis (Mere Christianity; the Chronicles of Narnia series; letters)
* J.R.R. Tolkien (Lord of the Rings; various letters)

Seriously, I highly recommend reading any work by these giants of philosophy and theology (especially the works in parentheses). They're well worth the time and effort. And, just for the record, so is Rumours.

WORKS CITED: No, I am not in college any more, but yes, I still believe in giving credit where credit is due. (The citations are in the Chicago style.)

Yancey, Philip. Rumours of Another World: What on Earth Are We Missing? Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2004.

homeboy. Dictionary.com. Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Random House, Inc. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/homeboy (accessed: November 14, 2008).

homeboy. Dictionary.com. WordNet® 3.0. Princeton University. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/homeboy (accessed: November 14, 2008).

Naming blogs

So naming a blog is a whole lot harder than I initially thought. I mean, one second I was thinking, "I should start a blog...", and literally a nanosecond (one-billionth of a second, that is) later I was thinking that no more than 189 or so nanoseconds after that, my psychotically genius mind would kick out a title for the ages. And mind you, this would be no ordinary, garden-variety, "Welcome-to-Sarah's-Blog" title. No, this title would scintillate to supernova-brightness with creativity, cleverness, and originality. The sheer force of its brilliance would immediately snatch the attention of perusing potential publishers (you know, book publishers for all those books I want to publish some day) and cause them to exclaim to their bosses, "That girl is a genius. A genius, I tell you! We need to sign her up and crank out anything she's ever written right away..." ~ and the rest would be history. I mean, this brain is the same 3 pounds of budding stardom that produced gems such as "Principles, Propaganda, and Postmodernism," "Mocking the Moral Majority," and "Nuns and Ninjas" (please don't ask) to head up some of my college papers...all while impeded by way too little sleep, way too much Pepsi, and a very healthy dose of procrastination. So one lousy blog title while on a relaxing weekend at home with no pressure from professors, assignments, or any other vestiges of academia? No problem. No problem at all.

Except that the 189 nanoseconds passed with no title and no ideas for one ~ not even a terrible-to-the-tune-of "Choices, Catheters, and the Constitution" idea (yes, I did write a paper with that title...and, even more disturbingly, my professor gave me an "A" on it). So I waited for 189 more nanoseconds. And then 189 more. And then...well, then lots more. And when after a rather significant amount of time (think over 2 minutes...yes, 2 whole minutes, which, I might add, equals a whopping 120 billion nanoseconds) the best I could come up with was "Sarah the Fat & Fab Rebel", I decided to call it a day. Yes, a whole day. Yes, a day with 86.4 TRILLION nanoseconds. And then a day turned into a week, and the week into a month, and I won't go any further into that sad progression because you've surely heard it before, and at least 20 too many times to boot.

Not that I didn't get plenty of blog-name ideas during all of this time; I actually thought of a fair few. And as I've already posted samples of my mind-blowing titling abilities, you'd think a fair few would produce at least one winner, or at least a race-finisher ~ especially since my first name means "princess," which is a total gold-mine for, like, 13 kazillion or so blog-tastic labels ~ but, sadly, I couldn't even get to an idea I'd call decent. Not even halfway decent. Granted, I'm a bit of a perfectionist and my own worst critic to boot, but still, I was at least 3/4 of the way from "pathetic" to "got any brain cells left? ANY at all?"

And then the inspiration hit me. In one glorious stroke of sheer genius, I realized I'd already thought of a perfectly lovely blog-name long before I'd even considered starting a blog ~ over a year before, in fact. See, now that I'm officially out of college, I'm also officially old, which means I lose more brain cells every day, which means I need to use the few I have left to store seriously important information (you know, name, gender, birthdate...crazy stuff like that)...which means that using extra cells to remember a different username for every single e-mail account I have, every single Internet forum I post on, etc., would just be downright wasteful. So I got the brilliant idea to come up with a couple of different usernames ~ like, two or three ~ and distribute them equally among the various websites I bless with my presence on a regular basis. One of them is based on the words "geek" and (what else?) "princess." And, after months of trying to think up a passable blog-name, I realized, why settle for passable, or even good? I could cobble together a perfectly brilliant name from my already-brilliant username. GENIUS. And so, as 2008 left behind its glory days and descended into its doom (that's melodrama-speak for the beginning of November, people), this blog sprang into existence as "Sarah, Princess of Geeks"...which I now present to you without further ado. And yes, that was my lame attempt at a cute rhyme.