By Karen Kovaka, Gavel Columnist -

“I see you.”

That’s my favorite line from Avatar. Sure, as I think about it now, a couple weeks after seeing the movie, it seems a little corny.

But more important than my retrospective analysis is my first reaction to “I see you” — the reaction I had while I was still immersed in the reality created by Avatar.

I, and millions of others, were struck by the beauty of a culture in which people greet each other by acknowledging that they truly see who the other is. Contained in this greeting is the realization of what so many of us yearn for — the experience of knowing another, and of being fully known in return. The idea of a whole culture in which the experience of citizens is true knowledge of one another is the opposite of the experience of anomie, fragmentation and loss of identity we tend to associate with postmodern society.

As much as I appreciated the temporary experience of an “I-see-you” world, I wonder what relevance this greeting has in a culture of plurality and democracy. The world is too big and too full of variety for us to actually see who everyone around us is. We don’t have the kinds of cultural ties and traditions required to unify us in this way. And yet, we still want to see to be seen.

In a democratic society, the way to seeing is hearing. As Lewis Hyde, author of The Gift, said in his Guestbook Project lecture to the BC community in February, the freedom of speech that is trumpeted in democratic societieshas a purpose: the freedom of listening.

Quoting the psychoanalyst W.D. Winnicott, Dr. Hyde said that a sign of a healthy mind is the ability to enter into the thoughts, fears and hopes of another person imaginatively and accurately (and vice versa). According to Dr. Hyde, the same is true of a democracy. Freedom of speech is an opportunity to cultivate a hospitable public consciousness, one that is willing to entertain strange ideas and to truly listen to them.

Pluralism can tend toward fragmentation and a sense of incoherence. If Winnicott and Hyde are right, this will always be the case unless a faith in the fundamental interestingness of things causes us to listen. Unless we are willing to cultivate a passion for the whole of reality, urging us to make use of the freedom of listening, we will never be able to see our fellow citizens.

Part of our trouble is is that we think we’ve already heard it all before. The good news is that there is an easy way to test this opinion — is there a political position you find particularly idiotic? Before allowing yourself to craft some tirade against it, try listening to someone who thinks the position is legitimate and explain their perspective back to them in your own words. If your listener thinks your explanation is fair, balanced, and accurate, you have listened closely enough, and you can reasonably disagree.

If we took our freedom of listening this seriously, then seeing the truth of other people and their opinions would be a precondition of political and cultural discourse. The political benefits of such a strategy should be obvious, but what of the more intangible effects? Does listening prevent fragmentation?

I think it does. Although listening can lead to bewilderment, confusion is only an intermediary stage. The listener who perseveres eventually comes to understand the internal logic of points of view that before seemed incomprehensible. This kind of understanding is the antithesis of fragmentation. If you have listened well enough to sense the internal logic of a position that was previously unintelligible, it means you have crossed a chasm that used to appear impassable. You have now ‘met’ another point of view, another mind. Not only have you met, but you have seen.

By Robert Rossi, Assoc. Culture Editor -

Damon Albarn just might be the most underappreciated pop musician in the United States. Everyone who’s ever been to a sporting event and/or turned on a radio knows the guy’s music, but I’d bet my Blur album collection that if you ask the next four people you see to tell you why I’d start a review of a Gorillaz CD with his name, at least three wouldn’t know. Damon Albarn, for the uninformed, is the lead singer of the Britpop band Blur (of “Song 2” AKA “Woohoo!” fame) and the musical mastermind behind, you guessed it, Gorillaz.

Gorillaz is a collaboration between Albarn, comic book artist/designer Jamie Hewlett, and whatever guest musicians Albarn invites into the recording studio for each track. The band’s listed members are 2D (vocals and keyboard), Murdoc Niccals (bass), Russel Hobbs (drums), and Noodle (guitar and vocals), but really Albarn is doing all the work except for the drums, which are typically outsourced to a machine, and the countless guest appearances. The band has a long and intricate back story that can be found on their web site and is very entertaining for anyone looking for distractions from their English essay (www.Gorillaz.com), but none of it is really necessary for appreciating the music.

Plastic Beach is somewhat of a concept album about the environment, but you wouldn’t know it without having the lyrics printed in front of you or reading it somewhere else because Albarn’s lyrics are, for the most part, unintelligible. Ignorance of the subject matter of each song is often bliss, however, as most of these tracks are dance tunes that are so well structured that they can be enjoyed even without understanding whatever eco-message Albarn is trying to send.

The album starts off with an orchestral intro, followed by a “welcome to the plastic beach” from my personal favorite guest artist on the album, solely because his appearance is so unexpected. If you haven’t already looked at the track listing, don’t ruin the surprise. “White Flag” follows, and serves as the first full-fledged song on the album. It definitely sounds as though it belongs on the beach, melding a Mario Kart-ish beat with Jamaican-accented raps. The presence of the Lebanese National Orchestra for Oriental Arabic Music would therefore seem strange, but trust me, it’s not. That being said, the track is uninspired by Albarn’s standards.

Plastic Beach hits its stride with tracks four and five. Fans of “19-2000” and “DARE” will definitely love “Rhinestone Eyes”, a synth-driven love song that you need to dance to for your own well-being. The main synth line grabs your head and shakes it until the rest of your body follows suit. Props go to Albarn as well for the great imagery in the title. “Rhinestone Eyes” battles it out with the next song, “Stylo”, for best track on the album. What “Rhinestone” is to dancing, “Stylo” is to swagger. The bass line is violently direct and the synths are icy metallic cool. The vocals tattoo the word “overload” onto the brain, and if this is the last song you listen to before turning off your iPod, good luck getting it out of your head. Even though it isn’t included with purchase of the CD, the “Stylo” video, starring Bruce Willis, may be the best of 2010 so far.

The rest of the album can for the most part be divided into songs resembling “White Flag,” “Rhinestone Eyes,” or “Stylo.” Those in the vein of “White Flag”, while not necessarily as suited to a Nintendo game, are bouncy, energetic and cheery. The next two slated singles (“Stylo” being the first) both fall into this category. They are the less-than-spectacular “Superfast Jellyfish” and the ironically-smile-inducing “On Melancholy Hill.” “Empire Ants,” superior to both forthcoming singles, most nearly matches the danceability of “Rhinestone Eyes,” while still capturing some of the swagger of “Stylo.”

“Sweepstakes” deserves special mention. It features Mos Def flowing over a beat made up of beeps and bloops, only to be joined halfway through by the Hypnotic Brass Ensemble, completely altering the feel of the track and building to a satisfying, if somewhat bizarre climax. Next is the title track, the last great track on the album. “Plastic Beach” features Mick Jones and Paul Simonon of seminal British punk band The Clash (one of whom, Simonon, worked with Albarn on The Good, The Bad & The Queen). Don’t expect a foray into distorted guitars and fast drums, as “Plastic Beach” continues the dance grooves put forth on the first twelve tracks.

Sadly, Plastic Beach loses steam on the last three tracks. “To Binge” sounds like something that was left off Blur’s Parklife back in 1994, and “Cloud of Unknowing” is a bit of a snoozer; some may find it beautiful, I didn’t. “Pirate Jet” has the potential to be a great track, but it ends too soon, ending the album on a bit of an anticlimactic note. Regardless, the album as a whole still stands as a diverse, satisfying, and noteworthy disc. It is not Albarn’s finest (that would be either Parklife or Demon Days), but it still deserves to garner him the American attention that he probably won’t get.

Column by Lorna Greene, Gavel Writer -

I left school uniforms behind the day I graduated from my Catholic secondary school. I hoped I would never have to come across one again, unless I happened to pass children on their way home from school. Imagine my surprise when I arrived on Boston College’s campus only to soon realize that I had once again been thrown back into the world of the school uniform.On the BC campus, it is impossible to walk from one building to another, to sit in a class or to eat food in any of the dining halls without seeing an im­pressive myriad of “BOSTON COL­LEGE” apparel. What has surprised me most about this phenomenon is that I like it.

At my home university, Univer­sity of County Cork, or UCC in Ireland, the level of demonstration of university paraphernalia stands no competition to that of Boston College. There are no UCC baseball caps, pom-poms, snuggies, pajamas or even sweatpants. Granted, you are able to pick up a sweatshirt, a key ring, a mug or a pen but these banal items are not embraced by the students themselves. It is usually only visitors, or exchange students who buy these products.

Most students on my home university’s campus wear the apparel of their specific sports team, club or society that they are involved in. I do realize that this also the case on BC’s campus, but the items are not exclusive, and students wear the generic “BOSTON COLLEGE” clothing, too.

This eagerness to sport clothing emblazoned with the university’s name demonstrates a certain pride the students take in their school. This has become one of my favorite things about BC – the fact that the people who attend the school are so happy to be here and eager to demonstrate their affiliation with the university. It creates a sense of community and togetherness. It makes it easy to identify fellow BC students when off campus and it adds meaning and true value to the college’s motto, “We are BC.”

The fact that the quintessential clothing item for a BC student is a ‘Superfan’ t-shirt says a lot about the collective spirit present on campus. There is a willingness of almost all BC students to support and rally around the various sports teams that represent this university on a state and national level. School spirit is strengthened and consolidated in the student body’s choice to wear ‘Superfan’ t-shirts; the very name of which demonstrates the unwavering loyalty and pride in our sports teams and various other representatives of the college. Furthermore, the fact that these t-shirts also represent our fellow classmates and peers only reinforces the idea of togetherness and community at BC. Not only can students identify as BC ‘Superfans’ but they can also proudly identify themselves as a member of the class of 2010, 2011, 2012, or 2013.

Although I am an exchange stu­dent and in reality cannot identify myself as a full-fledged BC student, I am still exceptionally proud to have had the opportunity to attend this fantastic university. I am also happy to experience col­lege life on such a vibrant and fun campus. I have my own ‘Superfan’ t-shirt and “Boston College” sweat­shirt. I enjoy the sense of pride that accompanies wearing BC clothing, signifying that I, too, am part of this community. Perhaps UCC students are missing out on this same opportunity, or at least nowt making the most of their opportunity to wear our school’s name and emblem with the same delight and unwavering loyalty that BC students do. Let’s go BC!

By Andrew Schofield, Special Projects Editor -

Every year, the Oscars celebrate accomplishments in film. While it’s great to be even nomnated, it’s even better to win. The following are the films and actors The Gavel believes should take home the trophy:

Best Picture

Nominees: Avatar, The Blind Side, District 9, An Education, The Hurt Locker, Inglorious Basterds, Precious, A Serious Man, Up, Up in the Air

Our Pick: The Hurt Locker

In the largest field of Best Picture nominees in recent memory, The Hurt Locker sepa¬rates itself from the rest of the pack as the best film of the year with its stunning storyline and great script. The Hurt Locker, directed by Kathryn Bigelow, tells the story of a US Army bomb squad and its trials during the Iraq War. With strong performances by Jeremy Renner and Anthony Mackie, the film illustrates the full impact of the Iraq War on the American solider. Up in the Air and Inglorious Basterds deserve honorable mentions, but in the end, The Hurt Locker wins out.

Best Actor

Nominees: Jeff Bridges (Crazy Heart), George Clooney (Up in the Air), Colin Firth (A Single Man), Morgan Freeman(Invictus), Jeremy Renner (The Hurt Locker)

Our Pick: Jeff Bridges, Crazy Heart

Jeff Bridges has been nominated five times for an Academy Award, yet has zero Oscars to show for it. His role in Crazy Heart gives him his best chance so far for the honor. In the film, based on a novel by Thomas Cobb, Jeff Bridges plays Bad Blake, a down-and-out country singer who tries to turn his life around after meeting a young journalist (Maggie Gyllenhall). Jeff Bridges shines in his role, which is based on a combination of several country singers including Merle Haggard. Honorable mention goes out to George Clooney for his striking portrayal of a corporate downsizer.

Best Actress

Nominees: Sandra Bullock (The Blind Side), Helen Mirren (The Last Station), Carey Mulligan (An Education), Gabourey Sidibe (Precious), Meryl Streep (Julie & Julia)

Our Pick: Meryl Streep, Julie & Julia

Having been nominated a record sixteen times and having won two Oscars earlier in her career, Meryl Streep is no stranger to the Academy Award limelight. Julia & Julia contrasts the life of Julia Child and her rise to stardom, and the life of Julie Powell and her attempt to cook all 524 recipes from Child’s Mastering the Art of French Cooking. Meryl Streep shines as Julia Child, balancing the hilarious, yet dramatic portions of Child’s life as portrayed in the film. Honorable mention goes to Sandra Bullock who impressed with her role as Leigh Anne Tuohy in The Blind Side, which follows the turbulent life of football star Michael Oher and his relationship with the Tuohy family.

Best Director

Nominees: Kathryn Bigelow (The Hurt Locker), James Cameron (Avatar), Lee Daniels (Precious), Jason Reitman (Up in the Air), Quentin Tarantino (Inglorious Basterds)

Our Pick: Kathryn Bigelow, The Hurt Locker

Historically, Academy Awards for Best Picture and Best Director tend to be given together and don’t expect that trend to be broken here. As one of only four women to ever be nominated for Best Director by the Academy, Kathryn Bigelow could potentially become the first woman to ever win the highest individual prize for a director. Described by New York Times’s film critic A.O. Scott as the best American film on the war in Iraq yet, The Hurt Locker benefits from Bigelow’s fantastic direction as the story flows seamlessly and clearly. Surprisingly enough, her main competition may be from her ex-husband, James Cameron, director of the box office hit Avatar, who is looking to follow up on his success at the Golden Globes where he won Best Director and Best Picture. However, despite the success of Avatar at the box office, no director is more deserving of the Oscar than Kathryn Bigelow.

By Blair Thill, Gavel Blogger – (Photo courtesy of fanpop.com)

This week in pop culture, as always, there were hits and misses. What was strange, however, was the idea that many of the same players or circumstances showed up in both categories. It was as if people saw how Sandra Bullock could possibly win a Razzie and Oscar in the same year and thought, “Wow. I should do that in one week!” Here are the specific examples to illustrate my abstract point:

Robert Pattinson’s Publicity Tour

I have no clue what to expect from RPatz’s new movie, Remember Me, other than the knowledge that he and costar Emilie DeRavin may or may not have dated because of their intense chemistry and that the Twilight hunk may or may not be half-naked at some point during the film. Why is this? Oh yeah, it’s because Pattinson has done nothing but giggle like a little school girl during his talk show interviews.

“What’s it like to be an international sex symbol, Robert?” Giggles. “What was it like to try and break out of your role as a sexy vampire?” Chuckles. “Why are you unable to answer any questions without laughing?” Chortles. This was the case for almost every single interview, and none worse than Rob’s visit to The Daily Show. Watch the show on Hulu (before Viacom removes Jon Stewart’s work from the World Wide Web, that is) and try to prove me wrong. I’ll save you the trouble, you can’t.

HOWEVER, Pattinson showed the world, for once, that he doesn’t take himself too seriously with a stellar turn on Late Night with Jimmy Fallon. Jimmy has an inane yet hilarious bit that involves him being Robert Pattinson (complete with crazy hair piece), sitting in a tree, and complaining about fame. The real life Edward Cullen joined in on the fun by getting up in a tree with his impersonator. The result? An instant classic Late Night moment:

(http://www.hulu.com/watch/131346/late-night-with-jimmy-fallon-robert-pattinson-is-double-bothered)

Parenthood Casting

If you’ve read this blog before, it shouldn’t come as a shock to anyone that I was majorly excited about the debut of Parenthood Tuesday night on NBC, and the resulting return of Lauren Graham to primetime. Let me tell you, she did not disappoint. Graham brought the same wit and charm to the NBC skein as she did to Gilmore Girls, only this time she’s adding a layer of complex emotions relating to her character’s general penchant for screwing up. Just as Death Cab for Cutie originally purported, I will follow Graham into the dark. (Photo courtesy of zap2it.com)

Luckily enough, I’ll also get to watch the brilliant Peter Krause in the dark of Parenthood. The Six Feet Under alum was woefully miscast in the ABC dud Dirty Sexy Money after his star-making turn in the HBO series, so it is a relief seeing him stretch his acting chops around the role of a father dealing with a son that isn’t just eccentric, but probably suffering from Asperger’s Syndrome. He and Monica Potter will tug your heart strings as they try to wrap their brain around the impossibilities of their son’s condition.

HOWEVER, why, oh why, did the casting team of Parenthood decide it was a great idea to round out the Braverman siblings with … wait for it … Dax Shepard. Dax Shepard. Really? The guy who got his start in Ashton Kutcher’s Punk’d? The guy who played Amy Poehler’s hick husband in Baby Mama? I’m not sure how it happened, but I’m fairly confident it shouldn’t have.

Spring Rom-com Trailers

Summertime is blockbuster season, autumn is the time for Oscar contenders, and spring is … a dumping ground for bad romantic comedies. Good romantic comedies are hard to come by these days, but this spring seems to have brought an inordinate amount of duds. Leap Year with Amy Adams? Epic critical and box office failure. Valentine’s Day? Marketing genius brought a sizable holiday profit, but critics blasted the 840 big-named celebrities who signed on to the project to receive a big pay-day for 10 minutes of work.

The next projected bomb, at least by Blair standards, judging solely on the trailer? The Bounty Hunter, starring Jennifer Aniston and Gerard Butler. Why does Jennifer continue to do these movies? Did The Break Up teach her nothing? Did the success of Marley and Me teach her nothing? And don’t even get me started on Butler’s chosen follow-up to the disaster that was The Ugly Truth. His film choices seem to scream that he’s the good-looking actor version of Geico’s Caveman commercials.

HOWEVER, a possible sleeper rom-com hit could come out of J Lo’s return to film in The Back-up Plan, co-starring TV poison but all-around Australian cutie Alex O’Loughlin. If J Lo’s above average turn on SNL taught us anything, it’s that she’s itching for a comeback. Could this be the movie? Decide for yourself, but I know I laughed at least once during this trailer:

By Andrew Slade, News Editor -

For many college students with Facebook profiles, recent weeks have brought a new and unfamiliar sort of information into news feeds. This is the result of the virally popular Web site www.formspring.me, which allows users to create question boxes in which site visitors can anonymously post questions directed at the page’s owner. The owner may then opt to either answer or ignore the questions with which they are presented. Should they choose the former, the question and answer will appear below the question box for all to see.

In browsing the FormSprings of friends, one is likely to come upon assurances from the page creators that they know the concept is a bit odd and borderline creepy, but that it is a new and intriguing way to waste time through Facebook or other social networking Web sites. FormSpring has set up its site so that users are able to link their question pages to their Facebook accounts and have their responses automatically shared with friends through status updates. This is in addition to users’ manually posted statuses that often state something to the effect of, “formspring.me … ask me anything!!!”

By connecting their Web site to Facebook without simply making themselves another application, FormSpring seems to have latched onto the all too common concept of “Facebook stalking,” positioning itself well for expansion of its user base.

The general idea of anonymous correspondence, however, is not entirely new to Facebook. Formspring.me expands upon the idea of Honesty Box, a well-established application that allows one to send others with the Honesty Box app secret questions or com¬ments, and this application has nearly 2.5 million monthly active users. What sets FormSpring apart is the idea of allowing anyone to see the dialogue — albeit partially the work of an unknown party — between the two others involved, and that one not need have a Facebook account to use the site.

On whether the site concept is too invasive to prompt most people to create FormSprings, the jury is out. “I think it’s cool, but I would never do it. I just read other people’s answers,” Khushboo Pelia, A&S ’13, says.

Laura Ahn, LSOE ’13, says that the site has potential, but that people aren’t necessarily using it the right way.

“My friends have it, and some use it to make comments as a joke,” Ahn says. “I like the concept, but I wouldn’t make one given how I’ve seen it used.”

Nicholas Schaufelberger -

For the past few months, we have watched Democrats and Republicans duke it out on Capitol Hill over the biggest political question of the year: health care reform.

While both parties have stressed the need for such reform theoretically, the ways in which they want to go about it are completely different. The Democrats mainly want to expand coverage dramatically and then cut costs, whereas the Republicans want to make changes to the already existing system with the main purpose of cutting costs.

With the need to get more people covered by health care and the importance of cutting costs becoming more and more apparent, it is now necessary for the Democrats to get the bill passed despite the Republican filibuster. The statistics are overwhelming: in 2005, 40 million adults stated that they have needed health care service, but couldn’t afford it. Also, despite being the only industrialized nation without universal health care, the United States still spends more money on health care per capita than any other nation in the world, with costs that continue to increase, with an excessive amount of those costs associated with administra¬tive overhead.

Having the most expensive health care system in the world that still doesn’t cover all Americans demonstrates that the nation needs a major overhaul of the health care system.

The difference between Republican and Democratic plans for reform is mainly ideological, but only the Democrats have proposed major health care legislation. The Republicans, from the beginning of negotiations on the bill, have done nothing but obstruct the Democrats’ attempts to reform health care.

Even now, despite having an overwhelming majority in the House of Representatives and the Senate, the Democrats are blocked on the issue with the Republican threat of a filibuster. The Democrats have no one to blame but themselves for having failed to pass health care reform to date. Contrary to popular belief, the filibuster is not an unbeatable political obstacle and Democrats can defeat it.

The filibuster is essentially the right to unlimited debate on a bill in the Senate. It permits Senators to speak for as long as they wish on any topic, unless 60 Senators vote to end the debate. While this was originally intended to allow for more debate, in effect it has been used to block the enactment of legislation, contrary to the intention of the founding fathers.

There used to be a filibuster rule in the House of Representatives, however, it was terminated in 1842 due to the difficulty of passing any legislation in the House. In the Senate, the filibuster was never used widely due to the implicit threat that the filibuster could itself be changed by majority rule if the minority used it to prevent, instead of merely to delay, votes on measures supported by a bare majority. It was only after the filibuster was first used in the 1960s, in an attempt to block passage of the Civil Rights Act, that its use to block legislation became more commonplace. Nevertheless, the idea that a majority vote to change the rules of the Senate could be used to destroy the filibuster could still be effective today. Since it takes only a majority of Senators to invoke a point of order and change Senate rules, a simple majority of Senators could bar the use of the filibuster from Senate proceedings.

Why this hasn’t taken place, however, lies within Senate politics. The Democrats are unwilling to destroy any possibility of a filibuster, since they may want to use it themselves if they are ever in the Republicans’ position. More importantly, they are afraid that political backlash from destroying the filibuster could hurt their position.

The Democrats could also rely on the reconciliation process to avoid a filibuster. This would require a majority vote on any budget-related issues to pass health care reform. However, they refuse to attempt this due to fear for their own political careers. Simply put, the Democrats have no backbone. If the Republicans were in this position, they would definitely amend the rules to remove the filibuster, as they threatened to in 2005 until the Gang of 14 moderates negotiated a settlement. Had the Gang of 14 failed, the Republicans would have ended the filibuster in favor of getting their court candidates appointed.

This underscores the pointlessness of the Democrats trying to preserve the filibuster, since if Democrats ever try to use a filibuster to block proceedings, the Republicans will evoke a point of order and amend the rules. At this point, the necessity of getting health care legislation passed is important enough that the Democrats need to take a stand and force a point of order. Failing now would be more than just a political defeat; it would be a disaster for the American people.

By Lauren Costello, Gavel Writer -

Imagine living under a roof occupied by a soldier 24 hours a day, seven days a week. This soldier stands idly by as your house is attacked, as the steel rods over your windows are hit with large rocks, trash is thrown into your yard, and even when your house is invaded by illegal settlers who believe that God is on their side. Imagine this soldier intimidating visitors, listening in with his machine gun clearly visible and reporting their conversations.

This is exactly what life is like for the Palestinian family that I met in the contested city of Hebron/Al Khalil in the occupied West Bank. I was among a group of Boston College students that visited the area at the beginning of January. I was shocked and disturbed by the horrendous conditions in which Palestinians are forced to live.

No amount of reading in class could have prepared me for the experience of going through a checkpoint in the West Bank, for hearing anti-Arab racism casually, unselfconsciously expressed, or for seeing the daily injustices of life in “the world’s largest open air prison,” as one woman described her society.

One night we were abruptly awakened by an Israeli soldier yelling outside, demanding that the family car be moved to accomadate road closings. Seeing the silent exasperation on their faces quickly let me know that this was just another inconvenience that they had to accept.

Before my trip, I could have explained to you the history of the conflict and how the map of Palestine has been steadily decreasing since 1967 due to the checkpoints and the separation wall. I would have been able to argue which sociological framing of the conflict (apartheid, sociocide) made the most sense to me, and I could have made a convincing argument as to why I believe a one-state solution is the only just possibility for the region at this point. While this ‘conflict’ may appear to be a war between people – a war shaped by different religious and cultural beliefs – it is actually about power and control shaped by political interests that use racist ideology to breed hatred among its citizens.

Imagine, however, what it’s like to be a Palestinian child walking to school daily past graffiti that says: “What’s the difference between an Arab and a trampoline? You take off your shoes to jump on a tram¬poline.” Additionally, less than five minutes away a Palestinian market functions as usual, except for the steel mesh overhead designed to protect shoppers from the bricks, trash and sewage-filled plastic bags that Israeli settlers throw down on the market.

I could not have foreseen what we would learn during our home¬stays in the Dheisheh refugee camp in the holy city of Bethlehem. We met families who could not feed their children and had lived in Dheisheh for three generations but still managed to hope that one day their lives would be different.

In my host family, the parents now have two different identification cards, and the father will not be able to see the birth of his third child because he is banned from entering Jerusalem to go to the hospital ten minutes away from his house.

Along with the horror, we also saw enterprise and hope embodied in the Palestinian Fair Trade As¬sociation that brings organic olive oil to a Whole Foods near you. We saw the amazing persistence of a Prisoners’ Rights NGO (Adda¬meer) that continues to fight injustice despite the fact that they are working within a prejudiced court system and 70 percent of Palestinian men will spend time in jail.

Mostly, there is an incredible gallantry of daily non-violent resistance. The attempt to live an ordinary Palestinian life amid the checkpoints, land seizures, road closures, and daily insults is truly admirable. While Palestinians nev¬er get used to the daily assaults on their lives, large or small, they meet these difficulties with “sumud.” This means a mix of forbearance and steadfastness that my host family explained in this way: “You have to just do it and move on with your day, because if you let it get to you all the time, you’d go insane. You can’t stop living.”

In some ways our trip can be viewed much like every other service or immersion trip; we saw poverty, resilience, and the requi¬site number of cute, photogenic children. And like most service trips, we are now challenging ourselves to find ways to put our knowledge and our experience to work in service to the world.

This trip is distinguished by the fact that the injustices we saw were not produced by a natural disaster or the slowly unfolding consequences of our capitalist system. The gross injustice we witnessed is produced by an illegal occupation that is crucially supported by American foreign aid, your tax dollars and mine.

We also found that as Americans of conscience, we have strong partners in both Palestine and Israel. A broad array of Palestinian organizations (representing rural and urban, secular and religious groups, academics, professionals, craftspeople, folks in the West Bank, Gaza and the refugee camps of the diaspora) invite us to join with them in a program of boycotts, sanctions and divestments against Israel that would impose non-violent but real costs on the illegal occupation (with the full support and encouragement of Israeli NGOs and human rights organizations, such as Who Profits and Zochrot). We all left Palestine with a clear message: time is running out, and this issue could not be more urgent. The question now is this: how do we, at BC, take up this call to action?

The Threepenny Opera, by Bertolt Brecht, will debut in Robsham Theater at the end of April. Directed by Boston College Theater Professor Stuart Hecht and with set design by fellow Professor Crystal Tiala, The Threepenny Opera examines the darker side of civilization. Set in a world where corruption is the norm, the musical’s lead character is a master-criminal and an antihero.

Hecht’s rendition sets itself apart from other earlier interpretations with a major change in setting. I Instead of occuring in 19th century England as originally written, this version takes place in a post-modern, abstract world. The entire set is designed to retain the mood and spirit of the original production minus the period and realism.

A major inspiration for the set was the Jewish Museum Berlin in Germany, designed by architect Daniel Libeskind and notable for its unique use of angles. Many of its walls and doorways do not intersect at right angles. The unexpected lines created by this design help to imply an unconventional and unfriendly world that doesn’t follow standard norms of right and wrong. Tiala attempts to create a strong sense of dehumanization with the set. By setting the play in a disconnected jumble of lines, shapes, and angles she hopes to create a world where humanity appears completely broken apart.

Set Designer Tiala attempts to create this world visually with a number of tricks, including the use of a projector. Employing a projector is a relatively new addition to theatre, but BC recently hired a projection designer, which allowed for the use of this dramatic device. The Threepenny Opera specifically uses the projector to add commentary, almost like a news report. Because the rest of the set is so abstract, the projector is very useful in announc¬ing changes in scenes and locations. The projector serves a dual pur¬pose; it both adds to the progression of the show and helps the audience see the world differently.

The Threepenny Opera is a slightly larger production than BC is used to. There are 27 cast members, about 50 workers in various shops, 10 members of the running crew and eight designers. Collaboration is an important aspect of theater, and there are certainly a lot of people involved and various visions to put together. Just deciding to change the setting from the 1830s was a huge step. Tiala first had to fully understand the director’s focus and then add her own visual aesthetic. Everyone is trying to take blank space and create their own world. Hecht provided Tiala with words and phrases such as “discom¬fort,” “disoriented,” “confusing,” “ugly city,” “uncomfortable,” and “unsafe” to help her understand the intended mood of the production.

“Once I know I’m right,” Tiala says, “the rest of the show comes together.” There are so many aspects of a play that have to come together to create a great production. The set designer has to work with light designers, costume designers, and sound designers to make sure to create the same world. The creative development of The Threepenny Opera started as far back as October.

“It’s important to have a visual direction and to know what the set is going to look like so the actors can know how to move through space,” Tiala says.

Tiala said she feels lucky to get to work with set design. “It’s the best job in the world. I get to design. I get to teach design. What could be better?”

Tiala has been working at BC for 11 years and has worked on approximately 35 different productions.

“They’re all my favorites,” she says. “Each production is completely unique and takes on a life of its own.”

The Threepenny Opera opens at the end of April on the main stage of Robsham.

The Magicians, by Lev Grossman, is many things. It is a blatant parody of the Harry Potter and Narnia series. Yet, while other books have attempted to hop on the boy-wizard-bandwagon (to say nothing of the growing hoard of teen vampire rip-offs) it uses its associations with the previously mentioned series to its advantage, ultimately becoming something wholly different than anything seen before. Basic plot similarities aside, The Magicians possesses a dark and brooding quality that, while sometimes bordering on angst, neither J.K. Rowling nor C.S. Lewis would ever attempt. For this reason and many others, this is no children’s story. It is a remarkable book to be valued for its flaws as well as for its triumphs, and is certainly well worth a look.

The Magicians tells the story of Quinton, a disaffected teen looking for meaning in life. Quinton has spent his childhood reading and rereading a series of books set in “Fillory,” a magical land visited by a group of English schoolchildren, and an undisguised allusion to the Narnia books. He dreams of the kind of contentment it seems only magic can achieve. Predictably, Quinton soon learns that magic is real and that he has been accepted into the premiere school for magicians.

Grossman makes no attempt to hide the similarities to Harry Potter and makes ruthless use of those expectations. The Magicians is a novel written for those who grew up on Harry Potter and Narnia, not a copy of the same. Brilliant, often arrogant, and always insecure, Quinton is not Harry, nor are his friends the steadfast companions Harry has at Hogwarts. One would be hard pressed to say any of the characters are particularly likable, but they are undeniably entertaining. The lack of effort put into making them pleasant goes a long way towards making them believable characters.

Unlike other hero-protagonists with their inborn importance, Quinton is not a “chosen one.” He has no destiny or direction, and this becomes the chief focus of the novel. He and his friends occupy their time with the standard college pursuits of alcohol, sex, drug-use and occasional studying, throughout which Quinton faces a subtle but near constant existential crisis as he realizes magic gives no more meaning to his life than life in the ordinary world.

Eventually, it is revealed that Fillory, the Narnia-esque world from the stories of his youth, is a real place. Desperate for an escape from his despondent state, Quinton leaps at the chance to go. He and his friends embark on a sort of “quest to find a quest,” seeking some adventure that will end the despondency they feel. This journey will cost them more than any of them realize.

As said before, Grossman borrows shamelessly from the themes of Harry Potter and Narnia to complete his novel, but none of this is a bad thing. It is easy to believe in Quinton, terribly envious of the ready-made destinies and purposes that are so common in books. The success of The Magicians hinges on Grossman’s subtle but constant argument that, despite all of the hardships characters in stories face, none can compete with the apathy inherent in magically having every¬thing one could possibly want.

Putting aside the plot similarities, the writing of The Magicians is clean and precise, with a wonderful economy to the detail and description of the surrounding world. There are several indications that Grossman still has maturing to do as a writer. For example, he introduces secondary characters who vanish never to be seen again and there are points where the pace drags a bit, but none of this particularly hinders the book’s purpose from realization. Without revealing too much, the ending is not one that everyone will enjoy but still feels right in the context of the book. It is at the end where Grossman’s rather cynical philosophy comes out most strongly, forcing the reader to be paradoxically satisfied with a certain level of dissatisfaction.

The Magicians is Grossman’s third book, making him still a relatively early arrival to the writing scene. Hopefully, his next work will overcome some of the issues that affect The Magicians, but until then, The Magicians is still very much worth the time of anyone who has ever been left cold by the too-perfect fantasy worlds they visited in their youth.