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