Okay! Welcome? to the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers). Today we may have a guest writer in the form of some odd corner of the mind. But do not worry! ( …Preocupación? Miguel por qué hace ssay que no se preocupe … y así es que habla portugués?…). As Regular Readers know, sometimes these Posts lurch off on a decidedly eccentric track, but (almost) always come back on track. And the track is….let’s all say it together…is the Wakefield Doctrine! (can he use the word ‘track’ more than that? come on! get this thing on track).
The Doctrine that holds the answer to your questions and questions the answers you hold true…
The Doctrine will let you know more about the people close to you than you really should know….
While ‘mystery’ is sometimes referred to as the “vinaigrette of the relationship salad”, the Wakefield Doctrine is…the extra virgin…(no…) it’s the balsamic….nah it’s the after dinner sorbet?… ( …Miss Sullivan? you have any idea what the ‘mystery’ of relationships is…really?…) Rose Soda (Water) and Lavendar Drink ? ( …Popular in Europe?…Middle Ages….I see. And you have the recipe?… no, no of course you do! Thank you for sharing that with us… )
Rose Soda / Lavender Drink
Adapted from _The ‘Libre de DiversisMedicinis’ in the Thornton Manuscript (MS. Lincoln Cathedral, A.5.2)_. Edited by Margaret Sinclair Ogden. Published for the Early English Text Society by Humphrey Milford, Oxford University Press. Amen House, E.C. 4. England. 1938. Text circa early 1400 CE.
1 part rose/lavender petals
2 parts water
2 parts sugar/honey
Soak a number of petals in a pitcher of water holding twice as much water as petals for one night. Press, but not squeeze, the water from the petals and reuse them as needed. Mix into the water enough honey or sugar as to taste, and serve cold
(courtesy of HL Rory McGowen)
Alright, alright I seem to have cleared my head… Sorry for the tangent, actually I am not sorry… for the tangent, that is. But for the curious Reader, following is the video that for whatever reason, prompted the initial “mood” of this here Post here.
Now the odd/interesting thing about this music video is that it is not the style of music I was a fan of, back in the day, this song would have been a little too, greaser/old kind of music. What triggered my reaction was/were the Comments that followed the song (on the youtube), they were, somehow oddly evocative. No doubt I encountered this (particular version of the) song at some point in life and it hooked to some emotional event and so on and so forth…( sorry, lost interest in my own train of thought). Funny about that.
What I had originally intended for the Wakefield Doctrine Lesson of the Day was: the Three (3) types of jobs. ( ...Puestos de trabajo? Sin embargo, somos estudiantes y María no consiguió una visa, que nos enviará a todos a Alaska … aiiyee de San Telmo de la cocina! … )
Yes, yes there are! Three jobs. In the world. Every damn job/occupation/avocation/inspiration/calling/profession/obsession/position/post/that’s-my-name-on-the-door/title, what you do for money… in one of the three categories. Really.
No, I am not making this up. Actually, if the Progenitor roger is in the audience, I would call on him to Comment, as he was there and gets at least co-creator credits for the Three Jobs concept. Hey!! roger, yo…get your increasingly stubby fingers off the keyboard…the Great American Novel can wait a few minutes…Treasure Rd, dude! Cast your mind back.
The Wakefield Doctrine, Three (3) Jobs: Scientist, Salesman and Machine Operator. Am thinking Contest here…yeah! Free Hat (for your damn head) for anyone* who can correctly link the type (clark, scott or roger) with the job ( scientist, salesman or machine operator).
Not as easy as it looks. And we will need some justification of the choice you submit. So, come on down!
Mr. B! After you find the Exchange Students ( I think they are under the bleachers, back by the fire alarm panel) and get them settled down, take us out something upbeat, if you don’t mind!
LOL…ok…scott!! come back!! lol…Hey, Bonus Contest!! Of these two lovely ladies one is a clark ( yeah, no shit) but the other is not! which is which, yo.
Out, everyone out!
* Sorry Progenitors and DownSprings are not eligible to participate.
About clarkscottroger
The one on the left – the blonde “girl” is the clark. I had to re-play the end several times before I caught it – it is the manner in which she smiles to herself, then brings herself eventually to look up BUT not before quickly glancing sideways and then straight on to the audience.
Look at the dark haired girl. Upon striking the last note she simultaneously smiles and looks straight up and out.(quite pleased with herself)
Very good!
Correct call on which of the two is the clark and quite perceptive (your) characterization of the expression by which the clarklike female reveals her clarklike nature. This expression is seen only in the final 2 or 3 seconds of the video.
Hey! CY! Ready for a bonus question here?
DS#1 is right on as to identification (of the clark) and why she knows this to be true, so, for elevation to full DownSpring status the following question:
“…what is the (inner) emotion/motivation/drive that causes the expression (that DS#1 cites in her observation)?
In other words, Blonde Medieval girl is a clark, but what is going on inside her head that makes her think that the expression she has picked is the best face to present to the world? (The timer is on…now!)
(cy..cy..cy…CY!)
{You have the crowd rooting for you!}
Come on CY!! I know you know the answer!
Fail on my part – I was thinking the girl in the purple was the clark. Kept looking for a difference, but they were looking so equal – so I went with the outfit choice.
Not to feel bad…(even allowing it be a coin toss) Medieval girl on right was everyone’s first choice…the first impression of serious-bodering-on-dour made her the contenda.
(Since we all know who the clark is now ( lol the other one)) I will say the key to the identification is found only in the last 3 seconds of the vid, when they both look up…
Will leave the what-is-going-on-in-her-head question open until you have a chance to see her actual expression/reaction/response to her performance.
I should say, I starting re-thinking my pick of brunette Medieval girl when I noticed the weird ring thing on blonde Medieval girls hands, which then lead to the consideration of the multiple shirt fashion statement… by that time I was at the end of song. Grabbed the cursor and went frame-by-frame at that point.
well kudos to all who commented. frame-by-frame for christ’s sake? i couldn’t even watch it in it’s entirety. did forward to see if they were gonna sing or something. not enough to keep me going. (yeah clark, i know. it’s a scott thing).
frame by frame….of course…a clark will make the time…
so, as a scottian female, tell us which of the two Medieval girls you would have picked as the clark (and why)
and we are on the honor system, so we will accept the answer you give as the one you would have given if we got to before you clicked off the video, laughing in disgust as you no doubt did, the first time you saw it…
Neither one. My immediate feeling is that the girl in the purple on the right is a roger and the one in blue on the left is a scott. And after trying to get through the entire damn video by fast forwarding here and there to make sure my opinion is consistent with regard to the performance of the two throughout the piece, my answer remains the same. The purple girl is, as far as I’m concerned, a roger, because for the most part she plays the same thing over and over. She is the glue if you will, the foundation of the melody. And as we all know, rogers are the machines, the ones who hold everything together. Nothing special about her.
Then there is the blue girl. Obviously a scott. To me she is the front man of the two. Not the out-loud- in-your- face scott in this instance. But still the more interesting of the two. She is not the foundation of the melody (which she could be if she wanted to but that would be too boring) but rather the unique part to the point of superiority. The one who gets paid more attention to throughout the video. And that’s what scotts are all about.
The clark? He’s sitting quietly some where in the audience. Hearing the music but thinking about something else.
You did try but have it wrong Ms. AKH! You must look closer at the Medieval female on the left.
Her robust chest and blonde hair does not make her a scottian female. If you can focus on the last frames of the video you will see what it is that “makes” blonde girl a clark.
CY!! You out there? The first word of your response is a form of a word very pertinant to clarks. In fact, you almost answered the question the Progentior clark first asked you:)
I wasn’t thinking in terms of looks, but rather performance.
…interesting set of Comments…
good start, CY (and, in fact, your truncated line of reasoning was a valid one)
DS#1 you are, of course, correct on the call of clarklike Medieval girl and
AKH you on the money with one point and raise a very interesting topic with the other…
your call of the the other Medieval as a roger combined with your logic for identifying them is right and half right
I agree the dark haired Medieval girl is a roger, however the determination of why she is such is the half correct part.
(This is where we get to topic that needs mutliple Posts to explore…thanks a lot AKH)
What tells us that blonde Medieval girl is a clark? or tells us anyone is anything?
Is it what they do? yes and no
Is it how they dress? yeah and nah
Is it the jobs they do? or the people they hang out with or the things they like….
All of the above.
The beauty and incredible-that-it-even-pans-out-the-way-it-does-and -holds-together part about the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers) is that with the Doctrine we can understand the reality that the person is experiencing.
Not just personality traits or likes and dislikes and hopes and genes…the fact is a scott lives in a reality that is fundamentally different from the world that clarks or rogers wake up to.
While it is easy to say, “Whoa, mystical crap there”… we say, (well, what you say depends on if you are a clark or scott or roger)
Too long an explanation, but the reason why we know that blonde Medieval girl is a clark is found in the expression on her face (which is a reflection of her inner response to the completion of her performance) found in the last 3 seconds of the tape….yes it is how she “looks” and a part of what she “does” and even a function of the “role she plays” in the group…(in this you were on the right track CY and AKH)…but
…but
It really comes down to, (can we see/understand/know) how she sees herself relative to the world and as you see in those last seconds:
she looks up and lowers her eyes…then “looks sideways” to try and gauge the reaction of her ‘audience’ and final she starts to smile and represses it (totally characteristic clarklike smile-thing)
(Hell, if she were a scott she would have either done a crowd dive or ripped her top shirt off (Brandi Chastain) and gave us double fist-pumps.)
ok, i’ll give you this one. lol.. no seriously, i can see the clark in her at the end. that inner-directed smile says it all.