I've really learned from my blog that I read very critically and negatively. I tend to judge writers of books early on, and critique their style somewhat incorrectly. If I'm reading a book I think is impressive, I'll get so wrapped up in my own greatness for reading this book, that I will also assume that I am greater than the authors and have the right to judge them. I have also really learned that I was a rather boring and essay-like blog writer. I realized this and did damage control early on. I've also learned a lot about myself as a writer. I actually genuinely enjoy writing, strangely, and have grown SO much since the start of blogging. Before this year, I didn't have a definitive writer's voice and would either go with being either too stiff or too loose. When in doubt, I would go with being stiff. This year during blogging, I've really known the liberating feeling that is spewing out your opinion in a long and slightly obnoxious rant. It's wonderful! It's become fun to write with a blog because I'm not censoring myself. It seems less formal to post on my blog than to hand something in to the teacher, and though this may be an illusion, it helps make homework (which essentially is what blogging is) seem almost bearable and nearly like something more.
So, on the topic of if people are more or less real online, I think it depends. For me, I take online writing as a chance to let loose and not censor myself. But I realize for others that it could make them self- conscious and, having the chance to censor themselves, unlike in person, they might do so. In person, if you were to say "I hate One Direction," to a bunch of Directioners, that would be pretty stupid, but the truth (if you did hate them.) Online, it would be a lot easier to fake not hating them, because you have time to think about what you post. In this way, you would only project lies. On the other hand, online you aren't speaking directly to the Directioners and a blog is really a way to state what you think without shoving it in someone else's face. The Directioners can't get mad at you for hating One Direction if they chose to read your blog about hating them. It feels very individual to blog. It satisfies my narcissism. I think that for me, I'm probably more real on my blog, even if I have the chance to not be.
I don't know if I could consider keeping up this blog. I do enjoy blog posting, but let's face it: like most humans, I am inherently and exceedingly lazy. Who knows, but in my heart I feel that I could never keep up this blog without prompting and being graded. There is also the problem that thus far this has been a school blog. I'm sorry, but there are many people in our school I would prefer NOT to have access to a continuous blog of mine. If I continued posting these people would still be able to read my blog through high school (not that they would want to.)Plus, all my posts have been written with the thought in mind that a teacher would read them. If I did a public blog, I would spend my time on trying to get normal people to like it, not E.L.A. teachers (no offense Ms. Rear, thou art spiffy and I'm not saying you aren't normal; you can be whatever you want to be.) I maybe could one day start such a blog, but I think I would only do so if I came to find that type of blogging more enjoyable than what I would otherwise be doing (sitting around like a useless vegetable) and that seems unlikely at the current time.
I like the idea of students doing blogs. I think that this was a really good experience and am not saying this to suck up. I learned so much this year and now have an immortal portfolio of my writing over 8th grade. This also has given me incentive to make my blog posts good (no telling if I've succeeded.) This blog is online as a representation of me. In college I will come back to this blog and scoff at my blog and complain about what an annoying kid I was. Without this blog, I would be unable to do so because I would never have been organized enough to save my weekly 8th grade reading responses throughout life.
So, overall, I like blogs. Blogs are good. Sometimes I read blogs if they're entertaining, but too often they're just stupid and irritating. However, I realize that this isn't a quality of blogs, but a quality of writing and really people in general.
Sunday, June 16, 2013
Sunday, June 9, 2013
A Fraction of the Whole
In "A Fraction of the Whole," a major theme is insanity. Every single character seems to go crazy, or already be crazy.
The book is basically about a boy named Jasper who has an interesting father. Through a few different ways, he learns of his past. He has no mother, and in the beginning of the book is not aware of what happened to her, other than she died, but lives alone with his philosophy bum dad in Austrailia. In the beginning of the book, classified into one chapter, is Martin, Jasper's dad, telling him about his childhood and his murderer brother. Then Jasper reads Martin's notebook and he learns about the next bit of his life, including Jasper's mother. Life that Jasper can remember would probably be classified as the third chapter. As the book progresses, you almost learn about Jasper through Martin and worry for him: he seems to be following Martin's own path. There are so many parallels between them, and also between other characters (who haven't necessarily appeared in Jasper's life, but have in Martin's) that it's troubling. One of the most prominent of these is insanity.
Martin lives with some sort of philosophical brilliance, but also stupidity. He is aware of his mind and holds the world in contempt, thinking that people who mostly worry about the little things in life are useless. Similarly, Martin is useless-- he only thinks about the big things. In fact, he THINKS about the big things, but doesn't do anything. He's pretty pointless. Not to mention nearly off the edge. He gets sent to a mental hospital and is released, but not before being thoroughly nuts and destroying the strip club he used to manage.
Jasper's mother also has a history of craziness. Right off from the bat, Martin noticed that there was definitely something wrong with her. However, he never broke it off. I think he was just so shocked and excited that a pretty girl had paid him attention (not to mention deflowered him) that he was able to ignore her apparent problems. Anyhoo, Jasper was "the last obstacle" to her suicide. His job was to get born so that she could die. She was pretty insane.
Jasper's family on his mother's side also is crazy, from what you can tell of them, but you don't hear much. On his father's side, they were refugees. His biological grandfather died, his step grandfather became crazy and violent, and his grandmother also went psycho-- poisoning her son for the opportunity to nurse him back to health. His uncle went nuts and began killing people who cheated in sports. He first became a sports mass- murderer, and then went into hiding in Thailand and ran a crime empire, or, as he put it, a "Democratic Cooperation of Crime." Nearly half of the book is devoted to Martin's telling of Jasper's uncle Terry's journey to madness. The question is: will Jasper have a happy ending or follow the legacy of his family?
The book is basically about a boy named Jasper who has an interesting father. Through a few different ways, he learns of his past. He has no mother, and in the beginning of the book is not aware of what happened to her, other than she died, but lives alone with his philosophy bum dad in Austrailia. In the beginning of the book, classified into one chapter, is Martin, Jasper's dad, telling him about his childhood and his murderer brother. Then Jasper reads Martin's notebook and he learns about the next bit of his life, including Jasper's mother. Life that Jasper can remember would probably be classified as the third chapter. As the book progresses, you almost learn about Jasper through Martin and worry for him: he seems to be following Martin's own path. There are so many parallels between them, and also between other characters (who haven't necessarily appeared in Jasper's life, but have in Martin's) that it's troubling. One of the most prominent of these is insanity.
Martin lives with some sort of philosophical brilliance, but also stupidity. He is aware of his mind and holds the world in contempt, thinking that people who mostly worry about the little things in life are useless. Similarly, Martin is useless-- he only thinks about the big things. In fact, he THINKS about the big things, but doesn't do anything. He's pretty pointless. Not to mention nearly off the edge. He gets sent to a mental hospital and is released, but not before being thoroughly nuts and destroying the strip club he used to manage.
Jasper's mother also has a history of craziness. Right off from the bat, Martin noticed that there was definitely something wrong with her. However, he never broke it off. I think he was just so shocked and excited that a pretty girl had paid him attention (not to mention deflowered him) that he was able to ignore her apparent problems. Anyhoo, Jasper was "the last obstacle" to her suicide. His job was to get born so that she could die. She was pretty insane.
Jasper's family on his mother's side also is crazy, from what you can tell of them, but you don't hear much. On his father's side, they were refugees. His biological grandfather died, his step grandfather became crazy and violent, and his grandmother also went psycho-- poisoning her son for the opportunity to nurse him back to health. His uncle went nuts and began killing people who cheated in sports. He first became a sports mass- murderer, and then went into hiding in Thailand and ran a crime empire, or, as he put it, a "Democratic Cooperation of Crime." Nearly half of the book is devoted to Martin's telling of Jasper's uncle Terry's journey to madness. The question is: will Jasper have a happy ending or follow the legacy of his family?
Sunday, June 2, 2013
Pride and Prejudice: yet again
In Pride and Prejudice, it is widely viewed that Elizabeth Bennet has prejudice, and that Fitzwilliam Darcy is proud. And these views can be understood; she misjudges him, and he is resistant to her because of his pride, but honestly I think that their supposed classifications ought to be switched.
Mr. Darcy first sees Elizabeth and says that she is "not handsome enough to tempt me." Actually, he doesn't even really see her, he just looks her way to humor his friend. Grumpy and prejudiced about the inhabitants of the countryside (and really, anywhere outside of the fanciest parts of town) he assumes that she is boring and ugly and common. I actually think that a major part of the story is realizing that all his prejudiced ideas are wrong and that he in in love with her.
He also prematurely judges people based on the actions of others. He makes simply unforgivable remarks on Mrs. Bennet and Lydia, and it takes time for him to learn that the two eldest Bennets are nothing like the rest of their family.
Lizzy, on the other hand, is quite insufferable! Just kidding, she isn't really that insufferable- maybe a little, but certainly not insufferable enough too warrant a quite- but I wanted to use the word. Anyhow, Lizzy is, in a way, much more proud than Darcy. The ENTIRE reason she hates him so much is because he said she wasn't temptingly pretty. Now, as she is at least moderately so, you know that he doesn't really hurt her feelings. However, it's a blow to her ego. She was proud, and he insulted it. He also deals a few blows to other types of pride, particularly family pride. He, as I said before, insults her family directly. That knocks her off her pedestal. You know what, I think that Darcy's type of pride is less significant than Lizzy's because it is justified. She is proud of her life, her family, her home-- but honestly, it's not that great. She is a poorish girl with a nutso family living on a farm estate named Longbourn. (Personally, I think it's very strange to name your house. And even if you do, can't you pick a name like Bill or Brenda? Honestly, people seem to be terrible at naming nonliving objects! Longbourn, Pemberly, Skyfall-- bad names!) Lizzy does not have so much to be proud of.
Darcy, on the other hand has a nice sister, a gorgeous house with grounds that make up "half of Derbyshire" and a humongous lake with fish. When I get my own lake, I'll be proud of it too! So lay off Darcy. Lizzy is the one with the worse pride. And, similiarly, lay off Lizzy! Darcy is certainly more prejudiced. She judges him, but not until after he's been nasty to her. He judges her before even knowing who she is, and that is the worst type of prejudice. Social class-ism.
Their personalities are really different as assumed. They both have pride and prejudice; perhaps that's what makes them such a good couple.
Mr. Darcy first sees Elizabeth and says that she is "not handsome enough to tempt me." Actually, he doesn't even really see her, he just looks her way to humor his friend. Grumpy and prejudiced about the inhabitants of the countryside (and really, anywhere outside of the fanciest parts of town) he assumes that she is boring and ugly and common. I actually think that a major part of the story is realizing that all his prejudiced ideas are wrong and that he in in love with her.
He also prematurely judges people based on the actions of others. He makes simply unforgivable remarks on Mrs. Bennet and Lydia, and it takes time for him to learn that the two eldest Bennets are nothing like the rest of their family.
Lizzy, on the other hand, is quite insufferable! Just kidding, she isn't really that insufferable- maybe a little, but certainly not insufferable enough too warrant a quite- but I wanted to use the word. Anyhow, Lizzy is, in a way, much more proud than Darcy. The ENTIRE reason she hates him so much is because he said she wasn't temptingly pretty. Now, as she is at least moderately so, you know that he doesn't really hurt her feelings. However, it's a blow to her ego. She was proud, and he insulted it. He also deals a few blows to other types of pride, particularly family pride. He, as I said before, insults her family directly. That knocks her off her pedestal. You know what, I think that Darcy's type of pride is less significant than Lizzy's because it is justified. She is proud of her life, her family, her home-- but honestly, it's not that great. She is a poorish girl with a nutso family living on a farm estate named Longbourn. (Personally, I think it's very strange to name your house. And even if you do, can't you pick a name like Bill or Brenda? Honestly, people seem to be terrible at naming nonliving objects! Longbourn, Pemberly, Skyfall-- bad names!) Lizzy does not have so much to be proud of.
Darcy, on the other hand has a nice sister, a gorgeous house with grounds that make up "half of Derbyshire" and a humongous lake with fish. When I get my own lake, I'll be proud of it too! So lay off Darcy. Lizzy is the one with the worse pride. And, similiarly, lay off Lizzy! Darcy is certainly more prejudiced. She judges him, but not until after he's been nasty to her. He judges her before even knowing who she is, and that is the worst type of prejudice. Social class-ism.
Their personalities are really different as assumed. They both have pride and prejudice; perhaps that's what makes them such a good couple.
Friday, May 17, 2013
The 13 1/2 Lives of Captain Bluebear
My Dad used to lecture me about the qualities of a story. A required element for a good story, he’d say, was someone who wants something. I've pretty much always stood by this rule, and most books I've read have followed it. It even applies to really bad books like Twilight- she wants the boy ( or, in this case, vampire.) Throughout the 13 ½ Lives of Captain Bluebeard, I’ve been trying to find out exactly what it is that Bluebeard wants, pretty much unsuccessfully.
Towards the middle of the book, I thought he wanted a home. He spends a few of his "lives" searching for the capital city of his continent, Atlantis, and spends another couple living in Atlantis. He seemed like he was very drawn to the city of Atlantis, but eventually you realize that he isn’t quite at home there, nor does he really yearn for a home in general. When Atlantis is lifted off to a different planet (don't ask) he doesn't seem to care very much. So I don't think he wants a home. He actually seems like a pretty generally content person; not too fussy, and willing to go with the flow (not like me.)
Throughout the book, he appears mostly as the wanderer; he goes everywhere, drifting around, gains experience and knowledge, but does not really have a goal. There really isn’t much point to his life.
How there are 3 things to consider:
1) the books could have been badly written (which I doubt because I enjoyed it so much and was just delighted by its cleverness),
2) there could have been many subtle wants that I just missed (very likely) or
3) this rule could be incorrect.
I will cross out “1” because I really enjoyed the book so much that I would hesitate to say anything ill of it.
Now left over are 2 and 3.
There could certainly be more subtle themes/wants. He obviously wants a girlfriend and a family, and even sees his future girlfriend as an illusion to draw him in to a trap. However, I don’t know if this is the driving factor of the story, though. Does it need to be?
The other option is that the rule could be wrong. What about the reluctant hero? I guess they want to not be the hero? What does Harry Potter want? A family as well, but does that drive him? Argh! So many books about wanderers, or long series don't have clear desires to me. Oh! I'm so very confused. What about non-fiction? Like biographies? Do any rules apply to those? Do people actually have "driving desires" in their lives that they could write biographies about? What about all the stories I've written for school? What about small-moment stores? Can a desire drive one teensy tiny moment? Can it drive a series as long as say, James Bond or Nancy Drew? What do they want? Maybeee James Bond wants a family, but it honestly seems like his awesomeness includes not having any real nonsexual desires. And I don't really know Nancy Drew, so I couldn't answer, but maybe she wants to just solve mysteries? The books could all be little parts of her pursuit to happiness.
I end this inconclusively. Either Bluebeard really wants something I can’t figure out, or this rule is over my head. Either way, I’m the stupid one.
Friday, May 10, 2013
Romeo and Juliet: Their horrible parental relationships
In "Romeo & Juliet," by William Shakespeare, the title characters rebel against the adults in their lives, particularly, their parents. They do not place much trust in others save for each other, and each only has one adult in their life who is aware of their relationship – Friar Lawrence or the Nurse, respectively. The nurse isn’t even aware of some things half the time. Meanwhile, the parents have absolutely no idea what is going on their children’s lives – partly because they do not really care to ask. Maybe if both sets of parents have been less neglectful, none of this would have happened. Throughout the play, Shakespeare portrays authority as being hypocritical and distant, implying that if adults do not take the time to gain their children’s trust and respect, they’ll lose faith in them and maybe even rebel.
In "Romeo and Juliet", authority is constantly portrayed as untrustworthy (and the parents are Romeo and Juliet’s major authority figures). The Capulet family is obviously unhappy with each other. Lady Capulet is slightly bitter and unaccepting of her situation. She wants her daughter to have the same life as her; perhaps because she’s trying to convince herself that she’s happy and her daughter surely will be too. Lord Capulet is harsh and hasty and very politically correct. He prevents Tybalt from fighting in his public party, but acts almost violently towards Juliet when she refuses to marry Paris. "Fettle your fine joints 'gainst Thursday next to go with Paris to Saint Peter's Church or I will drag thee on a hurdle thither." (3.5.158). His conflicting actions are because does not believe in public fighting but he thinks that his daughter must always obey him, as society states. This is rather awful and hypocritical of him; how is she supposed to respect him enough to obey him when he is cruel to her because of her position in society? Or is she just meant to obey him mindlessly, like a robot? The Montague family, on the other hand, hardly speak to Romeo – when they’re worried about him they send Benvolio, his cousin, instead. They lack the means and/or inclination to talk to him themselves. Montague says " I would thou wert so happy by thy stay. To hear true shrift--come, madam, let's away." (1.1.169). Both sets of parents are woefully ignorant about what currently happens in their children’s lives.
This ignorance is really a whole lot of the trouble. Romeo and Juliet lie to and deceive their parents, leading to their ignorance. So really, it isn’t just the parents being neglectful in the relationship, its Romeo and Juliet as well. Sometimes their parents are just trying to be good but get fed up when their kids aren’t receptive – take Lord Capulet’s attempted marriage of Paris to Juliet. He wants to marry her off to cheer her up, despite the fact he’d said he wanted to wait some years (being hypocritical, tsk!) because he believed she was depressed and mourning for Tybalt. Earlier, he'd told Paris to woo her, because "my will to her consent is but a part." (2.1.17). Later however, he forces her into it. This further disturbs their mutual trust and love, and all because apulet is ignorant. Obviously, there would have been many things he’d have done if he was better informed (and aware of her marriage to Romeo) but try to cheer her up by marrying her to someone else is not one of them. If he’d known, they may not have ended up dead, because Juliet wouldn’t have been engaged to Paris, and therefore wouldn’t have felt the need to fake her death. None of it would have happened (unless of course, you believe in fate, but that’s a whole different coconut.)
Because of this mutual deception and negligence, there is a visible lack of trust between the two and their parents-- they may doubt that their pparents will go along with their own wishes rather than society and politics (rightfully, I think.) They are afraid of betrayal. When Juliet is despairing over Romeo's banishment, her mother asks after her condition, and she says "yet let me weep for feeling such a loss." (3.5.77). This is very deceptive, because it really means the loss of Romeo, when Lady Capulet believes they're talking about Tybalt. In the same conversation, Juliet tells her mother "Madam, I am not well." (3.5.70). She is well, but trying to cover up the fact that moments ago, Romeo had been in her bed. She goes to such efforts to hide these things from her parents because she is certain they will betray her. The lack of trust in the relationship is evident even since the very first scene. Juliet confides in her nurse, and Romeo in his priest – things must be pretty dreadful between you and your parents if you're confiding in others before them. This lack of trust also leads to Romeo and Juliet not particularly caring for their parents' love and support of their wedding. Gentle and mild Juliet even proposes herself! "If that thy bent of love be true, thu purpose marriage, send me word tomorrow.." (2.2.149).
Conclusively, I would say that Romeo and Juliet have pretty awful relationships with their parents, due to lack of effort and trust, and this may have driven them to seek so much love and approval from other parties – namely each other. If Romeo and Juliet had their parents’ unwavering support and approval, they would never have gotten together (even if by the idea that they would have, in this case, been aware of the affair and stopped it.) So I suppose it is meant to be that Romeo and Juliet had such awful relationships with their parents. If they really trusted each other, ultimately the feud would never have been settled.
In "Romeo and Juliet", authority is constantly portrayed as untrustworthy (and the parents are Romeo and Juliet’s major authority figures). The Capulet family is obviously unhappy with each other. Lady Capulet is slightly bitter and unaccepting of her situation. She wants her daughter to have the same life as her; perhaps because she’s trying to convince herself that she’s happy and her daughter surely will be too. Lord Capulet is harsh and hasty and very politically correct. He prevents Tybalt from fighting in his public party, but acts almost violently towards Juliet when she refuses to marry Paris. "Fettle your fine joints 'gainst Thursday next to go with Paris to Saint Peter's Church or I will drag thee on a hurdle thither." (3.5.158). His conflicting actions are because does not believe in public fighting but he thinks that his daughter must always obey him, as society states. This is rather awful and hypocritical of him; how is she supposed to respect him enough to obey him when he is cruel to her because of her position in society? Or is she just meant to obey him mindlessly, like a robot? The Montague family, on the other hand, hardly speak to Romeo – when they’re worried about him they send Benvolio, his cousin, instead. They lack the means and/or inclination to talk to him themselves. Montague says " I would thou wert so happy by thy stay. To hear true shrift--come, madam, let's away." (1.1.169). Both sets of parents are woefully ignorant about what currently happens in their children’s lives.
This ignorance is really a whole lot of the trouble. Romeo and Juliet lie to and deceive their parents, leading to their ignorance. So really, it isn’t just the parents being neglectful in the relationship, its Romeo and Juliet as well. Sometimes their parents are just trying to be good but get fed up when their kids aren’t receptive – take Lord Capulet’s attempted marriage of Paris to Juliet. He wants to marry her off to cheer her up, despite the fact he’d said he wanted to wait some years (being hypocritical, tsk!) because he believed she was depressed and mourning for Tybalt. Earlier, he'd told Paris to woo her, because "my will to her consent is but a part." (2.1.17). Later however, he forces her into it. This further disturbs their mutual trust and love, and all because apulet is ignorant. Obviously, there would have been many things he’d have done if he was better informed (and aware of her marriage to Romeo) but try to cheer her up by marrying her to someone else is not one of them. If he’d known, they may not have ended up dead, because Juliet wouldn’t have been engaged to Paris, and therefore wouldn’t have felt the need to fake her death. None of it would have happened (unless of course, you believe in fate, but that’s a whole different coconut.)
Because of this mutual deception and negligence, there is a visible lack of trust between the two and their parents-- they may doubt that their pparents will go along with their own wishes rather than society and politics (rightfully, I think.) They are afraid of betrayal. When Juliet is despairing over Romeo's banishment, her mother asks after her condition, and she says "yet let me weep for feeling such a loss." (3.5.77). This is very deceptive, because it really means the loss of Romeo, when Lady Capulet believes they're talking about Tybalt. In the same conversation, Juliet tells her mother "Madam, I am not well." (3.5.70). She is well, but trying to cover up the fact that moments ago, Romeo had been in her bed. She goes to such efforts to hide these things from her parents because she is certain they will betray her. The lack of trust in the relationship is evident even since the very first scene. Juliet confides in her nurse, and Romeo in his priest – things must be pretty dreadful between you and your parents if you're confiding in others before them. This lack of trust also leads to Romeo and Juliet not particularly caring for their parents' love and support of their wedding. Gentle and mild Juliet even proposes herself! "If that thy bent of love be true, thu purpose marriage, send me word tomorrow.." (2.2.149).
Conclusively, I would say that Romeo and Juliet have pretty awful relationships with their parents, due to lack of effort and trust, and this may have driven them to seek so much love and approval from other parties – namely each other. If Romeo and Juliet had their parents’ unwavering support and approval, they would never have gotten together (even if by the idea that they would have, in this case, been aware of the affair and stopped it.) So I suppose it is meant to be that Romeo and Juliet had such awful relationships with their parents. If they really trusted each other, ultimately the feud would never have been settled.
Thursday, May 2, 2013
The 13 1/2 Lives of Captain Bluebear
I am currently reading The 13 1/2 Lives of Captain Bluebear. I began reading this mainly because it had an interesting cover, but I have been really enjoying this book. Not enjoying the book like a 'whoa I really like this book I'm gonna stay up 'till 3:00 reading it,' but like 'O Lordy, this is a marvelous book I will treasure forever and maybe even, god forbid, reread.' The kind of book you're not so excited about that you want to finish quickly, but the kind of book you want to read slowly so as to prolong the sacred act of soaking in its pages. Anyways, being only a hundred pages in or so, I don't necessarily have such a great grasp of the plot, but so far the author has just portrayed the protagonist drifting around and living with different strange creatures and learning strange things from them. In each of Bluebear's so- called "lives," he lives with a different group of people, but eventually has to leave. I think the author here is hinting at the theme of ending, and all things ending, and how all the experiences in your life are pretty connected in the fact that they all end, and usually in not so great ways. The subsequent endings of Bluebear's lives thus far include:
Life 1: Being ditched on an island for growing too large.
Life 2: Fleeing who he's living with (hobgoblins) in fear of becoming despicable like them.
Life 3: Nearly being eaten by the candy- filled island he's living on that actually turns out to be a creepy large creature and saved by a strange dinosaur- like bird thing in the nick of time.
Life 4: Being given up in favor of retirement.
I wouldn't say that any of these unfortunate occurances are Bluebear's fault at all (except for maybe the second, but who wants to be like a hobgoblin?) -- so maybe the author is pointing out how every little thing in your life will end, and there's not a thing you can do about it, because it's not your fault and it's not under your control. Maybe he thinks that as a person you are not in control of anything-- after all, all Bluebear's been doing for the duration of the book is drifting, getting to other places accidentally, but not staying long, and just going where the tides take him-- sometimes literally.
Critically reading over what I have just written, I've realized that it sounds a lot like what Ms. Rear talked about with Romeo and Juliet-- fate. I think that the author of this book must be a big fan of fate, even if not in the way Shakespeare is. Bluebear may not be fated to end an ancient feud with death, but I feel like, no matter how insignifigant his life has been so far, all of this stuff has been decided for him. He has no control and everything is following a pattern- faaaate.
All of this talk makes me wonder what will happen at the end of the book. I seldom blog on a book without finishing it, for fear of making uneducated (in that book) and incorrect assumptions. But if each of his lives are fated to end in this manner, and we're on 5 out of 13 1/2, I wonder how and if he'l die. It's hard to predict what will happen later in this book, because the narrator speaks as one telling back their story, so he must be alive at the end, but if he is, that doesn't follow the pattern. Maybe he has 13 1/2 lives because the last 1/2 life is used writing this book peacefully till death? Anyway it may be will be interesting, and I look forward to seeing all my theories proven useless later in the book. Conclusively, I would say that this book is excellent, and possibly thematic, depending on if I'm right. Either way, the book is worth reading if only to be able to say you're reading a book about Captain Bluebear.
Life 1: Being ditched on an island for growing too large.
Life 2: Fleeing who he's living with (hobgoblins) in fear of becoming despicable like them.
Life 3: Nearly being eaten by the candy- filled island he's living on that actually turns out to be a creepy large creature and saved by a strange dinosaur- like bird thing in the nick of time.
Life 4: Being given up in favor of retirement.
I wouldn't say that any of these unfortunate occurances are Bluebear's fault at all (except for maybe the second, but who wants to be like a hobgoblin?) -- so maybe the author is pointing out how every little thing in your life will end, and there's not a thing you can do about it, because it's not your fault and it's not under your control. Maybe he thinks that as a person you are not in control of anything-- after all, all Bluebear's been doing for the duration of the book is drifting, getting to other places accidentally, but not staying long, and just going where the tides take him-- sometimes literally.
Critically reading over what I have just written, I've realized that it sounds a lot like what Ms. Rear talked about with Romeo and Juliet-- fate. I think that the author of this book must be a big fan of fate, even if not in the way Shakespeare is. Bluebear may not be fated to end an ancient feud with death, but I feel like, no matter how insignifigant his life has been so far, all of this stuff has been decided for him. He has no control and everything is following a pattern- faaaate.
All of this talk makes me wonder what will happen at the end of the book. I seldom blog on a book without finishing it, for fear of making uneducated (in that book) and incorrect assumptions. But if each of his lives are fated to end in this manner, and we're on 5 out of 13 1/2, I wonder how and if he'l die. It's hard to predict what will happen later in this book, because the narrator speaks as one telling back their story, so he must be alive at the end, but if he is, that doesn't follow the pattern. Maybe he has 13 1/2 lives because the last 1/2 life is used writing this book peacefully till death? Anyway it may be will be interesting, and I look forward to seeing all my theories proven useless later in the book. Conclusively, I would say that this book is excellent, and possibly thematic, depending on if I'm right. Either way, the book is worth reading if only to be able to say you're reading a book about Captain Bluebear.
Friday, April 26, 2013
Nonfiction Post
The overall main idea of the passage "U.S. Says It Suspects Assad Used Chemical Weapons," is that our country thinks (like it says in the title) that Bashar al- Assad may have used chemical weapons. To back this up, the author includes a variety of evidence. Apparantly, the American intelligence agencies are sure, according to congressional leaders, "with varying degrees of confidence," that he had used these weapons. Supposedly he used "the chemical agent sarin on a small scale." Thinks Dianne Feinstein, Californian democratic senator, who's the "chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee," the government is actually pretty sure Assad used chemical weapons. Syria was known to have a stockpile before any of these concerns, and the tests to check were based on using soil samples and blood drawn from the wounded, which seems believable.The samples drawn were from where they suspected the attack (which has not been 100% connected to Assad) was, which is a village "near Aleppo and in the outskirts of Damascus. However, the juicy issue is: are we going to go into Syria because of this? As you surely know (or do not, Idon't know who's reading this) the use of chemical weapons like this is against International Law. But on the topic, it was said by the White House that "Only credible and corrobated facts that provide us with some degree of certainty will guide our decision-making. Apparantly Obama's red line as for going into Syria is when "we start seeing a whole bunch of weapons moved around or being utilized."
The author wants me to think 100% that Syria has used these weapons, even though the evidence is not perfect, and no one is certain. He does this by quoting people who think chemical weapons have been used, like Dianne Feinstein. He gives some evidence that he marks as not proven, but he makes everything seem like we're certain, mostly by supporting the idea that there were chemical weapons used, but not as much by supporting the idea that Assad did it. It, hypothetically may have been someone else. They're not sure it was him who attcked the town. However, there are limited supplies of chemical weapons for someone else to get. The author wants me to feel sad, mad, and self- righeous. Sad that people are being hurt, angry that these are being used, and self- righteous in the way of wanting to be an activist and feeling like Assad is morally wrong.
I will take away the ideas the Assad is putting his toes over the line. I really hope nothing happens too bad, but if Assad is mass- murdering his citizens with chemical weapons, maybe we should go in. I think that chemical weapons and Assad are horrible. Chemical weapons are disgusting, as we learned after World War I, and I will never like the use of those weapons, unless there's a zombie apocalypse and they are surprisingly sensitive to chemical weapons but nothing else. I really want to learn more about if the United States will go in-- I hope this doesn't create another war like Iraq.
The author wants me to think 100% that Syria has used these weapons, even though the evidence is not perfect, and no one is certain. He does this by quoting people who think chemical weapons have been used, like Dianne Feinstein. He gives some evidence that he marks as not proven, but he makes everything seem like we're certain, mostly by supporting the idea that there were chemical weapons used, but not as much by supporting the idea that Assad did it. It, hypothetically may have been someone else. They're not sure it was him who attcked the town. However, there are limited supplies of chemical weapons for someone else to get. The author wants me to feel sad, mad, and self- righeous. Sad that people are being hurt, angry that these are being used, and self- righteous in the way of wanting to be an activist and feeling like Assad is morally wrong.
I will take away the ideas the Assad is putting his toes over the line. I really hope nothing happens too bad, but if Assad is mass- murdering his citizens with chemical weapons, maybe we should go in. I think that chemical weapons and Assad are horrible. Chemical weapons are disgusting, as we learned after World War I, and I will never like the use of those weapons, unless there's a zombie apocalypse and they are surprisingly sensitive to chemical weapons but nothing else. I really want to learn more about if the United States will go in-- I hope this doesn't create another war like Iraq.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)