What if I told you that in 18+ years of running, I'd never twisted my ankle badly enough to consider it an injury?
Today I did. That was sort of traumatizing, especially since the course today was in the trail system I regularly train on....like I run it 8 times a month or so. And it wasn't on part of the trail that I would have expected to roll an ankle (flat! No roots, no mud, no nothing!). At first I thought I'd broken it because I heard a loud pop sound. My next thought was "Oh, no, I'm not gonna be THAT person that the life squad has to hike in 2 miles for and then carry back out!"
I've never had a "did not finish," and even though twisting it happened 2 miles into a 10-mile run, I still haven't. I ran another 8 miles post-"oh crap" moment. At first I couldn't bear weight on it at all. After about 5 steps I started to gingerly walk on it, and 200 yards after that I was doing a hobble shuffle. About 1/4 mile later I was going strong....not as fast as I'd planned, but still respectable.
I finished around an hour and 40 minutes, the 7th woman to finish the race and well into the top half of the overall finishers.
I've spent the afternoon sleeping with a bag of ice in an ACE bandage strapped around my ankle. And I'm actually taking medicine! At times like these I'm really glad that I don't medicate myself often (in fact almost never - I usually prefer to "mind over matter" it), because now that I truly need it the ibuprofen is working very effectively. The ankle feels stiff but not too bad and only hurts (and even then only slightly) when I go down stairs.
My main concern is how the potential disruption in training (I'm not going to run until Wednesday at the very earliest, though I think I'll still walk) will affect my 50K. Of course, my only major running injury happens less than a month before I'm planning to run the longest run I've ever done.
I guess that's life! I'm just glad it wasn't worse.
Saturday, March 31, 2012
Friday, March 30, 2012
Michal
I've been working on this post for a while - it's been stewing in my head as a post ever since we hiked Mt. Mitchell, but I've been fascinated by the story for longer than that. Michal is one of my favorite scriptural women, and I'm pretty sure no matter how long I work on this I won't do her justice, so I'm going to go ahead and do the best I can.
I love Michal because she's strong - stands up to her very powerful father to protect the man she loves, and attempts to correct what she sees as pride in her husband. I mourn for her loneliness. Her husband's spitefulness toward her makes me feel sad. It has always struck me as profoundly unfair, and this unfairness is exacerbated in the LDS church's take on her. I always say I'd like to take a poll and see how many people know the name of David's first wife; my guess is that it would be anything from 5-10%. She deserves better, because she's just plain cool.
The story
In my words, it basically goes like this (my mission companions used to call this kind of rambling summary the Hermana Schaffner translation of the scriptures - this part of the story is in the end of 1 Samuel and beginning of 2 Samuel):
David is in the midst of all the court drama with Saul and Jonathan. Saul knows that the Lord wants David to be the king, but he's just not quite ready to give up the power and repeatedly tries to kill David. In the midst of this, Saul gives his daughter Michal (who loves David) to David as a wife, probably in hopes of pacifying the volatile situation. It doesn't really work, at least for Saul's benefit (go figure). At different points Jonathan and Michal both save David's life while he stays within Saul's kingdom, but he still eventually has to hide in exile. While exiled he takes various other wives (not very nice of him!), and Saul re-gifts Michal to another man (also not very nice of him! We only learn about it later - imagine, real-time updates of David's sexual escapades, but only information about Michal's when she becomes relevant to David again); that had to have been fun for her. Once Saul and Jonathan are killed (NOT by David), David insists that he'll only consider peace after his enemies bring Michal back to him, which they do even though it means removing her from her second husband - he wept over her, we don't have a scriptural record of how she felt about it (again, go figure).
Up to this point, it seems almost like an epic love story, right? Young lovers, united in the midst of conflict, forced to separate by more powerful influences, managed to reunite after said powerful folks are eliminated and they don't even have to bloody their hands! It's all so romantic!
Except it's not. After some time together after their reunion (we don't know how long, it's only a few chapters in 2 Samuel, though - from chapter 3 to chapter 6), Michal has the nerve to correct David for vanity and irreverence, and David gets all moody and offended and refuses to speak to/sleep with Michal ever again. How's that for a letdown from a great love story?!?
My thoughts
I really wish that the whole epic love story thing had continued - I'd be a lot less disillusioned, and Michal certainly deserves a happy ending as far as I'm concerned.
Several things about the story of Michal and how we present it in the LDS church really frustrate me.
First: the injustice of the men in the story using Michal as some sort of pawn creates obvious problems. She really rises above the situation, though. David loves her enough to kill 100 Philistines and then cut off their foreskins and give them to Saul (apparently that was Michal's brideprice?). After she marries David, she stands up for him and saves him. When her father gifts her to another man (maybe to spite David? Maybe as a political alliance?) she treats him well enough that when she leaves him to return to David, he weeps and follows after her - David's messenger has to make him go home. Even though she makes the best of it, no one deserves to be treated as moveable property. It makes me hope that she was happy in spite of it.
Second: we focus SO MUCH on the whole Jonathan/David thing and almost ignore Michal. There's a WHOLE LESSON on their friendship, and only a few side references to Michal. She's almost a footnote to the lessons and the story. And yes, it was a special thing, and Jonathan was a pretty amazing man (how many princes do you know who would be willing to say "Wow, I'm the son of the birthright and heir to the throne. I have all the political and military support. But Samuel anointed you, and God wants you to be the king, so I'll save you from my slightly deranged father."). In some ways I think he's a better man than David. Michal saved David's life, too. She got a better deal that Jonathan in the end, at least in terms of social status (moving from princess to queen isn't an awful deal, especially compared to being killed for being an heir to the throne). But David doesn't treat her nearly as well as he treated Jonathan. Scripturally there's more volume devoted to Jonathan, but I think we can safely credit that to the time of writing. Wouldn't it be nice if we could overcome that textual imbalance and focus on Michal's contributions, too?
Third: The only lengthy treatment of Michal in the LDS church curriculum basically says that when she scolds David in the situation in 2 Samuel 6:12-23, she's angry because of an affront to her dignity and therefore completely out of line. The way the manual presents it is almost paradoxical - they head the section "Our reverence for the Lord should influence our behavior in sacred settings." Based on the section heading, I would expect something along the lines of "David was carried away in his joy and, though he did offer sacrifice and bless the people, acted in a way that was not reverent or appropriate for the setting." Instead, they say that Michal is upset with David "for setting aside his royal robes and dancing with joy before the Lord. Evidently she felt this behavior was beneath the dignity of his position as king." What does that have to do with reverence or sabbath/worship behavior??
If I may, I would like to offer a different textual analysis of that bit of scripture.
Earlier verses say that David wore an ephod for the occasion of bringing the ark of the covenant back to Jerusalem. He performed sacrifices and blessed the people, all quite appropriate. He also danced and leaped. Now, I wasn't there, so I don't know if David was wearing only an ephod or not. But if he was, he was certainly not covered in a way that would allow for modesty while dancing and leaping. When Michal criticizes David, she doesn't say anything about his behavior being unbecoming of a king, or that he wasn't dressed royally. She simply refers to David as the king, and mentions his uncovering himself in front of women as a sign of vanity. She's upset by his pride, and maybe even (because, come on, she's only human) a little angry at his engagement with the other women.
I don't think that's out of line. The whole despising him in her heart? Maybe not the best reaction, but certainly not totally sinful. I've had moments of despising Ben because of some bad behavior or another....once we both repent, we mend the despising. Sort of how marriage is supposed to work.
And the manual doesn't even mention David's reaction in verse 22. He basically says "Oh, those handmaids that I showed off for? You don't like them? Well, at least they'll honor me! I'll go even further than I did today!" (Okay, that's a more true example of "Hermana Schaffner translation" - excuse my liberties in modernization....you'll find the threat there in the verse, though) He all but says he's going to go sleep with the handmaids, especially in light of verse 23 where it says that Michal did not have any children from that point forward.
So here's my different interpretation. Michal's reaction to David might not have been ideal, but in David's reaction to her criticism we see the beginning of his prideful downfall. Only five chapters later we read of him beginning to shirk his military duties as king, the Bathsheba incident, and his arrangement for the death of Uriah. These incidents work in tandem - I personally don't believe that any one of these sins is THE SINGLE problem for David. I think it's the general "I can do what I want because I'm the king" attitude that they demonstrate. In his reaction to Michal, we see the beginnings of that defiance.
Michal is one of my heroines. I hope that someday I can stick to my guns the way she did. And I hope I get to meet her.
I love Michal because she's strong - stands up to her very powerful father to protect the man she loves, and attempts to correct what she sees as pride in her husband. I mourn for her loneliness. Her husband's spitefulness toward her makes me feel sad. It has always struck me as profoundly unfair, and this unfairness is exacerbated in the LDS church's take on her. I always say I'd like to take a poll and see how many people know the name of David's first wife; my guess is that it would be anything from 5-10%. She deserves better, because she's just plain cool.
The story
In my words, it basically goes like this (my mission companions used to call this kind of rambling summary the Hermana Schaffner translation of the scriptures - this part of the story is in the end of 1 Samuel and beginning of 2 Samuel):
David is in the midst of all the court drama with Saul and Jonathan. Saul knows that the Lord wants David to be the king, but he's just not quite ready to give up the power and repeatedly tries to kill David. In the midst of this, Saul gives his daughter Michal (who loves David) to David as a wife, probably in hopes of pacifying the volatile situation. It doesn't really work, at least for Saul's benefit (go figure). At different points Jonathan and Michal both save David's life while he stays within Saul's kingdom, but he still eventually has to hide in exile. While exiled he takes various other wives (not very nice of him!), and Saul re-gifts Michal to another man (also not very nice of him! We only learn about it later - imagine, real-time updates of David's sexual escapades, but only information about Michal's when she becomes relevant to David again); that had to have been fun for her. Once Saul and Jonathan are killed (NOT by David), David insists that he'll only consider peace after his enemies bring Michal back to him, which they do even though it means removing her from her second husband - he wept over her, we don't have a scriptural record of how she felt about it (again, go figure).
Up to this point, it seems almost like an epic love story, right? Young lovers, united in the midst of conflict, forced to separate by more powerful influences, managed to reunite after said powerful folks are eliminated and they don't even have to bloody their hands! It's all so romantic!
Except it's not. After some time together after their reunion (we don't know how long, it's only a few chapters in 2 Samuel, though - from chapter 3 to chapter 6), Michal has the nerve to correct David for vanity and irreverence, and David gets all moody and offended and refuses to speak to/sleep with Michal ever again. How's that for a letdown from a great love story?!?
My thoughts
I really wish that the whole epic love story thing had continued - I'd be a lot less disillusioned, and Michal certainly deserves a happy ending as far as I'm concerned.
Several things about the story of Michal and how we present it in the LDS church really frustrate me.
First: the injustice of the men in the story using Michal as some sort of pawn creates obvious problems. She really rises above the situation, though. David loves her enough to kill 100 Philistines and then cut off their foreskins and give them to Saul (apparently that was Michal's brideprice?). After she marries David, she stands up for him and saves him. When her father gifts her to another man (maybe to spite David? Maybe as a political alliance?) she treats him well enough that when she leaves him to return to David, he weeps and follows after her - David's messenger has to make him go home. Even though she makes the best of it, no one deserves to be treated as moveable property. It makes me hope that she was happy in spite of it.
Second: we focus SO MUCH on the whole Jonathan/David thing and almost ignore Michal. There's a WHOLE LESSON on their friendship, and only a few side references to Michal. She's almost a footnote to the lessons and the story. And yes, it was a special thing, and Jonathan was a pretty amazing man (how many princes do you know who would be willing to say "Wow, I'm the son of the birthright and heir to the throne. I have all the political and military support. But Samuel anointed you, and God wants you to be the king, so I'll save you from my slightly deranged father."). In some ways I think he's a better man than David. Michal saved David's life, too. She got a better deal that Jonathan in the end, at least in terms of social status (moving from princess to queen isn't an awful deal, especially compared to being killed for being an heir to the throne). But David doesn't treat her nearly as well as he treated Jonathan. Scripturally there's more volume devoted to Jonathan, but I think we can safely credit that to the time of writing. Wouldn't it be nice if we could overcome that textual imbalance and focus on Michal's contributions, too?
Third: The only lengthy treatment of Michal in the LDS church curriculum basically says that when she scolds David in the situation in 2 Samuel 6:12-23, she's angry because of an affront to her dignity and therefore completely out of line. The way the manual presents it is almost paradoxical - they head the section "Our reverence for the Lord should influence our behavior in sacred settings." Based on the section heading, I would expect something along the lines of "David was carried away in his joy and, though he did offer sacrifice and bless the people, acted in a way that was not reverent or appropriate for the setting." Instead, they say that Michal is upset with David "for setting aside his royal robes and dancing with joy before the Lord. Evidently she felt this behavior was beneath the dignity of his position as king." What does that have to do with reverence or sabbath/worship behavior??
If I may, I would like to offer a different textual analysis of that bit of scripture.
Earlier verses say that David wore an ephod for the occasion of bringing the ark of the covenant back to Jerusalem. He performed sacrifices and blessed the people, all quite appropriate. He also danced and leaped. Now, I wasn't there, so I don't know if David was wearing only an ephod or not. But if he was, he was certainly not covered in a way that would allow for modesty while dancing and leaping. When Michal criticizes David, she doesn't say anything about his behavior being unbecoming of a king, or that he wasn't dressed royally. She simply refers to David as the king, and mentions his uncovering himself in front of women as a sign of vanity. She's upset by his pride, and maybe even (because, come on, she's only human) a little angry at his engagement with the other women.
I don't think that's out of line. The whole despising him in her heart? Maybe not the best reaction, but certainly not totally sinful. I've had moments of despising Ben because of some bad behavior or another....once we both repent, we mend the despising. Sort of how marriage is supposed to work.
And the manual doesn't even mention David's reaction in verse 22. He basically says "Oh, those handmaids that I showed off for? You don't like them? Well, at least they'll honor me! I'll go even further than I did today!" (Okay, that's a more true example of "Hermana Schaffner translation" - excuse my liberties in modernization....you'll find the threat there in the verse, though) He all but says he's going to go sleep with the handmaids, especially in light of verse 23 where it says that Michal did not have any children from that point forward.
So here's my different interpretation. Michal's reaction to David might not have been ideal, but in David's reaction to her criticism we see the beginning of his prideful downfall. Only five chapters later we read of him beginning to shirk his military duties as king, the Bathsheba incident, and his arrangement for the death of Uriah. These incidents work in tandem - I personally don't believe that any one of these sins is THE SINGLE problem for David. I think it's the general "I can do what I want because I'm the king" attitude that they demonstrate. In his reaction to Michal, we see the beginnings of that defiance.
Michal is one of my heroines. I hope that someday I can stick to my guns the way she did. And I hope I get to meet her.
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
It's a record!
Yesterday more students came to my office hours in ONE DAY than I think have come in my whole university teaching career this far. Okay, maybe that's an exaggeration, because I'm pretty sure I've seen more than seven students in the last seven years.
But yesterday I had one student meet with me about a recommendation, two students come in for make-up oral exams, one student for a written exam, two students who were concerned about grades and wanted to go over exams, and one who just dropped by to whine that he's not going to graduate if he doesn't pass my class (to which I responded - well, have you done any of the homework? Yeah, didn't think so).
Honestly, I think that somehow the fates knew that for ONCE IN MY LIFE I was ditching out early because we had a Relief Society activity at my house.
*sigh*
But yesterday I had one student meet with me about a recommendation, two students come in for make-up oral exams, one student for a written exam, two students who were concerned about grades and wanted to go over exams, and one who just dropped by to whine that he's not going to graduate if he doesn't pass my class (to which I responded - well, have you done any of the homework? Yeah, didn't think so).
Honestly, I think that somehow the fates knew that for ONCE IN MY LIFE I was ditching out early because we had a Relief Society activity at my house.
*sigh*
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)