Last Blog Post

In what ways can writing online be liberating?  Limiting?

      For my final blog post of the year i have decided to answer this question. I think writing online is definitely a different experience. It is sort of open, as opposed to a notebook, which is more personal.
     I think the reason blogging is more open is because it's online, so pretty much anyone can read it, and you don't necessarily know any of them, or know who's looking at your post.. Not that everyone does, but just that feeling of openness is kind of creepy, like standing in the middle of a sports stadium, while blindfolded. Writing in a notebook is more safe feeling, more controlled. It's closed off, literally. when you close your notebook, that's it no one can read it, it's shut to the world. But things online aren't like that.
     But that can also really help your writing. If it feels like every action is scrutinized and every word read by others, it pushes you to write the best you can. You can't write total crap like you might in a notebook, because others are reading and judging it. But sometimes I feel as if I don't want to write as meaningfully or as true to myself as I should, because people are reading it.
     So in the end, writing online really, for me, makes my work easier to read, more grammatically correct, and overall just better written then it would be in a notebook. But sometimes it also makes my writing less deep and emotional.

Real Life vs Fiction

      I'm reading the book A Long Way Gone by Ishmael Beah. It is a memoir of his life as a child soldier during the Seira Leonian civil war. It is kind of horrifying, and terribly tragic. It makes me wonder how such terrible things are allowed to happen. It also makes me think about how I've never heard about such terrible things in books.
     Now maybe I'm just reading the wrong books, but I read a fair amount. I am fairly sure that most of all books written, probably even most war books, at least most I've read, don't. It makes me think about how fiction is sometimes the idealized version of life. And there are things in the real world that are worse then anyone can imagine.
     Another thing I thought is how people let this happen. I mean, obviously it would be very difficult for the people being shot at to do much, and once threatened, brainwashed, and drugged. But what about the UN? America? The EU? World powers sometimes are needed to help save people when there own governments can't. Why didn't we raise our voices in protest. I think sometimes it's just easier to do nothing. There are probably things that are going on right now that i should be going out and helping stop, when instead I'm sitting here.

The Cover of the Communist Manifesto

     For my group we are reading the Communist Manifesto. It is a revolutionary book written by Karl Marx in the 19th century. It advocates communism and the overthrow of the "capitalist pigs." Now i was looking it up online and all the covers are serious pictures of communist flags, or pictures of hairy men in suits (Marx and Engels).
     However, on my copy of the book, purchased from a hip-ish bookstore in brooklyn heights, is covered in animated pigs, angry communist midgets, and 100 foot tall business CEOs. This makes me think about how they change the covers for wildly different people, who all still want to read the same book. Three people, a communist revolutionary, a economist, and a student, could buy the same book, all for different reasons, and each would want a different look and "feel" to the book.
     This makes me think of what makes a book a classic. It can appeal to many people.

Harry Potter and Friendship

     I've recently been re-reading the harry potter series. These are some great books, and I think they'll definitely go down as one the best series of the decade. I read an interview on line with J.K. Rowling saying that she was trying to write mainly about death in these books. I disagree. From what I've read about the books, friendship, loyalty and trust are the main themes. From Harry's inability to trust sometimes to his unyielding friendships, it always seems to be a big theme.
     Now alot of people who read this may be like: whoa! he can't say that! the author already said what it's about. But I disagree there, too. I'm the one reading, and I can draw my own conclusions. If I don't think what the author thinks, then okay. These things are open to the reader's interpretation, which is something nice about books, and art in general, actually.

Cultures and Perspectives

     I'm reading the book Pecked to Death By Ducks. While it may sound like it, it is not about any sort of murder through fowls. It's basically a travel guide, except to strange and dangerous places that not many people know of ( I'm not sure why it's named what it is, I'm pretty sure he included it in the intro, but I didn't read it, so...).
     In it he's describing all these different cultures and people, and through it I was thinking the usual " oh, that's weird" stuff and I got to thinking: why is it that some people see things so differently then others. I think it's weird that the island has wild horses running around that people hop on when they need a lift, and they probably think it's weird that we have a giant metal machine hurtling underneath our streets that we just hop on when we need a lift.
     But why is it humans in particular that see things so differently? Is it because we're more adaptable
? But cockroaches are adaptable but they seem to see eye to eye. Maybe because we're smarter then most animals. Then again, we might not actually be very different at all. Maybe most animals are very individualistic thinkers, but we don't realize it.

Osama Bin Laden and Feelings

     As you all know we've killed Osama Bin Laden this week. There was a whole hullabaloo and all about it, and a whole bunch of news. There were also a whole lot of people celebrating in the streets. Now this raises a question for me, when is it okay for people to be happy? Is it not okay to be happy over someone's death, even someone as profoundly evil as Osama Bin Laden?
    In the book I'm reading, Dracula, people are happy at odd times. Like Dr Seward is happy when he finds that Lucy is a vampire and still "alive" in a sense. It makes you think about how random our emotions are, and makes me think, to what extent are we supposed to control our emotions? Should we try to actively change them, or just work to suppress them?

The Unknown in Dracula

     Dracula is a book, made in the early 1900's, about a vampire, Dracula. It was written by Bram Stoker and was the original Vampire craze starter. It, obviously, has allot to do with fear. Now, this fear isn't fear of Dracula himself. it's fear of the unknown. One woman is always terrified for her husband because she doesn't know where he is. One man, a ship captain, is afraid because there's something on his ship and he doesn't know what it is.
     I know that this has been put forward allot, but I'm going to put it forward again: almost all fear is fear of the unknown. Fear of death-who knows what happens in the afterlife, fear of the dark-who knows what's out there that you can't see, fear of heights-will I fall if I step here? will i survive the fall? We like knowing about things, because if we know enough about it, chances are we can stop or change it.
     But there's also another big fear: fear of the inevitable. for example, if a boy's father hits him, and hits him every night, it's known, the kid knows what'll happen, but will probably still be in fear.  because he knows that it will happen and can't be changed.
     This makes me think about how what we fear is really loss of power. when we're in control we can change things, make them better. But when we don't know what's happening we don't know how to fix it, and, in my opinion the more freightening one, when we know exactly what's happening, and know nothing will change it. it will end badly, no matter what.

Loss of Power In Frankenstein

     In the book I'm reading, Frankenstein (the original book, not a modern version or anything. The original is really different then the classic, modern story that I think of whenever I hear  Frankenstein,   by  the   way) the theme of power appears alot. Before the monster is created Frankenstein has all the power, but afterwards, the monster becomes the most powerful, ordering Frankenstein around all the time. Frankenstein frequently has lots of fits after this happens, leading me to think about loss of power.
     Being the weaker one in a relationship of any kind isn't always the best thing, but people usually manage with it, accept it, or even enjoy it in some respects. But people seem unable to deal with loss of power. I believe that this has to do with humans general dislike of change.
     People usually can't deal with such a sudden reversal of the way things work. That's why Frankenstein becomes so upset. If he had been born serving the monster, he would have been okay, but it changed so suddenly. People can adapt, but not that quickly.

Story Endings (revised).

  Why is it that in the stories that we most like things turn out badly? Actually let me re-frase that. In the stories I most re-read things turn out badly. For instance the Hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy series doesn't turn out that well. In an arsonists guide to writer's homes in new england he (SPOILER ALERT) ends up back in prison. In the Bartimeaus trilogy (another SPOILER) Nick dies at the end. But i loved all three books (and series) and re-read all three many many times.
     Maybe it's because I'm trying to impose a happy ending on it. If, for example I read it enough times it will change how i ends. Sometimes in other books I'll go back and re-read the sad parts. It's as if my brain can't accept it and I want it to change. I'm a person who likes being in control of a situation, at least a little. Not being able to change hoe things will end, when I'm being driven somewhere, or on a plane, bothers me. If I can't do anything about a situation, and that doesn't meen I have to do something, just if i know I won't be able to change it, makes me feel powerless. That's something hard I find in books. whatever decisions the author makes, I can't change it. In real life, at least with the little things, I can change them. But books won't change. I'll throw them against a wall sometimes I'm so angry at a stupid line or plot choice.
     Maybe that's why people like books or tv shows, especially thrillers. You can't control what happens and it leaves you helpless, and at the edge of your seat.

The Man Who Was Thursday: Turn Around

     Towards the end of The Man Who Was Thursday there is a huge turn-a-round/plot twist at the end. I'm not going to tell what it is, because that wouldn't be cool. But it was a gigantic change in plot. But i saw it coming. That happens to me alot, when I se changes in plot coming. and it happens to alot of the people I know. Why?
     Sometimes I think that these things are done too much. People do thriller endings and plot twists so much, sometimes the unexpected becomes expected. In alot of thrillers and really serious books the authors feel obliged to do something "unexpected". sometimes its better if they don't.
     I think it would be really great if in movies where you aren't expecting such a sharp plot twist, like, say, that movie knight and day where Tom Cruise is a secret agent who falls in love with Cameron Diaz. It is a romantic comedy sort of thing. but if in the middle tome cruise is just driving and is hit by a bus, and dies. That would make movies in general much more interesting. The same thing for those kinds of books.

Hate and Love in Everwild

     In the book I'm reading, Everwild, one of the main characters, Nick, is in love with the main antagonist, Mary Hightower. They are arch rivals, and are actively trying to destroy the other. the theme of people falling in love with people they shouldn't, or hating the people they are in love with, comes up a lot in books. Another example of this would be Romeo and Juliet.
     Now, I'm only a middle schooler, and I don't know that much about love. But the various stories I've heard about how people got married, or how we met, stories, have never started with "well, we were arch enemies and he wanted me dead" or "He was a oil baron and I was an environmental activist". As far as I can tell love really doesn't work that way, or at least is not very common.
      So I wonder why the whole doomed romance thing is so common in media. It seems humans in general like the underdogs, the people who it will never work out for. But why? Is it that we feel better that our lives aren't that messed up, that our love is easier to find? Or maybe we LIKE the feeling of fighting  against all odds. But if that's true, why? what in the evolutionary history of humans would make that an advantage?

Grotesqueness in The Man Who Was Thursday

     In the book i am reading detective Syme, a detective investigating anarchy, is horribly disgusted by Sunday, the president of Anarchists. He isn't quite sure why it disgusts him, but it appears to him "grotesquely huge". Earlier in the book, it is revealed his parents died in an anarchy related accident. As he looks at each member of the Anarchists council, he is horrified and revolted by each.
     This made me think: why do we really dislike people? even when we first meet them? Like how Syme is horrified by the anarchists at first sight. is it because something of them reminds us of something from our past? maybe Syme is horrified simply because they are anarchists. or remind him of his parent's death. I know I've let things that have happened to me in the past cloud my judgement of the future.
      I find myself not liking something or someone is because they remind me of something in the past I want to forget, or something in myself. When someone I meet has one of what I think are my negative qualities I find myself not liking them. they become a personification of something I want to make go away, and sub-consciously I think that if I somehow disapprove of them, I will make myself a better person, which is obviously false. Sometimes people, me included, need to step back and look at themselves the way they look at others.

Response To Tazmina

     I read the blog post written by Tazmina. She wrote about the book Everlost. it's about child ghosts trapped in a half life, and she writes about how, like Mary Hightower takes something away from others (SPOILER) she dos this by not telling the children how to get to heaven (or hell). I've also read the book, and I loved it.
     The reason i'm reviewing this post is because it made me think of this book in a completely different way. When I read it earlier I thought about how Mary Hightower was lying and withholding information from the children in Everlost. But Tazmina pointed out how Mary was actually taking things from the kids, by not allowing them into wherever they were going. I have re-read the book several times and never thought of it like that. People who don't let others get things, or know things, are kind of like thieves. It's the equivalent of a thief to that person. AMazing how I could overlook an idea so many times, but when someone else points it out, it opens my mind to this whole other path of ideas.
     One problem, though, I had with tazmina's post is that she set it up badly, and it's a little disorganized. I'm quite disorganized with my blogs to sometimes, but when you step back and look at a blog post set up strangely, it is really confusing. I think Tazmina should put a litlle more organization and set-up in this post. Otherwise, I think it's a great post, and really makes me think in new ways.

Story Endings

     Why is it that in the stories that we most like things turn out badly? Actually let me re-frase that. In the stories I most re-read things turn out badly. For instance the Hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy series doesn't turn out that well. In an arsonists guide to writer's homes in new england he (SPOILER ALERT) ends up back in prison. In the Bartimeaus trilogy (another SPOILER) Nick dies at the end. But i loved all three books and re-read all three many many times.
     Maybe it's because I'm trying to impose a happy ending on it. Like, if I read it enough times it will change how i ends. Sometimes in other books I'll go back and re-read the sad parts. It's like my brain can't accept it and I want it to change. That's something hard I find in books. whatever decisions the author makes, I can't change it. In real life, at least with the little things, I can change them. But books won't change. I'll throw them against a wall sometimes I'm so angry at a stupid line or plot choice.
     Maybe that's why people like books or tv shows, especially thrillers. You can't control what happens and it leaves you helpless, and at the edge of your seat. Conversely, maybe that's why people like certain video games so much, because they give you the ability to control so much more then you can in real life, but you stay safe.

Awkward Main Characters

      In the book I'm reading, An Arsonist's Guide To Writer's Homes in New England, the main character is a self described bumbler and never really does anything right. He's over emotional and doesn't get people. However this really adds to the humor of the book. Every situation he messes up I crack up at.
     Why do we find people that act stupidly funny? I think it's because if you project humor onto something you can sort of hide it. Like if you're embarrassed about a fact, if you make it funny you can hide behind the humor. Or if something makes you uncomfortable and you draw attention away from it with a joke.
      But why is it amusing if main characters are awkward? is it because we project ourselves into the book and want to hide ourselves behind humor, or does it remind us of ourselves and let us laugh at that?

Sponge in Inda

     In the book I'm reading, Inda, one of the main characters friends, called Sponge, is the sun of a king. But he hides this fact for as long as he can so as not to alienate himself from his friends. then later we find out he's gay, which he hides too, also to avoid alienating himself.
     I don't think this is a very good thing to do. I don't believe that this is the way you should pick friends. If you don't think you can tell your friends that, why are they your friends? And it's kind of disrespectful to your friends, thinking they won't be able to deal with whatever it is.
    On the other hand, some things are your own personal business. In the book Sponge doesn't want to give up the "easy friendship". Some things aren't really worth it to alienate others. I don't tell everything I do to anyone. But, if it gets to the point when you don't tell your friends anything, then you need to rethink the way you do things.

Escapism in Motherless Brooklyn

     I'm reading the book Motherless Brooklyn in which Lionel Essrog is trying to solve who killed his boss, Frank Minna. While reading this book I got to thinking about things people do to avoid how they really feel and who they really are.
     For instance one character, Danny, is an orphan who dropped out of high school. Yet he is always calm, and always cool. Even when Minna dies he keeps his cool. He hides behind a lack of emotions and avoids how he really feels.
     Lionel has tourette's. He and his friends get along by ignoring it They for the most part try and forget it exists. His whole life he sort of keeps himself hidden, with the tourrette's.. But as the book progresses Lionel meets other people, people who ask him about it, and how it is to be the way he is. And he slowly stops ignoring it, and accepting it. And he becomes a stronger, more complete person because of it.
     The overall message here is that you can't hide behind your problems and avoid emotion to make life better.. Hiding won't lead you anywhere except an endless loop of avoidance. to solve anything in life it must be met head on, and until you meet your issues and emotions you are not an incomplete person.

Hard things in Inda

     In this book I'm reading, Inda, the main character, Inda, the son of a noble, is in a military academy. He and his friends are in a intrigue filled feud with another group of boys. I find the way some of the boys act and think kind of hard to read, because I feel like that often. The things i find hard are hard for me because these are feelings I have about my own family, resentments I have of peers, and many things that are reflections of parts I don't like as much about myself.
     I believe the author of the book is saying something about the nature of children, and the hard things say that kids aren't always nice. In the book, the story is  sort of mirrored up to the adult world, and its own politics and intrigue. i think the author is saying how deep down everyone is essentially a kid, and a blood feud between two families is the same thing in its essence as a schoolyard squabble.
     Another effect of the similiarity of the characters to me and people I know is that it makes the book better, and makes me want to read it more. It's like you are doing these things, and you want to find out what happens to yourself.