The Queen and I by The Harvard Independent

0 4 . 1 7 . 1 4

Al la boutYar df e s t , Sur v i v i ngZombi eApoc a l y ps e s , a ndI t a l i a nOpe r a sSe ti nFr a nc e

J ane l l eMonรกe

TheQueenandI

I ns i d e : Ra v i o l i , Re a l i t y , a ndRunni ng

04.17.14 VOL. XLV, NO. 23

The Indy is ready for the Sex Issue.

04.17.14

All about Yardfest,

Surviving Zombie Apocalypses, and Italian Operas Set in France

Janelle MonĂĄe

The Queen and I

Cover Design by ANNA PAPP

Inside: Ravioli, Reality, and Running

CONTENTS FORUM 3 UC Me Now 4 Changing Concentrations 5 What Tastes Like Cola? NEWS 6 Sitting Down with the CEB ARTS 7 The Queen 8 A Modern Falsehood 9 La (Vie) Boheme SPORTS 10 Who's in First? 11 A Race to Remember

As Harvard College's weekly undergraduate newsmagazine, the Harvard Independent provides in-depth, critical coverage of issues and events of interest to the Harvard College community. The Independent has no political affiliation, instead offering diverse commentary on news, arts, sports, and student life. For publication information and general inquiries, contact President Albert Murzakhanov (president@harvardindependent. com). Letters to the Editor and comments regarding the content of the publication should be addressed to Editor-in-Chief Sean Frazzette (editorinchief@harvardindependent.com). For email subscriptions please email president@ harvardindependent.com. The Harvard Independent is published weekly during the academic year, except during vacations, by The Harvard Independent, Inc., Student Organization Center at Hilles, Box 201, 59 Shepard Street, Cambridge, MA 02138. Copyright ÂŠ 2014 by The Harvard Independent. All rights reserved.

President Albert Murzakhanov '16 Editor-in-Chief Sean Frazzette '16 Director of Production Anna Papp '16 News Editor Forum Editor Arts Editor Sports Editor Associate Sports Editor Associate Forum Editor Associate Arts Editor Associate Design Editor

Milly Wang '16 Caroline Gentile '17 Sarah Rosenthal '15 Shaquilla Harrigan '16 Peyton Fine '17 Aditya Agrawal '17 Joanna Schacter Travis Hallett '14

Cartoonist John McCallum '16 Illustrator Eloise Lynton '17 Designer Alice Linder '17 Business Managers Manik Bhatia '16 Columnists Joan Li '17 Christina Bianco '17 Senior Staff Writers Christine Wolfe '14 Angela Song '14 Sayantan Deb '14 Michael Altman '14 Meghan Brooks '14 Whitney Lee '14 Staff Writers Whitney Gao '16 Manik Bhatia '16 Xanni Brown '14 Terilyn Chen '16 Lauren Covalucci '14 Clare Duncan '14 Gary Gerbrandt '14 Travis Hallett '14 Yuqi Hou '15 Cindy Hsu '14 Chloe Li '16 Dominique Luongo '17 Orlea Miller '16 Albert Murzhakanov '16 Carlos Schmidt '15 Frank Tamberino '16 Michael Feehly '14 Jackie Leong '16 Andrew Lin '17 Madi Taylor '16 Shreya Vardhan '17 Peyton Fine '17 Michael Luo '16

Forum

indy

Mayopoulos and Goffard: Dream Team? Why Gus+Sietse is the best thing to happen to us in years. By WHITNEY GAO

ny more or less self-respecting student knows at least vaguely the drama that surrounded the most recent Harvard Undergraduate Council presidential campaign — a drama surprisingly more comedic than tragic, but scandalous nonetheless. Sam Clark ‘15 and Gus Mayopoulos ’15 ran on a satirical ticket (“Sam and Gus for UC Prez and VP: You Could Do Worse”) that centered on making tomato basil ravioli (TOMBASRAV!) soup a regular in our dining halls and bringing thicker toilet paper to our delicate derrieres. At every turn in the campaign game, they brought a much-needed note of humor to the process, all while highlighting very serious issues that the UC has long needed to reform. The majority of students normally don’t even give a second glance at the election process for the leadership of the Undergraduate Council. I don’t think it’s a far stretch to say that most students don’t care. The UC has, largely, been mostly a mythical being that sort of exists in the back of our minds? Maybe? Buried deep in the archival files in the dusty corners of our brain, along with old LS1a exam materials and that one person who was just too much that one time at that one thing. So maybe the UC does things? It says a lot that the most memorable thing about every election prior to this most recent one was the social media templates for Facebook profile pictures and cover photos, etc. It’s always interesting to see what colors people will pick. And if they will finally choose a color other than a variant of Harvard crimson. Don’t get me wrong, I was really excited about the cool deals they set up for us in the past with restaurants in the Square, and I’m very appreciative of all the extensions to the shuttle schedule that were established. All really great stuff. But it didn’t help the UC become a very visible organization or a very effective avenue of student voice. The UC was largely a bud off of the larger mysterious bubble of the administration, operating only on Harvard’s terms and conditions. However, every student kept up with what was happening this time around, even if it was just to keep up with the antics of the joke ticket. Students appreciated the humor and the reality that Clark and Mayopoulos brought to the election, but many also considered it a deeply offensive mockery of the system and of the council itself, and a serious insult to the work that the UC does do. So when Clark and Mayopoulos emerged victorious from the results of the election, everyone was shocked — even the two themselves. Clark and Mayopoulos released a photo on their Facebook page immediately after the election indicating their own surprise and their intention to resign in The Harvard Independent • 04.17.14

favor of the second-place ticket. “…[R]eally? Guys. We technically can’t yet, but as soon as we can, we hereby resign the offices of President and VicePresident of the Harvard Undergraduate Council,” said the pair regarding the election results. In a possibly even crazier turn of events, Gus Mayopoulos decided he would not be resigning, and instead assumed the presidency. Sietse Goffard ’15 was internally elected by the existing Undergraduate Council to assume the seat of vicepresidency alongside Mayopoulos. Since then, the two have really blossomed in their roles, like beautiful little flowers (Read as: I’m really ready for spring to actually come). But what makes them so great? Let’s just preface this with the fact that I was not a believer in Mayopoulos-Goffard when they began. Though I literally am in love with them and what they do at this point, I was not very impressed with their very blasé and non-committal and seemingly flippant introductory email. Yes, there were GIFs, which usually always earn abundant amounts of brownie points in my book — there were even eventually homemade GIFs, which impress me even more — but I did not have high hopes for their time in office. Mayopoulos and Goffard bring a much-needed lightness to the image of the Undergraduate Council, allowing them to become much more approachable and to be thought of as an actual real organizational entity that exists on campus. However, “approachable” does not equate with a stellar performance. The greater thing that the two bring to the UC this year is transparency. And some serious balls. I absolutely love that they are calling out the Harvard administration on all the things that we as students and undergraduates care about, and that they’re telling us about it. Let’s start with the transparency. If they didn’t tell us these things, I honestly wouldn’t know about it, and I wouldn’t care, and I wouldn’t be writing this article. It’s essentially a perfect marketing tool for the UC, which I don’t understand why they’ve never used before (although to be fair, I would not really have cared before, and I would not have appreciated needless packing of my already burgeoning inbox), but I actually appreciate knowing what’s going on and how I can be involved if I want to be. Mobilizing the people is a fantastic tool that can undoubtedly help pass issues that the UC has been struggling with for years. The physical support of the undergraduate body is more powerful than any eloquent speech or well-written email can be. Second, the things that they’re doing have really changed the game, and consequently, the perception of the UC has improved, at least in my

opinion. BOGO deals on appetizers and shuttle schedule changes — these have been small issues that are not controversial and are not something the university would have strong opinions on. But now the UC is going so far as even challenging the decisions Harvard administration have made and the stances that they are taking on difficult issues. These steps have not only increased respect for the UC, but also visibility. I know I’ve personally learned so much more about the UC in the past semester than I thought I would ever care to know, and there is so much more complexity to the organization that I had thought. Every Harvard undergraduate has undergone the transition from believing in freshman year that Harvard is the most rad place in the world with its abundant free food and countless free events and opportunities to believing a little further down the road in their college career that Harvard hates its undergraduates. Though this is not necessarily true, the way Harvard provides for its undergraduate population does leave a lot to be desired. Mayopoulus and Goffard are taking a surprisingly aggressive campaign to change that, and it’s winning them the hearts of the undergraduate population. Mayopoulos, when asked why he decided not to resign, stated that “the student body does not understand the efficacy and purpose of the UC,” and that he wanted to be part of the solution to that problem. And I, for one, am very glad he wants to do so. The UC could be so much more than just an agent for the university administration to appear to be working with students. The UC is slowly now becoming an agent of the undergraduates themselves and bringing a new and more powerful meaning to student voice. Though Gus and Sietse never replied to that one email I sent (I even attached three relevant GIFs), they’re making good on their promises to breathe fresh new life into a stodgy and complacent system. All the reporting done on Mayopoulos’s term so far have all be complimentary, stressing his work ethic, his adaptive leadership qualities, his passion for real change, etc. But there’s also an inherent ability to connect that Mayopoulos has projected onto the entire council. He really does seem to care about the UC and to care about the students and what’s important to us. The UC and its members no longer have to struggle with the undergraduate body viewing the UC as a distant and irrelevant thing. I’m really excited to see what Mayopoulos and Goffard will accomplish in the end. This past Saturday night, my roommate and I were perched on one of the speed bumps along the street in front of Kirkland, just chatting. Gus, out and about himself, runs up to us and repeatedly asks if we’re okay and if we need anything. A man of the people indeed. Whitney Gao ’16 (whitneygao@college) was both mortified and extremely amused when her roommate then unsteadily pointed and yelled to our beloved UC President, “You’re a celebrity!!!” harvardindependent.com

Forum

Shifting Gears Why I decided to change my concentration. By SEAN FRAZZETTE

oming into college — actually, since freshman year of high school, I would say — I knew that I would be an English major. Every year of high school, all of my science and social studies courses seemed to be thrown into the backseat when it came to work. I obsessed over every book I read, every short story I perused, every play I flipped through. I honestly only disliked two books over the course of my high school English classes: The Road by Corman McCarthy and Tracks by Louise Erdrich. Particularly interesting to me was Russian Literature. From the first Chekhov short story I read (“Misery”) to the final pages of the War and Peace epilogue, Russian Literature grasped my attention in a way that few academic pursuits ever had. The language, even translated, of Tolstoy and Dostoevsky seemed beautiful in a way that few writers could muster. The stories were drawn with as vast a landscape and purpose as the country in which they were portrayed. And the culture captured my imagination as a place misunderstood by many, due to its domineering size. Thus, when I came to Harvard, it was not so much a question of what my focus would be as it was what my concentration would be. I would study Russian, learning the language and working towards reading Anna Karenina in the original. I would study Russian writing from the distant past to the Soviet era to the present. I had to decide simply whether I wanted to be an English, Literature, or Slavic Languages and Literatures concentrator. I originally chose English but learned by the end of my second semester here that it was not the right choice. The restriction to texts written only in English would not fit my particular desires. Slavic Languages and Literatures was ruled out short-

harvardindependent.com

ly afterwards as being too restrictive; that is, I love Russian Literature, but I would rather study it alongside my other favorite writers. I wanted to learn more about American Modernism, Non-Western writings, and where Literature is headed. In the end, I chose the Literature concentration. Most people, when I told them this, expressed confusion that such a concentration exists. It is incredibly small, but the end goal is noble. Concentrators are required to learn a second (or third, or fourth, or fifth, etc.) language, take classes where reading is both in English and that other language, and engage in a comparative study of Literature. My chosen path was to study translation theory — I wanted to know how the great translators I had read had made their decisions when rewriting all of the classics into English. After almost a semester of Literature 97, the required sophomore tutorial, however, I decided that the concentration simply was not for me. This has nothing to do with the professor, who is both brilliant and engaging. Nor is it the fault of the students in the class, who push me to be a better reader and analytic thinker. Rather, the Literature concentration was pushing me away from doing something I have always loved more than almost any activity: reading. Reading for me, even in a classroom setting, has always been a passion more than a job. Yet when I began studying Literature as my concentration, it shifted into something else, toward a direction I did not like the idea of. I was beginning to put off my readings to the last minute. I dreaded going to the weekly seminar. I was not experiencing the same fulfillment that I used to get from reading a book. Even the books I greatly enjoyed from the class — If on a winter’s night a traveler by Italo Calvino, for

instance — became more like a chore than a pleasure. The academic study of reading was ruining the aesthetic pleasure of a good book. We talked constantly in class about secondary sources, literary theorists, and philosophers. I felt people were reducing great works of these people to aphorisms that they could relate to a novel or a play — an end goal that seemed to me both pretentious and undesirable. Meanwhile, my Linguistics classes and Russian language classes were engaging me more thoroughly. I learned the cultural, historical, and scientific study of language was morphing into my true academic passion, while reading remained a hobby that I would never wish to lose. In fact, the discussion in my tutorial that I participated the most enthusiastically in was one on linguistic theory. Therefore, before I faced a reality where reading was something I could no longer get myself to engage in, I switched over to Linguistics. I have learned through the process that switching concentrations should not be something people are afraid of. We only have four years at Harvard. I thought coming in that I knew what I wanted. For a while, when I realized that I was wrong, I was afraid to switch over to something else. I had known my path for a long time and suddenly I realized that it was not the path for me. But after talking with a number of people, I made the switch and am now once again excited for school, for academic engagement, and for the simple thrill of learning in a classroom. I found a concentration that allows me to maintain the empirical and logical steps of a science that I had missed, while still studying culture and people. I found a place within Harvard that supported my interests and will expand my academic

horizons. Linguistics is a subject that very few people have experience with before college. Therefore, the classes here are brand new, exciting, and thought-provoking in a way that my English classes before it simply were not. When I switched concentrations, they even took my picture and gave me my own mailbox. That alone actually made all the paperwork and stress worth it. (What was not worth it was having to use that Plan of Study website again.) So, onward I will journey. Maybe next semester I’ll switch again, to something even more obscure. But I doubt it. I only have about two more years here, and I plan to take full advantage of them within my new department. Sean Frazzette ’16 (sfrazzette@college) is already excited to work in language labs.

Photo Credit: Wikimedia Commons

04.17.14 • The Harvard Independent

Forum

Wild Child

indy

A musicoethical standoff between Enya and Lana Del Rey.

By CHRISTINE WOLFE

or all of human history, conflict has spurred culture. Whether two empires at war, two political systems at odds, or two philosophies in gridlock, we must live in the presence of dualities. Just as dissonance and juxtaposition moved great thinkers like Marx and Kierkegaard to the page, I must address an inner conflict here. In the last year, I have felt a great rift between my intellectual and physical self, leaving my emotional self unhinged and lost. This divide comes from the effects art is meant to have on all of us, but never did I think this emotional movement would push me to such a profound identity crisis. There are two culprits here, one perhaps more guilty than the other: Enya, the Irish New Age musician/vocalist/bringer of spa-level spiritual peace, and — Satan incarnate — Lana Del Rey. How could I serve as devotee to such different voices? In the Harvard classroom, we often discuss the remove between the mind and the body. Do we have a spirit, and, if so, how is it to be mobilized? What can motivate us, and what should? Art, of course, is one of the greatest mobilizers, used in all forms to promote a sense of belonging, terror, or calm — whatever environment needs to be made, art can facilitate. Music is particularly effective in promoting mood, observed most often in its complementary relationship with the visual arts. Music speaks to both the mind and the body. But sometimes there emerge artists that are capable of having a vice-grip on our souls. They are not only pleasant or profound: they reach into us, take hold of what is most fundamental, and make us look, feel, and taste it. For those of us who have had this experience, the artists who usurp our self-reign hold a special place in our iTunes libraries. For me, Enya has always been a comforting force, and of late, in times of need/napping, I turn to her semireligiously. But last summer, when I first heard Lana’s voice, I knew I had wandered into that wild forest of indulgence I would not easily escape. And so began my ethical conundrum. Lana Del Rey is probably the more familiar of my two influencers. She came on the national scene following the enormous success of Born to Die, the essence of which allows its proud display in the record section of Urban Outfitters. She followed Born to Die with an EP, Paradise, which is equally if not more unbearably absurd. According to that

The Harvard Independent • 04.17.14

most accurate of sources, Wikipedia, Lana’s music can be categorized as “Chamber Pop,” a totally made up genre that has something to do with the equally non-existent “Lounge Revivalism.” I’d categorize Lana as a 40’s screen actress/singer who, just before her opium addiction was about to lapse her career, time-traveled to the most cringeworthy depths of the Millenial consciousness. Lana’s values are often abhorrent, touting a life lived in vice without recognition of consequence, neglectful of responsibility to anyone or anything but one’s own desires. She often comes close to promoting objectification and weird Daddy stuff (“Lolita” is one of the creepier tracks on Born to Die). She is the Queen of American-flag shortshorts, which is just part of her very strange form of nationalism (in the soul-sucking music video to “Ride,” she claims, “I believe in the country America used to be.” Given she had just finished running around a bonfire with a gun wearing a Native American tribal headpiece, that just can’t bode well). But her voice. Her deep and sultry timbre catches her listeners at all the right moments. We moan when she wants us to moan. Lana knows how to expose us at our most instinctual. I know in my body and soul that temptation sounds just like “Blue Jeans.” Lana wants to be desired more than anything, and she knows it. She even knows her urges — our urges — may lead us astray: “This is what makes us girls/ we don’t stick together ‘cause we put love first/this is what we die for/it’s a curse.” But she owns her truth, no matter how damaging it may be. She lives for freedom — a freedom along the lines of Miley’s “We Can’t Stop,” but Lana’s freedom is bounded in a timeless human sensuality that far outweighs mortifying white-girl twerking. And in this, Lana becomes the young person’s greatest enemy. Do we give ourselves over to our bodies, living to be young and beautiful and dying for Dionysian pleasure? On the other side of the valley of the soul stands Enya. Best known for her 1988 single “Orinoco Flow (Sail Away),” 2000’s “Only Time,” and her double-feature on the Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Ring soundtrack, most of us have probably heard Enya during naptime or elementary school art classes. While we all know anything that can put hyped up seven year olds to sleep must have

something going for it, I think Enya’s musical talents are vastly underappreciated. New Age is often mocked, and I agree that fake chanting over nature sounds can be off-putting. But Enya’s knack for musical arrangement results in a truly beautiful sound (she calls the multitudinous arrangement of her own voice over itself the “Choir O’ One”), which is complemented by an Irish ballad-inspired lyric repertoire. It’s best to listen to Enya rather than describe her. Enya’s ability to rouse the emotions comes in part from her music’s calming influence: as opposed to Lana, Enya’s music affects a sense of peace in the heart and mind, allowing a distancing of the listener from the intensities of embodied existence. Separated from the corporeal, we can come to an understanding of ourselves as individuals rather than human bodies. But how can we extend this to our reality, in which we do exist as both bodies and minds? Is retreating to the natural odes of Enya a reaction against the emotional difficulties of feeling passion à la Lana? Who can say? Only time will tell if we can escape our darkest paradise. Christine Wolfe ’14 (crwolfe@college) can’t say where the road goes.

harvardindependent.com

News

YardFest 2014 An interview with the College Events By MILLY WANG

arvard’s annual campus-wide spring event, YardFest, took place last Sunday, April 13th, 2014, from 5:00pm to 8:30pm. This event featured two opening bands selected via the annual Battle for YardFest competition hosted earlier on March 28th, a featured singer — Janelle Monae, several long, self-serve food tables to accommodate the flow of students, a couple ice cream desert booths scattered all over Tercentenary Theater, and drink stands. This year’s meal consisted of vegetable burgers, pulled pork burgers, potato salads, macaroni and cheese, coleslaw, and a variety of fruits. Interestingly, peaches and plums were much more popular with the students when compared to apples and oranges, which could be because they are not offered on a regular basis in the dining halls. The ice cream sandwiches and strawberry cake pops were, as in years past, very popular. But food selections aside, the Indy Staff was interested in learning a little bit more about the organization behind YardFest, College Events Board, and planning that went into this annual large event. And so, we reached out to junior Pilar Fitzgerald of Quincy House, the CEB point person for all things YardFest related. Milly Wang: Could you tell us a little bit about the CEB? How many members are there? What kind of events do you plan during the year? What is your annual budget? Pilar Fitzgerald: The CEB was founded as an organization responsible for planning fun, free, and inclusive, campus-wide events. Our biggest events during each year are the Welcome Back Event (right after move-in in the fall), Harvard-Yale Spirit Week, Harvard Thinks Big, Cinema 1636 (free movie screenings year-round) and YardFest. Right now, I think we have about 15 members. For the biggest events, we often have sub-committees that are responsible for the nitty-gritty logistics for planning the event, and then the rest of the CEB will help with staffing and pubbing. The YardFest committee, however, is a sub-committee of three members of the CEB that also includes three members of the Harvard Concert Commission. We’ve had that partnership for a few years now and it’s been really wonderful working with them on the event! (Unfortunately, the College Events Board is unable to share information on their budget). MW: What did you plan specifically for this year’s YardFest (food, activities, giveaways)?

harvardindependent.com

PF: This year’s Yardfest was the biggest show we’ve had in recent memory, and it cost us a pretty penny, which unfortunately meant we did not have much money left in our funds for a lot of giveaways. But, we did manage to distribute somewhere around thirty free t-shirts and, as always, there was food provided by HUDS. MW: How did you decide on this year’s artist? Who else were you considering? PF: The Yardfest committee has been planning the event since October. When I think back, I remember us doing a lot of list making of potential artists, meeting with other organizations on campus and the Office of Student Life, working with the budget. As far as artist selection goes, this

out in the end? If you could have anything at this year’s YardFest, what would you have wanted? PF: Silly string. No but I actually couldn’t have been happier with the results. I think Janelle truly delivered--not just a musical performance, but also an “experience.” That was the buzzword going around the CEB when we were doing load-out after the show. It felt like she took us on a journey! MW: What do you anticipate the students will enjoy the most about this year’s YardFest? PF: Hopefully people, especially the people who knew nothing about her, were inspired by something, whether it was the music, the lyrics, or her amazing dancing skill. Janelle believes in bringing

“ We were thrilled by the overwhelmingly positive reaction we got from the artist selection! It really felt like there was so much momentum and hype gearing up for the show!” -Pilar Fitzgerald, CEB year, we really tried to consider a host of different factors: rising star potential, name recognition, content of music, energy level, and of course, the budget. We work with a very tight budget, and it can be a nerve-wracking process because one day, an artist might be in your budget and then the next day, their price has skyrocketed. This year, we considered a number of musicians on the rise, but none of them seemed to have the same level of power and energy that Janelle brought to the table. She is just such an amazing, critically acclaimed, influential, and spellbinding performer in her prime. When that’s an option for you, you don’t turn that down. MW: Is there something new this year? What makes this year different from last year? PF: We were thrilled by the overwhelmingly positive reaction we got from the artist selection! It really felt like there was so much momentum and hype gearing up for the show! MW: Is there anything particular that you wished that we could have had this year, but didn’t work

people together with music and that communal vibe was the kind we strived to create with this year’s show. MW: Do you have any advice for the next year’s group in regards to planning YardFest? PF: It’s going to be tough to top this year’s performance, but I think my advice is to always take a step back from the process and take time to consider what matters the most to you when thinking about putting on a good show. Is it bringing the Harvard community together? Is it making sure that every person recognizes the headliner artist’s name? It’s important to make a list of “Yardfest Committee Core Values,” stick to your guns, and learn from your critics. Milly Wang ’16 (keqimillywang@college) cannot wait for next year’s show.

Photo Credit: James Duncan

04.17.14 • The Harvard Independent

Dancing to the End Janelle Monáe at Yardfest 2014. By JOANNA SCHACTER

ate morning last Sunday, a friend on Facebook commented on my Spotify activity. The comment, with some amusement, questioned why I was listening to Janelle Monáe on repeat if I was about to see her in but a few short hours. Excitement was the answer. Though I had heard her name before, I could not claim I had been a fan prior to the announcement that she would be headlining Yardfest. In fact, I had not even known that she had been the one doing the backup vocals on Fun.’s We Are Young. I knew Janelle Monáe as the artist who had received the 2012 Critics’ Choice award for brightest rising star at the Brit Awards, and I knew this only because the following year, I watched her present the 2013 Critics’ Choice award to Tom Odell — an artist I actually knew and liked. I had heard her name, I knew she must be good if she had received the same award as an artist I was a fan of, but for all that, I had had no idea what her music sounded like. Until I did, and then I just couldn’t stop listening. The Electric Lady, as she calls herself — though she emphasizes that we are all Electric Ladies and Electric Men — is described as an R&B and soul

artist, and while there’s definitely something popy, something blues-y, jazz-y, something funk-y (all of which can be applied to R&B) about her music, none of those descriptions quite seem to cover just what Monáe manages to do. There’s something classic and nostalgic to some of her sounds, but also an undeniably fresh element to her voice and to her tuxedoed image. There is an undeniable get-

and grooved together, and movements reminiscent of swing and the Charleston could be seen throughout the crowd. The atmosphere was one of an overwhelming need to dance; an infectious requirement that spread from the stage and imbued Monáe’s spectators with rhythm. A classmate I had only spoken to on a few occasions came up to me and gleefully joined in on my boogieing. A complete stranger approached my friend and asked her to slow dance. The sun set behind Memorial Church, and as it grew darker, the colored lights that glowed from the stage to illuminate the dancers in blue and yellow cast long shadows behind them into the trees of Tercentary Theatre. “I really, really want to thank you/for dancing to the end” Monáe sang, as we did just that; but it is her who deserves thanks for casting a spell for a little while, and for making us dance like we rarely do.

“I really, really want to thank you/ for dancing to the end” - Janelle Monáe

The Harvard Independent • 04.17.14

up-and-dance vibe that was apparent in recordings even before I saw her perform, and that had me nodding my head and tapping my toes, but seeing her live was another experience entirely. The crowd cheered, and sang along, and after her set vociferously demanded one more song one more song one more song, but more importantly, we danced. Music, concerts, and parties are always a reason to dance, but there is a difference between the desperate grinding of a sweaty and inebriated evening, or the eager jumping of a concert, and the dancing that Janelle Monáe caused us to partake in. People grooved on their own, people paired up

Joanna R. Schacter ’15 (jschacter@college.harvard.edu) is still listening to Janelle Monáe on repeat. Photo Credit: James Duncan

harvardindependent.com

Scenes of Science

Perceptions of research and its societal impact in science fiction. By ANDREW LIN

lasks bubble, mixtures trouble, and explosions tumble forth as the scientist strides into his lair, that most reclusive of worlds known only as the research laboratory. Its location — a secret cavernous lair, an abandoned ruin, the basement of a seedy Victorian brownstone — is as varied as it is unknown, for the scientist works alone, with perhaps only a hunchbacked assistant or one of his own creations as hired (or enslaved) help. And from here his inventions stream forth: machines for turning back the years, reanimating the dead, potions of youth and life and love, all products of his strange and recondite knowledge. This is the world of science as envisioned historically by popular culture, an abstruse realm in which the scientist is but an individual heroically (or insanely) removed from the dull workplace realities of desks and human resources and office politics. The reality, of course, is quite different: modern science, though still perhaps one of the most exciting fields to work in, is still bound by the usual squabbles over salaries and indeed is characterized as much by desk work as any other profession. The real divide between the depiction of science in the arts and reality, however, lies not merely in deskwork or office debacles; rather, it lies in the way science itself is depicted, from the means with which it is measured to the individuals who conduct it. The bubbling flasks and occasional explosions have, of course, given way to racks upon racks of beige instruments, pipette tips, and complex machinery, edifices to the sheer cost of science as it stands in this day and age. The people too have changed: the mad alchemist and gentleman scientist have been swapped out for a diverse array of professors, post-docs, graduate students, undergraduates, and even high school students. But this divide between scientists’ realities and popular representations did not simply spring up out of no-

8 harvardindependent.com

where at some single, random point in history. Rather, its rise coincides with the rise of science itself, emerging with the inexorable growth of human knowledge and its expansion into the realm of natural philosophy, the mastery of our universe and its secrets. To simply begin at the beginning of human knowledge in our understanding of science and its evolution in the public eye, however, is of little utility. We seek to analyze science as a discipline in and of itself, not as some unknown facet of natural philosophy or medieval a l c h e m y. So the divide began in earnest, therefore, with the development of scientific theory by the beautifully-named Sir Francis Bacon and the emergence of science as a functioning discipline in the Enlightenment of the 1600s. At first, however, this divide wasn’t much of a divide at all. Although many scientists of the era were indeed coffee-house debaters and philosophers, the alchemists of the era still did labor and toil in the stereotypical manner — and there did not even exist any speculative science fiction to document their feats in the first place. Fast-forwarding into the modern era, however, the divide suddenly becomes apparent, and in a big way. Though the old alchemists had long gone, science-fiction authors now turned to them (and their mad-scientist ilk of the late 1900s) to sell copies and shill magazines, a point illustrated well by none other than that founding mother of speculative science fiction at large: Mary Shelley. With her Frankenstein, and more specifically her protagonist Dr. Victor Frankenstein, Shelley set an archetype that has since seen repetition both the world and the centuries over: that of the mad scientist with his mad lair.

Shelley, of course, had deeper purposes in mind for her mad scientist than the mere establishment of a cultural archetype. Rather, her novel (and her characters) dealt with the weighty issues of those Gothic days: the role of man versus nature, the incontrovertibility of death, and the very nature of sapience — weighty issues of literary import that resonate to this day. What stuck with popular culture, however, was mostly the archetype of the mad scientist and his dangerous creations, a fact confirmed by the

Z to Godzilla to Planet of the Apes, science in pop culture has certainly wrought its fair share of civilizationwrecking harm. This is not to say, however, that science fiction has presented an exclusively negative view of the hand – or rather the scientific advances – that have nourished it so well through the ages. Indeed, science itself has seen considerable promotion in numerous science-oriented media, what with Star Trek’s adulation of its science officers and Isaac Asimov’s tales of

“And science fiction also prepares us quite well for any sort of zombie apocalypse too, I guess.” now-ubiquitous status the Frankenstein monster (and for that matter zombies in general) have asserted in popular culture. Their ubiquity, however, is not necessarily interesting on its own: that is signified easily enough by everything from the good Captain Nemos and Dr. Jekylls of 19th-century speculative fiction to the modern-day stereotypical nerds adorning Caltech in The Big Bang Theory. What is interesting is the juxtaposition Frankenstein (and for that matter the zombies it inspired) pose with regard to the evil that science can do. From Shelley onward, science-fiction writers and blockbuster shifters alike have relied on the notion of science as a bogeyman, as that which pries open the Pandora’s Box of natural secrets, wrecking individuals or humanity at large in the process. Shelley’s rationale for such argument is certainly sensible in the context of her time, what with the anxieties many experienced regarding the rise of the Industrial Revolution and the scientific marvels it occasioned. Modern examples, again, are numerous and reach far beyond Mary Shelley’s 1818 novel as well: from World War

humanist science applied to society. At this juncture, some could certainly argue that such media are enjoyed most explicitly by science-oriented individuals. This is valid enough, at least as a statement of support for the sciences. But the oft-hawked idea that science-critical works (the sort inspired by Shelley) detract from the edifice that is modern science is not so tenable. Science is a neutral force, and it takes society and social criticism — be that through hard literature or soft sci-fi-schlock — to mold that force into something that can ultimately be harnessed for the betterment of humanity, the self-betterment that lies at the real core of all scientific research. And science fiction also prepares us quite well for any sort of zombie apocalypse too, I guess. Andrew Lin ’17 (andrewlin@college) is sincerely opposed to the concept of a zombie apocalypse, although he does at least know he will survive owing to his roommates’ excessive viewing of The Walking Dead.

04.17.14 • The Harvard Independent

On a High Note / By CHRISTINA BIANCO

An Introduction to

La Boheme T

here are certain works of art that will touch your heart, send a cascade of chills down your spine, and make tears roll down your eyes. For me, La Boheme is one of those works. I have memorized the soundtrack and imagined myself starring in it on the stage of the Met, and I will forever hold its story dear to my heart. But I am definitely not alone in my feelings towards this opera, because it has been consistently one of the most highly performed operas around the world. Many people may be familiar with the plot of the opera for it was what inspired the storyline of the musical Rent, and this modernization of La Boheme is a testament to the timelessness of the story, applicable to nearly any generation. La Boheme has been featured in movies such as Moonstruck and has had a great impact on popular culture. La Boheme was written by composer Giacomo Puccini with librettists Luigi Illica and Giuseppe Giacosa, and it is based on Scenes de la Vie de Boheme by Henri Murger. When the opera premiered in 1896 it was an instant success. And the combination of the tragic love story and the beautiful music has kept audiences intrigued with the opera even today. The first act of La Boheme takes place in Paris in the 1830s. In their worn apartment, the neardestitute poet Rodolfo, painter Marcello, philosopher Colline, and musician Schaunard celebrate Christmas together. As his friends leave for the Café Momus, Rodolfo promises to join them later, remaining behind to write. There is a knock at the door and Rodolpho’s neighbor Mimì candle has gone out on the stairway. Rodolfo relights it when Mimì then realizes she has lost her key, and in the confusion, both candles are blown out. The two begin to feel a connection towards one another, and then Rodolfo in one of the most famed and well regarded tenor arias (“Che gelida manina”) tells Mimì his dreams. She (in another famous aria titled “Mi chiamano Mimì”) then recounts on her life. After Mimì’s aria, Rodolfo’s friends are heard outside, urging him to join them; he calls back that he is not alone and will be along shortly. Expressing their joy in finding each other the two sing the duet “O soave fanciulla” and then they leave for the café. The first act presents an archetypical romance, however even though the romance is formed very quickly between the two main characters, their love seems a product of innocence and affection rather than obsession or infatu-

The Harvard Independent • 04.17.14

ation. The idea that two people might be fated to have a connection is a hopeful sentiment that many people still share in our modern day, and therefore seeing a beautiful connection like Mimi and Rodolfo’s in the first act, brings a smile to the faces of most young audience members. The opera continues with a scene in the streets of Paris at the Café Momus. Rodolfo introduces Mimì to his friends. Marcello’s former sweetheart, Musetta, makes a noisy entrance on the arm of the elderly but wealthy Alcindoro. The ensuing tumult reaches its peak when, trying to regain Marcello’s attention, Musetta sings a famous waltz about her popularity (“Quando me’n vo”). But as the third act begins the mood of the opera is immediately different. At dawn by a tavern, Mimì wanders in and tells Marcello of her distress over Rodolfo’s incessant jealousy. Rodolfo then appears from the tavern and Mimì hides nearby. He tells Marcello that he wants to separate from Mimi and reveals that she is very sick. Rodolfo fears that her coughing and illness can only grow worse in the poverty they share. Then in one of the most emotional moments in the opera, Mimì stumbles forward to bid her lover farewell in the heart-wrenching aria “Donde lieta uscì.” Act three is strikingly sad not only because of Puccini’s beautiful music, but also because Mimi and Rodolfo are being separated by illness and sacrifice. Even though Mimi has shown signs of a cough throughout the whole opera, this is the first time that her illness is addressed. Mimi’s farewell to Rodolfo is heartbreaking because many people may be able to relate to the moment when they have been separated from the one that they love due to uncontrollable circumstances. And the demon of time seems to be the greatest enemy in their relationship. At the end of the opera it is springtime and the four men are back in Rodolfo’s apartment. Musetta bursts in to tell them that Mimì is outside and is too weak to come upstairs. Rodolfo carries her in, and then Mimì and Rodolfo recall their first meeting and past happy days, but Mimi begins coughing violently (Duet: “Sono andati?”). Then Mimì begins to drift into unconsciousness. When Rodolfo at last realizes that she is dead, he throws himself despairingly on her body, and the opera ends as he tragically calls her name. Franco Zeffirelli’s production has been frequently performed at the Metropolitan Opera among opera companies around the world, and it has become

a favorite for many audiences. Being incredibly lifelike and elaborate, Zeffirelli’s production does a great job of making the audience members feel transported into each of the scenes, and this adds to the emotional intensity of the opera. Particularly the way that Zeffirelli creates the contrast between winter and spring and day and night sets the tone and mood for each of the four acts. I was very excited to have the opportunity to see the broadcast of La Boheme on April 5th, because this was not the first time that had seen Franco Zeffirelli’s production, and it is something that never ceases to blow me away. The production features a cast of hundreds, onstage snowfall, a horse and mule, real food and a detailed reconstruction of a Paris shopping district. The attention to detail in this production is astonishing, and a great example of a very traditional adaptation. The opera on Saturday was conducted by Italian conductor Stefano Ranzani and featured a talented group of emerging singers. Although Romanian soprano Anita Hartig had to cancel her matinee performance that day, her replacement soprano, Kristine Opolais, bravely led the opera on very short notice. Her performance was very clean and graceful, and she portrayed an enjoyable Mimi despite the tumult. Italian tenor Vittorio Grigolo made his Live in HD debut as the passionate and penniless young poet Rodolfo and Susanna Phillips sang the flirtatious Musetta. Additionally, Massimo Cavalletti played the painter Marcello, Patrick Carfizzi played Schaunard, and Oren Gradus played Colline. The cast was very strong overall and did justice to all of Puccini’s lyrical lines of music, and each brought their own unique flavor of interpretation to the famous and well-known arias. If you are familiar with the musical Rent, or even just want an enjoyable introduction to opera, I would highly recommend La Boheme to anyone. And if you missed La Boheme in theaters, there are many other ways to experience this opera. There are several DVD recordings of past staged Metropolitan Opera productions, and even recently there was a movie adaptation created starring Anna Netrebko as Mimi, Rolando Villazon as Rodolfo, and Nicole Cabell as Musetta. Christina Bianco ’17 (christinabianco@college) loves when Italian operas are set in France.

harvardindependent.com

Sports

Heating Up Crimson win three games and advance to the Beanpot Finals. By PEYTON FINE

he first half the Harvard baseball team’s season has not been kind. However, some warmer weather at home may be just what the doctor ordered to heat up the Crimson. In a five-game week, the Crimson amassed three of their eight total wins this season in just this weekend. The team is now advancing to the finals of the Beanpot Tournament. Last week’s games began on Wednesday against Boston College for the team. The Crimson fell behind early when Boston College opened the game with four runs in the first inning. However, Harvard fought back scoring one in the third, fourth, and sixth to pull within one while holding the Eagles scoreless until the ninth. In the eighth, Harvard took the lead scoring three runs with two runs coming off the bat of shortstop Jake McGuiggan ‘15. His double was not pretty, but was perfectly paced to drop between the infielder and the outfielder. With the runners moving on contact with two outs, McGuiggan’s hit worked just fine to give the Crimson a two-run lead. Boston College did not go quietly though. BC scored another run in the ninth to make the game close, but Harvard pitcher Sean Poppen ‘16 was able to close the door for the save.

10 harvardindependent.com

With the win over Boston College, Harvard advanced to the championship of the Beanpot Tournament. The finals will be on April 21st against the University of Massachusetts. The finals will take place at Northeastern University. After the victory against Boston College, Harvard looked to carry its success into the weekend with a fourgame series against Brown. Brown came into the weekend as one of the few teams who may have struggled even more than Harvard. Coming into the weekend, the Bears were winless in Ivy League play. The Bears would not remain winless in the Ivy for long. In the first game of the four-game series on Saturday, Harvard jumped out to an early lead with runs in the second and third. However, Brown came up with a big fifth inning where they scored four runs. After a leadoff single, the wheels started to fall off the cart for the Crimson. A Brown bunt turned into a hit when Poppen could not field it. Harvard did fight back by scoring a run in the seventh to tie the game. After singles by Carlton Bailey ‘14 and Kyle Larrow ‘14, Harvard’s leading hitter Mike Martin ‘15 drove in the tying run. The lead though would not last. In the eighth Zack Olson ‘14 took over the pitching duties for

the Crimson from workhorse Poppen. Brown quickly took advantage. An error by the second baseman put Brown’s leadoff man on, and after a single, a bunt base hit, and a sacrifice fly, the Bears had taken the lead. Harvard went quietly to end the game. The second game of the four-game series against Brown began in much the same way that the first game ended — Harvard was losing. By the end of the fifth inning, the Crimson trailed seven to three. Then, just as the weather quickly heated up here in Cambridge, the Crimson bats heated up in the seventh inning of this game. In the seventh, Harvard scored seven runs. The inning started with a walk, a single, then another walk. Brandon Kregel ‘15 singled to start the run party. Kregel’s single was followed by a double from Ethan Ferreira. Then, Nick Saathoff ‘15 added two more runs on his single, and Bailey finished off the inning driving in the final two runs of the inning on a double of his own. Brown scored one more in the ninth, but ultimately Harvard’s seven-run seventh propelled them to their second victory of the week. On Sunday, the bats continued to sizzle as Harvard beat Brown for its third win of the week. Harvard scored

eight runs in the first inning that was capped by a three-run homerun from Kregel. Danny Moskovits ‘14 pitched well enough for the Crimson to pull off a victory as he allowed three runs. Harvard tacked on five insurance runs to cruise to an easy thirteen to three victory. However, as the weather is fickle at this point in the year, so too are the Harvard bats. In the second game of the Sunday doubleheader, the Crimson failed to score even one run off the Bears pitcher. For Harvard, Nick Greuner ‘17 threw an outstanding game allowing only one run in over six innings. In the final inning, Brown was able to scrape across a run with consecutive singles to open the inning, followed by a sacrifice bunt and RBI. All in all, it was a successful week in which Harvard nearly doubled its win total in the season. As the weather turns warmer, hopefully, the Crimson need the bats to stay hot as they continue Ivy League divisional play and prepare for the Beanpot championship. Peyton Fine ’17 (peytonfine@college) thinks warmer weather could spell a hot streak for Harvard baseball.

04.17.14 • The Harvard Independent

Sports

indy

A Marathon Remembered

Strong and together, a city that never faltered.

Photo by WikiCommons

By SEAN FRAZZETTE

year ago from Tuesday, on Marathon Monday — a day more important to Bostonians than can be explained in words — two brothers, Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev, allegedly tried and succeeded to a degree in degrading the special day. Using bombs placed near the finish line of the Boston Marathon, the brothers killed three people, Krystle Campbell, Martin Richard, and Lingzi Lu, as well as injuring many others. The tragedy sent the city of Boston and its surrounding areas into turmoil. Harvard students and affiliates running in and attending the Marathon were frantically called, emailed, and texted in an effort to assure some sort of words of safety. As someone born and raised in southern Massachusetts, the city of Boston and the state as a whole means something special to me. It is my home, my capital, my hangout spot. But I am not a Bostonian, nor would I ever pretend to be. So my words on the Marathon and my passion for the city should be viewed in this context; that is, I love this city and living in Cambridge has only made me love it more, yet I could never understand what the native people of the city went through during the Marathon last year. The terror of having two American, Massachusettsraised men actively choose to create such harm and horror on such a sacred day for Boston is beyond words. But this has been addressed enough. Instead, as a sports writer, I look at the day through a sports perspective. The Harvard Independent • 04.17.14

The Boston Marathon is one of, if not the most, notable marathons in the country. The act of running a marathon itself is one of the most incredible achievements of man. Running 26.2 miles consecutively is remarkable, not to mention some of the amazing times that these athletes finish in. The rebound from bombings was reminiscent of these athletic achievements. The city grouped together, arm in arm, faced the terrorism that surrounded them, and prevailed in showing that undying love for the city and each other would prevail. People will for years remember moments like the beautiful vigils that were held at the finish line or the singing of the National Anthem at a Boston Bruins game days after the event. I grew up in a sports family. Everyone seems to be an athlete or a coach, and the atmosphere related to that transformed my family into a team. We focused family reunions around sporting events. We played pickup games of basketball and football in the yards of each other’s houses. In a similar way, Boston is like a really intense sports family. The Red Sox, Bruins, and Celtics are a religion. The Marathon is a sacred ritual where the entire city takes the day off to celebrate. So when two people had the audacity to try ruining this day, the city reacted like a sports family would. They stood strong. They sang. They cried over the terrible tragedy, but most importantly, they rose stronger than ever before. The city was not broken and even less so broken,

thanks to the mentality of the Boston citizens. Everyone was ready to act, to serve, to love. Now, we are days away from the 2014 Boston Marathon, which will without a doubt be the biggest and loudest of them all. Runners will group together and perseverance will reign supreme. The crowd at this year’s Marathon is expected to be even more packed than ever before. The cheers as people cross the finish line will probably echo louder than they have in the past. Boston Strong was and still is the motto of the city, the event, and the general aura of this beautiful city. The tragedy on April 15, 2013 was as sad as the city had seen in years. An attack on an innocent people can never be forgotten, nor should it ever be. But on April 21, 2014, the city will regroup, remember, and, most importantly, run. We are a group of people that did not run from the pain. Rather, we ran together. Images of first responders running to the scene were a poignant scene painted in the memories of all people. And this year, hopefully, the image of the hundreds of runners will return as the true image of the day. The recognition of human will and the limits that are transcended by running a marathon will once again shine bright. Boston will continue to be strong, the marathon will return stronger, and the people of the city will be seen once again as the strongest family of it all. Sean Frazzette ’16 (sfrazzette@college) loves this dirty water. harvardindependent.com

c a pt ur e d& s ho t byANNAPAPPi nI s t a nbul , Tur ke y