FINAL!

 “Is writing online different than in a notebook?  In what ways?”
-Definitely. In a notebook, you can make any mistakes you want to, and really write absolutely anything. After all, only your teacher is going to read it. On the internet, you must be closer to perfect. Random people could view your post and write you off as an idiot, or a loony. You have to try to make your work quality to attract readers. So blog improved my writing, because I needed to be a better, more interesting writer to have a successful blog.

* In what ways can writing online be liberating?  Limiting?
Well you can certainly post whatever you like, without fear of a teacher being able to pull it down. You can say what you want about whatever you want, without teachers being able to protest. But anyone with an ounce of sense you censor themselves, because what you write cannot not ever be removed. Ever.

* Do people type things they would never say to a person's face? Do you think this is a good or bad thing? Why?

 There’s no immediate consequence to posting something mean. You don’t feel the shame of seeing someone crying, you don’t feel the fear of them reporting you. For a couple of hours, nothing happens. But that’s bad, because it provokes you to do worse things than you would if you had immediate consequences. But in the end, you are caught and things go badly for you.

* Can you imagine yourself keeping up this blog or creating another one?  What would it be about?  What's your opinion of blogs in general and why?   

I won’t be keeping this one, that’s for sure. None of the posts came from actually ned to get thoughts down, only from the threat of low grades. I generally read, and keep it to myself. I won’t be creating another one, because I don’t believe anyone will read it. Blogs are useless when they are force written.

Honor

In Song of Ice and Fire betrayal, back-stabbing, and desertion are common. One of the only characters who doesn’t do these things, (He won’t be named for spoilers.) dies in the first book. So obviously, only the liars and oath-breakers are able to survive, and thrive. We, the readers, are supposed to view this negatively. But sometimes I think as I read, that if I were in the sell-sword’s and weak spirited soldier’s shoes, I would do the same. Which is more important, serving someone who is paying you, or your own life? But all the same, it is indeed hard to run an army filled with people who you can’t trust, and who have no honor at all.

But then again, what is honor? Merriam-Webster dictionary defines it as “a keen sense of ethical conduct: Integrity <a man of honor>” So people with honor have strong ethics, usually a strong sense of fairness, justice, and honesty. Good things. Attributes that people can be proud of. You can trust, and depend on honorable people. They are loyal friends and fierce enemies. And above all, they play by the rules.

So, why aren’t honorable people all leaders, why did the character in Game of Thrones get killed? Because not everyone plays by the rules like they do. People that are crafty, clever, and aren’t afraid of getting their hands dirty can get rid of an honorable person in a blink of an eye. They scorn ethics, and laugh in the face of integrity. They make false friends, and dangerous enemies. In Ice and Fire, and the real world, people like these are the ones that succeed.

But what if you want to be a good person, and an honorable person, but you don’t want to end up dead, or in the dust? You have to know when to set aside your honor and play rough. You have to realize that in certain situations it is better for you and others, to turn a blind eye to something. Or to tell a white lie. We should all strive to be honorable, but we must all know how to adapt to complicated situations as well. 

Politics in Clash of Kings.

I am on book two of the Game of Thrones series. The second book is called “A clash of kings.”  A character named Varys poses a riddle. "In a room sit three great men, a king, a priest, and a rch man with his gold. Between them stands a sellsword, a little man of common birth and no great mind. Each of the great ones bids him slay the other two. 'Do it,' says the king, 'for I am your lawful ruler.' 'Do it,' says the priest, 'for I command you in the names of the gods.' 'Do it,' says the rich man, 'and all this gold shall be yours.' So tell me- who lives and who dies?" The main character points out that the sellsword would obviously kill the Priest and the King. But Varys asked, ‘why would he listen to any of them?’

As I read through this book about Kings wasting lives in their little political power play, I always wonder exactly what Varys wondered. Why would armies, listen to singular persons, who don’t have any experience, just because they come from a rich family? In the riddle, the sellseword has the power, not any of the three men. He could command them, and make them bow if he just realized the fact that they feared him.

I feel the same way about countries with a forced dictatorship. Why do the dictators have the power?  Can’t the soldiers see that without them the dictator has nothing? If everyone walked out of the country, if everyone began protesting that the dictator would just be another person. Loyalty in certain cases, can be a very very dangerous thing indeed.

But then again, I feel like in Clash of Kings a sudden breakdown of the hierarchy would mean total chaos. Because the sellswords would take to bullying the average person, and they would be helpless. The problem is the people have no say. It’s either the one’s with swords, or the one’s with gold. And in the worse case scenarios the one’s with both.  The political system in Clash of Kings is cringe worthy, but even more cringe worthy is the fact that countries in the real world still run in that way. 

Oscar.

In ‘The brief and wondrous life of Oscar Wao’ Oscar is a morbidly obese Dominican who lives in New York. He struggles through life, as everyone torments him and he torments himself. Eventually a curse, which has been in his family for years, does him in. The book has a lot to do with culture, at some points its bilingual, and it has foot note upon foot note on like in the Dominican Republic. Oscar feels tons of pressure from his homeland to be slick and smooth with the ladies, and he spends hours worrying that he isn’t (and he isn’t).   

Having a culture where unspoken rules, ethics, a morals are passed down from generation to generation is usually a good thing. It promotes a tight knit community, where everyone knows each other, and knows how everyone acts.  But it also makes a harsh place for people who are different. When every single person has the same standards, and someone can’t meet it, then every single person will be disappointed, and displeased. For Oscar, being a stuttering, obese nerd makes him a sore thumb in the Dominican community. He desperately wants to fit in, but he is unable to. In fact, he is so different from everyone else that people regularly ask him whether or not he’s actually Dominican. He insists that he is, but is he really?                  

Sure his family comes from there, but he doesn’t have the same morals, he doesn’t have the same standards or beliefs. The only thing that marks him as Dominican is his heritage, and is that enough? What does it mean to be from somewhere? For Oscar is means having people that accept him, having people that are similar to him, and share his thoughts. And in Oscars case, the place where he’s from is not his land, or his culture, and much as he wants it to be. 

Oppressive order? Or chaos?

 In a book I recently read, called Shades of Grey society is based on what people can see. There are seven kinds of people, Red, Green, Blue, Purple, Yellow, Orange, and Grey. Purple is the highest in society; Grey the lowest. Eddie Russet is a low Red. He gets in trouble and is sent away from his home, and society, to a place called “The outer fringes” and unruly place, that seems to blow Eddie mind. They break rules! They don’t follow the holy book of color! He meets a wild Grey named Jane. Together they discover a dark secret about this dystopia future. My question after reading the book was “Which is better, having an oppressive, yet semi functional society, or chaos?”

Obviously there are ups and downs for both. The society, if not stopped, will last for centuries more probably, centuries of oppression and hidden death.  But for most people living is alright. But for those who dare question or think, they’ll meet a grim end. However in chaos, there are no rules. Someone with power and influence could easily take over and make things even worse!

So there’s no perfect answer. The hardest and best solution is to work to destroy the society, but keep some vestiges of civilization once it’s gone. Eddie and Jane truly have a hard couple of years coming. 

Macbeth: Let's point fingers.

      So once you’ve finished Macbeth, most people ask the question, “Who’s to blame for the mess, and the murders?”, and in a world where secrets are the language and plots are rampant, it is not an easy question to answer. There are always two main suspects whenever the blame game is played, Lady Macbeth and Lord Macbeth (For good reason).

       Lady Macbeth – People who have more knowledge of the play usually go with her. The seemingly innocent Lady of the manor, who is trusted by Duncan, is actually a wolf in sheep’s clothing. She not only masterminds the murder, butforced Macbeth into doing the deed. “But screw your courage to the sticking-place, And we'll not fail. What cannot you and I perform upon The unguarded Duncan? What not put upon His spongy officers, who shall bear the guilt Of our great quell?” She would have killed Duncan herself, if he had not looked like her father! Later in the play, gone mad with guilt, Lady Macbeth dies. Not a very nice woman, and not a very nice way to go.

      Macbeth – While his devious wife may have forced him to kill Duncan, Macbeth goes on to kill willy nilly with absolutely no qualms about it. The guards, Banquo, Lady Macduff, the list goes on. He takes to his role as ruthless king like a dog takes to a bone. Macbeth has “no spur to prick the sides of my intent, but only vaulting ambition.” Some say his undisguised ambition causes this train wreck that is the lives of the Macbeths. He too goes mad, and is brutally murdered by Macduff.  Not a very nice man and not a very nice way to go.

          But there is one factor that people often overlook. Who places the idea of kinghood in Macbeth’s mind? Lady Macbeth? No. Who convinces him that Banquo must die? Lady Macbeth? No. Thewitches. In a weird twist (That will hurt your mind if you think about it) if the witches hadn’t told him he would be king, he wouldn’t have been. And while the witches planted the seeds in Macbeth, it was really the darkness of human nature that made them grow, flourish, and ultimately, die,

Pictures and children, a thoughtful is rambling blog. REVISED.

So, continuing the rereading cycle, I have moved on to The Edge Chronicles, a great series set in an elaborately detailed fantasy world. No magic is involved, but the place is magical for readers, and the authors seem to be able to write story after story about the fascinating place they created. It is done by two authors. The writing is good, with gripping plot lines, and good description. But the pictures are the great. The pen sketches are about one per two pages, and really add to the book, and help create the world. But every time I flip through the pictures, I feel a little juvenile because after all, pictures are for little kids, right? And who wants to be associated with kids? Just because children are younger than adults, doesn’t mean they have to be treated unfairly. And things that children like don’t have to have bad preconception attached to them.

Take what we’re reading now in ELA, Romeo and Juliet. They (particularly the latter) are forced to do things they don’t want to because they are young. Juliet is forced to marry someone and when she refuses her father says. “Out you greensickness carrion! out, you baggage!” [sic]. In Romeo’s case his love for Juliet is quickly dismissed by the friar. While this may be because he was obsessing over someone else just the other day, I believe in part it is because of the youth of Romeo.

And then when you reach an age around 12 or 13, everything that is “childish” is suddenly branded as evil. Children’s toys, clothes, books and other items become considered a social taboo.

What I don’t think people realize is that the fact that kids and “their” things are preconceived as silly is such a bad thing. Take my original example. Pictures can actually enhance a book. The vivid illustrations in “Black Ships before Troy” make reading the entire book a great experience, and actually encouraged me to read the real “Iliad”. Younger folk have real opinions and real thoughts and they, and their pictures, shouldn’t be 
dismissed without a second thought. 


Old post: http://ridingapancaketoschool.blogspot.com/2011/03/pictures.html

Grandpa Grumble shows us an odd moral.

 So I’m on a tear through the Moomin series. The first couple are light hearted and fun, but as you get deeper into the series the books take a darker, more meaningful turn.  I read Moominvalley in November which is about several characters that are not wacky or zany but kind of odd, and unsociable with problems in their life. They go to the Moomin house because they have vague recollections of the Moomins being perfect. However when they arrive no one is there. They have to live with each other through the dreary autumn. The book takes twists and turns and is quite thought provoking.  One of the characters (Grandpa Grumble) is living in a dream world and is angry when people point out reality. This made me think, is it sometimes okay to be ignorant?

Long ago I dismissed the “Ignorance is bliss” concept. But it seems that Grandpa Grumble, a hundred plus old man actually benefits from forgetting things and living his own reality. He has fun, enjoys his life and views it through his own eyes. To everyone else in the book the body of water in the valley is a river. To him it is a brook. To everyone else “Ancestor” is Grandpa Grumble looking in a mirror. To Grumble “Ancestor” is his best friend. When someone described the river as a river Grumble got very upset. But soon he willed himself to forget all about it.

Obviously there are drawbacks to this. If all of society wandered around calling rivers brooks nothing would ever get done. But to me, Grumbles attitude was almost refreshing. He does what he likes, he remembers what he likes (Maybe this comes with old age). I think the world would be a better (or more interesting for sure) place if people had a bit of fillyjonk (super organized) but also a touch of Grumble, carefree and happy about it.

Coping with grief.

I am reading a book called Case Histories which is a complex mystery novel, centering on dysfunctional families. The main character, Jackson, is a detective who works privately dealing with missing cats and suspicious spouses. But as his cases start piling up, things get more and more serious. One of the new cases he has is investigating a ten year old murder of a young intern. Her father, Theo, seems to be obsessed with her, gathering all the news paper articles and pinning them up. Jackson is constantly saying that he needs to move on, and that he can’t let go. But then his co-worker says “Why would he let go?”

That was very interesting to me. If you think about it about, why would he say a final goodbye do his daughter. He seems to be very content going through rituals that honor her memory and sit4ting in her favorite places, etc. This might be creepy, but obviously he had a strong connection to her and misses her a lot. This is his way of coping with loss. Other people look at it and judge him.

On the flip side it is true he doesn’t seem to be getting on with his life. And by getting on I mean; Meeting new people, making new friends, going for new experiences. He wallows in the past, finding no consolation for his grief. And what does it do for him? Nothing really.

Coping with grief is something a lot of people have trouble with. But to each his own, no one should judge Theo for living in the past, even if it might not be the best thing for him. 

Pictures?!

So, continuing the rereading cycle, I have moved on to The Edge Chronicles, a great series set in an elaborately detailed fantasy world. No magic is involved, but the place is magical for readers, and the authors seem to be able to write story after story about the fascinating place they created. It is done by two authors. The writing is good, with gripping plot lines, and good description. But the pictures are the great. The pen sketches are about one per two pages, and really add to the book, and help create the world. But every time I flip through the pictures, I feel a little juvenile because after all, pictures are for little kids, right?

Every single book for children seems to have pictures, and likewise most adult books are only text. Big, long chunks of text. I believe that The Edge Chronicles show us that all books should be allowed to have pictures (Did you think that sentence was juvenile? You’re prejudiced against picture books). Intricate drawings really can’t harm a book, only add to it. While I agree that huge water colors every page aren’t necessary, I don’t see why some nice sketches are almost banned from adult books.

People hold preconceptions about things that are “for kids”. They automatically label them as stupid and childish. Yet some things (like pictures in books) are actually helpful, as the Edge Chronicles show. The books would truly suffer without the illustrations. 

Really long. Sprawling.

                So recently (just today actually) I reread one of my favorite books “Fly by night” by Frances Hardinge. This robust tale is filled with mystery, adventure, intrigue (lots of it!), comedy and tragedy. One might say, “That’s a lot to stuff in a book.” yet the author still manages to get across several extremely thought provoking morals. In the book Mosca Mye is forced to leave her mean uncle and aunt and become a fugitive, with her pet goose.  She meets a down on his luck, shifty, crafty, poet named Clent and the two strike up an uneasy relationship. They travel to a city with an unstable duke, warring guilds, and a dark secret.  

                One of the major themes of the book is the freedom of press. Masca’s father was a major supporter of freedom of press, but after a religious cult called “The Birdcatchers” took over by way of written propaganda and killed thousands of non believers, the people of the Relm generally agree that books should only be written by a select few.  Those select few are part of the Stationer guild, which fear other people’s books because of the power they have over the masses.

                Obviously as a firm believer of the first amendment my first reaction was one of distaste for the crushing of opinion. But as I kept reading the argument got a little more interesting, so I turned to history for good examples. In history written word has always been powerful. In the American revolution newspapers played a key role, keeping states informed about other states doings and raising public outcry. Thomas Paine’s book “Common Sense” was influential to many.  Hitler’s terrible rise to power was partially fueled by Mien Kamf, his autobiography. It played a major part in the propaganda that surrounded him. On the flip side, after his rise to power Hitler order any piece of literature by a Jewish author to be burned.  

                In modern day you see examples not with written word, but with typed word on the internet. Mubarak, the ex-president of Egypt saw how powerful this was and turned the internet off for days. So obviously the ability to write freely is an extremely powerful one, but is it too powerful? Can it convince people to do awful, awful things like the Birdcatchers did?

                I think we need to look deeper into the problem. In the end, Mosca says “If I told people what to believe, they’d stop thinking. And then they’d be even easier to lie to.” The problem is the people. There are always week minded people, who rely on others to think. If we teach people to think for themselves, words would be less dangerous, and therefore would be allowed for all to use. 

Response to Eamon's post.

So in one of my favorite books of all time The Book Thief the main character and all her friends die. Yet for some reason this didn't bother me. Maybe that's because something I hate more then anything else, is when a book that's not in a series ends with "So and So walked into the sunset, never turning back." For me that is so frustrating. Making up an ending in your mind isn't as satisfying as having an author write one. 

A death at the end of a book finalizes it, concludes it nicely. What if Harry Potter had ended with both Voldemort and Harry alive? What if Lord of the Rings had ended with the ring undestroyed? While these endings were both happy, I would have been Equally satisfied if Harry died, but not Voldemort.

There's nothing worse for me than closing a book, looking up, and having to think So, what happened then?  Sad endings usually have more of a finish to them. When we reread happy endings the question of the ending always nags us. When we reread sad endings the question is answered again in full.

VERY IMPORANT

Excuse me! IMPORTANT!  If you are going to comment on ma blog, please go two posts down. This is a post I want to discuss.

Thanks a bunch,
Retep Rellid.

Ooogah!; For nice writing look at the post before this please.

Three days ago, a famous children’s book author, Brian Jacques passed away at age 71. I own seventeen of his twenty one books, all part of the Redwall series. These books captivated my imagination till sixth grade. The series all pivot around one standard plot. The good guys are various woodland creatures, namely mice, otters, squirrels, moles, shrews, hares, badgers and hedgehogs. The bad guys are always Hawks, toads, foxes, rats, weasels, ferrets, and stoats.  While the books do run similar, they are wonderfully written. He originally wrote them for blind children, so he uses a lot of description.

One thing that always bothered me however, is how the bad guys have not a scrap of goodness in them. They betray their friends, kill each other and ravage the country side. They have not one good asset to them. Maybe this is just to lay out good and evil simply for children. Or maybe it’s his way of justifying the good beats killing them but still.

i don’t know one human being that is so unforgivably evil. Not one. People aren’t black and white. They’re not good and evil. They’re more like shades of grey. They have good sides, and terrible sides. The stoats and foxes should have some pitiable sides. You should be able to see them care for their pups and babies. It can be flipped too. The good guys have no bad side. They are pure in their absolute kindness. There is no so-so character.

This is, of course, me reading it from an adult view. I still appreciate for a great work of writing and a beautiful children’s book. But every time I encounter an evil character I wince. Because I know that everyone has both a good side and a bad side, and that should be acknowledged in the book. 

Tradition vs Modernization: An amazingly long look at the two.

                 Enemy at the Gate compares two sides. East and west, Christendom and Islam, and a style of fighting based on tradition and one based on technology. The Ottomans are a very traditional culture, with lavish events and customs. They fight with the same troops and the same tactics that they did centuries before the siege of Vienna; Cavalry wearing down the enemy, then a rush of Janissaries to break them. The Hungarians however use a much more modern style of fighting, cutting edge even. Leaning heavily on musketeers and pike men with a smattering of ranged dragoons, the Hungarian army is a mechanized steely being, with no culture directing their actions, but with a great tactical advantage.

                Spoiler alert: The Ottomans are soundly defeated. Their traditional army is no match for the modern force. For obvious reasons, having a not-with-the-times military is disastrous. Your enemy has better weapons, better strategies and is more adapted to the fighting climate.  A 16^th century army has no place in the late 1600s. It is easy for the reader, with the benefit of hindsight, to see that an old fashioned culture can be easily overwhelmed by a culture that is with the times, and adapts.

                While it simple to pass judgment on old style military operations, it is much more difficult for other aspects of life. The Kindle is a relatively cheap, light, and easy to use replacement for the book. One can hold hundreds of hard covers in one object, and switch easily from book to book. Indeed some people hail the Kindle as ‘the book of the future.’ Yet readers still cling to the old fashioned paperback. While the Kindle is more efficient and easier to read, many still resent it, I among them. A chalk board can be replaced with a smart board. Letters can be replaced with E-mail.  . But people still read books, use chalkboards and send letters. The U.S.A is falling behind more newly advanced countries  like China and India.

                Traditional methods can be blamed for this falling behind.  Two nights ago President Obama talked about it in his state of the union address. “They're right. The rules have changed. In a single generation, revolutions in technology have transformed the way we live, work and do business. Steel mills that once needed 1,000 workers can now do the same work with 100. Today, just about any company can set up shop, hire workers, and sell their products wherever there's an Internet connection.

                Meanwhile, nations like China and India realized that with some changes of their own, they could compete in this new world. And so they started educating their children earlier and longer, with greater emphasis on math and science. They're investing in research and new technologies. Just recently, China became the home to the world's largest private solar research facility, and the world's fastest computer.”

                Change has left a traditional America in the dust. But sentimentality is one of the main things that sets us apart from other animals. If an animal had to leave a home or abandon a tradition, they wouldn’t feel any sadness. We would. Another example is religion. It is important to many of us, and the whole theme of religion is that it never changes; it revolves around a series of set traditions and actions.

                If the Ottomans had just tweaked their army a bit, they could have won. They could have modernized some troops and strategies but kept their soul and culture. And that’s what we must do. We have to adapt for somethings, like more efficient and available energy, and smarter more technical savvy students. But we can also keep things like letters and religion and books. We must compromise between the super modernized Hungarians and the ultra traditional Ottomans. 

            

Enemy At The Gate

                Enemy At The Gate is not an easy read.  From its factual language to its complicated message.  It is about the kingdom of Ottomans besieging Vienna in the late 1600s. The Ottomans have the might, the ambition and the loyalty, while the Hapsburgs have technology and well defended strong holds.  But the thing that really makes them different from each other is their religion.  Four hundred years ago religion was everything.  If you were a different religion from someone you were practically a different species, at least in their eyes.

                Contemporary authors would describe the pitched battles as “The soldiers of the One God launched their assault on the infidels” Or “For the love of their false religion they attacked in seven directions.”  While their closely situated may have had an effect on their many wars, Religion was the biggest component.  Each side could claim that “Heaven had brought their victory.”  Turkish janissaries would throw themselves into battle, believing that if they died, they would die a martyr.

                If I were to right now say that religion is unnecessary and causes war, I would bet that several people would point to Islam as the only religion that causes strife. Yet Christianity has an extremely bloody pass, from the crusades to the Spanish inquisition, to the holocaust Christianity has had its fair share of violence. In fact most religions have.

                To me killing people over different religions is the most pointless and sencless act of violence one can commit. To prove my point, you could say the religious wars are “An invisible man in the sky telling two different people to kill each other in his name.” When phrased this way, those wars sound pretty stupid. And not only that I never understood how people in religious wars could justify their killing people when their holy books say that murder is not allowed.   

                The problem is, these fanatics seem to be beyond logical reason. One could say “What evidence is there that god wants you to kill people?” Or “You and that human you are about to kill, are literally almost the same” but they could still find a way to justify the bloodshed.  For this reason Religious violence is hard to deal with.  It is scary to see  what humans do when they think they are right. 

Outliers- A look at the theme.

Outliers, a book by Malcolm Gladwell, is centered on one statement which, while an opinion, is stated as fact. That no star can truly go from "Rags to riches" By themselves. No one can make it just with raw talent. That is all relies on there surroundings, where they came from, and their cultural background.  Gladwell has chapters on each of these things.

At some level I agree with this. A musician needs to be able to afford a teacher and an instrument. Young adults need time to develop their skills, and a supporting family. One can't start with literally nothing and make it big. . Gladwell presents an interesting argument with lot's of supporting facts and interesting details. He has an "10,000" hour practice theory that is quite fascinating.

Yet I don't believe some of it. In Social Studies we're learning about Carnegie and Rockefeller, people who Gladwell would claim, made their fortunes because of the year they were born. But in these two, I see self made men. People who define the "Rags to Riches" motto. Sure they had things going for them, but that doesn't mean that they didn't play a large part in shaping their own destiny.

While Gladwell makes some good points, he should stop presenting his opinion as fact. Maybe he should consider that people cling to the Rags to Riches saying because it inspires. His book almost seems like a dream crusher to me.