Thursday, October 27, 2011
An Ethical Defense of Same-Sex Marriage
(I am currently on an Ethics Bowl team and have compiled an Ethical defense of Same-Sex Marriage)
So the main issue that is often brought up in discussions of Same-Sex Marriage is the right of the individual versus morality. The claim is that we must, as public citizens, decide between the two. Do we side with the right of the individual and support Same-Sex Marriage or do we side with morality and oppose it? I attest that the two are, in fact, not mutually exclusive. Same-Sex Marriage is ethical by any conventional standard. It is ethical under Consequentialism, ethical under Deontological theory, ethical under virtue ethics, and ethical under Pragmatic Ethics. It is also succeeds in non-maleficence.
Consequentialism, incidentally my favorite of all the theories, contends that the way to decide if an action is moral or not is to examine the consequences. The consequences of two consenting adults getting married is clearly not immoral. No one is hurt and some(not many but some) are helped. The couple is happy, the couple's family is happy, and the couple's friends are happy. Again, none are unhappy, under a utilitarian argument(Utilitarianism=the greatest good for the greatest number, it's a popular offshoot of consequentialism) Same-Sex Marriage is clearly ethical.
Deontological Ethics is the opposite of consequentialism. It contends that the way to decide if an action is moral is to examine the intentions. They are often moral absolutists who believe that some things are immoral no matter what is the consequence. If we look at the intentions of, again, two consenting adults entering into matrimony we can assume that, in this day and age, the intentions are positive. The intentions are positive thus, under this theory, the action is ethical. So, Same-Sex Marriage is ethical.
Virtue Ethics says that the way to judge the morality of an action is to assess the morality of the individual. There is no way of assessing the morality of every individual entering into any form of marriage. Thus, we can say, that Same-Sex Marriage is just as ethical as any other form of marriage.
Pragmatic Ethics contend that it is society that is moral, not an individual. Under pragmatic ethics it is believed that ethical standards evolve and what is right in one age is not necessarily right in another. Societal standards have changed and it is now socially acceptable to be openly homosexual. Thus, if we take it that moral standards evolve and change, homosexuality could very well have been wrong when the Bible was written but still be right now because the moral standards have been revised. Thus, Same-Sex Marriage could very well be ethical under Pragmatic Ethics.
Non-maleficence is the simple concept of "Do No Harm." If two consenting adults get married then no one is harmed. Thus, non-maleficence is achieved.
As I have shown, Same-Sex Marriage is ethical under every modern applicable ethical theory. Thus, we can conclude, that Same-Sex Marriage is ethical and should be supported.
Monday, September 5, 2011
Don't Step On My Red Suede Shoes
This is a response I wrote to someone in my history class who claimed that FDR didn't help us out of the Depression and in fact hurt us. That is a fairly standard Right Wing Line, and it bothers me. Anyway, enjoy
---
In 1932, the year before Roosevelt took office, the US GDP was 58.7 Billion Dollars(in current money, all these numbers are adjusted for inflation). In 1937, the first year of Roosevelt's second term, the GDP was 91.9 Billion Dollars. In 1941, the first year of Roosevelt's third term, the GDP was 126.7 Billion Dollars. That's growth, growth that corresponded to government spending.
The Hoover Administration spent an average of 12% of GDP during the depression, the Roosevelt Administration spent an average of 15.4% of GDP from '33-'39. Once World War II started the spending rose to 35.3% of GDP, and we all know how beneficial World War Two was for our economy.
You talked about false job creation, but if we look at the numbers that's not really the case. In 1932 the Unemployment rate was 24.1%. In 1937 it was 14.3%, that's a ten point drop which also coincided with increased spending. In '32 the government spent 8.7 Billion(again, adjusted figures) in '37 the government spent 12.8 billion.
Funnily enough, the only year of the Roosevelt Administration in which unemployment increased was from '37-'38(in which it rose from 14.3% to 19%). 1937 was the only year in which the government cut the amount of money it was spending(from 13.1 Billion to 12.8 Billion) the year following unemployment rose almost 5 points. In '38 the government increased spending(to 13.8 Billion) and the following year unemployment fell again(to 17.2%). '38 was also the only year during the Roosevelt administration that the GDP fell. In '39, after the spending increase of '38, it rose back up again.
So, really, FDR did help us out of the depression through spending. The growth in the GDP and the decline in unemployment directly corresponds to the amount of money spent. The one year he cut spending was followed by the only decline in GDP and increase of unemployment of his entire presidency.
(I then later wrote after he made a follow up statement that FDR was basically following Hoover's policies)
If we look at the numbers we can see that Hoover spent 9.4 billion in '29. In '30 he spent 10 billion. So far so good for your theory, but beginning in '31 Hoover began to spend less and less. '31 he spent 9.9 billion and in '32 he spent 8.7 billion. The biggest drop in GDP, funnily enough, was between '31 and '32. Roosevelt spent more and got bigger hikes in GDP.
To address your point about WWII, yes it did, of course, help us out of the depression. But in 1939, the year the war started in Europe, the GDP was 92.2 billion which was the highest it had been since '29. When the war ended the GDP was 223.1 which is over twice what it was in '29 so you are, to a certain extent, right. Without World War II the depression would have lasted longer but it was already ending when the war began because of FDR's policies.
Tuesday, July 5, 2011
On Estella Havisham in Great Expectations
There always has been, and perhaps always will be, a schism in fiction regarding the way that women are portrayed. Some heroines are very passive while others have a large amount of agency and are always in control of the situation, or always think that they are. Great Expectations, widely considered Charles Dickens' masterpiece, contains one of the greatest examples of a non-passive heroine in the character of Estella Havisham. Dickens took what previous writers, such as Shakespeare, had done and expanded on it by never making Estella likable. Estella's influence can still be seen today.
Estella by no means was the first strong female character in literature. Anyone who is familiar at all with Shakespeare will point to Rosalind and Lady Macbeth. However, Estella is unique in that she never is presented in a way that is likable to the reader. We don't want Pip and Estella to get married, despite the fact that Pip desperately wants it. Lady Macbeth, while never being even slightly likable, is essentially the villain of Macbeth. She manipulates her husband into murder and feeds his madness. She is not the romantic lead and Macbeth never looks at her in a romantic sense. Rosalind, like Estella, gets what she wants just by force of character. However, Rosalind is presented in a likable way, true she does some things that make her unlikable but she means well most of the time, Estella never means well in the novel, never once. She schemes and is more than a little sadistic. She hurts Pip because she feels like it.
It could be argued that Estella is the villain of Great Expectations, and thus follows in the footsteps of Lady Macbeth. However, Estella was raised by Mrs. Havisham, a cruel, cold woman, and she taught Estella to break men's hearts. Mrs. Havisham created Estella and thus we can't really blame Estella for what she does to Pip. She learned it at her mother's knee.
Estella's influence on modern literature is vast. Two of the biggest best sellers of the past few years are The Hunger Games Trilogy and The Millennium Trilogy. Both series have heroines, Katniss and Lisabeth respectively, who are strong and in command, but aren't particularly nice. They can handle themselves and have a large amount of agency. Estella also serves as a symbol in Great Expectations. She symbolizes the love pursued and the novel shows how Pip destroys his life by pursuing Estella so intently. Those themes would later become the centerpiece of The Great Gatsby by F Scott Fitzgerald, widely considered to be one of the greatest novels ever written. Fitzgerald own a massive debt to Charles Dickens, Great Expectations, and the character of Estella.
Estella serves a very important role in Great Expectations; the role of a maguffin. She is the grail which Pip searches for, the light on the end of the wharf. It is, however, as testament to Dickens' skill as a writer that he manages to elevate Estella from a simple goal to one of the most interesting and rounded characters that exists in fiction. She is both a strong female heroine and a symbol. Both a maguffin and a character.
It is interesting to contrast Estella with another of Dickens' creations, Nancy. Both women are in abusive relationships and both, if we are to go by Dickens' original ending, end up the worse for wear for it. It would have been fascinating to see more of Estella while she was in her abusive marriage. We see her going in, haughty and nasty, and then coming out, weather beaten and kinder, but we never see what transpired. Did Estella love her husband? Why would she, but then, why would she stay with him if she didn't? It is a bit of a stretch to believe that Estella stays with her husband out of fear, but it is just as big of a stretch to say that she stayed with him out of love. Nancy, by contrast, is only seen while in the relationship, so we don't know what she was like coming into it, and, of course, she never comes out of it. Nancy does not appear to have the force of character that Estella has, yet, it takes a great will to stand up to the man she loves and sacrifice her life for a random boy. It appears that the brutality of her husband makes Estella weaker while it makes Nancy stronger. Thus, it could very well be argued that Nancy is stronger that Estella.
Estella by no means was the first strong female character in literature. Anyone who is familiar at all with Shakespeare will point to Rosalind and Lady Macbeth. However, Estella is unique in that she never is presented in a way that is likable to the reader. We don't want Pip and Estella to get married, despite the fact that Pip desperately wants it. Lady Macbeth, while never being even slightly likable, is essentially the villain of Macbeth. She manipulates her husband into murder and feeds his madness. She is not the romantic lead and Macbeth never looks at her in a romantic sense. Rosalind, like Estella, gets what she wants just by force of character. However, Rosalind is presented in a likable way, true she does some things that make her unlikable but she means well most of the time, Estella never means well in the novel, never once. She schemes and is more than a little sadistic. She hurts Pip because she feels like it.
It could be argued that Estella is the villain of Great Expectations, and thus follows in the footsteps of Lady Macbeth. However, Estella was raised by Mrs. Havisham, a cruel, cold woman, and she taught Estella to break men's hearts. Mrs. Havisham created Estella and thus we can't really blame Estella for what she does to Pip. She learned it at her mother's knee.
Estella's influence on modern literature is vast. Two of the biggest best sellers of the past few years are The Hunger Games Trilogy and The Millennium Trilogy. Both series have heroines, Katniss and Lisabeth respectively, who are strong and in command, but aren't particularly nice. They can handle themselves and have a large amount of agency. Estella also serves as a symbol in Great Expectations. She symbolizes the love pursued and the novel shows how Pip destroys his life by pursuing Estella so intently. Those themes would later become the centerpiece of The Great Gatsby by F Scott Fitzgerald, widely considered to be one of the greatest novels ever written. Fitzgerald own a massive debt to Charles Dickens, Great Expectations, and the character of Estella.
Estella serves a very important role in Great Expectations; the role of a maguffin. She is the grail which Pip searches for, the light on the end of the wharf. It is, however, as testament to Dickens' skill as a writer that he manages to elevate Estella from a simple goal to one of the most interesting and rounded characters that exists in fiction. She is both a strong female heroine and a symbol. Both a maguffin and a character.
It is interesting to contrast Estella with another of Dickens' creations, Nancy. Both women are in abusive relationships and both, if we are to go by Dickens' original ending, end up the worse for wear for it. It would have been fascinating to see more of Estella while she was in her abusive marriage. We see her going in, haughty and nasty, and then coming out, weather beaten and kinder, but we never see what transpired. Did Estella love her husband? Why would she, but then, why would she stay with him if she didn't? It is a bit of a stretch to believe that Estella stays with her husband out of fear, but it is just as big of a stretch to say that she stayed with him out of love. Nancy, by contrast, is only seen while in the relationship, so we don't know what she was like coming into it, and, of course, she never comes out of it. Nancy does not appear to have the force of character that Estella has, yet, it takes a great will to stand up to the man she loves and sacrifice her life for a random boy. It appears that the brutality of her husband makes Estella weaker while it makes Nancy stronger. Thus, it could very well be argued that Nancy is stronger that Estella.
Friday, June 24, 2011
"Leave Me Alone!" Or A Critsism of The Founding Fathers
"I'm Not Magic, Lead Yourselves."
--Cory Doctorow
"As a woman I have no country. As a woman, I want no country."
---Virgina Woolfe
A few days ago I was having a debate with a friend(Ben, who used to contribute occasionally to this blog back in our LR days) about a variety of things mainly focusing on our differing political philosophies. I am a socialist and he is a democrat who......reads Ayn Rand. Anyway, eventually we got onto the Constitution and I made the point that, frankly, I don't care what the Second Amendment means, guns need to be limited and controlled otherwise we'd have havoc in the streets.
Now, I've said that before and will almost certainly say it again, however you will never hear a politician say that. Never ever ever. Because we, as a nation, hold the Constitution and The Founding Fathers in such, such high esteem that if you say one word against them you will never be elected to so much as a school board.
Why? Because we, as a people, look for idols, for leaders and the 'Founders Of Our Nation' are the best candidates around. So, just like people do with their religious texts, all we care about is what the Founding Fathers would have done and we lose our common sense.
Honestly is Thomas Jefferson appeared to me tomorrow and told me to support Sarah Palin for President I would still support Obama, because I don't care. I just don't care. I don't believe that the Founding Fathers had more wisdom than any other political philosophers. They did a big, important hard thing in founding our country but I don't believe that they are infallible. They were men.
Perhaps it's just my own arrogance but I don't believe that the Founding Fathers were that much wiser than I am or anyone else is. They were just the first and that's cool and awesome and important but just because you're the first doesn't mean your the best. The Constitution is the Beta and we're treating it like it's perfect.
The title of this post, Leave Me Alone, is a reference to Monty Python's The Life of Brian in which the populace has become convinced that the character of Brian is the messiah and they follow him around. He yells at them to leave him along and thus....THE TITLE!
I think, I believe that once we realize that the Founding Fathers were operating on 18th Century information and thought then, I think, we can begin to talk and think more logically about issues, like gun control.
--Cory Doctorow
"As a woman I have no country. As a woman, I want no country."
---Virgina Woolfe
A few days ago I was having a debate with a friend(Ben, who used to contribute occasionally to this blog back in our LR days) about a variety of things mainly focusing on our differing political philosophies. I am a socialist and he is a democrat who......reads Ayn Rand. Anyway, eventually we got onto the Constitution and I made the point that, frankly, I don't care what the Second Amendment means, guns need to be limited and controlled otherwise we'd have havoc in the streets.
Now, I've said that before and will almost certainly say it again, however you will never hear a politician say that. Never ever ever. Because we, as a nation, hold the Constitution and The Founding Fathers in such, such high esteem that if you say one word against them you will never be elected to so much as a school board.
Why? Because we, as a people, look for idols, for leaders and the 'Founders Of Our Nation' are the best candidates around. So, just like people do with their religious texts, all we care about is what the Founding Fathers would have done and we lose our common sense.
Honestly is Thomas Jefferson appeared to me tomorrow and told me to support Sarah Palin for President I would still support Obama, because I don't care. I just don't care. I don't believe that the Founding Fathers had more wisdom than any other political philosophers. They did a big, important hard thing in founding our country but I don't believe that they are infallible. They were men.
Perhaps it's just my own arrogance but I don't believe that the Founding Fathers were that much wiser than I am or anyone else is. They were just the first and that's cool and awesome and important but just because you're the first doesn't mean your the best. The Constitution is the Beta and we're treating it like it's perfect.
The title of this post, Leave Me Alone, is a reference to Monty Python's The Life of Brian in which the populace has become convinced that the character of Brian is the messiah and they follow him around. He yells at them to leave him along and thus....THE TITLE!
I think, I believe that once we realize that the Founding Fathers were operating on 18th Century information and thought then, I think, we can begin to talk and think more logically about issues, like gun control.
Saturday, June 11, 2011
Fundamental Flaws: On The American Dream
Between them these two books sum up our present predicament. Capitalism leads to dole queues, the scramble for markets, and war. Collectivism leads to concentration camps, leader worship, and war. There is no way out of this unless a planned economy can somehow be combined with the freedom of the intellect, which can only happen if the concept of right and wrong is restored to politics.
---George Orwell
If you listen to anyone on the right side of the aisle you know two things 1) You should be afraid of European Socialism and 2) If you just work hard you will be rich and successful. That second point is the basic foundation of the so called "American Dream' and the basis for the Anti-Welfare Argument. Hard Work equals Success thus Failure equals Laziness. Read that sentence again. Now, does that make any sense?
I found a Howard Zinn quote that sums up my point here, if I may,
---Why should we accept that the "talent" of someone who writes jingles for an advertising agency advertising dog food and gets $100,000 a year is superior to the talent of an auto mechanic who makes $40,000 a year? Who is to say that Bill Gates works harder than the dishwasher in the restaurant he frequents, or that the CEO of a hospital who makes $400,000 a year works harder than the nurse or the orderly in that hospital who makes $30,000 a year? The president of Boston University makes $300,000 a year. Does he work harder than the man who cleans the offices of the university? Talent and hard work are qualitative factors which cannot be measured quantitatively. ---
Right now the richest person in the world, according to Forbes Magazine, is Carlos Slim. Now Mr. Slim was not born into wealth and, in his own way, worked his way up from the bottom. But, and this is key, he is an investor, meaning he makes money by giving people money. To suggest that giving people money is harder than, say, building a road, saving someone's life, or fighting in the military is a little ludicrous. Now, just to be clear, I am not saying that Mr. Slim has done anything wrong, he made his money in a perfectly legitimate way. He has also been generous with his money(he has donated four billion, yes billion, dollars to his charitable foundation however this is the core of my problem.
If a child complains that something is not fair what is the first response that pops into our heads? "Life Isn't Fair" and that's correct, but creates a problem with the so-called American Dream. The assumption that Hard Work=Success and Laziness=Failure is that the playing field is level which it just simply is not.
You may wonder why I care. So what if the American Dream is silly, so what if it makes no sense, it's just a cliche. But, it isn't. It's a way to view the world that many people have and if you view the world in that way then you will oppose welfare, because we're just subsidizing laziness. But, if we agree that the American Dream is flawed and Failure does not equal Laziness, then it is impossible to say that welfare is equivalent to subsidizing laziness.
---George Orwell
If you listen to anyone on the right side of the aisle you know two things 1) You should be afraid of European Socialism and 2) If you just work hard you will be rich and successful. That second point is the basic foundation of the so called "American Dream' and the basis for the Anti-Welfare Argument. Hard Work equals Success thus Failure equals Laziness. Read that sentence again. Now, does that make any sense?
I found a Howard Zinn quote that sums up my point here, if I may,
---Why should we accept that the "talent" of someone who writes jingles for an advertising agency advertising dog food and gets $100,000 a year is superior to the talent of an auto mechanic who makes $40,000 a year? Who is to say that Bill Gates works harder than the dishwasher in the restaurant he frequents, or that the CEO of a hospital who makes $400,000 a year works harder than the nurse or the orderly in that hospital who makes $30,000 a year? The president of Boston University makes $300,000 a year. Does he work harder than the man who cleans the offices of the university? Talent and hard work are qualitative factors which cannot be measured quantitatively. ---
Right now the richest person in the world, according to Forbes Magazine, is Carlos Slim. Now Mr. Slim was not born into wealth and, in his own way, worked his way up from the bottom. But, and this is key, he is an investor, meaning he makes money by giving people money. To suggest that giving people money is harder than, say, building a road, saving someone's life, or fighting in the military is a little ludicrous. Now, just to be clear, I am not saying that Mr. Slim has done anything wrong, he made his money in a perfectly legitimate way. He has also been generous with his money(he has donated four billion, yes billion, dollars to his charitable foundation however this is the core of my problem.
If a child complains that something is not fair what is the first response that pops into our heads? "Life Isn't Fair" and that's correct, but creates a problem with the so-called American Dream. The assumption that Hard Work=Success and Laziness=Failure is that the playing field is level which it just simply is not.
You may wonder why I care. So what if the American Dream is silly, so what if it makes no sense, it's just a cliche. But, it isn't. It's a way to view the world that many people have and if you view the world in that way then you will oppose welfare, because we're just subsidizing laziness. But, if we agree that the American Dream is flawed and Failure does not equal Laziness, then it is impossible to say that welfare is equivalent to subsidizing laziness.
Saturday, May 28, 2011
Why I Want Sarah Palin To Become President
Recently I have begun to reimmerse myself in the 'Punk Underground'. I have discovered bands that are very, very outside the mainstream(Propaghandi, for example, who have songs called The Only Good Fascist Is A Very Dead Fascist and So Apparently I'm A Pc Fascist(Because I Believe In The Rights Of Humans And Non-Humans). One of the bands I've discovered is called NOFX(No-Ef-X) and they have a song called Franco Unamerican which is a perfectly straight forward Bush era protest song with some very hard hitting lyrics(I'm tired of all this embarrassment/the whole world wants us to get a better president). I realized something as I was listening to the song for the six or seventh time that changed my life: Hating Politicians can create great music. Really great music.
Now let's flash ahead a few days after I first heard the song.....I'm at the beach in a rented condo watching MSNBC. The hosts are attacking the Republicans and having a jolly old time which just confirms what I've know all along: It is far more fun to be in the opposition then to be in power. When you're in power people hate you because you're not doing 100% of what you want. When you're in opposition you have no responsibilities really.
So when you have a president who is incompetent and makes terrible decisions you get 1) Awesome Protest Music and 2) The Ability To Protest The Heck Out Of Everything. With that in mind....I ENDORSE SARAH PALIN!!
Frm. Gov. Palin will never be able to handle the stresses of the job and is so thin skinned that she will probably declare war on Britain because they bowed to the Queen instead of her. The liberals will be able to rise up in opposition and the punks will be able to get as angry as they want, it'll be wonderful.
Editors Note:
The Write of this article is using a form of humor known as sarcasm to advance his point, that Former Governor Sarah Palin is not fit for the job of president. He is also using this form of humor to attempt to get you to laugh, which makes him feel loved and wanted. Opinionated Media does not endorse or recommend the use of sarcasm to advance points and they certainly do not endorse or support Gov. Palin becoming president.
Now let's flash ahead a few days after I first heard the song.....I'm at the beach in a rented condo watching MSNBC. The hosts are attacking the Republicans and having a jolly old time which just confirms what I've know all along: It is far more fun to be in the opposition then to be in power. When you're in power people hate you because you're not doing 100% of what you want. When you're in opposition you have no responsibilities really.
So when you have a president who is incompetent and makes terrible decisions you get 1) Awesome Protest Music and 2) The Ability To Protest The Heck Out Of Everything. With that in mind....I ENDORSE SARAH PALIN!!
Frm. Gov. Palin will never be able to handle the stresses of the job and is so thin skinned that she will probably declare war on Britain because they bowed to the Queen instead of her. The liberals will be able to rise up in opposition and the punks will be able to get as angry as they want, it'll be wonderful.
Editors Note:
The Write of this article is using a form of humor known as sarcasm to advance his point, that Former Governor Sarah Palin is not fit for the job of president. He is also using this form of humor to attempt to get you to laugh, which makes him feel loved and wanted. Opinionated Media does not endorse or recommend the use of sarcasm to advance points and they certainly do not endorse or support Gov. Palin becoming president.
Second Anniversary
Hello all
I just realized that I totally missed our second anniversary, I do apologize. A lot has changed since I started this blog, first and foremost among the things that have changed is me. I am, of course, older and now write in a different sort of way, about different things. So, with that in mind, I am making some changes to this blog.
The most obvious change will be the name of the blog. I have begun to find 'The Liberal Rocker' to be both immature and, quite frankly, a little obnoxious. Thank you for putting up with me, I have no idea how you managed it. It is now going to be changed to Opinionated Media(which is also the name of my production company).
The second most obvious change is that I'm going to start writing more often about different topics. In the next few days, for example, I'm going to be writing an article titled Why I Want Sarah Palin To Become President, an article about a staging concept for the musical Evita, and possibly some music or television related pieces. So I will still be political and I will never pull a political punch but it will become less of the focus.
Also, hopefully, my writing will improve. I am going to attempt to write in a more mature, adult, intellectual way. But do not fear, I still believe in humor as a weapon so you will still see humorous asides in parentheses.
Thank you for sticking with me for all these years and thank you for, hopefully, sticking with me going forward.
Yours,
Rock4ever
All Over But The Shouting, Just A Waste Of Time
---The Replacements, Nevermind
I just realized that I totally missed our second anniversary, I do apologize. A lot has changed since I started this blog, first and foremost among the things that have changed is me. I am, of course, older and now write in a different sort of way, about different things. So, with that in mind, I am making some changes to this blog.
The most obvious change will be the name of the blog. I have begun to find 'The Liberal Rocker' to be both immature and, quite frankly, a little obnoxious. Thank you for putting up with me, I have no idea how you managed it. It is now going to be changed to Opinionated Media(which is also the name of my production company).
The second most obvious change is that I'm going to start writing more often about different topics. In the next few days, for example, I'm going to be writing an article titled Why I Want Sarah Palin To Become President, an article about a staging concept for the musical Evita, and possibly some music or television related pieces. So I will still be political and I will never pull a political punch but it will become less of the focus.
Also, hopefully, my writing will improve. I am going to attempt to write in a more mature, adult, intellectual way. But do not fear, I still believe in humor as a weapon so you will still see humorous asides in parentheses.
Thank you for sticking with me for all these years and thank you for, hopefully, sticking with me going forward.
Yours,
Rock4ever
All Over But The Shouting, Just A Waste Of Time
---The Replacements, Nevermind
Saturday, May 7, 2011
I am so clever that sometimes I don't understand a single word of what I am saying.
"Be yourself; everyone else is already taken."
--Oscar Wilde
So my last post(Wake Up Nerd Culture, You're A Sham) got some interesting comments from Kenny and Elfarmy but I think that either they totally missed the point or I did a terrible job communicating the point(possibly a bit of both). So let me clarify:
The point of the post was not that John Green is a terrible guy. I don't think he is. I think, with that quote he was trying to make "Nerds" feel better, because he's probably a nice guy. However in trying to do that, I believe, he fed into an us vs. them mentality that I think is pointless and silly.
The point of the post wasn't that being part of a group is bad. I don't believe it necessarily is. I think that if you change yourself to be part of that group and refuse to take part in anything outside the group, and identify yourself solely as being part of that group then being in that group is bad.
The point of the post was that I believe that there are a large number of people, several of whom are my friends, who have labelled themselves nerds and they then feel the need to like certain things and feel certain things and be a certain way. And that bothers me.
One might ask, oh how do you know that they are changing themselves to fit in? Because their tastes fit in perfectly with the majority of nerds, they love the same books, the same music, and the same tv shows. And no one fits in that well with any one group. People are complex and have varied tastes and interests(which incidentally is what John Green's Paper Towns is about).
I do consider the Nerd Movement to be a cult or if you'd rather a religion. And I don't want to sound angry or bitter or anything like that but it does annoy me when I see members of my generation basically lying about themselves so that they can find a group. If the group is demanding that then the group is morally reprehensible but if it's just the individual doing that because of some pyschobabble mumbo jumbo then it is the individual's fault, and they need to understand that they don't need to do that.
When I said that being uncool is the new cool what I meant to do was say that when nerds are all "We're uncool, but we're find with it, we read and write and that makes us so strange and outside the mainstream. We're freakin' underground. Heck yeah!" they're wrong because they're basically becoming mainstream. And people are jumping on the bandwagon of not jumping on the bandwagon. I think that the nerdfighteria(or whatever it is) has either caused this or fed it a lot.
As the quote at the top of the post says just be yourself. Being anyone else is just sort of pointless and you'll look back and wonder why you did that. Come out of the nerd closet, come out as an individual.
--Oscar Wilde
So my last post(Wake Up Nerd Culture, You're A Sham) got some interesting comments from Kenny and Elfarmy but I think that either they totally missed the point or I did a terrible job communicating the point(possibly a bit of both). So let me clarify:
The point of the post was not that John Green is a terrible guy. I don't think he is. I think, with that quote he was trying to make "Nerds" feel better, because he's probably a nice guy. However in trying to do that, I believe, he fed into an us vs. them mentality that I think is pointless and silly.
The point of the post wasn't that being part of a group is bad. I don't believe it necessarily is. I think that if you change yourself to be part of that group and refuse to take part in anything outside the group, and identify yourself solely as being part of that group then being in that group is bad.
The point of the post was that I believe that there are a large number of people, several of whom are my friends, who have labelled themselves nerds and they then feel the need to like certain things and feel certain things and be a certain way. And that bothers me.
One might ask, oh how do you know that they are changing themselves to fit in? Because their tastes fit in perfectly with the majority of nerds, they love the same books, the same music, and the same tv shows. And no one fits in that well with any one group. People are complex and have varied tastes and interests(which incidentally is what John Green's Paper Towns is about).
I do consider the Nerd Movement to be a cult or if you'd rather a religion. And I don't want to sound angry or bitter or anything like that but it does annoy me when I see members of my generation basically lying about themselves so that they can find a group. If the group is demanding that then the group is morally reprehensible but if it's just the individual doing that because of some pyschobabble mumbo jumbo then it is the individual's fault, and they need to understand that they don't need to do that.
When I said that being uncool is the new cool what I meant to do was say that when nerds are all "We're uncool, but we're find with it, we read and write and that makes us so strange and outside the mainstream. We're freakin' underground. Heck yeah!" they're wrong because they're basically becoming mainstream. And people are jumping on the bandwagon of not jumping on the bandwagon. I think that the nerdfighteria(or whatever it is) has either caused this or fed it a lot.
As the quote at the top of the post says just be yourself. Being anyone else is just sort of pointless and you'll look back and wonder why you did that. Come out of the nerd closet, come out as an individual.
Wake Up Nerd Culture, You're A Sham
(one quick note, this is in no way a response to Elfarmy's recent post, as I've been planning on writing this for days)
"I think when people talk about nerdiness what they're really talking about are smart people who are trying to think hard about the world. And I don't think that's an insult, I think that's a great thing."
---John Green
I have spoken very often to friends of mine(and nowhere near enough on this blog) about what I like to call "country club mentality". Country Club Mentality, as I define it, is when you decide that whatever religion or country or state or church or group you happen to be part of is the best because it's the best and only people who are part of whatever it is you are part of are great people. "God Bless The USA" "Only Christians Go To Heaven" "When people talk about nerdiness what they're really talking about are smart people who are trying to think hard about the world" Ectera Ectera
I have....problems with this mindset and, in fact, I view it as the cause of a great many of our society's problems. John Lydon(or Johnny Rotten as he used to be called) once said that "National Pride Leads To War And Hate, Nothing Else, Planet Earth All The Way"(you'll be seeing that quote again) and while I don't 100% agree with that I certainly agree with it to a point.
And now we come to the "Nerd Movement" and where I start alienating a great many of my readers. It has become cool to be uncool. People are changing who they are so as to appear that they refuse to change who they are. Not Fitting in has become the new fitting in. And I have had enough of it.
A large number of people of my generation have decided that they are nerds and, because they are nerds, they must like certain things. All these so called nerds love John Green, Youtube Based Musicians, and Joss Whedon. They all do, all of them. When every member of a group loves the same things you don't have a group of people who are outcasts you have a fraternity.
That John Green quote is one of the finest examples of CCM(Country Club Mindset) that I have ever read. All nerds like to think intelligently about the world and that's the defining characteristic of the group? Really? To me that is not only ludicrous but offensive. Jocks can be just as smart and think just as hard about the world as nerds. Geeks, Punk Rockers, Emos, they can all be smart and think about the world. And someone who has as much sway with as many people as John Green has should know better than to play into age old stereotypes. He should have known better.
In the day of yore everyone agreed that Kings and Queens had the right to rule because God gave them the right to rule. They ruled because they were supposed to rule. We use almost the exact same logic today. Nerds are the best, because they're the smartest. Why are they the smartest? Because they're nerds. Logicians call that a circular argument and is a logical fallacy. But that is the thought process that CCM is based on. We're the best because we're the freaking best. USA USA, Won't you be a nerdfighter like me?
I am a firm believer in being diverse. Just because I listen to Punk Rock doesn't mean that I can't listen to showtunes. I like punk and I like showtunes and if you have a problem with that, that's your problem. Just because I watch the occasionally reality show doesn't mean I can't enjoy Doctor Who or Parks and Recreation or The West Wing. Just because I love Inception doesn't mean I can't love Frost/Nixon or True Grit. I am a firm believer in being a cultural omnivore(a term taken from one Linda Holmes on NPRs Monkey See.) When you devote yourself entirely to one thing or one style or one genre you miss out on all this awesome stuff in different styles and genres. That's why the argument "Oh Reading is so awesome, way better than watching that stupid television" strikes me as being very uniformed. Books are a medium and television is a medium, to say that one is better than the other just because some things created in the other are garbage is silly. Have there been mind-numbingly stupid tv shows? Yes, but have you read some of the YA books being published today?
Every medium, every group, ever organization has merits and disadvantages, which is why being exclusively in one group or organization or medium is never a good idea. Openness creates diversity and diversity is where greatness comes from.
I don't see the point in being in a group in which EVERYONE thinks the same things. Walk up to almost any nerdfighter and ask them their opinion of "Once More With Feeling" and they will, almost to a man, rave about it till the cows come home. Where are the nay sayers? Where is the independent thought? It, to me, is the same as when Christians identify themselves first and foremost as Christians. They listen to Christian music, watch Kirk Cameron Movies, and read inspirational books they are closing themselves off to the world and Nerds are doing the exact same thing. And it makes me mad.
"I think when people talk about nerdiness what they're really talking about are smart people who are trying to think hard about the world. And I don't think that's an insult, I think that's a great thing."
---John Green
I have spoken very often to friends of mine(and nowhere near enough on this blog) about what I like to call "country club mentality". Country Club Mentality, as I define it, is when you decide that whatever religion or country or state or church or group you happen to be part of is the best because it's the best and only people who are part of whatever it is you are part of are great people. "God Bless The USA" "Only Christians Go To Heaven" "When people talk about nerdiness what they're really talking about are smart people who are trying to think hard about the world" Ectera Ectera
I have....problems with this mindset and, in fact, I view it as the cause of a great many of our society's problems. John Lydon(or Johnny Rotten as he used to be called) once said that "National Pride Leads To War And Hate, Nothing Else, Planet Earth All The Way"(you'll be seeing that quote again) and while I don't 100% agree with that I certainly agree with it to a point.
And now we come to the "Nerd Movement" and where I start alienating a great many of my readers. It has become cool to be uncool. People are changing who they are so as to appear that they refuse to change who they are. Not Fitting in has become the new fitting in. And I have had enough of it.
A large number of people of my generation have decided that they are nerds and, because they are nerds, they must like certain things. All these so called nerds love John Green, Youtube Based Musicians, and Joss Whedon. They all do, all of them. When every member of a group loves the same things you don't have a group of people who are outcasts you have a fraternity.
That John Green quote is one of the finest examples of CCM(Country Club Mindset) that I have ever read. All nerds like to think intelligently about the world and that's the defining characteristic of the group? Really? To me that is not only ludicrous but offensive. Jocks can be just as smart and think just as hard about the world as nerds. Geeks, Punk Rockers, Emos, they can all be smart and think about the world. And someone who has as much sway with as many people as John Green has should know better than to play into age old stereotypes. He should have known better.
In the day of yore everyone agreed that Kings and Queens had the right to rule because God gave them the right to rule. They ruled because they were supposed to rule. We use almost the exact same logic today. Nerds are the best, because they're the smartest. Why are they the smartest? Because they're nerds. Logicians call that a circular argument and is a logical fallacy. But that is the thought process that CCM is based on. We're the best because we're the freaking best. USA USA, Won't you be a nerdfighter like me?
I am a firm believer in being diverse. Just because I listen to Punk Rock doesn't mean that I can't listen to showtunes. I like punk and I like showtunes and if you have a problem with that, that's your problem. Just because I watch the occasionally reality show doesn't mean I can't enjoy Doctor Who or Parks and Recreation or The West Wing. Just because I love Inception doesn't mean I can't love Frost/Nixon or True Grit. I am a firm believer in being a cultural omnivore(a term taken from one Linda Holmes on NPRs Monkey See.) When you devote yourself entirely to one thing or one style or one genre you miss out on all this awesome stuff in different styles and genres. That's why the argument "Oh Reading is so awesome, way better than watching that stupid television" strikes me as being very uniformed. Books are a medium and television is a medium, to say that one is better than the other just because some things created in the other are garbage is silly. Have there been mind-numbingly stupid tv shows? Yes, but have you read some of the YA books being published today?
Every medium, every group, ever organization has merits and disadvantages, which is why being exclusively in one group or organization or medium is never a good idea. Openness creates diversity and diversity is where greatness comes from.
I don't see the point in being in a group in which EVERYONE thinks the same things. Walk up to almost any nerdfighter and ask them their opinion of "Once More With Feeling" and they will, almost to a man, rave about it till the cows come home. Where are the nay sayers? Where is the independent thought? It, to me, is the same as when Christians identify themselves first and foremost as Christians. They listen to Christian music, watch Kirk Cameron Movies, and read inspirational books they are closing themselves off to the world and Nerds are doing the exact same thing. And it makes me mad.
Sunday, April 17, 2011
In which I make all my nerd readers very mad
So in nerd culture there are certain people who are considered to be Geek Gods and beyond reproach. These include JK Rowling, John Green, and Joss Whedon. Mr. Whedon is a director and screenwriter who has created such tv shows as Firefly, Dollhouse, and Buffy The Vampire Slayer. And I have a bit of a problem with him, or at least the perception of him as being flawless and a genius.
Let me be clear, before I go on, that I do consider myself a Whedon fan. I do enjoy most of everything he's ever done. However, I find some problems with his work. I shall focus on primarily Buffy the Vampire Slayer, it being his longest running and best known work.
Buffy suffers from a key flaw: It is totally Monster of The Week. By that I mean, every episode has the main character facing up against a monster and that's what the episode is based around. I cannot recall an episode in which there is no monster. To me it gets a little monotonous. What I care about, why I watch the show, is the characters and their relationships. But often the relationships take a back seat to the giant(and often awesome) fight scenes. Which leads me into another problem I have: the fight scenes.
Now I love me a good fight scene, don't get me wrong, but here's the thing about Buffy....The title character is a vampire slayer. Crazy I know, but part of her slaying awesomeness is that she can ram a stick through a vampire's chest and kill it. So, the natural thing to do when you see a vampire and you can do that is to take out the stake right off and take that vamp down. But instead, every single time, she beats the dude up and then stakes him. This seems unnecessarily time consuming and strenuous and takes me out of the show.
One other problem I have, and this goes most to Whedon then any of the others, is some of the plot solutions are just flat out silly. For example: In the first three seasons Buffy has a vampire love interest named Angel(keep in mind that this is eight years before Twilight) and in the end of Season 3 he leaves to star in a spinoff series. Whedon(I assume him, being the showrunner) decided to bring in another vampire, the awesomely fantastic Spike. A great decision, one that made the show way better. But the way it was done was so.......I don't know, Bad. It was just bad. Spike had appeared before in the series as a villain but they wanted to make a semi-hero and thus needed a reason for him to stop randomly killing people. So, in the episode where he comes back, a secret government organization plants a chip in his brain that makes it impossible for him to hurt people. That is just simply lazy writing and, again, pulled me out of the show.
So that is my rant for the day.
Let me be clear, before I go on, that I do consider myself a Whedon fan. I do enjoy most of everything he's ever done. However, I find some problems with his work. I shall focus on primarily Buffy the Vampire Slayer, it being his longest running and best known work.
Buffy suffers from a key flaw: It is totally Monster of The Week. By that I mean, every episode has the main character facing up against a monster and that's what the episode is based around. I cannot recall an episode in which there is no monster. To me it gets a little monotonous. What I care about, why I watch the show, is the characters and their relationships. But often the relationships take a back seat to the giant(and often awesome) fight scenes. Which leads me into another problem I have: the fight scenes.
Now I love me a good fight scene, don't get me wrong, but here's the thing about Buffy....The title character is a vampire slayer. Crazy I know, but part of her slaying awesomeness is that she can ram a stick through a vampire's chest and kill it. So, the natural thing to do when you see a vampire and you can do that is to take out the stake right off and take that vamp down. But instead, every single time, she beats the dude up and then stakes him. This seems unnecessarily time consuming and strenuous and takes me out of the show.
One other problem I have, and this goes most to Whedon then any of the others, is some of the plot solutions are just flat out silly. For example: In the first three seasons Buffy has a vampire love interest named Angel(keep in mind that this is eight years before Twilight) and in the end of Season 3 he leaves to star in a spinoff series. Whedon(I assume him, being the showrunner) decided to bring in another vampire, the awesomely fantastic Spike. A great decision, one that made the show way better. But the way it was done was so.......I don't know, Bad. It was just bad. Spike had appeared before in the series as a villain but they wanted to make a semi-hero and thus needed a reason for him to stop randomly killing people. So, in the episode where he comes back, a secret government organization plants a chip in his brain that makes it impossible for him to hurt people. That is just simply lazy writing and, again, pulled me out of the show.
So that is my rant for the day.
Saturday, April 16, 2011
#In British Costume Dramas
So last week the fantastic book/comic reviewer Glenn Weldon posted a series of tweets that took off in a big way. They were called #During The Government Shutdown and they were all something like this:
The Tea Party seizes the Botanical Gardens; in the blood-soaked soil, worms grow fat as baby gherkins. #duringthegovernmentshutdown
clever funny stuff but I shall not be outdone, even by some as awesome as Glenn Weldon. So, in honour of the reboot of Upstairs Downstairs I have created #inbritishcostumedramas
Old Ladies take no nonsense, never marry, and spout witty and condescending lines #inbritishcostumedramas
Spunky, short, young, cute orphans become maids #inbritishcostumedramas
The Lord's driver and the Lady's younger sister bond over a shared belief if fascism #inbritishcostumedramas
Men rip off their shirts, get drunk on the remnants of cocktails, and then punch random dudes in the stomach #inbritishcostumedramas
People have far, far too much money #inbritishcostumedramas
Houses seem to be almost TARDIS like #inbritishcostumedramas
Servants in love kiss on their breaks and stare through the cracks under the bathroom door and speak softly to show their passion #inbritishcostumedramas
Rich people in love spend far too much time thinking and never actually act because they are too caught up in the conventions of the time #inbritishcostumedramas
Random Jewish Imigrants go to anti-Nazi protests and then have heart attacks #inbritishcostumedramas
Random Indian guys are AWESOME in every way #inbritishcostumedramas
We have lots of scenes with clinking silverwear #inbritishcostumedramas
People are always very concerned about politics #inbritishcostumedramas
The Tea Party seizes the Botanical Gardens; in the blood-soaked soil, worms grow fat as baby gherkins. #duringthegovernmentshutdown
clever funny stuff but I shall not be outdone, even by some as awesome as Glenn Weldon. So, in honour of the reboot of Upstairs Downstairs I have created #inbritishcostumedramas
Old Ladies take no nonsense, never marry, and spout witty and condescending lines #inbritishcostumedramas
Spunky, short, young, cute orphans become maids #inbritishcostumedramas
The Lord's driver and the Lady's younger sister bond over a shared belief if fascism #inbritishcostumedramas
Men rip off their shirts, get drunk on the remnants of cocktails, and then punch random dudes in the stomach #inbritishcostumedramas
People have far, far too much money #inbritishcostumedramas
Houses seem to be almost TARDIS like #inbritishcostumedramas
Servants in love kiss on their breaks and stare through the cracks under the bathroom door and speak softly to show their passion #inbritishcostumedramas
Rich people in love spend far too much time thinking and never actually act because they are too caught up in the conventions of the time #inbritishcostumedramas
Random Jewish Imigrants go to anti-Nazi protests and then have heart attacks #inbritishcostumedramas
Random Indian guys are AWESOME in every way #inbritishcostumedramas
We have lots of scenes with clinking silverwear #inbritishcostumedramas
People are always very concerned about politics #inbritishcostumedramas
Monday, April 11, 2011
Book Review: Boyfriends With Girlfriends by Alex Sanchez
Boyfriends with Girlfriends is Alex Sanchez's latest entry into the Genre of LGBT teen fiction. It is about a guy(who is gay) and his friend who is a girl(who is Bi) meeting up with another guy(who is bi) and his friend who is a girl(who is gay) and their romantic struggles.
If you love David Levithan but wish he was Less Poetic, More Preachy, Less Romantic, More Sex-Obsessed, More Obnoxious, and Less Original then Boyfriends With Girlfriends is the book for you. I'm not sure I can explain to you the extent to which I do not like this book but I think I might be able to show you.
I stopped reading about a fourth of the way into the book after a scene in which one of the main characters sleeps with another boy, because he can. That's the only reason, he wants to see what it'd be like. I'm not even sure that the other guy was gay, it was weird. Their being in 7th grade makes it even weirder, more uncomfortable, and mo
re gratuitous. Call me sheltered and naive but I don't think that many or really any 7th graders serf adult websites and sleep with each other in the middle of school.
Essentially, all of the book that I read can be summed up by saying "Bisexuality is real" that is the whole point. The author keeps pounding the point and pounding the point and it gets really annoying after a while.
There is this one part where the girl(the one who's bi) is talking about how she thinks she's straight but she has crushes on girls all the time, had a romantic dream about a girl, and whatever. But she still thinks she's straight. But then she meets this girl(the one who's gay) and she's never felt this way before and things with her boyfriend start breaking down and IT"S LOVE AND IT"S BI, WHICH, BY THE WAY, IS REAL AND GREAT AND FINE AND WONDERFUL, IT"S LOVE GOSH DARN IT!!!!!
There is also the problem of the narration, which says Exactly and Explicitly what each character is thinking and feeling, there is no nuance. I am not a huge fan of flowery writing but I do enjoy a clever turn of phrase or a poetic observation, this book is bare bones, bare bare bones. "Character X sees Character Y walking towards him, "He's really cute, especially his ears and his nose" thinks Character X." is about the level of this writing. Levithan is a master of the phrasing. His books make you feel things very deeply and he can just come out with observations in his writing that just describe your whole life in ten words. Sanchez either does not or can not do that and the book suffers because of it.
When one is writing a romantic novel one must appeal to the romanticism and sentiment inside the reader, Sanchez simply doesn't do that. I could never really care about his two male heroes because they were 1) Total Clichés and 2) Obnoxiously written. Their dialogue physically hurts me and I don't like them really at all.
If you are looking for a book about Bisexuality(Which is Real and Great and Fine and Romantic and Did I mention it's Real?) and Homosexuality I would recommend Boy Meets Boy by Levithan(who I seem to keep talking about) which is everything this book is not:charming, romantic, moving, and well written.
1/4 Stars
If you love David Levithan but wish he was Less Poetic, More Preachy, Less Romantic, More Sex-Obsessed, More Obnoxious, and Less Original then Boyfriends With Girlfriends is the book for you. I'm not sure I can explain to you the extent to which I do not like this book but I think I might be able to show you.
I stopped reading about a fourth of the way into the book after a scene in which one of the main characters sleeps with another boy, because he can. That's the only reason, he wants to see what it'd be like. I'm not even sure that the other guy was gay, it was weird. Their being in 7th grade makes it even weirder, more uncomfortable, and mo
re gratuitous. Call me sheltered and naive but I don't think that many or really any 7th graders serf adult websites and sleep with each other in the middle of school.
Essentially, all of the book that I read can be summed up by saying "Bisexuality is real" that is the whole point. The author keeps pounding the point and pounding the point and it gets really annoying after a while.
There is this one part where the girl(the one who's bi) is talking about how she thinks she's straight but she has crushes on girls all the time, had a romantic dream about a girl, and whatever. But she still thinks she's straight. But then she meets this girl(the one who's gay) and she's never felt this way before and things with her boyfriend start breaking down and IT"S LOVE AND IT"S BI, WHICH, BY THE WAY, IS REAL AND GREAT AND FINE AND WONDERFUL, IT"S LOVE GOSH DARN IT!!!!!
There is also the problem of the narration, which says Exactly and Explicitly what each character is thinking and feeling, there is no nuance. I am not a huge fan of flowery writing but I do enjoy a clever turn of phrase or a poetic observation, this book is bare bones, bare bare bones. "Character X sees Character Y walking towards him, "He's really cute, especially his ears and his nose" thinks Character X." is about the level of this writing. Levithan is a master of the phrasing. His books make you feel things very deeply and he can just come out with observations in his writing that just describe your whole life in ten words. Sanchez either does not or can not do that and the book suffers because of it.
When one is writing a romantic novel one must appeal to the romanticism and sentiment inside the reader, Sanchez simply doesn't do that. I could never really care about his two male heroes because they were 1) Total Clichés and 2) Obnoxiously written. Their dialogue physically hurts me and I don't like them really at all.
If you are looking for a book about Bisexuality(Which is Real and Great and Fine and Romantic and Did I mention it's Real?) and Homosexuality I would recommend Boy Meets Boy by Levithan(who I seem to keep talking about) which is everything this book is not:charming, romantic, moving, and well written.
1/4 Stars
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
In which I am very, very, very Geeky
So one of my all time favorite pieces of entertainment, Doctor Who, starts in a few weeks and numerous rumors and teasers have been circulating/released by the writers. So I decided to talk a bit about my thoughts on these teasers and the new trailer.
Spoilers ahead.
At the end of the last season the TARDIS(Time and Relative Dimension in Space, do keep up) was hijacked and blown up by a person with mysterious(and creepy as heck) voice who said "Silence Will Fall" Steven Moffat(the head writer, obviously, how could you ever think any different?) made the clever decision to not just end it there. He continued it on to the next season(the one which starts in a few weeks). All of us Whovians have been speculating for almost a year as to who the voice is.
Another question is, of course, who is River Song(I can't tell you who she is, because no one knows who she is! Geez!) Is she the Doctor's wife?(lame) Is she the Doctor's mother?(less lame but really, really creepy) Is she Amy Pond in another form(lesser lame) Is she the TARDIS(really really odd) Now the cast and writers, in a Q&A yesterday, basically said that the first three are untrue(I assume, they made fun of them and basically said that they were crazy. But who knows? We are in the middle of a massive BBC conspiracy. Trust No One).
Then, last week, it came out that the Neil Gaiman penned episode will be titled The Doctor's Wife. And its description is that a woman(who is not River Song, this has been confirmed) knocks on the TARDIS door. She has a new face but is not new to the Doctor at all. So this raises anticipation for the series to begin even higher.
And then, and then. A few days ago Moffat announced that in the first episode one of the leads will die. He said, "We're not lying, we're not cheating: one of those four people is going to die! When I came up with this heart-wrenching twist, I thought 'We'll kill off one of the leads in the season opener.' It lures you in."
Now we have been promised a death before(CURSE YOU RTD!!!) and were cheated(CURSE YOU RTD!!!) but I trust Moffat more than numerous family members and friends right now so I believe him.
But this raises an issue. In the trailer for the new series we see three of the leads(Amy, The Doctor, and Rory) in other episodes. So this leaves River Song but we've already seen how she dies(Timey Whimey stuff) and it's in a library.
I will now, because I am a nerd with too much time on my hands, dissect the trailer for the new series, second for second.
1: Doctor in Chains, with a beard. A female voice says "this is the doctor's..." The Doctor's what?! Tell me!!!
2. "Darkest Hour" Ohhhh Okay, that makes sense.
3. Shipyard in the future. The Doctor's standing next to a women, who isn't Amy or River song. Could this be his wife? the voice continues "He will rise higher..." Is the Doctor a drug addict? that would be an interesting twist.
4. "Than ever before and then fall" So he's climbing a ladder, okay Mr. Moffat where are you going with this?
5. Someone in the dark, in a cloak leading a horse drawn carriage while a gaslamp flickers. I HAVE IT!! Oh this is so awesome! Neil Gaiman's episode....is the long awaited sequel to his masterpiece Neverwhere! Oh My God It'll be so epic, so, so epic. Seriously, Matt Smith beating up angels? Best. Thing Ever! "So Far" The voice says, so it's a high ladder.
6. weird creepy eye. Very creepy eye. It looks pained. Why are you so sad, eye?
7. Weird Creepy Paper Mache doll thing. I don't like this thing, it scares me. Make it go away.
8. Astronaut raising his hand to reach out to us. Where are you going Astronaut man? Don't leave us!
9. "This is the day he finds out" the voice continues "who I am" we see river song kissing the doctor, full on the mouth. This might be why Moffat made fun of the Mother theory. The voice is revealed to be River Song.
10. The doctor is coming into focus and saying gibberish.
11. Still gibberish. It sounds like "Hey, bye, bye, gum" Where is the Gum going Doctor? Where is it going?!!
12. Space thingy.
13. TARDIS flies out of the space thingy, what an intriguing twist, well played sir, well played.
14. Doctor opens TARDIS doors dramatically. Matt Smith is seriously awesome, anyway...
15. "Okay" says Amy. What's okay, why wouldn't things be okay, WHAT IS GOING ON?!!!
16. Amy comes into focus, looking worried, "Where are we" she asks, trying to stay calm.
17. Doctor looks, astonished at the TARDIS console. Where are we Doctor, Where have you taken us?!!!
18. "Where We've never ever been" The Doctor replies, shocked. Bermuda! We've never been there, and I hear it's nice, Snow Cones on me!!
19. Moon Colony thingy. Looks like Bespin, why does it look like Bespin?
20. A gunshot rings out and the Doctor's cowboy hat flies off. All Right, Partner, This Means War.
21. Creepy people standing. Two of them have weird helmety things and spears. It's Aquaman and his minions!! Run IN FEAR!!!
22. The Doctor is wearing a space helment "look how" He says....What A cliffhanger!!! All those reviewers were right!!
23. "this stuff is" the doctor finishes looking like a happy schoolboy.
24. TARDIS console is blowing up. Doctor and Rory are blown backwards.
25. River Song is dancing...WITH A LASER!! She's in a tank top, spinning around, with a red lasery thing. What the heck is up with that?
26. Big Ship, a real ship, must be from the Pirate Episode(yes there is a Pirate episode, Yay!)
27. Quick shot of people screaming(must be the Silents from the First Episode, Somebody said they resemble with the famous painting The Scream) and then some dude with a beard looking worried. Must be from the Pirate Episode(there's some famous guy with a beard in that episode apparently)
28. Porcelain Dolls on the war path, this might get ugly.
29. Door flies open and we see, with creppy light behind it.....A DOLLHOUSE!!! OH MY HEAVENS IT"S A FREAKING DOLL HOUSE!!! THIS IS SO FREAKING EPIC!!!! OH MY GOD!!!!!!
30. Kid Looking Scared. A deep voice says "Fear Me" Okay mate, I will.
31. Doctor looking disdainful, the deep voice continues "I've killed hundreds of Time Lords" Okay mate, now I really fear you.
32. The Doctor still looks disdainful.
33. "Fear me" The Doctor replies, but....Your' Hair's so funny....
34. "I've Killed All of them" Okay now, I do fear you, despite the hair.
35. Doctor being blown off a ladder....This must be when he falls so far.
36. Blue light being shot at Amy and Rory.
37. Creepy doll thing(there seem to be a lot of those) this one is a ventrilquist's dummy, which are innately scary(no joke, and the monkey wind up things that clap cymbals are like the scariest things ever)
38. (the big one, the whole reason I'm doing this) Rory is in...THE 10TH DOCTOR'S TARDIS!!! Yes it is clearly the TARDIS used by David Tennant. And someone is regenerating. Why is Rory in the 10th Doctor's TARDIS? I have no idea....BUT I WANT TO FIND OUT!!!!
39. An eye being pressed to a whole and The Doctor dressed as a sad clown(which by the way ARE FREAKING TERRIFYING)
40. Pirate guy reaching out to touch a mermaid's bubble
41. Mermaid looks unhappy/cruel. Don't trust her, Pirate Guy!!!
42. Minotaur staring into the camera. I like Minotaurs.
43. Hot sandy place. Probably Utah.
44. Amy running, and she glances back behind her....what is she running from?!
45. We don't see because we cut to The Doctor pretending to be a Jedi with his sonic screwdriver.
46. Child's eye looking through a crack in the door.
47. Amy jumping up, she's swinging something....WHAT IS IT?
48. A gun! The Doctor yells no as Amy screams
49. And fires!!
50. "I've been running" The Doctor says, SPOILER!! There will be running in Doctor Who, shocker I know.
51. "My Whole Life" The Doctor continues.
52. Doctor looks shocked and worried. "Now it's time for me to stop." He finishes. No more running in Doctor Who? How can this be?
So there we are....thoughts?
I'll post later with mine. By later I mean a few days or so.
Spoilers ahead.
At the end of the last season the TARDIS(Time and Relative Dimension in Space, do keep up) was hijacked and blown up by a person with mysterious(and creepy as heck) voice who said "Silence Will Fall" Steven Moffat(the head writer, obviously, how could you ever think any different?) made the clever decision to not just end it there. He continued it on to the next season(the one which starts in a few weeks). All of us Whovians have been speculating for almost a year as to who the voice is.
Another question is, of course, who is River Song(I can't tell you who she is, because no one knows who she is! Geez!) Is she the Doctor's wife?(lame) Is she the Doctor's mother?(less lame but really, really creepy) Is she Amy Pond in another form(lesser lame) Is she the TARDIS(really really odd) Now the cast and writers, in a Q&A yesterday, basically said that the first three are untrue(I assume, they made fun of them and basically said that they were crazy. But who knows? We are in the middle of a massive BBC conspiracy. Trust No One).
Then, last week, it came out that the Neil Gaiman penned episode will be titled The Doctor's Wife. And its description is that a woman(who is not River Song, this has been confirmed) knocks on the TARDIS door. She has a new face but is not new to the Doctor at all. So this raises anticipation for the series to begin even higher.
And then, and then. A few days ago Moffat announced that in the first episode one of the leads will die. He said, "We're not lying, we're not cheating: one of those four people is going to die! When I came up with this heart-wrenching twist, I thought 'We'll kill off one of the leads in the season opener.' It lures you in."
Now we have been promised a death before(CURSE YOU RTD!!!) and were cheated(CURSE YOU RTD!!!) but I trust Moffat more than numerous family members and friends right now so I believe him.
But this raises an issue. In the trailer for the new series we see three of the leads(Amy, The Doctor, and Rory) in other episodes. So this leaves River Song but we've already seen how she dies(Timey Whimey stuff) and it's in a library.
I will now, because I am a nerd with too much time on my hands, dissect the trailer for the new series, second for second.
1: Doctor in Chains, with a beard. A female voice says "this is the doctor's..." The Doctor's what?! Tell me!!!
2. "Darkest Hour" Ohhhh Okay, that makes sense.
3. Shipyard in the future. The Doctor's standing next to a women, who isn't Amy or River song. Could this be his wife? the voice continues "He will rise higher..." Is the Doctor a drug addict? that would be an interesting twist.
4. "Than ever before and then fall" So he's climbing a ladder, okay Mr. Moffat where are you going with this?
5. Someone in the dark, in a cloak leading a horse drawn carriage while a gaslamp flickers. I HAVE IT!! Oh this is so awesome! Neil Gaiman's episode....is the long awaited sequel to his masterpiece Neverwhere! Oh My God It'll be so epic, so, so epic. Seriously, Matt Smith beating up angels? Best. Thing Ever! "So Far" The voice says, so it's a high ladder.
6. weird creepy eye. Very creepy eye. It looks pained. Why are you so sad, eye?
7. Weird Creepy Paper Mache doll thing. I don't like this thing, it scares me. Make it go away.
8. Astronaut raising his hand to reach out to us. Where are you going Astronaut man? Don't leave us!
9. "This is the day he finds out" the voice continues "who I am" we see river song kissing the doctor, full on the mouth. This might be why Moffat made fun of the Mother theory. The voice is revealed to be River Song.
10. The doctor is coming into focus and saying gibberish.
11. Still gibberish. It sounds like "Hey, bye, bye, gum" Where is the Gum going Doctor? Where is it going?!!
12. Space thingy.
13. TARDIS flies out of the space thingy, what an intriguing twist, well played sir, well played.
14. Doctor opens TARDIS doors dramatically. Matt Smith is seriously awesome, anyway...
15. "Okay" says Amy. What's okay, why wouldn't things be okay, WHAT IS GOING ON?!!!
16. Amy comes into focus, looking worried, "Where are we" she asks, trying to stay calm.
17. Doctor looks, astonished at the TARDIS console. Where are we Doctor, Where have you taken us?!!!
18. "Where We've never ever been" The Doctor replies, shocked. Bermuda! We've never been there, and I hear it's nice, Snow Cones on me!!
19. Moon Colony thingy. Looks like Bespin, why does it look like Bespin?
20. A gunshot rings out and the Doctor's cowboy hat flies off. All Right, Partner, This Means War.
21. Creepy people standing. Two of them have weird helmety things and spears. It's Aquaman and his minions!! Run IN FEAR!!!
22. The Doctor is wearing a space helment "look how" He says....What A cliffhanger!!! All those reviewers were right!!
23. "this stuff is" the doctor finishes looking like a happy schoolboy.
24. TARDIS console is blowing up. Doctor and Rory are blown backwards.
25. River Song is dancing...WITH A LASER!! She's in a tank top, spinning around, with a red lasery thing. What the heck is up with that?
26. Big Ship, a real ship, must be from the Pirate Episode(yes there is a Pirate episode, Yay!)
27. Quick shot of people screaming(must be the Silents from the First Episode, Somebody said they resemble with the famous painting The Scream) and then some dude with a beard looking worried. Must be from the Pirate Episode(there's some famous guy with a beard in that episode apparently)
28. Porcelain Dolls on the war path, this might get ugly.
29. Door flies open and we see, with creppy light behind it.....A DOLLHOUSE!!! OH MY HEAVENS IT"S A FREAKING DOLL HOUSE!!! THIS IS SO FREAKING EPIC!!!! OH MY GOD!!!!!!
30. Kid Looking Scared. A deep voice says "Fear Me" Okay mate, I will.
31. Doctor looking disdainful, the deep voice continues "I've killed hundreds of Time Lords" Okay mate, now I really fear you.
32. The Doctor still looks disdainful.
33. "Fear me" The Doctor replies, but....Your' Hair's so funny....
34. "I've Killed All of them" Okay now, I do fear you, despite the hair.
35. Doctor being blown off a ladder....This must be when he falls so far.
36. Blue light being shot at Amy and Rory.
37. Creepy doll thing(there seem to be a lot of those) this one is a ventrilquist's dummy, which are innately scary(no joke, and the monkey wind up things that clap cymbals are like the scariest things ever)
38. (the big one, the whole reason I'm doing this) Rory is in...THE 10TH DOCTOR'S TARDIS!!! Yes it is clearly the TARDIS used by David Tennant. And someone is regenerating. Why is Rory in the 10th Doctor's TARDIS? I have no idea....BUT I WANT TO FIND OUT!!!!
39. An eye being pressed to a whole and The Doctor dressed as a sad clown(which by the way ARE FREAKING TERRIFYING)
40. Pirate guy reaching out to touch a mermaid's bubble
41. Mermaid looks unhappy/cruel. Don't trust her, Pirate Guy!!!
42. Minotaur staring into the camera. I like Minotaurs.
43. Hot sandy place. Probably Utah.
44. Amy running, and she glances back behind her....what is she running from?!
45. We don't see because we cut to The Doctor pretending to be a Jedi with his sonic screwdriver.
46. Child's eye looking through a crack in the door.
47. Amy jumping up, she's swinging something....WHAT IS IT?
48. A gun! The Doctor yells no as Amy screams
49. And fires!!
50. "I've been running" The Doctor says, SPOILER!! There will be running in Doctor Who, shocker I know.
51. "My Whole Life" The Doctor continues.
52. Doctor looks shocked and worried. "Now it's time for me to stop." He finishes. No more running in Doctor Who? How can this be?
So there we are....thoughts?
I'll post later with mine. By later I mean a few days or so.
Saturday, March 26, 2011
The Greatest and The Best: A Tribute to Diana Wynn Jones
A book for children is first of all to enjoy, and after that it can be full of all the other things books can do for children — mostly, I believe, to encourage them to think for themselves.
---Diane Wynn Jones(1934-2011)
An author can become like a close friend or relative. Their prose can be their voice and their characters can be their children. It takes a certain type of author and a certain type of prose to accomplish this. But when it is accomplished it will stick with you for life.
Diana Wynn Jone is one of the greatest writers for children that has ever lived. She has penned fantasy adventures that make the mind race and she has created characters who I love as siblings. Her Crestomanci books are simply and plainly one of the greatest series of stories on the Planet Earth.
She wrote the first book in that series, Charmed Life, in 1977 and it was delightful. She has continued to add books to that series every few(or sometimes every 11) years or so. One might think that a series drawn out over such a length of time cannot continue with a high level of quality. However, the strongest book in the Crestomanci series was released in 2005 and was called Conrad's Fate. I cannot praise that book highly enough and if I have ever been right about anything, read that book.
Another one of Ms. Jones' biggest accomplishments is The Tough Guide To Fantasyland in which she lays out every fantasy cliche that she can think of and dissects it hilariously. If you ever watch, read, or especially write fantasy you must pick up a copy of this book.
When I sat down to write this I was thinking of calling her Princess Diana to reference the Ex-Princess of Wales but Ms. Jones was not a princess she was a queen.
Rest in Peace, Diana Wynne Jones. You shone like a star. The funniest, wisest, writer & the finest friend. I miss you.
---Neil Gaiman
---Diane Wynn Jones(1934-2011)
An author can become like a close friend or relative. Their prose can be their voice and their characters can be their children. It takes a certain type of author and a certain type of prose to accomplish this. But when it is accomplished it will stick with you for life.
Diana Wynn Jone is one of the greatest writers for children that has ever lived. She has penned fantasy adventures that make the mind race and she has created characters who I love as siblings. Her Crestomanci books are simply and plainly one of the greatest series of stories on the Planet Earth.
She wrote the first book in that series, Charmed Life, in 1977 and it was delightful. She has continued to add books to that series every few(or sometimes every 11) years or so. One might think that a series drawn out over such a length of time cannot continue with a high level of quality. However, the strongest book in the Crestomanci series was released in 2005 and was called Conrad's Fate. I cannot praise that book highly enough and if I have ever been right about anything, read that book.
Another one of Ms. Jones' biggest accomplishments is The Tough Guide To Fantasyland in which she lays out every fantasy cliche that she can think of and dissects it hilariously. If you ever watch, read, or especially write fantasy you must pick up a copy of this book.
When I sat down to write this I was thinking of calling her Princess Diana to reference the Ex-Princess of Wales but Ms. Jones was not a princess she was a queen.
Rest in Peace, Diana Wynne Jones. You shone like a star. The funniest, wisest, writer & the finest friend. I miss you.
---Neil Gaiman
Sunday, March 20, 2011
the last enemy to be conquered is pop culture
I would like to share with you a few words about the Fox television show Glee(I promise to be brief). Now this show is very popular among some and rather hated among others. While there are numerous problems with the show(including writing, directing and acting) this show is doing one thing that has never really been done this way before.
On the show there are various romantic relationships that we are supposed to care about. We have the two main characters and various supporting characters(who aren't really supporting but they are less main than the two main characters). Over the past season(we're in the second) things have developed which I would like to discuss briefly(Spoiler warning).
So in the first season they introduce a gay character(Kurt Hummnel played wonderfully by Golden Globe Winner Chris Colfer) and they set him up as having feelings for a straight boy. Thankfully in the second season they have shelved this subplot and introduced a second gay character(Blaine Anderson played by noted Potter fan Darren Criss) for Kurt to have feelings for. But they carefully avoid the trap of having Blaine just be a token love interest. He is a very deep and interesting character(more interesting then any of the straight character by far and away)
There is one scene that symbolizes for me what this show is doing. In their Valentine's episode, Blaine(unaware of Kurt's feelings) asks for his assistance in asking out this boy. And the scene that follow(of the asking out) is played completely, if you will pardon the expression, straight. It wasn't "Oh Look At This Character....HE"S GAY!" it was "Look at this character, look at what he's doing. Take him as a character." It is scenes like that that make me return to Glee.
In this week's episode(spoiler) Kurt and Blaine finally get together and share a kiss. This kiss is just a kiss, like a boy and a girl would share a kiss. It isn't blocked to shock, it's simply a kiss.
Also, recently, another subplot has arisen. Since the beginning of the show it has been established that Brittney(played by Heather Morris) and Santana(Played by Nata Rivera) are the school bad girls. They have slept with tons of guys, blah blah, blah. But what started off as a joke in an episode last year has turned into a serious plotline.
This season Brittney has been trying to have a steady relationship with Artie(Played by Kevin McHale) something she has never done. In the first half of the season we are expected to care about that relationship but recently it has been revealed that Santana and Britney are in a secret homosexual relationship. And just like that the writers shift our sympathies. I no longer want Britney and Artie to work, I want her and Santana to get together openly. How many shows(other than Buffy the Vampire Slayer) suddenly shift our sympathies from a heterosexual to a homosexual relationship?
All this is taking place on a very popular network show(on Fox no less).
Let's take a quick look at Modern Family(another Fox Show). This show is a sitcom about three families and one of them is two gay men and their adopted child. And the show is very popular among Republicans.
On The Good Wife(CBS) one of the members of the supporting cast is openly bisexual.
On The Office(NBC) one of the members of the supporting cast is gay.
On Doctor Who(BBC), one of the most famous children's programs in England, introduced a very flamboyant bisexual character who was so popular he got his own spinoff show, Torchwood(BBC/Starz)
What on television used to be a punchline to a joke(looking at you friends) is becoming mainstream. We have talented writers of Young Adult Fiction writing stories and books with gay main characters(Boy Meets Boy, Will Grayson/Will Grayson, ect). We have bright, funny gay actors becoming leading men(Neil Patrick Harris, Johnathan Groff, Alan Cumming, ect), we have Adam Lambert, an openly gay ex-American idol contestant, who has been invited back on American Idol numerous times after his coming out. We have Lady Gaga, a proud Bisexual and LGBT rights activist, ruling the charts with an iron fist. One of the biggest songs of a few years ago was from an singer named Katy Perry and called "I Kissed A Girl". It isn't just musical theater and folk groups anymore.
Right now, there is a movement to get homosexuality into the mainstream in pop culture. If it becomes mainstream then it's mainstream, the haters will be but a small minority. And the great civil rights battle of the generation will be won.
On the show there are various romantic relationships that we are supposed to care about. We have the two main characters and various supporting characters(who aren't really supporting but they are less main than the two main characters). Over the past season(we're in the second) things have developed which I would like to discuss briefly(Spoiler warning).
So in the first season they introduce a gay character(Kurt Hummnel played wonderfully by Golden Globe Winner Chris Colfer) and they set him up as having feelings for a straight boy. Thankfully in the second season they have shelved this subplot and introduced a second gay character(Blaine Anderson played by noted Potter fan Darren Criss) for Kurt to have feelings for. But they carefully avoid the trap of having Blaine just be a token love interest. He is a very deep and interesting character(more interesting then any of the straight character by far and away)
There is one scene that symbolizes for me what this show is doing. In their Valentine's episode, Blaine(unaware of Kurt's feelings) asks for his assistance in asking out this boy. And the scene that follow(of the asking out) is played completely, if you will pardon the expression, straight. It wasn't "Oh Look At This Character....HE"S GAY!" it was "Look at this character, look at what he's doing. Take him as a character." It is scenes like that that make me return to Glee.
In this week's episode(spoiler) Kurt and Blaine finally get together and share a kiss. This kiss is just a kiss, like a boy and a girl would share a kiss. It isn't blocked to shock, it's simply a kiss.
Also, recently, another subplot has arisen. Since the beginning of the show it has been established that Brittney(played by Heather Morris) and Santana(Played by Nata Rivera) are the school bad girls. They have slept with tons of guys, blah blah, blah. But what started off as a joke in an episode last year has turned into a serious plotline.
This season Brittney has been trying to have a steady relationship with Artie(Played by Kevin McHale) something she has never done. In the first half of the season we are expected to care about that relationship but recently it has been revealed that Santana and Britney are in a secret homosexual relationship. And just like that the writers shift our sympathies. I no longer want Britney and Artie to work, I want her and Santana to get together openly. How many shows(other than Buffy the Vampire Slayer) suddenly shift our sympathies from a heterosexual to a homosexual relationship?
All this is taking place on a very popular network show(on Fox no less).
Let's take a quick look at Modern Family(another Fox Show). This show is a sitcom about three families and one of them is two gay men and their adopted child. And the show is very popular among Republicans.
On The Good Wife(CBS) one of the members of the supporting cast is openly bisexual.
On The Office(NBC) one of the members of the supporting cast is gay.
On Doctor Who(BBC), one of the most famous children's programs in England, introduced a very flamboyant bisexual character who was so popular he got his own spinoff show, Torchwood(BBC/Starz)
What on television used to be a punchline to a joke(looking at you friends) is becoming mainstream. We have talented writers of Young Adult Fiction writing stories and books with gay main characters(Boy Meets Boy, Will Grayson/Will Grayson, ect). We have bright, funny gay actors becoming leading men(Neil Patrick Harris, Johnathan Groff, Alan Cumming, ect), we have Adam Lambert, an openly gay ex-American idol contestant, who has been invited back on American Idol numerous times after his coming out. We have Lady Gaga, a proud Bisexual and LGBT rights activist, ruling the charts with an iron fist. One of the biggest songs of a few years ago was from an singer named Katy Perry and called "I Kissed A Girl". It isn't just musical theater and folk groups anymore.
Right now, there is a movement to get homosexuality into the mainstream in pop culture. If it becomes mainstream then it's mainstream, the haters will be but a small minority. And the great civil rights battle of the generation will be won.
Thursday, February 10, 2011
In Defense of Sharks
I participated in a experiment tonight. A woman with her doctorate in psychology and three college students came to a meeting of middle school and high schoolers and talked to us about leadership skills and conflicts/conflict resolution. And they said that there are five styles/personality types when it comes to leadership/conflict resolution(boy, I do love the / tonight). They are:
The Accommodating Teddy Bear
The Compromising Fox
The Collaborating Owl
The Competing Shark
and The Avoiding Turtle.
They displayed up on a screen various characteristics of each type and I immediately identified with the Competing Shark. The screen said that they stand firm for what they believe in, like to argue and debate, and can be a little uncompromising. And that describes me pretty well. So I walk over to the section of the room where the Sharks are. And then things developed.
They divide us into two groups turtles/bears/sharks and owls/fox and told us to build a bridge out of lego. Pretty standard social experiment behavior from what I have heard. Now, maybe you have seen a problem with this. The two compromisers are paired together while the strong willed people and the(for lack of a better word) weak willed people are paired together. Maybe you have guessed that the whole point was for the Sharks to dominate the turtles and bears while the owls and foxes get along perfectly fine.
But that is actually not what happened, or at least not exactly. The owls and the foxes worked well together, dividing into teams, recognizing skills, ect ect. But they were a fairly small group. compared to my group.
My group started off with four guys basically saying that they thought we should build this bridge(because the other needed rope and we did not have rope) and we all agreed on it. Then a few of us started building while a few others looked on and the rest chatted with each other at the back. Then someone suggested that we switch with another group and we did. Then we swapped again but there were so many people that it became a little unorginized.
So then we compare bridges(both were fine, by the way) and discuss some of the outcomes. And that is when our Doctor lady reveals her true colors, as a shark hater and Owl lover. She was, in my opinion, rather snide about the sharks, subtly implying that they were dominating the process. She also outright praised the 'head' owl(who was a total freaking shark, he stuck to his guns and controlled the situation. He also did not really care about including everybody, but hey, I'm not jealous or anything).
So then I get home and look at the sheet that they passed out and was shocked to see what I found under sharks. Apparently I do not value relationships and like to force people to do what I want. I am not afraid to use aggressive behavior and I am threatening/intimidating. I feel that this is spinning sharks in a way that is unfair. Here is how I define sharks, at least as it applies to me:
I am a passionate and intense person and I am not afraid of speaking my mind. I do not want to hurt others and I certainly do not want to force anyone to my side. I honestly believe that I am right and if you only understood my position fully you would agree with me. I love debating issues(it has been scientifically proven that good conversation sets of pheromones in your brain). I know I come on strong but I hope that others see that I am simply passionate. Saying that I do not value relationships is quite frankly silly because my way of strengthening relationships and teams is through debate and conversation. I grow closer to people through talking to them and discussing ideas. I like to see both sides but if I feel that I am right then, logically speaking, I must feel that, if you idea is contrary to mine, then it is wrong. I believe that those who fear confrontation and speaking their own mind(cough turtles/bears cough) do both themselves and others a disservice. I believe that compromise is good but that at the end of the day there needs to be a decision and compromise can only be gained through a free exchange of ideas. If everyone is a compromiser then there would be no need for conflict resolution, which brings me to the experiment.
My group was set up to fail and we did not. The sharks did not dominate we were open to others' ideas and took many of them. It was a fair and open discussion. It was not our fault that many of the others had no interest in participating. I actually feel that if we had done what the owls/foxes did then our bridge what have turned out better, but it would have been less inclusive. Actually, when you look at it, the foxes were much more dominatory(is that a word?) then the sharks. They had six people working on building and a few others working on presenting it, but what were the others doing? The answer is nothing, and I know this because after we built the two bridges we had to team up to build one bridge and the owls took over. There was no compromise and there was no cooperation. It was basically "We need six people to build. Ok, now the rest of you can give advice if you want but keep it to a minimal." We sharks were much more open and we tried to give everyone a shot. So when we are basically told that we dominated the others I personally find it insulting.
I hope that I have made sense in this post(it's kind of late) and have presented a look at sharks or at least me specifically(I am very sharky, very sharky indeed) that is more favorable.
I am not afraid of my own mind or my personality and I do not take kindly to be asked to be ashamed of myself. I am an intense person and intense people change the world and make great art. So, basically, don't diss the sharks.
---
Rock4ever
A Proud Shark
The Accommodating Teddy Bear
The Compromising Fox
The Collaborating Owl
The Competing Shark
and The Avoiding Turtle.
They displayed up on a screen various characteristics of each type and I immediately identified with the Competing Shark. The screen said that they stand firm for what they believe in, like to argue and debate, and can be a little uncompromising. And that describes me pretty well. So I walk over to the section of the room where the Sharks are. And then things developed.
They divide us into two groups turtles/bears/sharks and owls/fox and told us to build a bridge out of lego. Pretty standard social experiment behavior from what I have heard. Now, maybe you have seen a problem with this. The two compromisers are paired together while the strong willed people and the(for lack of a better word) weak willed people are paired together. Maybe you have guessed that the whole point was for the Sharks to dominate the turtles and bears while the owls and foxes get along perfectly fine.
But that is actually not what happened, or at least not exactly. The owls and the foxes worked well together, dividing into teams, recognizing skills, ect ect. But they were a fairly small group. compared to my group.
My group started off with four guys basically saying that they thought we should build this bridge(because the other needed rope and we did not have rope) and we all agreed on it. Then a few of us started building while a few others looked on and the rest chatted with each other at the back. Then someone suggested that we switch with another group and we did. Then we swapped again but there were so many people that it became a little unorginized.
So then we compare bridges(both were fine, by the way) and discuss some of the outcomes. And that is when our Doctor lady reveals her true colors, as a shark hater and Owl lover. She was, in my opinion, rather snide about the sharks, subtly implying that they were dominating the process. She also outright praised the 'head' owl(who was a total freaking shark, he stuck to his guns and controlled the situation. He also did not really care about including everybody, but hey, I'm not jealous or anything).
So then I get home and look at the sheet that they passed out and was shocked to see what I found under sharks. Apparently I do not value relationships and like to force people to do what I want. I am not afraid to use aggressive behavior and I am threatening/intimidating. I feel that this is spinning sharks in a way that is unfair. Here is how I define sharks, at least as it applies to me:
I am a passionate and intense person and I am not afraid of speaking my mind. I do not want to hurt others and I certainly do not want to force anyone to my side. I honestly believe that I am right and if you only understood my position fully you would agree with me. I love debating issues(it has been scientifically proven that good conversation sets of pheromones in your brain). I know I come on strong but I hope that others see that I am simply passionate. Saying that I do not value relationships is quite frankly silly because my way of strengthening relationships and teams is through debate and conversation. I grow closer to people through talking to them and discussing ideas. I like to see both sides but if I feel that I am right then, logically speaking, I must feel that, if you idea is contrary to mine, then it is wrong. I believe that those who fear confrontation and speaking their own mind(cough turtles/bears cough) do both themselves and others a disservice. I believe that compromise is good but that at the end of the day there needs to be a decision and compromise can only be gained through a free exchange of ideas. If everyone is a compromiser then there would be no need for conflict resolution, which brings me to the experiment.
My group was set up to fail and we did not. The sharks did not dominate we were open to others' ideas and took many of them. It was a fair and open discussion. It was not our fault that many of the others had no interest in participating. I actually feel that if we had done what the owls/foxes did then our bridge what have turned out better, but it would have been less inclusive. Actually, when you look at it, the foxes were much more dominatory(is that a word?) then the sharks. They had six people working on building and a few others working on presenting it, but what were the others doing? The answer is nothing, and I know this because after we built the two bridges we had to team up to build one bridge and the owls took over. There was no compromise and there was no cooperation. It was basically "We need six people to build. Ok, now the rest of you can give advice if you want but keep it to a minimal." We sharks were much more open and we tried to give everyone a shot. So when we are basically told that we dominated the others I personally find it insulting.
I hope that I have made sense in this post(it's kind of late) and have presented a look at sharks or at least me specifically(I am very sharky, very sharky indeed) that is more favorable.
I am not afraid of my own mind or my personality and I do not take kindly to be asked to be ashamed of myself. I am an intense person and intense people change the world and make great art. So, basically, don't diss the sharks.
---
Rock4ever
A Proud Shark
My John Green Problem
So I went to a Wrock concert last night(Wizard Rock for those of you who are not hip to the extraordinarily geeky culture) and a great deal of the attendees and at least one of the performers are "Nerdfighters" which is an organization started by Young Adult author John Green.
Now I am not part of this organization because, as I like to say tong-in-cheek, I do not want to be part of a John Green cult of personality. Intended humor aside, as I have written about on this blog before, I have a bit of a problem with Mr. Green.
But, on the face of it, I should love John Green. I like his genre of writing, I like his music, and if he recommends a book chances are I will like it too. I share his politics, he is a straight guy who is very pro gay rights, I am a straight guy who is very pro gay rights. He likes to put humor in his books I like to read humor in books. He likes to have romantic themes in his books and I like to read romantic themes in books. So, basically, I should love him. I also am a fan of Nick Hornby who writes very much like John Green and Mr. Green seems like a nice enough guy. So, again, I should love him, logically speaking.
But, I do not. I don't hate him but I don't particularly like him. I find him to basically write the same character over and over and I also find him to be unnecessarily crass. To be fair, I have laughed out loud at some of his jokes("Pretty god**** well adjusted from Paper Towns for example) I have never been blown away by his stuff. I am considering trying him again, but I just don't really like him. And I am utterly and completely astound by the fact that so many people like him. I honestly don't see why he is so popular. Is it because he puts himself out there so much? Is it that his books are really accessible? Is it that he really is good and I am just crazy? I don't know but I find it really odd.
Now I am not part of this organization because, as I like to say tong-in-cheek, I do not want to be part of a John Green cult of personality. Intended humor aside, as I have written about on this blog before, I have a bit of a problem with Mr. Green.
But, on the face of it, I should love John Green. I like his genre of writing, I like his music, and if he recommends a book chances are I will like it too. I share his politics, he is a straight guy who is very pro gay rights, I am a straight guy who is very pro gay rights. He likes to put humor in his books I like to read humor in books. He likes to have romantic themes in his books and I like to read romantic themes in books. So, basically, I should love him. I also am a fan of Nick Hornby who writes very much like John Green and Mr. Green seems like a nice enough guy. So, again, I should love him, logically speaking.
But, I do not. I don't hate him but I don't particularly like him. I find him to basically write the same character over and over and I also find him to be unnecessarily crass. To be fair, I have laughed out loud at some of his jokes("Pretty god**** well adjusted from Paper Towns for example) I have never been blown away by his stuff. I am considering trying him again, but I just don't really like him. And I am utterly and completely astound by the fact that so many people like him. I honestly don't see why he is so popular. Is it because he puts himself out there so much? Is it that his books are really accessible? Is it that he really is good and I am just crazy? I don't know but I find it really odd.
Monday, February 7, 2011
Book Review: The Rot and The Ruin by Johnathan Mabarry
Let me just say this up front, before I say anything else at all about this book, I have never read another Zombie book, I have never seen a Zombie movie, and I have never seen a Zombie tv show. This is, in fact, my first rodeo. So take that into consideration as you read the review.
Anyway, The Rot and The Ruin is a book about a boy called Benny who lives in a town called Mountainside which is a town that was set up after First Night(which is when the dead rose and started attacking people. Benny's brother, Tom, is the only member of his family still living and is a Bounty Hunter who's job is to hunt down reanimated family members for his clients. Benny does not like his brother because he feels that he(Tom that is not Benny) is a coward because years ago(on first night) he ran(with Benny) out of his house as their mother was being attacked by their father. All that Benny can remember about that night is his mother wearing a white dress with red sleeves screaming at them while their father dragged her back into the house. Benny instead looks up to a different bounty hunter called Charlie Pink-Eye. Eventually Benny has to get a job with Tom and discovers many things about the world.
This book is driven, primarily, by its plot and that is not necessarily a problem. Once this book gets its hooks into you it is(and I know that this sounds like a cliche) hard to put down.
But......Ah the characters and the writing. Benny, the main character, is not particularly likable and his romance feels a little forced(though his romantic interest is awesome) and his relationship with his brother is fairly ridiculous. Benny comes over as more than a little bit of an idiot. This brings me to the writing.
Now, this may(and probably will) sound very strange but....Mr Mabarry writes too much like me. The book felt like something I or some of my writing friends might write. And I believe that they are good writers but...if you are a published adult writer who is making(presumably) good money you should be able to write better than a 15 or 16 year old. I am not a fan of really dense writing(I view it as being normally self indulgent) but this is written very un-dense without being sparse. This reads like my book(which will return to Amazon very soon, by the way)and that is not really a good thing. It has a good and intriguing plot but it is really...for lack of a better word...surface level.
There are also serious problems with the characters and their relationships. For example the main romance happens after one character has said definitively that he does not want a relationship with the other character. The final confrontation with the villain happens like four times. They threaten him, he has a dramatic monologue about his beliefs and then....they do it again! And, I believe once more after that. When they finally kill him it is in the least satisfying way possible. I wanted that [Insert insulting name of choice] to die really bad throughout the whole book. And when he finally did it there was nothing. I mean, [slight spoiler warning] he gets hit in the head with a pipe. I wanted him to go down and I wanted it to be violent. Chop his head off or shoot him or something, but make it dramatic for God's Sake.
There are also problems with the continuity of the book. For example: One character is always telling the main character not to swear but then, later in the book, he begins to swear. Another character has a family member killed in a very brutal way and they are upset for like a page and a half. A different character would have died like three times but was always essentially unhurt.
The book is also very predictable, I saw X coming and thought "Oh I must be wrong, he won't do X" And then....HE FREAKING DID X. And then on top of that he did Y, which was just as obvious.
The ending was extraordinarily unsatisfying, starting with the climax and continuing on to the end. I want, not only more closure, but more...vindication. I wanted there to be a point, and there really wasn't. The book as a whole is kind of down on human nature as a whole.
One very good thing about the book is that he made the villains humans instead of Zombies. He made the point that you can't really blame Zombies for what they do. They can't control their actions. But humans can. I know that I'm right about this because the author states it. He is not a huge fan of subtlety
It was a fun read and I will read the sequel. But, I don't know, it could have been way, way better. It fit in with the common stereotype of "teen lit" being surface and unchallenging.
Anyway, The Rot and The Ruin is a book about a boy called Benny who lives in a town called Mountainside which is a town that was set up after First Night(which is when the dead rose and started attacking people. Benny's brother, Tom, is the only member of his family still living and is a Bounty Hunter who's job is to hunt down reanimated family members for his clients. Benny does not like his brother because he feels that he(Tom that is not Benny) is a coward because years ago(on first night) he ran(with Benny) out of his house as their mother was being attacked by their father. All that Benny can remember about that night is his mother wearing a white dress with red sleeves screaming at them while their father dragged her back into the house. Benny instead looks up to a different bounty hunter called Charlie Pink-Eye. Eventually Benny has to get a job with Tom and discovers many things about the world.
This book is driven, primarily, by its plot and that is not necessarily a problem. Once this book gets its hooks into you it is(and I know that this sounds like a cliche) hard to put down.
But......Ah the characters and the writing. Benny, the main character, is not particularly likable and his romance feels a little forced(though his romantic interest is awesome) and his relationship with his brother is fairly ridiculous. Benny comes over as more than a little bit of an idiot. This brings me to the writing.
Now, this may(and probably will) sound very strange but....Mr Mabarry writes too much like me. The book felt like something I or some of my writing friends might write. And I believe that they are good writers but...if you are a published adult writer who is making(presumably) good money you should be able to write better than a 15 or 16 year old. I am not a fan of really dense writing(I view it as being normally self indulgent) but this is written very un-dense without being sparse. This reads like my book(which will return to Amazon very soon, by the way)and that is not really a good thing. It has a good and intriguing plot but it is really...for lack of a better word...surface level.
There are also serious problems with the characters and their relationships. For example the main romance happens after one character has said definitively that he does not want a relationship with the other character. The final confrontation with the villain happens like four times. They threaten him, he has a dramatic monologue about his beliefs and then....they do it again! And, I believe once more after that. When they finally kill him it is in the least satisfying way possible. I wanted that [Insert insulting name of choice] to die really bad throughout the whole book. And when he finally did it there was nothing. I mean, [slight spoiler warning] he gets hit in the head with a pipe. I wanted him to go down and I wanted it to be violent. Chop his head off or shoot him or something, but make it dramatic for God's Sake.
There are also problems with the continuity of the book. For example: One character is always telling the main character not to swear but then, later in the book, he begins to swear. Another character has a family member killed in a very brutal way and they are upset for like a page and a half. A different character would have died like three times but was always essentially unhurt.
The book is also very predictable, I saw X coming and thought "Oh I must be wrong, he won't do X" And then....HE FREAKING DID X. And then on top of that he did Y, which was just as obvious.
The ending was extraordinarily unsatisfying, starting with the climax and continuing on to the end. I want, not only more closure, but more...vindication. I wanted there to be a point, and there really wasn't. The book as a whole is kind of down on human nature as a whole.
One very good thing about the book is that he made the villains humans instead of Zombies. He made the point that you can't really blame Zombies for what they do. They can't control their actions. But humans can. I know that I'm right about this because the author states it. He is not a huge fan of subtlety
It was a fun read and I will read the sequel. But, I don't know, it could have been way, way better. It fit in with the common stereotype of "teen lit" being surface and unchallenging.
Thursday, January 27, 2011
Cd Review: Brewing Up With Billy Bragg
So I am suffering from insomnia and saw that Elfarmy posted a cd review so I thought I would do one too.
Billy Bragg, for those of you who don't know, is an English musician who started off in the 80s playing Punk music and later in his career would diversify his sound. But Brewing Up is from solidly in his punk period.
It says here: A nice angry punk rant about media bias to kick the album off. Even though this song was written in the 80s it is still frighteningly relevant. I mean "It says here that the unions will never learn, it says here that the economy is on the upturn" Seriously, that is scary.
Love Gets Dangerous: Don't listen to this one much, it's a little dull but not terrible.
The Myth Of Trust: One of Bragg's best vocal performances. He sounds as if he is near tears during this song. There is pain in the lyrics of this song and his voice perfectly captures it.
From A Vauxhall Velox: Another one I don't listen to often, again a decent song just not one of the stand outs.
The Saturday Boy: Ah Saturday Boy. What heterosexual male cannot relate to this song. A fantastic song about teenage love with some really clever lyrics such as "In the end it took me a dictionary to find out the meaning of unrequited". Beautiful, beautiful song. Many times have I listened to this song and mourned my love life.
Island Of No Return: Ok, history lesson, in the 80s Great Britain and Argentina went to war over some islands in South America. It was a proper, major war between two strong powers. And Billy wrote this song about it and it is amazing. A perfect example of classic Bragg. One man, one guitar, politics, and ranting.
St Swithin's Day: Another great lost love song. "Thanks all the same but I can't bring myself to answer your letters, what was it all for?" Deeply, deeply moving.
Like Soldiers Do: An interesting song, also(in my opinion) about the Falklands War. The chorus(Our Fathers were all soldiers, shall we be soldiers too, fighting and falling like soldiers do) is well written and catchy. A good song.
This Guitar Says Sorry: Very, very strange song. I recently read the lyrics and found that there are only like 12 lines in the song. The refrain(The Love that we have is so important) really makes you think. Is it sarcastic or is it serious? We will never know.
Strange Things Happen: The last of the three that I rarely listen to, it's not that their so bad it's that everything else is so good.
A Lover Sings: Fantastic fantastic refrain. "Adam And Eve are finding out all about love" I mean seriously, that is clever. The song builds to the climax where Billy changes the lyrics to "Theresa and Steve are finding out all about love"
Bonus Disk Highlights
between the wars
Which side are you on
Talking Wag Club Blues
Won't Talk about it
World Turned Upside Down
Back to the old house
8/10
Billy Bragg, for those of you who don't know, is an English musician who started off in the 80s playing Punk music and later in his career would diversify his sound. But Brewing Up is from solidly in his punk period.
It says here: A nice angry punk rant about media bias to kick the album off. Even though this song was written in the 80s it is still frighteningly relevant. I mean "It says here that the unions will never learn, it says here that the economy is on the upturn" Seriously, that is scary.
Love Gets Dangerous: Don't listen to this one much, it's a little dull but not terrible.
The Myth Of Trust: One of Bragg's best vocal performances. He sounds as if he is near tears during this song. There is pain in the lyrics of this song and his voice perfectly captures it.
From A Vauxhall Velox: Another one I don't listen to often, again a decent song just not one of the stand outs.
The Saturday Boy: Ah Saturday Boy. What heterosexual male cannot relate to this song. A fantastic song about teenage love with some really clever lyrics such as "In the end it took me a dictionary to find out the meaning of unrequited". Beautiful, beautiful song. Many times have I listened to this song and mourned my love life.
Island Of No Return: Ok, history lesson, in the 80s Great Britain and Argentina went to war over some islands in South America. It was a proper, major war between two strong powers. And Billy wrote this song about it and it is amazing. A perfect example of classic Bragg. One man, one guitar, politics, and ranting.
St Swithin's Day: Another great lost love song. "Thanks all the same but I can't bring myself to answer your letters, what was it all for?" Deeply, deeply moving.
Like Soldiers Do: An interesting song, also(in my opinion) about the Falklands War. The chorus(Our Fathers were all soldiers, shall we be soldiers too, fighting and falling like soldiers do) is well written and catchy. A good song.
This Guitar Says Sorry: Very, very strange song. I recently read the lyrics and found that there are only like 12 lines in the song. The refrain(The Love that we have is so important) really makes you think. Is it sarcastic or is it serious? We will never know.
Strange Things Happen: The last of the three that I rarely listen to, it's not that their so bad it's that everything else is so good.
A Lover Sings: Fantastic fantastic refrain. "Adam And Eve are finding out all about love" I mean seriously, that is clever. The song builds to the climax where Billy changes the lyrics to "Theresa and Steve are finding out all about love"
Bonus Disk Highlights
between the wars
Which side are you on
Talking Wag Club Blues
Won't Talk about it
World Turned Upside Down
Back to the old house
8/10
Friday, January 21, 2011
On Hermione
Several months ago(just before Halloween) I went on a hike with my brother and his friends. On this hike, as I often do when with my brother and his friends, I adopted what I like to call "the cool older brother act". This act was working like a charm and the kids obviously felt comfortable talking to me. One of the kids(who, ironically, reminded me strongly of myself when I was younger) asked me who my favorite character in Harry Potter was. Now, for those of you who do not know, I am a huge huge harry potter fan. I replied that I liked various characters including Ginny and Hermione.
Now this simple statement sparked a fierce debate among the kids as to whether or not Hermione is annoying. One said that he liked her because she was a bookworm like he is and another said she was a know-it-all.
Now flash forward to the present. I am going through my re-reading(or rather re-listening) to the Harry Potter books, like I do every few months. And I am currently listening to the 1st one for the first time in a long long while. And I realized something very important about Hermione. Her know-it-allness is just cover for her social awkwardness.
I am of the belief that almost everyone has a cover for their social awkwardness. Some people stay quiet, other people(like me) use humor. Hermione uses her intelligence.
Let's look at it from her perspective: She is born into a muggle family and, to the best of our knowledge, an only child. She is sent away to a boarding school and will be one of the only people to not really know anything She doesn't want to look foolish so she memorizes all the books. She then takes every opportunity to spout off the facts she memorized.
Something else that is never really addressed is her family life. There are three main characters in Harry Potter. Harry Ron and Hermione(my brother disagrees with me about this but he is wrong!). We see Ron's family a great deal and we talk about Harry's family. What about Hermione? In the entire series she sends one owl to her parents, she rarely spends Christmas vacation with them, and rarely spends the entire summer vacation with them. How do her parents feel about her being a witch? In the final book she puts a memory charm on her parents so that they can't remember who she is. This seems, to me at least, rather extreme.
Do her parents know about the war going on? Do they know about her friends? And if so then why do they need a memory charm put on them? If they do not know, then why not? Why did Hermione not tell them? Does she have any siblings? We can assume that there are no younger siblings, but what about older? Why does she never tell us?
How do her parents feel about her running off to be with her friends ever vacation? They only get to see her at those times and she wants to run off. How does that make them feel? Why does she do this? What is the reason? You only see the Grangers in one scene(that I recall) and that is in the 2nd book. They are standing off in the distance looking awkward. Does Hermione introduce her friends to them? No.
I think that, from these facts, it can be safely concluded that Hermione and her parents do not have the greatest relationship. I will go a step further. I think that Hermione finds it hard to mesh her magic life with her muggle life. She finds it hard to be around her parents as they have nothing in common. Imagine if the main thing in your life was something that none of your relatives could possibly understand. And what if Hermione does have siblings, we've seen what happens to muggle siblings of wizards(Petunia Dursley).
Maybe her need for control and the constant displays of intelligence are attempts to show that she belongs in the magical world and not the muggle. Maybe she is trying to prove to herself that she has worth. Maybe she has very low self esteem and compensates with what other people see as arrogance.
In the 6th book she gets very angry at Harry because he is better at something then she is. Maybe her parents always expected her to be the best in the class and she is afraid that they will be disappointed in her. Maybe it is the other way round. Maybe she wants her parents approval and thus strives to be the best at everything.
Whatever the reason there is something deeper in Hermione and I think that it is connected to her parents. If I were chosen tomorrow for an elite boarding school I would still correspond regularly with my sibling and parents. Thermionic doesn't and that surprises me.
I welcome you comments and your theories.
Now this simple statement sparked a fierce debate among the kids as to whether or not Hermione is annoying. One said that he liked her because she was a bookworm like he is and another said she was a know-it-all.
Now flash forward to the present. I am going through my re-reading(or rather re-listening) to the Harry Potter books, like I do every few months. And I am currently listening to the 1st one for the first time in a long long while. And I realized something very important about Hermione. Her know-it-allness is just cover for her social awkwardness.
I am of the belief that almost everyone has a cover for their social awkwardness. Some people stay quiet, other people(like me) use humor. Hermione uses her intelligence.
Let's look at it from her perspective: She is born into a muggle family and, to the best of our knowledge, an only child. She is sent away to a boarding school and will be one of the only people to not really know anything She doesn't want to look foolish so she memorizes all the books. She then takes every opportunity to spout off the facts she memorized.
Something else that is never really addressed is her family life. There are three main characters in Harry Potter. Harry Ron and Hermione(my brother disagrees with me about this but he is wrong!). We see Ron's family a great deal and we talk about Harry's family. What about Hermione? In the entire series she sends one owl to her parents, she rarely spends Christmas vacation with them, and rarely spends the entire summer vacation with them. How do her parents feel about her being a witch? In the final book she puts a memory charm on her parents so that they can't remember who she is. This seems, to me at least, rather extreme.
Do her parents know about the war going on? Do they know about her friends? And if so then why do they need a memory charm put on them? If they do not know, then why not? Why did Hermione not tell them? Does she have any siblings? We can assume that there are no younger siblings, but what about older? Why does she never tell us?
How do her parents feel about her running off to be with her friends ever vacation? They only get to see her at those times and she wants to run off. How does that make them feel? Why does she do this? What is the reason? You only see the Grangers in one scene(that I recall) and that is in the 2nd book. They are standing off in the distance looking awkward. Does Hermione introduce her friends to them? No.
I think that, from these facts, it can be safely concluded that Hermione and her parents do not have the greatest relationship. I will go a step further. I think that Hermione finds it hard to mesh her magic life with her muggle life. She finds it hard to be around her parents as they have nothing in common. Imagine if the main thing in your life was something that none of your relatives could possibly understand. And what if Hermione does have siblings, we've seen what happens to muggle siblings of wizards(Petunia Dursley).
Maybe her need for control and the constant displays of intelligence are attempts to show that she belongs in the magical world and not the muggle. Maybe she is trying to prove to herself that she has worth. Maybe she has very low self esteem and compensates with what other people see as arrogance.
In the 6th book she gets very angry at Harry because he is better at something then she is. Maybe her parents always expected her to be the best in the class and she is afraid that they will be disappointed in her. Maybe it is the other way round. Maybe she wants her parents approval and thus strives to be the best at everything.
Whatever the reason there is something deeper in Hermione and I think that it is connected to her parents. If I were chosen tomorrow for an elite boarding school I would still correspond regularly with my sibling and parents. Thermionic doesn't and that surprises me.
I welcome you comments and your theories.
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
Rage, Rage, Rage, Rage
I have written before on this blog about Fred Phelps the head of the Westebrough baptist church(do I look like I care if that I spelled it wrong?) and his frequent picketing of funerals. He has done soldiers, murdered teenagers, and dead mothers so what was his first reaction to the tragic shooting in Arizona? He is going to go and picket one of the victim's funeral. But in case that doesn't get you angry enough wait till you here whose funeral it is going to be.
The Victim of Mr. Phelp's hate and intolerance is Ms. Christina Green who is nine years old. Yes, Mr Phelps is picketing the funeral of a 9 Year Old. There are literally no words, there are no words.
Mr Phelps, no, I won't even call him that Mister is a term of respect and he deserves none and has earned none, Phelps said on his website(godhatesfags) about her ""God hates Catholics, God calls your religion 'vain,' as it's empty of His truth; you worship idols!" because Ms. Green was a Catholic, you see.
I thought about how to respond to this story, I could rant, I could be bitingly sarcastic, I could swear and call Phelps names. But no, I will just describe Ms. Green's short life for you briefly.
She was born on September 11th, 2001. She had just been elected to her Elementary School Student Council and had dreams of serving in higher office. A neighbour had taken her to see their Representive this Saturday for that reason. She will never serve in higher office, she will never go on a date, she will never get married, she will never have a child, she will never have a grandchild, she will never go to high school, she will never go to college, she will never be a teenager, she will never read another book, she will never listen to another piece of music, she will never see another film, she had an entire life in front of her and it was all wiped out like that. And as if that wasn't tragedy enough some so called "Religious Leader" is going to picket her funeral.
To quote Mr. Joseph Welch, "You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?"
No God that I believe in or want to believe in is behind you Phelps. You are a father for God's Sake! And you are picketing a nine year old's funeral! "At long last have you left no sense of Decency"
My mother often says that the only hell is one that you make for yourself, and I don't know if I believe that, but Phelps is certainly supporting her case. He has made his hell and now he wants to make the world Hell for the rest of us. When you die, Phelps, you will leave behind nothing but hate and fear.
A nine year old girl.
The Victim of Mr. Phelp's hate and intolerance is Ms. Christina Green who is nine years old. Yes, Mr Phelps is picketing the funeral of a 9 Year Old. There are literally no words, there are no words.
Mr Phelps, no, I won't even call him that Mister is a term of respect and he deserves none and has earned none, Phelps said on his website(godhatesfags) about her ""God hates Catholics, God calls your religion 'vain,' as it's empty of His truth; you worship idols!" because Ms. Green was a Catholic, you see.
I thought about how to respond to this story, I could rant, I could be bitingly sarcastic, I could swear and call Phelps names. But no, I will just describe Ms. Green's short life for you briefly.
She was born on September 11th, 2001. She had just been elected to her Elementary School Student Council and had dreams of serving in higher office. A neighbour had taken her to see their Representive this Saturday for that reason. She will never serve in higher office, she will never go on a date, she will never get married, she will never have a child, she will never have a grandchild, she will never go to high school, she will never go to college, she will never be a teenager, she will never read another book, she will never listen to another piece of music, she will never see another film, she had an entire life in front of her and it was all wiped out like that. And as if that wasn't tragedy enough some so called "Religious Leader" is going to picket her funeral.
To quote Mr. Joseph Welch, "You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?"
No God that I believe in or want to believe in is behind you Phelps. You are a father for God's Sake! And you are picketing a nine year old's funeral! "At long last have you left no sense of Decency"
My mother often says that the only hell is one that you make for yourself, and I don't know if I believe that, but Phelps is certainly supporting her case. He has made his hell and now he wants to make the world Hell for the rest of us. When you die, Phelps, you will leave behind nothing but hate and fear.
A nine year old girl.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
