Forgive me if this seems disjointed. It can be difficult to tell ones own story, especially when it didn't 'happen'.
I have a moment.
But no moment stands alone.
Imagine you have fallen, because you stumbled, you tripped.
You fell off the side of the castle. Your fortress. Your family’s.
But you caught yourself. You climbed back up. One step, one handhold, one foothold, one at a time.
Then, as you reached the top, the footholds fell away. Your hand slipped. You hang there by your fingertips.
Don’t worry. Look. You’re friend’s there. You friend will help you up.
Crack.
That was your fingers breaking under a hard boot. Your heart breaking under a hard smile.
No.
And now…now you can’t catch yourself.
How could you?
How could your friend?
Here is the moment. It is that brief frozen moment in the fall. The one where you decide to let yourself fall. The one where you stop fighting, because you don’t care.
But you don’t freeze there.
You hit the water and cry out from the sharp smack on your back, the ice covering your skin.
And you can’t fight. You already decided. You’ll drown, crying.
Sobbing, gasping down lungfuls of water until you drown.
…
You wake. It’s bright, so bright. You think it might be someplace good…but the light is blinding, everything hurts…
Not the good place.
Tears well up again. You tried, damn it. You tried.
A sob tears through your chest.
Why? An enemy killing you, that would have been fine…you would have understood.
But not that one. Not the one you’ve loved like family since you were a child.
A curtain is pulled away and the light hurts even more, you whimper in the middle of a sob.
And then you hear your name. Not in anger, not in satisfaction, but almost in reverence. You hear it again, in exultation.
“You’re alive!
“Guys! Guys, guess who woke up!”
That’s the other moment. When you realize it hurts because you’re alive. Because someone cared.
You don’t recognize the one who woke you. Apparently you barely know each other.
It didn’t matter. This one saved you.
Well?
Aren’t you going to do anything?
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Sunday, March 21, 2010
Rant: "Well, Yeah, But You're Not Gonna Win That Fight."
One of my teachers actually said that to me. Someone who is meant to be teaching students how to deal with the world actually said that if it looks like you might not win, you should stop trying.
Context:
The set-up was that this generation is over-tested. Everyone agreed. Then, to continue the conversation, I said that I thought we were also being given too much homework in elementary school.
(As a brief aside, no one present had any connection to elementary school teachers, so none of this was a personal attack nor could it be construed as such. Well, it could, but you can also say, "Hitler liked puppies!")
She agreed with me that we were over-homeworked. She did not have any reservations there, she just flat-out agreed. Then...well, see title. She said I was not going to win because everyone has always been over-homeworked, in her own words, "Every generation has had seven hours of homework."
I stared at her for a beat. She had just said, in front of her entire classroom, the people under her authority, that she believed something bad should not be stopped because it has been going on for too long. This is a bad idea for two reasons. 1) "Don't fight if the odds are against you" kills just about every major human achievement. Why should we change? Because new ways are, occasionally, better. And the, "It's tradition" argument is always wrong. It may be more efficient, easier, people may be more comfortable...but those are the arguments. Not some random thing about how it was good enough for my thirty-times-great grandfather and so it's good enough for me. 2) If the amount of time the policy has been in place is the thing that is messing people up, then adding more time to the equation is not going to help.
Forget tradition. If someone else has a good idea, listen to it, and if you have time debate, then that's probably a good idea. But the fact that it was good yesterday doesn't mean it's good today. It just means it was good yesterday.
Context:
The set-up was that this generation is over-tested. Everyone agreed. Then, to continue the conversation, I said that I thought we were also being given too much homework in elementary school.
(As a brief aside, no one present had any connection to elementary school teachers, so none of this was a personal attack nor could it be construed as such. Well, it could, but you can also say, "Hitler liked puppies!")
She agreed with me that we were over-homeworked. She did not have any reservations there, she just flat-out agreed. Then...well, see title. She said I was not going to win because everyone has always been over-homeworked, in her own words, "Every generation has had seven hours of homework."
I stared at her for a beat. She had just said, in front of her entire classroom, the people under her authority, that she believed something bad should not be stopped because it has been going on for too long. This is a bad idea for two reasons. 1) "Don't fight if the odds are against you" kills just about every major human achievement. Why should we change? Because new ways are, occasionally, better. And the, "It's tradition" argument is always wrong. It may be more efficient, easier, people may be more comfortable...but those are the arguments. Not some random thing about how it was good enough for my thirty-times-great grandfather and so it's good enough for me. 2) If the amount of time the policy has been in place is the thing that is messing people up, then adding more time to the equation is not going to help.
Forget tradition. If someone else has a good idea, listen to it, and if you have time debate, then that's probably a good idea. But the fact that it was good yesterday doesn't mean it's good today. It just means it was good yesterday.
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
And as She Runs Away
She Fears She Won't Be Followed.
Because no matter what they've done, if they're all you've got...
That's why people will still love abusers. That's why Stockholm's Syndrome exists. Humans are pack animals. Deprive us of a pack, and we'll find one. Deprive us of any part of that pack--even an imagined part--and we'll search to the ends of the earth. Doesn't mean it'll be pretty.
But it doesn't mean it'll be ugly. The same instinct for pack leads us to protect and defend. The same feeling makes you band together with people you never thought you could. The same feeling meant Catholics, Protestants, Muslims, whatever prayed together after the WTC fell.
When what you have is all you've got...
Well.
It's amazing what you'll do to keep it.
Musing #5
Because no matter what they've done, if they're all you've got...
That's why people will still love abusers. That's why Stockholm's Syndrome exists. Humans are pack animals. Deprive us of a pack, and we'll find one. Deprive us of any part of that pack--even an imagined part--and we'll search to the ends of the earth. Doesn't mean it'll be pretty.
But it doesn't mean it'll be ugly. The same instinct for pack leads us to protect and defend. The same feeling makes you band together with people you never thought you could. The same feeling meant Catholics, Protestants, Muslims, whatever prayed together after the WTC fell.
When what you have is all you've got...
Well.
It's amazing what you'll do to keep it.
Musing #5
Sunday, March 7, 2010
Nazi Propaganda
Oh, wow. I think I'd have trouble coming up with a more loaded phrase if I tried.
I am currently taking a history class in which we are studying the buildup to World War II. This includes watching some propaganda films. These are scary, because if I let myself forget what the solution he is talking about is, I want to follow him. I genuinely feel community, family, interdependence and independence blended to make a nation. It's a good feeling, like being back at Girl Scout camp, or on a choir trip.
But that is not what scares me the most by a long shot.
What scares me the most is the people around me who refuse to look at these films as anything but Nazi propaganda. They talk about how stupid these people were to follow, how obvious it is. When asked what makes it obvious, none of them have an answer better than looking offended and/or saying, "So what, you'd follow him?"
If my kids are dying? If I don't know what he's going to do to all those people? If he's turning the economy around, genuinely helping? Oh hell yeah.
The problem with these people is not that they want to do horrible things--a lot of people do. The problem is that dictators like Stalin, Mussolini, Hitler got people to follow them. Especially Hitler. Refusing to admit that those who followed him could be intelligent people, even good people, however rarely, is dooming yourself to repeat these mistakes. Because someone who refuses to believe that someone can be evil without a glaring mark is going to believe that the next charismatic malevolent despot isn't bad. It doesn't matter whether he or she is up to Hitler's level. I hope with all my heart none will be.
If someone is showing old propaganda, it is probably not so you can laugh and feel superior. It is probably so you can look at life through those people's eyes. Refusing to do so is refusing to learn the lesson. And when the lesson is on the Holocaust, it is an important lesson.
(Incidentally, good people can be charismatic, too. Charisma and morality are independent.)
I am currently taking a history class in which we are studying the buildup to World War II. This includes watching some propaganda films. These are scary, because if I let myself forget what the solution he is talking about is, I want to follow him. I genuinely feel community, family, interdependence and independence blended to make a nation. It's a good feeling, like being back at Girl Scout camp, or on a choir trip.
But that is not what scares me the most by a long shot.
What scares me the most is the people around me who refuse to look at these films as anything but Nazi propaganda. They talk about how stupid these people were to follow, how obvious it is. When asked what makes it obvious, none of them have an answer better than looking offended and/or saying, "So what, you'd follow him?"
If my kids are dying? If I don't know what he's going to do to all those people? If he's turning the economy around, genuinely helping? Oh hell yeah.
The problem with these people is not that they want to do horrible things--a lot of people do. The problem is that dictators like Stalin, Mussolini, Hitler got people to follow them. Especially Hitler. Refusing to admit that those who followed him could be intelligent people, even good people, however rarely, is dooming yourself to repeat these mistakes. Because someone who refuses to believe that someone can be evil without a glaring mark is going to believe that the next charismatic malevolent despot isn't bad. It doesn't matter whether he or she is up to Hitler's level. I hope with all my heart none will be.
If someone is showing old propaganda, it is probably not so you can laugh and feel superior. It is probably so you can look at life through those people's eyes. Refusing to do so is refusing to learn the lesson. And when the lesson is on the Holocaust, it is an important lesson.
(Incidentally, good people can be charismatic, too. Charisma and morality are independent.)
March Madness
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!
Oh, sorry. I've got two honor choirs and a choir trip in four weeks. The other week is testing.
I'll be out for a while, unless a creative mood strikes.
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!
Oh, and it's my birthday month. I'll be in Disneyland for one of the aforementioned choirs.
YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY!!!!!!!!!
Oh, sorry. I've got two honor choirs and a choir trip in four weeks. The other week is testing.
I'll be out for a while, unless a creative mood strikes.
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!
Oh, and it's my birthday month. I'll be in Disneyland for one of the aforementioned choirs.
YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY!!!!!!!!!
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Story
There once was a man named Achilles. He was given a choice by a prophetess: live a long life and be happy among his children, or fight a war and be remembered forever.
You know his story. You know his choice. This is not his story. This is not his choice.
A man sits by the beach. He has been called back to war; the generals all know what a morale boost he would bring--The great warrior, fighting on our side! How could we lose?
He's been greeted by a young woman, one he knows to be a prophet. He does not fully understand her powers, he does not need to. He trusts.
And she has given him a choice. She did not create this choice, she simply laid out all the consequences for him and...left. Left him to decide.
On the one hand: Go out to war. Be remembered forever, but die, soon.
On the other: Stay. Raise a family. Be happy. Live a good, long life amongst his offspring and loving wife. But be forgotten.
And as he watches the sun set, he wonders what he should choose. Life, now, or life, forever, among memories.
There's no easy way to choose this. It's not like when he was young, and had nothing much at home to interest him except learning to fight. Of course he was going to be a warrior then. What else would you be, when only fighting held your interest?
So he had gone out and fought. And fought well, earned respect, earned rank, earned--he smiled a little to himself--more than a few admirers.
But now...now he knew he could settle down. Fighting wasn't all he was anymore, just a part of it. He actually enjoyed the idea of settling down, not with that passion that he enjoyed fighting, but enjoyed it, nonetheless.
He closed his eyes and listened to the beach; heard, off in the distance, the sounds of the village. The calm, quiet place he had been so bored with as a youth.
He made his choice.
Hm? What was his name? I don't know. We've forgotten it.
You know his story. You know his choice. This is not his story. This is not his choice.
A man sits by the beach. He has been called back to war; the generals all know what a morale boost he would bring--The great warrior, fighting on our side! How could we lose?
He's been greeted by a young woman, one he knows to be a prophet. He does not fully understand her powers, he does not need to. He trusts.
And she has given him a choice. She did not create this choice, she simply laid out all the consequences for him and...left. Left him to decide.
On the one hand: Go out to war. Be remembered forever, but die, soon.
On the other: Stay. Raise a family. Be happy. Live a good, long life amongst his offspring and loving wife. But be forgotten.
And as he watches the sun set, he wonders what he should choose. Life, now, or life, forever, among memories.
There's no easy way to choose this. It's not like when he was young, and had nothing much at home to interest him except learning to fight. Of course he was going to be a warrior then. What else would you be, when only fighting held your interest?
So he had gone out and fought. And fought well, earned respect, earned rank, earned--he smiled a little to himself--more than a few admirers.
But now...now he knew he could settle down. Fighting wasn't all he was anymore, just a part of it. He actually enjoyed the idea of settling down, not with that passion that he enjoyed fighting, but enjoyed it, nonetheless.
He closed his eyes and listened to the beach; heard, off in the distance, the sounds of the village. The calm, quiet place he had been so bored with as a youth.
He made his choice.
Hm? What was his name? I don't know. We've forgotten it.
Memory
You could live your whole life and never know if anyone will remember you. You never can know how long people will remember you after death.
It gets even worse when you look at our very old legends: all the ones that still have the name attached tend towards war, violence, and heroism (I'm thinking Achilles)...pretty difficult combination to justify today, unless you're fighting the next Hitler.
And this has scared me more and more as I grow. That I will be forgotten, that people, ultimately, won't remember more than a few years after I'm dead. A generation, tops. And that relies on me having children, who will remember me because I'm they're mom--don't get me wrong, a mom is a great thing to be, it's just not all I want.
And then I start trying to figure out why this scares me so much. Not because it seems an illogical fear, or a logical one, simply to figure it out, dissect it. Why does being remembered matter so much?
And I come to the conclusion that it's to have an effect. If I am not remembered, what effect can I possibly have? And the idea that I would be nothing after death is terrifying. It is no coincidence that these doubts tend to align with when I think about what might happen if I just disappear after death.
And so I want to make my mark. And I look around and try to find where I can mark, and find...I have. I have helped others understand things. I have gone out and put myself out there, leaving a line of fire written along people's souls--and regardless of whether the fire flashes for but a moment or burns a permanent mark, a permanent memory, a dream, I have been an artist and a muse.
This isn't enough. I doubt anything ever will be. But it's enough, for the moment.
It gets even worse when you look at our very old legends: all the ones that still have the name attached tend towards war, violence, and heroism (I'm thinking Achilles)...pretty difficult combination to justify today, unless you're fighting the next Hitler.
And this has scared me more and more as I grow. That I will be forgotten, that people, ultimately, won't remember more than a few years after I'm dead. A generation, tops. And that relies on me having children, who will remember me because I'm they're mom--don't get me wrong, a mom is a great thing to be, it's just not all I want.
And then I start trying to figure out why this scares me so much. Not because it seems an illogical fear, or a logical one, simply to figure it out, dissect it. Why does being remembered matter so much?
And I come to the conclusion that it's to have an effect. If I am not remembered, what effect can I possibly have? And the idea that I would be nothing after death is terrifying. It is no coincidence that these doubts tend to align with when I think about what might happen if I just disappear after death.
And so I want to make my mark. And I look around and try to find where I can mark, and find...I have. I have helped others understand things. I have gone out and put myself out there, leaving a line of fire written along people's souls--and regardless of whether the fire flashes for but a moment or burns a permanent mark, a permanent memory, a dream, I have been an artist and a muse.
This isn't enough. I doubt anything ever will be. But it's enough, for the moment.
Sunday, February 14, 2010
Phrases
There are a couple new ones at the bottom.
From the World:
The only constant is change.
-Lots of people. It's a common thought.
A witty phrase proves nothing.
-Voltaire
What's the point of a good quote if you can't misquote it? [paraphrased. No, really.]
-?
Build high the walls; build strong the beams...take strength from those who need you.
-Tarzan, Two Worlds
The opposite of a correct statement is a false statement. But the opposite of a profound truth may well be another profound truth.
-Niels Bohr
When outmatched...cheat.
-Batman, Batman: The Brave and the Bold
No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.
-Eleanor Roosevelt
That's not just bluffing when you have bad cards, that's bluffing when you have no cards at all.
-Sergeant Colon of Discworld
“I’m not surprised. It is easy to forget that good things can happen just as unexpectedly as the bad things!”
- http://www.missmab.com/Comics/Ab_090.php
From My Life:
PLEASE COMMENT.
-Me
When sightsinging, sing as if you know the piece.
-My Choir Teacher
From the World:
The only constant is change.
-Lots of people. It's a common thought.
A witty phrase proves nothing.
-Voltaire
What's the point of a good quote if you can't misquote it? [paraphrased. No, really.]
-?
Build high the walls; build strong the beams...take strength from those who need you.
-Tarzan, Two Worlds
The opposite of a correct statement is a false statement. But the opposite of a profound truth may well be another profound truth.
-Niels Bohr
When outmatched...cheat.
-Batman, Batman: The Brave and the Bold
No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.
-Eleanor Roosevelt
That's not just bluffing when you have bad cards, that's bluffing when you have no cards at all.
-Sergeant Colon of Discworld
“I’m not surprised. It is easy to forget that good things can happen just as unexpectedly as the bad things!”
- http://www.missmab.com/Comics/Ab_090.php
From My Life:
PLEASE COMMENT.
-Me
When sightsinging, sing as if you know the piece.
-My Choir Teacher
Sunday, February 7, 2010
Outdoor Ed. Travel Log
I was a Cabin Leader. Everyone thought I was twenty-one.
2/1 Monday
The buses were early, which never happens; no one forgot anything that needed to be brought from home (one forgot a handbook, but it wasn't realized until everyone was at camp and he survived without it), which never happens; everyone who had signed up showed up, which never happens; and someone actually realized that my nickname was Wren with a 'W', which yeah.
My co-cabin leader (who was nice and a ball of energy--nice when watching 12 fifth-grade boys) and I met our naturalist for the week, who is basically the adult on deck. This was immediately followed by some productive time working on a skit we needed done by Thursday.
And I had a sudden fear of dying and being forgotten for no apparent reason. It went away after taking a break from the kids.
2/2 Tuesday
This was our beach day, meaning the entirety of the morning went wake up->get dressed->have breakfast->beach. I tried to pay attention to what I was smelling. That last was actually quite interesting, I usually just smell enough to vaguely identify and then ignore the scent or actively block it out. During this time, I found that skunk actually doesn't smell that bad. It's not good, but it's no worse than, say, burnt food. Different, naturally, but no worse.
And I had a sudden fear of dying and being forgotten for no apparent reason. It went away after thinking about what was bothering me and coming to the conclusion that it wasn't really as bad as my hype.
We went to the Earth Dance, which during the past few times had been crazy time, and this time was learning other cultures' dances. We actually ended up incorporating one into our cabin's skit, it was a dance that was used as an alternative to beating each other up. I believe that the belief is that the person who is able to dance it correctly for longer had the better precision/agility/stamina and would have won anyway. And hey, you don't have to send anyone to be stitched up, and probably no one dies! (Deaths by exhaustion are still rarer than deaths by being repeatedly hit over the head while still exhausting yourself.)
2/3 Wednesday
We got a giant sock for being quiet.
On our hike, one of the first things we did was look into treetops, and it was early enough that the sunlight filtered down through them without blinding us, giving that dappled sunlight look to the surrounding forest. We also learned that, in addition to the term family circles, another way to refer to those groups of redwoods is fairy rings.
Oh, and just to add to the world-upside-downedness established Monday, the boys' bathrooms were in better shape than the girls'.
This part is important, to me at least: I saw Orion. Not a grouping of stars making up a rough outline of his corners, or something like that, actually saw what would make someone look up into the sky and say, "Hey, there's a person up there." The trick is to realize that the stars are not markers of corners, but where the light would shine off his armor. That's why there's nothing around his arms, there's nothing to shine there. It was a pretty spectacular feeling, though I doubt I'm communicating it well.
2/4 Thursday
We got another giant sock.
We went to the Emerald Forest--a buckeye grove where almost everything was emerald, since moss covered what other plants didn't. Then we went up to the garden, a short but vertical hike, and I sang a bit to keep the kids from getting to loud and rowdy. There were mentions of American Idol, but I just told them I lacked a video camera and left it at that.
Then there was skit night, wherein almost everyone forgot their lines and quite a few people exited, pursued by a bear. Yes, the same bear.
2/5 Friday
I had to (temporarily) confiscate a small, black, stuffed dog named Scruffy. The owner kept yelling "Scruffy attack!" and throwing him at people. Even after being told several times not to do anything that could be described with the word "attack," he yelled, "Wood cookie attack!" Yes, it was a small, short cylinder of wood. Yes, it connected. Yes, it connected with the back of a kid's head. He got in trouble for that one.
We watched a slideshow of what had happened, and I got an odd sort of memory. One was the intended, remembering everything that had happened that week. Another was of the last time I had seen the slideshow. And a third was a vague memory from about six years ago, when I had been at Outdoor Ed. as a kid and watched the slideshow of my week.
Someday, when I've got some fans, I'll care enough to edit these things more thoroughly.
...
Nah.
2/1 Monday
The buses were early, which never happens; no one forgot anything that needed to be brought from home (one forgot a handbook, but it wasn't realized until everyone was at camp and he survived without it), which never happens; everyone who had signed up showed up, which never happens; and someone actually realized that my nickname was Wren with a 'W', which yeah.
My co-cabin leader (who was nice and a ball of energy--nice when watching 12 fifth-grade boys) and I met our naturalist for the week, who is basically the adult on deck. This was immediately followed by some productive time working on a skit we needed done by Thursday.
And I had a sudden fear of dying and being forgotten for no apparent reason. It went away after taking a break from the kids.
2/2 Tuesday
This was our beach day, meaning the entirety of the morning went wake up->get dressed->have breakfast->beach. I tried to pay attention to what I was smelling. That last was actually quite interesting, I usually just smell enough to vaguely identify and then ignore the scent or actively block it out. During this time, I found that skunk actually doesn't smell that bad. It's not good, but it's no worse than, say, burnt food. Different, naturally, but no worse.
And I had a sudden fear of dying and being forgotten for no apparent reason. It went away after thinking about what was bothering me and coming to the conclusion that it wasn't really as bad as my hype.
We went to the Earth Dance, which during the past few times had been crazy time, and this time was learning other cultures' dances. We actually ended up incorporating one into our cabin's skit, it was a dance that was used as an alternative to beating each other up. I believe that the belief is that the person who is able to dance it correctly for longer had the better precision/agility/stamina and would have won anyway. And hey, you don't have to send anyone to be stitched up, and probably no one dies! (Deaths by exhaustion are still rarer than deaths by being repeatedly hit over the head while still exhausting yourself.)
2/3 Wednesday
We got a giant sock for being quiet.
On our hike, one of the first things we did was look into treetops, and it was early enough that the sunlight filtered down through them without blinding us, giving that dappled sunlight look to the surrounding forest. We also learned that, in addition to the term family circles, another way to refer to those groups of redwoods is fairy rings.
Oh, and just to add to the world-upside-downedness established Monday, the boys' bathrooms were in better shape than the girls'.
This part is important, to me at least: I saw Orion. Not a grouping of stars making up a rough outline of his corners, or something like that, actually saw what would make someone look up into the sky and say, "Hey, there's a person up there." The trick is to realize that the stars are not markers of corners, but where the light would shine off his armor. That's why there's nothing around his arms, there's nothing to shine there. It was a pretty spectacular feeling, though I doubt I'm communicating it well.
2/4 Thursday
We got another giant sock.
We went to the Emerald Forest--a buckeye grove where almost everything was emerald, since moss covered what other plants didn't. Then we went up to the garden, a short but vertical hike, and I sang a bit to keep the kids from getting to loud and rowdy. There were mentions of American Idol, but I just told them I lacked a video camera and left it at that.
Then there was skit night, wherein almost everyone forgot their lines and quite a few people exited, pursued by a bear. Yes, the same bear.
2/5 Friday
I had to (temporarily) confiscate a small, black, stuffed dog named Scruffy. The owner kept yelling "Scruffy attack!" and throwing him at people. Even after being told several times not to do anything that could be described with the word "attack," he yelled, "Wood cookie attack!" Yes, it was a small, short cylinder of wood. Yes, it connected. Yes, it connected with the back of a kid's head. He got in trouble for that one.
We watched a slideshow of what had happened, and I got an odd sort of memory. One was the intended, remembering everything that had happened that week. Another was of the last time I had seen the slideshow. And a third was a vague memory from about six years ago, when I had been at Outdoor Ed. as a kid and watched the slideshow of my week.
Someday, when I've got some fans, I'll care enough to edit these things more thoroughly.
...
Nah.
Sunday, January 31, 2010
"Gay Marriage"
Not the issue, the term. Hence the quotes.
I understand the desire to have a simple term, but it surprises me that in this age of political correctness, no one has noted that this term technically excludes bisexuals. It is clearly not the intent, and I will accept that, but...well, show of hands if you've seen womyn (or another variant), or heard someone complain about 'man'ual labor (which comes from Latin manos, meaning hand, but that's rather my point).
I have yet to run across anyone talking about this. I haven't done particularly extensive research, but satire is one of my favorite genres, I frequent TV Tropes, I read news magazines, one would think I would have at least read some snark on it by now.
And it's particularly odd in that it's not like the black people/African-Americans, where the latter rules out blacks who aren't of African descent and living in America, not to mention being long. Same-sex marriage is a perfectly reasonable term, and is all of one syllable longer. It removes, simply by being used, any exclusion of bisexuals (or for that matter, asexual people who are romantically inclined towards people of the same gender--human sexuality is complex), and any Us and Them mindset.
Of course, something that bothers me more is that, despite actually being bisexual, it took me this long to think of this. What else am I missing?
Feel free to post some guesses in the comments section, along with whatever else.
Addictive Interestingness (TV Tropes)
Word Power
I understand the desire to have a simple term, but it surprises me that in this age of political correctness, no one has noted that this term technically excludes bisexuals. It is clearly not the intent, and I will accept that, but...well, show of hands if you've seen womyn (or another variant), or heard someone complain about 'man'ual labor (which comes from Latin manos, meaning hand, but that's rather my point).
I have yet to run across anyone talking about this. I haven't done particularly extensive research, but satire is one of my favorite genres, I frequent TV Tropes, I read news magazines, one would think I would have at least read some snark on it by now.
And it's particularly odd in that it's not like the black people/African-Americans, where the latter rules out blacks who aren't of African descent and living in America, not to mention being long. Same-sex marriage is a perfectly reasonable term, and is all of one syllable longer. It removes, simply by being used, any exclusion of bisexuals (or for that matter, asexual people who are romantically inclined towards people of the same gender--human sexuality is complex), and any Us and Them mindset.
Of course, something that bothers me more is that, despite actually being bisexual, it took me this long to think of this. What else am I missing?
Feel free to post some guesses in the comments section, along with whatever else.
Addictive Interestingness (TV Tropes)
Word Power
Sunday, January 17, 2010
Help for Haiti
Don't know how many people will actually read this, but I've donated and I hope you will, too.
The easiest ways to donate are probably to text “QUAKE” to 20222 to charge a $10 donation to the Clinton Bush Haiti Fund (the donation will be added to your cell phone bill), or HAITI to 90999 to donate $10 to the Red Cross.
Saturday, January 16, 2010
Being Broken
"They can't break me, as long as I know who I am."
-I'm Still Here, from Treasure Planet
-I'm Still Here, from Treasure Planet
This occurred to me a little while ago. I don't know when I finished the thought, but I do know what it came out to. We say someone is broken, or talk about breaking someone, but it's treated like this thing where you have to go through x, y, and z, and each must be done perfectly, without hesitation, and only by this manipulative mastermind.
And that's not it. Breaking someone is simply what the full phrase suggests: Breaking someone to your will (singular or plural you). If you have a specific idea in mind for what to do to someone else, then yes, you need to be a genius to pull it off properly, at least one in the ways of the human psyche. But you do not need to be up against a genius to be broken. You don't need to be strictly up against anyone. It can just be a group of neutral people who push you, pull you, shape you, until you fit their idea of what you should be.
The easiest way to break someone I've seen is erosion. You have different people in different groups with no connection, and you just hammer and wash and blow across them until they aren't themselves anymore. You're annoying, be like this. You're stupid, leave me alone. You like what? Ick.
And the thing is, once you realize that, it becomes much harder to be broken. Because, whether another person is trying to or not, if you can spot what would break you, you can fight against it. You stand up and you push back, instead of just being pulled. It won't always work--humans are social animals, so we're supposed to listen to the pack--but it helps. Who are you, where are you going, and why do you care what they say?
Tropes (as per usual, thought of afterward) (Oh, and addictive)
Break The Cutie
Broken Bird
Earn Your Happy Ending
The Woobie
Saturday, January 9, 2010
Musing#4: Friendship
Loyalty is when someone turns to you and tells you to run, then you say, "No," and help them.
Friendship is when someone tells you to run, and you say, "Hell no. You run," and you both stay.
Loyalty is when you follow someone to Hell and back, fighting and watching her back all the way.
Friendship is when you follow someone to Hell, and watch her back as you know she watches yours.
Loyalty is when you follow someone because he's right.
Friendship is when you stand by someone who's not.
Loyalty is a solid, honorable duty to stand by someone.
Friendship is when you can leave at any time, and don't.
Loyalty is a trait.
Friendship is a bond.
Hope is when you can see a light at the end of the tunnel, and go to it.
Faith is when you see no light but follow it anyway.
Hope is when everything you know is destroyed, then you see something you don't know.
Faith is when everything is destroyed, so you look for something that isn't.
Music is emotion and pitch weaved together until we barely know how we can separate it.
Magic is that which you allow it to be.
Goodness is doing what helps.
Evil is doing what hurts.
Now, riddle me this: Which of these do I believe?
Friendship is when someone tells you to run, and you say, "Hell no. You run," and you both stay.
Loyalty is when you follow someone to Hell and back, fighting and watching her back all the way.
Friendship is when you follow someone to Hell, and watch her back as you know she watches yours.
Loyalty is when you follow someone because he's right.
Friendship is when you stand by someone who's not.
Loyalty is a solid, honorable duty to stand by someone.
Friendship is when you can leave at any time, and don't.
Loyalty is a trait.
Friendship is a bond.
Hope is when you can see a light at the end of the tunnel, and go to it.
Faith is when you see no light but follow it anyway.
Hope is when everything you know is destroyed, then you see something you don't know.
Faith is when everything is destroyed, so you look for something that isn't.
Music is emotion and pitch weaved together until we barely know how we can separate it.
Magic is that which you allow it to be.
Goodness is doing what helps.
Evil is doing what hurts.
Now, riddle me this: Which of these do I believe?
Thursday, January 7, 2010
Poem
When You Must
There are times when you run or hide.
This is not that time.
This time, we stand.
This time, we fight.
This time, we go hand in hand.
We will not go gentle into that good night.
We will fight so long as we may move,
As long as we may breathe,
As long as our heart may beat.
We fight.
And when we stop...
We lay down our arms.
For to do otherwise is to be the next threat that must be fought.
There are times when you run or hide.
This is not that time.
This time, we stand.
This time, we fight.
This time, we go hand in hand.
We will not go gentle into that good night.
We will fight so long as we may move,
As long as we may breathe,
As long as our heart may beat.
We fight.
And when we stop...
We lay down our arms.
For to do otherwise is to be the next threat that must be fought.
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
Musing #3: The Year 2010
Not originally a musing, but got that way as I wrote.
Whether you pronounce it twenty-ten or two-thousand-ten, it's here. And with it, something else, at least to my mind.
There are important years in our life. As an American, at least, I've gotta say ten, thirteen, sixteen, eighteen, twenty-one. As myself, I'll say five, six, twelve, and sixteen. That last one is coming up.
How many of you just did the math in your head there? Yeah. I've been writing the year as dd/mm/0y since I was six. It's...almost jarring to realize how much I've grown in that time, and how long it's been since 199x. I have grown from incapable of always keeping my letters straight to--well, I won't say my writing style is amazing, but the technique is there. And I've started to make it my own. I've figured out my main interests, I have a pretty good idea of what I want to get as a job. At six...I wasn't even sure who I was, in any way. Now, I may not know everything about myself, but I know that I want to sing. It hasn't come across on this blog very strongly, but music is my life. Singing, listening, playing...it's such a huge part of me, it's odd to look back at my self when I was so young I didn't know that. Even if I somehow was unable to get a job in music, I would sing.
I don't know if anyone reading this who doesn't know me will understand that. But now I feel like music is something that's written on my soul. And I didn't even think of it then.
I'm sixteen in a few months. I'm learning how to drive, which is an entirely new experience in and of itself. I have never had a form of movement that wasn't intuitive. Scooters? Turn the top thing the way you want to turn, push forward with your foot to move. Skateboards, pretty close, but it's weight distribution to turn. Bikes? Pedal and turn, clutch the brake to brake. But in a car, you've got all this stuff between you and the wheels, and you've got the gearshift, and then there's the fact that you can't see where the car is just by turning around, you have to memorize it by...well, hitting stuff. One hopes they're 2-liter soda bottles.
So, I guess the point is...I didn't realize I was growing up. It was there at the back of my mind, but I didn't feel it. I'm sixteen soon, and I remember not turning fifteen too long ago. I remember being, learning, teaching, seeing, knowing, changing, but not growing. I don't think I really have ever noticed that. I know what all of the others are, and how you do them. But what is growing? It's just something that happens. If I were in a cave and living, I'd be growing. I'm here in my nice, warm house and I'm growing. Growing is what you do when you're living.
...Huh. I guess that's it. Growing is everything you do when you're living. Growing is the adjustments to your environment, large or small, that allow you to keep moving. And whether those adjustments are to yourself pushing inward or other things pushing outward doesn't matter. Because changing others changes you. It might lead to introspection or direct action, but it changes you.
Whether you pronounce it twenty-ten or two-thousand-ten, it's here. And with it, something else, at least to my mind.
There are important years in our life. As an American, at least, I've gotta say ten, thirteen, sixteen, eighteen, twenty-one. As myself, I'll say five, six, twelve, and sixteen. That last one is coming up.
How many of you just did the math in your head there? Yeah. I've been writing the year as dd/mm/0y since I was six. It's...almost jarring to realize how much I've grown in that time, and how long it's been since 199x. I have grown from incapable of always keeping my letters straight to--well, I won't say my writing style is amazing, but the technique is there. And I've started to make it my own. I've figured out my main interests, I have a pretty good idea of what I want to get as a job. At six...I wasn't even sure who I was, in any way. Now, I may not know everything about myself, but I know that I want to sing. It hasn't come across on this blog very strongly, but music is my life. Singing, listening, playing...it's such a huge part of me, it's odd to look back at my self when I was so young I didn't know that. Even if I somehow was unable to get a job in music, I would sing.
I don't know if anyone reading this who doesn't know me will understand that. But now I feel like music is something that's written on my soul. And I didn't even think of it then.
I'm sixteen in a few months. I'm learning how to drive, which is an entirely new experience in and of itself. I have never had a form of movement that wasn't intuitive. Scooters? Turn the top thing the way you want to turn, push forward with your foot to move. Skateboards, pretty close, but it's weight distribution to turn. Bikes? Pedal and turn, clutch the brake to brake. But in a car, you've got all this stuff between you and the wheels, and you've got the gearshift, and then there's the fact that you can't see where the car is just by turning around, you have to memorize it by...well, hitting stuff. One hopes they're 2-liter soda bottles.
So, I guess the point is...I didn't realize I was growing up. It was there at the back of my mind, but I didn't feel it. I'm sixteen soon, and I remember not turning fifteen too long ago. I remember being, learning, teaching, seeing, knowing, changing, but not growing. I don't think I really have ever noticed that. I know what all of the others are, and how you do them. But what is growing? It's just something that happens. If I were in a cave and living, I'd be growing. I'm here in my nice, warm house and I'm growing. Growing is what you do when you're living.
...Huh. I guess that's it. Growing is everything you do when you're living. Growing is the adjustments to your environment, large or small, that allow you to keep moving. And whether those adjustments are to yourself pushing inward or other things pushing outward doesn't matter. Because changing others changes you. It might lead to introspection or direct action, but it changes you.
Thursday, December 31, 2009
New Year's Resolutions for 2010
I need to post these somewhere, and I can copy/paste from here, but not to here, so this seems the most logical starting point.
1. I will not read my webcomics until I have both finished my homework and practiced harp for the day. I can always catch up on them later.
2. I will genuinely try to finish my homework on time--this means I may take breaks, if necessary, but not surf TV tropes.****
2a. This does not allow for checking on "just a few" webcomics, or "just one" TV tropes page, as I know full well there is no such thing.
2b. Y'know what? This extends to any wiki. The power of the Wiki Walk is too great to underestimate.
3. I will not try to write a story on such a break. Past behavior has shown that this will extend the break to about as long as a TV tropes break. Breaking to write down a story that has popped into my head is another matter.
3a. Summaries are helpful, especially for the specific types of stories. I know the ones I mean.
4. I would make this one about finishing one book before starting another, but really, this is never going to happen. So, I'll just say...I will keep all books I am reading on the shelf, directly next to my bed, save for one I will keep in my backpack for school reading. This last will probably be an encyclopedia or classic of some sort, because I tend to be reading one, and I might as well give my teachers a good impression. Anyway, they are more likely to keep a random book after class than Dracula*, Frankenstein**, Little Women*** or Pride and Prejudice***.
[At Time of Post]
* Reading
** Read
*** On list of books I plan to read
****[Later] In the interests of doing so, I should probably not set up firefox so that opening it will lead to a TV Tropes page being open. It...it's a bad idea.
1. I will not read my webcomics until I have both finished my homework and practiced harp for the day. I can always catch up on them later.
2. I will genuinely try to finish my homework on time--this means I may take breaks, if necessary, but not surf TV tropes.****
2a. This does not allow for checking on "just a few" webcomics, or "just one" TV tropes page, as I know full well there is no such thing.
2b. Y'know what? This extends to any wiki. The power of the Wiki Walk is too great to underestimate.
3. I will not try to write a story on such a break. Past behavior has shown that this will extend the break to about as long as a TV tropes break. Breaking to write down a story that has popped into my head is another matter.
3a. Summaries are helpful, especially for the specific types of stories. I know the ones I mean.
4. I would make this one about finishing one book before starting another, but really, this is never going to happen. So, I'll just say...I will keep all books I am reading on the shelf, directly next to my bed, save for one I will keep in my backpack for school reading. This last will probably be an encyclopedia or classic of some sort, because I tend to be reading one, and I might as well give my teachers a good impression. Anyway, they are more likely to keep a random book after class than Dracula*, Frankenstein**, Little Women*** or Pride and Prejudice***.
[At Time of Post]
* Reading
** Read
*** On list of books I plan to read
****[Later] In the interests of doing so, I should probably not set up firefox so that opening it will lead to a TV Tropes page being open. It...it's a bad idea.
Monday, December 28, 2009
Musings #2
Being a musing, this isn't quite breaking the hiatus.
If angels can fall, why can't they rise?
This, being the phrase that popped into my head that spurred this musing, is not actually that related to the post. Yeah, I know.
I have been thinking about stories we see. And we see stories where this ignorant person figures something out--that's a basic story, the protagonist changes for the better, or just changes. An especially common variant would be a coming-of-age story, which, given the above musing-starter, immediately makes me think Adam and Eve. They gain knowledge, and so they have to leave paradise and wear clothes and work for their food and place in the world.
And we sometimes have theses intricate stories about The Fall of X. Or The Rise of X. But unless X is a place or society, we don't see both. Or rather, we do, but the Fall is horribly oversimplified. Let's say John's an angel (don't look at me like that, Michael's an angel). John fell to the sin of lust. He will, naturally, fall in love to reclaim his virtue, and we will learn all about him and this new girl, let's call her Charlotte. Charlotte will be a well-rounded character, and so will John. We will sympathize with them, and maybe even come to think of John's banishment as unfair--it will probably at least cross Charlotte's mind, even if she's knows it's wrong while she's thinking it. But this girl he fell in lust with--even if they fell in love and spent her entire life together--this girl? Who's she? Do we even have a name for her? Oh. Hm. Says the author was considering calling her either Jessica or Diane, but decided it wasn't important.
(You can see why I told you up front the blog post was going to be pretty separate from the starting phrase.)
So it is easy to fall, and difficult to rise, as it is with all things. Makes sense, right? I mean, you see something, you want to sin, you sin, you're done. Right?
Right?
I hope not. If it's that easy, then anyone hoping to save any souls has an even harder job than it appears. If it's just see it, want it, sin it, then the soul will surely be lost tomorrow. If it is so easy, then it must be lost...
Of course, the point of the ordeal is that the person rises out of it stronger. It's supposed to be all about how John was weak enough to sin, and is now strong enough to resist. That may be the reason why the story of how he spent, oh, let's say twenty years with this other girl is left in the shadows--can you imagine making a story where the guy wants the girl for reasons of solely lust, they stay together for any amount of time, and you have to keep him sympathetic? There are things an audience will forgive, and things it won't...and there are a great many things they will forgive off-screen that they won't forgive if it happened on-screen. Imagine the Deathstar blowing up a planet where we have seen the people, the children, playing. Or there were some sympathetic characters, maybe even one that had a plan to stop Vader. It's suddenly a lot harder to stomach. How can you convince the audience he's changed if you've let him, in your story, do something unforgivable?
And so we get this vague idea of what John's done wrong, enough to know it was terrible, not enough to feel spiteful towards him (taking into account the character the author is showing us).
The other way around would actually be a pretty nice way to introduce a villain with a good reputation. Imagine: we know every detail of what John's done wrong, but his atonement is glossed over. So we know (to grab a few things out of my hat of mustache-twirling villainy) that John faked feelings for Diane--yes, she has a name now. We know that Diane was an innocent little thing he led down the wrong path that ended in her dying young, cold and alone, in a dark little alley, her throat cut by his blade, by his choice, by his coins, but not by his hands, because he wouldn't dirty them. And we know she deserved so much better. And his atonement? A little thing. He fell in love--but again, this is glossed over, so could be interpreted as lust--and got the girl of his dreams? That is his atonement? Oh, sure, he fought for her, but when compared to all those horrible things he did to Diane, how can we believe he deserves one ounce of the joy he feels with this nameless girl? Is she horrible enough to think that this is okay, or is she stupid and he's leading another innocent down this path?
So we gloss over parts of the history. Not because they're not important. Because they were very important. It was very important that they were overcome, and so it is very important that the audience acknowledges them. However, John is not that man anymore. You cannot blame him for sins anymore than you could blame a child. It's not that he was cruel, it's that he was lost, and there was no one there to lead him. He has found himself, and there have been years of atonement--or there haven't, but there have been years where he was not that person. A child is not given a pass because of age. A child is given a pass because the person you are moving against the next day is not there anymore. When John is reinventing himself, yes, he has to take responsibility for his past actions. But we do not show them because they are no longer defining character moments. If the author put something there in the story, there's a reason, so if there isn't a reason, it doesn't belong there.
This post started on one note and ended on another. It needs another phrase, and I think I have a good one:
"Keep in mind that people change, but the past doesn't."
-Patch in Hush, Hush by Becca Fitzpatrick (pg. 305, hardcover)
Oh, the tropes for this are fun...
Politically Correct History (This wouldn't've happened this way, but if I show it as it would have, the audience will hate this guy!)
*The Women Are Safe With Us (The heroes' men don't rape, even if they're mercenaries in medieval times.)
Deliberate Values Dissonance (Remember my note about not showing stuff unless you want the audience to hook onto it? This is when the author doesn't do that--because, at the time, this behavior was normal.)
Good Flaws Bad Flaws ("One major exception to this trope is this: A character who has a "bad" flaw is allowed to be the hero if the experiences of their journey inspire them to cast off this flaw.")
*Good Smoking Evil Smoking
If angels can fall, why can't they rise?
This, being the phrase that popped into my head that spurred this musing, is not actually that related to the post. Yeah, I know.
I have been thinking about stories we see. And we see stories where this ignorant person figures something out--that's a basic story, the protagonist changes for the better, or just changes. An especially common variant would be a coming-of-age story, which, given the above musing-starter, immediately makes me think Adam and Eve. They gain knowledge, and so they have to leave paradise and wear clothes and work for their food and place in the world.
And we sometimes have theses intricate stories about The Fall of X. Or The Rise of X. But unless X is a place or society, we don't see both. Or rather, we do, but the Fall is horribly oversimplified. Let's say John's an angel (don't look at me like that, Michael's an angel). John fell to the sin of lust. He will, naturally, fall in love to reclaim his virtue, and we will learn all about him and this new girl, let's call her Charlotte. Charlotte will be a well-rounded character, and so will John. We will sympathize with them, and maybe even come to think of John's banishment as unfair--it will probably at least cross Charlotte's mind, even if she's knows it's wrong while she's thinking it. But this girl he fell in lust with--even if they fell in love and spent her entire life together--this girl? Who's she? Do we even have a name for her? Oh. Hm. Says the author was considering calling her either Jessica or Diane, but decided it wasn't important.
(You can see why I told you up front the blog post was going to be pretty separate from the starting phrase.)
So it is easy to fall, and difficult to rise, as it is with all things. Makes sense, right? I mean, you see something, you want to sin, you sin, you're done. Right?
Right?
I hope not. If it's that easy, then anyone hoping to save any souls has an even harder job than it appears. If it's just see it, want it, sin it, then the soul will surely be lost tomorrow. If it is so easy, then it must be lost...
Of course, the point of the ordeal is that the person rises out of it stronger. It's supposed to be all about how John was weak enough to sin, and is now strong enough to resist. That may be the reason why the story of how he spent, oh, let's say twenty years with this other girl is left in the shadows--can you imagine making a story where the guy wants the girl for reasons of solely lust, they stay together for any amount of time, and you have to keep him sympathetic? There are things an audience will forgive, and things it won't...and there are a great many things they will forgive off-screen that they won't forgive if it happened on-screen. Imagine the Deathstar blowing up a planet where we have seen the people, the children, playing. Or there were some sympathetic characters, maybe even one that had a plan to stop Vader. It's suddenly a lot harder to stomach. How can you convince the audience he's changed if you've let him, in your story, do something unforgivable?
And so we get this vague idea of what John's done wrong, enough to know it was terrible, not enough to feel spiteful towards him (taking into account the character the author is showing us).
The other way around would actually be a pretty nice way to introduce a villain with a good reputation. Imagine: we know every detail of what John's done wrong, but his atonement is glossed over. So we know (to grab a few things out of my hat of mustache-twirling villainy) that John faked feelings for Diane--yes, she has a name now. We know that Diane was an innocent little thing he led down the wrong path that ended in her dying young, cold and alone, in a dark little alley, her throat cut by his blade, by his choice, by his coins, but not by his hands, because he wouldn't dirty them. And we know she deserved so much better. And his atonement? A little thing. He fell in love--but again, this is glossed over, so could be interpreted as lust--and got the girl of his dreams? That is his atonement? Oh, sure, he fought for her, but when compared to all those horrible things he did to Diane, how can we believe he deserves one ounce of the joy he feels with this nameless girl? Is she horrible enough to think that this is okay, or is she stupid and he's leading another innocent down this path?
So we gloss over parts of the history. Not because they're not important. Because they were very important. It was very important that they were overcome, and so it is very important that the audience acknowledges them. However, John is not that man anymore. You cannot blame him for sins anymore than you could blame a child. It's not that he was cruel, it's that he was lost, and there was no one there to lead him. He has found himself, and there have been years of atonement--or there haven't, but there have been years where he was not that person. A child is not given a pass because of age. A child is given a pass because the person you are moving against the next day is not there anymore. When John is reinventing himself, yes, he has to take responsibility for his past actions. But we do not show them because they are no longer defining character moments. If the author put something there in the story, there's a reason, so if there isn't a reason, it doesn't belong there.
This post started on one note and ended on another. It needs another phrase, and I think I have a good one:
"Keep in mind that people change, but the past doesn't."
-Patch in Hush, Hush by Becca Fitzpatrick (pg. 305, hardcover)
Oh, the tropes for this are fun...
Politically Correct History (This wouldn't've happened this way, but if I show it as it would have, the audience will hate this guy!)
*The Women Are Safe With Us (The heroes' men don't rape, even if they're mercenaries in medieval times.)
Deliberate Values Dissonance (Remember my note about not showing stuff unless you want the audience to hook onto it? This is when the author doesn't do that--because, at the time, this behavior was normal.)
Good Flaws Bad Flaws ("One major exception to this trope is this: A character who has a "bad" flaw is allowed to be the hero if the experiences of their journey inspire them to cast off this flaw.")
*Good Smoking Evil Smoking
Friday, December 25, 2009
Holiday Hiatus
In fact, not to avoid insulting people, but merely for the alliteration. I celebrate Christmas, so it's a Christmas and New Year's Hiatus if you want to get really technical (along with finals).
And so:
Merry Christmas!
Happy Hanukkah!
Joyous Kwanzaa!
Celebratory Winter Solstice!
And if I somehow haven't covered you yet (or, y'know, you just don't celebrate): Have a nice day!
And so:
Merry Christmas!
Happy Hanukkah!
Joyous Kwanzaa!
Celebratory Winter Solstice!
And if I somehow haven't covered you yet (or, y'know, you just don't celebrate): Have a nice day!
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
Revenge and Interesting Torture
My two inspirations: 1) My history teacher talking to us about how people would go out and watch executions and have what amounted to a picnic. Also bringing up the violent entertainments that seem to do so well (for instance, the Saw franchise). 2) My brother's blogpost wherein he describes the advantages humanity has over most animals. He comes up with seven, including vengeance.
And a little connection clicked in my head. Vengeance has a purpose. If we kill things that hurt us, they don't breed. So, perhaps, when we think there is a purpose behind killing something, there is a part of us that wants to see him/her/it hurt/killed. This sort of thinking could spread fairly easily to other types of inflicted pain, especially since this would make it similar to something our bodies want us to do. Or, more simply, it feels good.
The interesting thing about this is that while when this instinct is confused it causes bad things (feuds going on for eternity and such), at it's base it's for good reason. There is a threat to me/my family/my pack/my tribe/etc., and so I must remove that threat. So revenge in and of itself is not a bad thing. It is only when it is taken to the point that it controls the person that it becomes bad--just like any other drive or emotion.
The interesting thing about this is that while when this instinct is confused it causes bad things (feuds going on for eternity and such), at it's base it's for good reason. There is a threat to me/my family/my pack/my tribe/etc., and so I must remove that threat. So revenge in and of itself is not a bad thing. It is only when it is taken to the point that it controls the person that it becomes bad--just like any other drive or emotion.
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
Musing #1
Overeating and hyperventilating are oddly similar. Both result in the taking on of something your body needs to an extent that your body becomes confused and wants more of it, and both tend to fix themselves if you stop, either holding your breath or stopping eating (for a limited time, of course).
I thought of this and found it interesting, then tried to link it to more things. For instance, if you sleep too much you want to rest more, but if you drink (water) too much you don't want to drink more. And it can work in the reverse, too--becoming hungry the majority of the time can make you want less food, pulling an all-nighter or three can make you feel as if you have no need for sleep (until you lie down), etc. Perhaps it is simply because, evolutionarily speaking, we would pass out if we hyperventilated too long, eating too much usually wasn't an option for a long period of time, and sleeping a lot wasn't either. And if we were hungry a lot or staying up a lot, there was probably a reason we needed to do, and being distracted could end up deadly. Living in a harsh environment where food is scarce requires diligence, and nodding off or a growling stomach could hurt your chances.
So, looking at it that way, it makes sense. Sort of.
(Musings will not be summarized at the right, due to being so short.)
I thought of this and found it interesting, then tried to link it to more things. For instance, if you sleep too much you want to rest more, but if you drink (water) too much you don't want to drink more. And it can work in the reverse, too--becoming hungry the majority of the time can make you want less food, pulling an all-nighter or three can make you feel as if you have no need for sleep (until you lie down), etc. Perhaps it is simply because, evolutionarily speaking, we would pass out if we hyperventilated too long, eating too much usually wasn't an option for a long period of time, and sleeping a lot wasn't either. And if we were hungry a lot or staying up a lot, there was probably a reason we needed to do, and being distracted could end up deadly. Living in a harsh environment where food is scarce requires diligence, and nodding off or a growling stomach could hurt your chances.
So, looking at it that way, it makes sense. Sort of.
(Musings will not be summarized at the right, due to being so short.)
Sunday, November 29, 2009
Homework
This has been bouncing around in my head for a while now. Both homework, and why I haven't been feeling as passionate about stopping it recently. A while back, (before I started this blog,) I was very angry about how much homework we were being given when there wasn't...well, anything to support the argument that the other side could give me. The best argument I ever got was a condescending, "You know, there's never been a double-blind test with parachutes." (Note to debaters: being condescending, regardless of respective ages, levels of experience, etc., only makes the speaker look bad.)
What I have finally come to is this: I have reached a level where I am picking many of my classes. This means that I am 1) in the correct level, 2)interested in most of the subjects I am taking, and 3)getting more free reign, since the teachers know you have to have some interest to be in this level in the first place. This results in it looking like the issue is solved, since it has stopped affecting me as much.
Yet, still, I know it's happening. My classmates, my friends in middle school, all of them are being kept up late by homework.
(Note to people who wonder why these people aren't complaining: A)they are and B)they're swamped with homework.)
This thinking has also led to me thinking about what types of homework I dislike. Because, yes, homework can be useful--but nothing about homework makes it intrinsically useful. Some teachers think it is, leading to:
Homework for Homework's Sake
This is exactly what it sounds like. It is when a teacher assigns homework, not because the class needs to memorize something or the teacher needs to make sure that everyone is caught up, but simply because it is homework.
Negative Effect: Association. This solidifies an idea that all homework is useless in a student's mind, because this homework is useless. Should s/he run into any genuinely useful homework, how much of a chance will s/he give the assignment?
Common Justifications: The arms race argument ("Well, they're doing it!"), discipline, study habits
MOTS
The infamous More of the Same. Especially common in so-called 'advanced' classes that just pile on the work, hoping this increased work load will make it look like more is being taught, or that it is being taught more thoroughly.
Negative Effect: It creates a learning environment in which everything becomes boring, because it is drilled incessantly until it becomes so.
Common Justifications: "[What if t/T]hey didn't understand it the first time!", memory, "They won't practice any other way." (If they already understand, they don't need to.)
Punishment Work
This is when a student does something wrong, be it missing problems on a test, answering a question wrong in class, or stumbling over a presentation. It may be given to an individual student who has done something wrong, or the entire class. I would like to take a moment to separate this from test corrections: Test corrections are when one tells the student to look over the test and figure out how to do the problems s/he did wrong. Punishment work is when, for every problem missed, the student must complete ten problems of the same type. Punishment work may also be simpler, such as writing lines. "I will (not) x..."
Negative Effect: Association, but even moreso than HWFHWS. This is not just something the student does not enjoy--indeed, HWFHWS may be fun if the teacher knows how to work the assignment. This is a definitive "You are doing this because you have done something wrong," and gives the idea that homework--and by extension, possibly all academic work outside school--is a punishment. If you are doing everything right, then you don't need to do homework.
Common Justifications: Discipline, study habits, Spare the rod and spoil the child, "They'll know better next time." (which is a kinder way to say "This'll teach 'em," as far as I can tell).
And then we just have homework in general. If there is not a place for less priviledged students to get access to computers, good art supplies, or whatever else one needs to do the homework assigned, then suddenly we have an ever-growing gap--or, almost as bad, we don't, because the homework has no effect. Or a negative one.
Suggested Reading (for those interested):
The Homework Myth by Alfie Kohn ( http://www.alfiekohn.org/books/hm.htm for some information/reviews.) [One interesting bit of information I found in this book was a connection to bloodletting. I seem to have misplaced the book, but he talks about a scientist who decided to perform experiments to see if bloodletting worked. It didn't. His conclusion? Bleed earlier, bleed heavier.]
And...I would give links on the other side, but every time I try I find someone who starts out by calling me (or rather, anyone with my position) a liar. About that insultingly. If someone can find a nice one, please share.
EDIT: Scratch the previous paragraph, the second comment on this very post is suggested reading.
What I have finally come to is this: I have reached a level where I am picking many of my classes. This means that I am 1) in the correct level, 2)interested in most of the subjects I am taking, and 3)getting more free reign, since the teachers know you have to have some interest to be in this level in the first place. This results in it looking like the issue is solved, since it has stopped affecting me as much.
Yet, still, I know it's happening. My classmates, my friends in middle school, all of them are being kept up late by homework.
(Note to people who wonder why these people aren't complaining: A)they are and B)they're swamped with homework.)
This thinking has also led to me thinking about what types of homework I dislike. Because, yes, homework can be useful--but nothing about homework makes it intrinsically useful. Some teachers think it is, leading to:
Homework for Homework's Sake
This is exactly what it sounds like. It is when a teacher assigns homework, not because the class needs to memorize something or the teacher needs to make sure that everyone is caught up, but simply because it is homework.
Negative Effect: Association. This solidifies an idea that all homework is useless in a student's mind, because this homework is useless. Should s/he run into any genuinely useful homework, how much of a chance will s/he give the assignment?
Common Justifications: The arms race argument ("Well, they're doing it!"), discipline, study habits
MOTS
The infamous More of the Same. Especially common in so-called 'advanced' classes that just pile on the work, hoping this increased work load will make it look like more is being taught, or that it is being taught more thoroughly.
Negative Effect: It creates a learning environment in which everything becomes boring, because it is drilled incessantly until it becomes so.
Common Justifications: "[What if t/T]hey didn't understand it the first time!", memory, "They won't practice any other way." (If they already understand, they don't need to.)
Punishment Work
This is when a student does something wrong, be it missing problems on a test, answering a question wrong in class, or stumbling over a presentation. It may be given to an individual student who has done something wrong, or the entire class. I would like to take a moment to separate this from test corrections: Test corrections are when one tells the student to look over the test and figure out how to do the problems s/he did wrong. Punishment work is when, for every problem missed, the student must complete ten problems of the same type. Punishment work may also be simpler, such as writing lines. "I will (not) x..."
Negative Effect: Association, but even moreso than HWFHWS. This is not just something the student does not enjoy--indeed, HWFHWS may be fun if the teacher knows how to work the assignment. This is a definitive "You are doing this because you have done something wrong," and gives the idea that homework--and by extension, possibly all academic work outside school--is a punishment. If you are doing everything right, then you don't need to do homework.
Common Justifications: Discipline, study habits, Spare the rod and spoil the child, "They'll know better next time." (which is a kinder way to say "This'll teach 'em," as far as I can tell).
And then we just have homework in general. If there is not a place for less priviledged students to get access to computers, good art supplies, or whatever else one needs to do the homework assigned, then suddenly we have an ever-growing gap--or, almost as bad, we don't, because the homework has no effect. Or a negative one.
Suggested Reading (for those interested):
The Homework Myth by Alfie Kohn ( http://www.alfiekohn.org/books/hm.htm for some information/reviews.) [One interesting bit of information I found in this book was a connection to bloodletting. I seem to have misplaced the book, but he talks about a scientist who decided to perform experiments to see if bloodletting worked. It didn't. His conclusion? Bleed earlier, bleed heavier.]
And...I would give links on the other side, but every time I try I find someone who starts out by calling me (or rather, anyone with my position) a liar. About that insultingly. If someone can find a nice one, please share.
EDIT: Scratch the previous paragraph, the second comment on this very post is suggested reading.
Sunday, November 22, 2009
Travel Log
I have been several hours from home for the past few days (Thursday Friday Saturday). Here's a summary of what happened, since I'm not about to make a normal-sized blog post right now. EDIT: Upon rereading, I suppose I was.
Wednesday-Worked on finishing up what homework I could, studying/cramming music.
Thursday-Woke up, drove to our first rehearsal place, which was a church, got a check to make sure I knew my music. People were singing outside the room, both songs they were going to be checked on (mostly in their assigned octets) and just plain randomly. I got in; we had our first rehearsal until 9:30 (breaks for lunch, dinner). Highlights: 1)More than half the room singing a song they had, which included stomping and clapping. They got spontaneous applause. 2)A group of guys gathered around the piano and started singing showtunes, with one accompanying.
Friday-Woke up at the hotel, had breakfast with the choir group in a reserved room. Went straight from there to the rehearsal, break for lunch, more rehearsing, got out for dinner and we had the evening free. Highlights: I got a solo in 'Babathandaza', one of the songs our director had arranged (he had done three out of our six). Sin nje nje nje... When we got out early we went to the movie theater (New Moon was sold out, shocker), and saw Disney's A Christmas Carol, which was awesome.
Jokes at the theater that I don't expect too many of you to get: The ice cream server was dressed up as a traditional vampire. Characters were matched up with flavors: Vanilla was Bella Swan, Birthday Cake (which was also the Flavor of the Month) was Edward Cullin [sic], and Mississippi Mud Pie was Seattle Emo Mud Pie.
Saturday-Final wrap-up rehearsals and concert performance, then goodbyes. Highlights: THE ENTIRETY OF THE CONCERT. But in particular, 'Babathandaza', 'Sto Me E Milo' and 'Aglepta'. Oh my [deit[y/ies] of choice] 'Aglepta'.
Wednesday-Worked on finishing up what homework I could, studying/cramming music.
Thursday-Woke up, drove to our first rehearsal place, which was a church, got a check to make sure I knew my music. People were singing outside the room, both songs they were going to be checked on (mostly in their assigned octets) and just plain randomly. I got in; we had our first rehearsal until 9:30 (breaks for lunch, dinner). Highlights: 1)More than half the room singing a song they had, which included stomping and clapping. They got spontaneous applause. 2)A group of guys gathered around the piano and started singing showtunes, with one accompanying.
Friday-Woke up at the hotel, had breakfast with the choir group in a reserved room. Went straight from there to the rehearsal, break for lunch, more rehearsing, got out for dinner and we had the evening free. Highlights: I got a solo in 'Babathandaza', one of the songs our director had arranged (he had done three out of our six). Sin nje nje nje... When we got out early we went to the movie theater (New Moon was sold out, shocker), and saw Disney's A Christmas Carol, which was awesome.
Jokes at the theater that I don't expect too many of you to get: The ice cream server was dressed up as a traditional vampire. Characters were matched up with flavors: Vanilla was Bella Swan, Birthday Cake (which was also the Flavor of the Month) was Edward Cullin [sic], and Mississippi Mud Pie was Seattle Emo Mud Pie.
Saturday-Final wrap-up rehearsals and concert performance, then goodbyes. Highlights: THE ENTIRETY OF THE CONCERT. But in particular, 'Babathandaza', 'Sto Me E Milo' and 'Aglepta'. Oh my [deit[y/ies] of choice] 'Aglepta'.
Saturday, November 14, 2009
Review: Dr. Horrible's Sing-along Blog
Yes, I'm a little late. Still. (And I ran out of things to write on.)
I suggest it. Strongly. My brother dislikes all things musical, and he suggests this. If you have not seen it, you will go see it. *Jedi handwave* If you have, what did you think? *Points to the comment section*
Points for:
* Music. Good, catchy, and sounds simpler than it is.
* Plot. It has one, and you don't need a PhD (in Horribleness or otherwise) or to be in kindergarten to follow it without feeling out of place.
* Joss Whedon. (Hey, how many bad things has he done recently?)
* Commentary! The Musical is exactly what it sounds like (better when watched with the visuals, just as a warning to any pirates..).
*
Points against:
* Beginning. It drags a little. Personally, I like it, but it doesn't exactly give you a great idea of how the rest of the story is going to go. In my opinion, this means that if you don't like the first ten or so minutes, then give it a bit more time, but take this as you will.
* I can't think of enough points against to call it neutrality. So, yeah.
Links:
http://www.drhorrible.com/
http://www.drhorrible.com/mushortio.html (direct link to the video)
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Ptitlebrl75dwevzir (WARNING! Unmarked spoilers. However, it does warn you when these start. This, and associated pages, does happen to be an interesting read post-viewing, however.)
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CommentaryTheMusical (Yes, it's commentary gets it's own page.)
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Gifted Kids
I need to stop reading these stories about gifted children from people who never were gifted children. If you're not gifted and/or close to someone who is--and I don't mean s/he's in your biology class, I mean you two are best friends and share everything--then stop it.
It's a different experience. Say you're talking about the top five percent of the population. Is five percent a good cross-section of the population? No. We can note patterns, maybe, but five percent of the water in a glass may be the five percent that's different. And if there's oil in the water, then it is certainly very different.
So say you think that children in Ender's Game are portrayed incorrectly because you didn't think that way when you were a kid, and neither did any of your friends. This is an inherently flawed position for two reasons. First of all, these kids are the cream of the crop pushed to their limits. They are supposed to be the extreme, so saying that they should fit what an average person thinks like is not going to work. And we are social animals, so the people we tend to run into are those similar to us. Opposites attract, but there has to be some similarity or else the only cause is strife.
And so we have a group of kids hand-picked for this purpose and pushed to their limits. The smartest of the smartest, and adults who will not only say but mean, "Show me what you can do." This is something that just doesn't happen much today. If I had a nickel for every time a teacher told me to slow down, that we'd get to that later, or that the question I was asking was not pertinent, I would be much richer. (Or if I just had a nickel for every time my sheet was used as an answer key.) These are teachers who will not stop you and hold you back, but push you on. It's like literacy. Go back in time, scribes are well-paid and a profession that takes a lifetime to learn. Today, if you can't read and write after four years in the American schooling system, something is seriously wrong.
[Later] Also: see child drug lords. It's not quite running a country, but wow is it close. [/Later]
Don't tell me we don't think like that. I thought like that. I think like that, with a little more advanced thought behind it. You couldn't say women or blacks or whites or men or Asians or anyone else can't be smart, so don't say kids can't be. Because, yes, we will get smarter. And we'll get even smarter when we're allowed to be. Kids are kids. But what we do have access to, we have more time to focus on.
See [addictive site]: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TVGenius
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BatDeduction for what happens when non-geniuses try to guess what these people would act like.
For the other side I'm referring to...
see comments in:
http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2108073.Ender_s_Game
and read the post:
http://www.editoreric.com/greatlit/books/Ender.html
Rebuttal?
It's a different experience. Say you're talking about the top five percent of the population. Is five percent a good cross-section of the population? No. We can note patterns, maybe, but five percent of the water in a glass may be the five percent that's different. And if there's oil in the water, then it is certainly very different.
So say you think that children in Ender's Game are portrayed incorrectly because you didn't think that way when you were a kid, and neither did any of your friends. This is an inherently flawed position for two reasons. First of all, these kids are the cream of the crop pushed to their limits. They are supposed to be the extreme, so saying that they should fit what an average person thinks like is not going to work. And we are social animals, so the people we tend to run into are those similar to us. Opposites attract, but there has to be some similarity or else the only cause is strife.
And so we have a group of kids hand-picked for this purpose and pushed to their limits. The smartest of the smartest, and adults who will not only say but mean, "Show me what you can do." This is something that just doesn't happen much today. If I had a nickel for every time a teacher told me to slow down, that we'd get to that later, or that the question I was asking was not pertinent, I would be much richer. (Or if I just had a nickel for every time my sheet was used as an answer key.) These are teachers who will not stop you and hold you back, but push you on. It's like literacy. Go back in time, scribes are well-paid and a profession that takes a lifetime to learn. Today, if you can't read and write after four years in the American schooling system, something is seriously wrong.
[Later] Also: see child drug lords. It's not quite running a country, but wow is it close. [/Later]
Don't tell me we don't think like that. I thought like that. I think like that, with a little more advanced thought behind it. You couldn't say women or blacks or whites or men or Asians or anyone else can't be smart, so don't say kids can't be. Because, yes, we will get smarter. And we'll get even smarter when we're allowed to be. Kids are kids. But what we do have access to, we have more time to focus on.
See [addictive site]: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TVGenius
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BatDeduction for what happens when non-geniuses try to guess what these people would act like.
For the other side I'm referring to...
see comments in:
http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2108073.Ender_s_Game
and read the post:
http://www.editoreric.com/greatlit/books/Ender.html
Rebuttal?
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Marriage.
Hi there. I'm popping back in for a moment to ask a question that I hope, someday, I will understand the answer to: What is this big deal about marriage?
I don't mean why would someone be threatened by having his or her religion invaded. I don't mean why would someone who has made up his or her mind to hate someone prevent them from marrying. I don't mean why do people want to get married. I am simply asking: why is a marriage in the government such a big deal?
We, as Americans (and sorry for the ethnocentrism, but to be honest, I have nowhere near enough of a grasp of the culture to comment anywhere else), have a separation of church and state. How effective this is varies, since it's not on the books, but it is there. It's a part of our cultural mindset. I regularly see in any code of conduct I have been asked to follow that you cannot discriminate based upon "race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, immigrant status, homelessness, economic status, gender, sexual orientation, marital status, age, medical condition, physical appearance or physical or mental disability." (This is taken directly from my current planner, which my school hands out to freshmen and sells to anyone else.) Would you prevent someone from marrying because he or she was black? How about because the person was sixty? Or Jewish? Poor? Ugly? In a wheelchair?
These all sound silly, don't they? Of course you wouldn't prevent Alex from marrying Sam just because Sam was black, or Asian, or whatever else, and Alex was white. Now here I am, a bisexual female. If I fall in love with Alex and I want to marry him, that's fine, no matter who he is. If I fall in love with Alex, and I want to marry her, I don't get to. Except...I do. I get to marry her in my church, or wherever you get married according to her religion. This is not stopping gays from getting married, it's just putting terminology on the books which is odd to begin with.
And then we've got the counterargument. The one that isn't religion, which I've already gone over, saying that I don't think religion and politics should mix. The other is that there is a difference between the sexes, and that men without women (bachelors, men married to men) are dangerous to society. The problem with this is readily apparent to anyone who knows a large number of bachelors or men living with their boyfriends, etc. First of all, they're not. Second of all, even if they were, the only way they could live entirely away from women would be to live entirely away from society. And beyond that, as I have already noted, taking away someone's right to marry in the government does not take away his or her right to marry.
Back to marriage. Because I am not talking about gay marriage, I am talking about marriage. If, as too many people seem ready to claim, marriage is a religious thing, why is it in our government at all? Why is anyone being married? Hey, let everyone get married in a [insert wherever people of your religion/lack thereof would get married here]. Let people get civil unions in the government, regardless of race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, immigrant status, homelessness, economic status, gender, sexual orientation, age, medical condition, physical appearance, or physical or mental disability. Marriage is marriage. The government has no place in a sacred union, because the government isn't sacred.
You, who believes people who wish to marry people of their own gender? You're right. You, who believe marriage is a sacred union between a man and a woman in your religion? You're right (even if your religious leader disagrees, your religion is your religion). The government, having a place in the sacred part of anything sacred? Let's not. That can solve both sides.
Comments, questions, concerns?
I don't mean why would someone be threatened by having his or her religion invaded. I don't mean why would someone who has made up his or her mind to hate someone prevent them from marrying. I don't mean why do people want to get married. I am simply asking: why is a marriage in the government such a big deal?
We, as Americans (and sorry for the ethnocentrism, but to be honest, I have nowhere near enough of a grasp of the culture to comment anywhere else), have a separation of church and state. How effective this is varies, since it's not on the books, but it is there. It's a part of our cultural mindset. I regularly see in any code of conduct I have been asked to follow that you cannot discriminate based upon "race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, immigrant status, homelessness, economic status, gender, sexual orientation, marital status, age, medical condition, physical appearance or physical or mental disability." (This is taken directly from my current planner, which my school hands out to freshmen and sells to anyone else.) Would you prevent someone from marrying because he or she was black? How about because the person was sixty? Or Jewish? Poor? Ugly? In a wheelchair?
These all sound silly, don't they? Of course you wouldn't prevent Alex from marrying Sam just because Sam was black, or Asian, or whatever else, and Alex was white. Now here I am, a bisexual female. If I fall in love with Alex and I want to marry him, that's fine, no matter who he is. If I fall in love with Alex, and I want to marry her, I don't get to. Except...I do. I get to marry her in my church, or wherever you get married according to her religion. This is not stopping gays from getting married, it's just putting terminology on the books which is odd to begin with.
And then we've got the counterargument. The one that isn't religion, which I've already gone over, saying that I don't think religion and politics should mix. The other is that there is a difference between the sexes, and that men without women (bachelors, men married to men) are dangerous to society. The problem with this is readily apparent to anyone who knows a large number of bachelors or men living with their boyfriends, etc. First of all, they're not. Second of all, even if they were, the only way they could live entirely away from women would be to live entirely away from society. And beyond that, as I have already noted, taking away someone's right to marry in the government does not take away his or her right to marry.
Back to marriage. Because I am not talking about gay marriage, I am talking about marriage. If, as too many people seem ready to claim, marriage is a religious thing, why is it in our government at all? Why is anyone being married? Hey, let everyone get married in a [insert wherever people of your religion/lack thereof would get married here]. Let people get civil unions in the government, regardless of race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, immigrant status, homelessness, economic status, gender, sexual orientation, age, medical condition, physical appearance, or physical or mental disability. Marriage is marriage. The government has no place in a sacred union, because the government isn't sacred.
You, who believes people who wish to marry people of their own gender? You're right. You, who believe marriage is a sacred union between a man and a woman in your religion? You're right (even if your religious leader disagrees, your religion is your religion). The government, having a place in the sacred part of anything sacred? Let's not. That can solve both sides.
Comments, questions, concerns?
Sunday, October 25, 2009
My Characters and Creativity
I was going to make these separate posts, but then I realized how closely entertwined they were. I don't think I could do a blog post on either without referencing the other--a lot--and they would both probably end up being short, even by this blog's standards, so here we are.
My characters tend to evolve very quickly or not at all. From what I've seen looking around at books, TV shows, movies, etc., this seems to be very often the case. If a character is the main character, by the time the story has started, you already have everything figured out about the character. For a background character, there is almost nothing figured out. If anything's there, it tends to be stereotypes.
There are exceptions, but my point is that, at least for me, characters rarely evolve gradually in my head. I come up with one or two traits, and then I have the entire personality in my head as well as a full visual. This ends up making it very difficult to communicate what the character is like, since I usually write short stories. Some of them are only five pages (Microsoft Word, Arial font size 10, quarter-inch margins). Why is it so hard to communicate? Imagine you're talking to your friends, about a friend. Now imagine someone overhearing this conversation. Does this give a good idea of the friend's personality? If I were to write a novel that showed the character in many different situations, that might be ideal, since it could be surprising, but still have a cohesive feel. However, presently I lack the patience to write a novel. Who knows? Maybe someday that will change. I already have a setting and characters and a skeletal outline if I do gain it.
Creativity works the same way for me: Stepwise. I'll have several things bouncing around in the back of my head for a while, and then something will hit--a major emotional reaction, such as anger or elation, a new discovery, whatever. And the story will all fall into place.
I would like to take a moment to distinguish between a story and, say, a manuscript. A story, to me, is all the stuff that happened. If you were there, you have the story, or at least a story. It takes someone with a fair bit of skill to come up with a good manuscript or a good story, but the difference is that you have to come up with the manuscript. You could stumble across a story, with luck and observation.
So I'm back to the same problem I had with characters. I can write the story as it happened, but will that be the best it can be? I usually write from first person, and so use a certain character's voice. That gives me some idea. But which details do I bring out? Certainly I can't describe every detail. Even if I wanted to, doing so destroys the pacing. And yet, not adding enough detail does the same thing. I solved this in one story simply by having a character tend to get lost in her thoughts--oh, they already had that conversation? Darn, I wasn't listening. [Summary] Ah. And that also allows me to have long pauses between long series of quotation marks without having to describe everything about the environment. But one way I try to improve my writing is to write many different characters, and so that it obviously not always and option. Recently I've taken to giving each of them a recurring quirk of some sort, and this helps pacing, but it still doesn't give an idea of the environment.
...Well, that and it means a large number of them are insane, one way or another. *unsettling laugh*
Hi. This is me, inviting comments. Please?
My characters tend to evolve very quickly or not at all. From what I've seen looking around at books, TV shows, movies, etc., this seems to be very often the case. If a character is the main character, by the time the story has started, you already have everything figured out about the character. For a background character, there is almost nothing figured out. If anything's there, it tends to be stereotypes.
There are exceptions, but my point is that, at least for me, characters rarely evolve gradually in my head. I come up with one or two traits, and then I have the entire personality in my head as well as a full visual. This ends up making it very difficult to communicate what the character is like, since I usually write short stories. Some of them are only five pages (Microsoft Word, Arial font size 10, quarter-inch margins). Why is it so hard to communicate? Imagine you're talking to your friends, about a friend. Now imagine someone overhearing this conversation. Does this give a good idea of the friend's personality? If I were to write a novel that showed the character in many different situations, that might be ideal, since it could be surprising, but still have a cohesive feel. However, presently I lack the patience to write a novel. Who knows? Maybe someday that will change. I already have a setting and characters and a skeletal outline if I do gain it.
Creativity works the same way for me: Stepwise. I'll have several things bouncing around in the back of my head for a while, and then something will hit--a major emotional reaction, such as anger or elation, a new discovery, whatever. And the story will all fall into place.
I would like to take a moment to distinguish between a story and, say, a manuscript. A story, to me, is all the stuff that happened. If you were there, you have the story, or at least a story. It takes someone with a fair bit of skill to come up with a good manuscript or a good story, but the difference is that you have to come up with the manuscript. You could stumble across a story, with luck and observation.
So I'm back to the same problem I had with characters. I can write the story as it happened, but will that be the best it can be? I usually write from first person, and so use a certain character's voice. That gives me some idea. But which details do I bring out? Certainly I can't describe every detail. Even if I wanted to, doing so destroys the pacing. And yet, not adding enough detail does the same thing. I solved this in one story simply by having a character tend to get lost in her thoughts--oh, they already had that conversation? Darn, I wasn't listening. [Summary] Ah. And that also allows me to have long pauses between long series of quotation marks without having to describe everything about the environment. But one way I try to improve my writing is to write many different characters, and so that it obviously not always and option. Recently I've taken to giving each of them a recurring quirk of some sort, and this helps pacing, but it still doesn't give an idea of the environment.
...Well, that and it means a large number of them are insane, one way or another. *unsettling laugh*
Hi. This is me, inviting comments. Please?
Monday, October 19, 2009
Honor Choir
Because I have to post this somewhere. If you don't want to hear about my personal life, stop now.
Solo: 18/20 (Superior)
Tone Quality: 18/20 (Superior)
* Descriptors: Dark, Open, Relaxed and Clean were circled, "BIG! SOUND" was written in the margin. Other descriptors (there was a separate line): rich, round, open & free!
Theory: 11/15 (I missed one point on the chromatic scale and all three on the major triad--I sang a minor at first. Oops!)
Tonal Memory: 22/25 (missed one point on the last and two on the third of five. They were supposed to gradually increase in difficulty)
Sight Singing: 9/20
So...guess what I need to work on? *Hunts for a sight-singing book*
EDIT: I can't believe I almost put this without saying...I got in. ACDA Coastal Women's Honor Choir, for those curious.
Solo: 18/20 (Superior)
Tone Quality: 18/20 (Superior)
* Descriptors: Dark, Open, Relaxed and Clean were circled, "BIG! SOUND" was written in the margin. Other descriptors (there was a separate line): rich, round, open & free!
Theory: 11/15 (I missed one point on the chromatic scale and all three on the major triad--I sang a minor at first. Oops!)
Tonal Memory: 22/25 (missed one point on the last and two on the third of five. They were supposed to gradually increase in difficulty)
Sight Singing: 9/20
So...guess what I need to work on? *Hunts for a sight-singing book*
EDIT: I can't believe I almost put this without saying...I got in. ACDA Coastal Women's Honor Choir, for those curious.
Saturday, October 17, 2009
Vampires Are the New Elves
This article will address both changes in vampire myths that makes them more similar to elves/fairies/the fair folk/the gentle folk/the fey and the original similarities.
1. Uncanny Factor: This is an essential part of vampire mythology that horror fans do not complain about (as much). The basic idea that vampires, whether friendly or not, are not like us. They are not human, they do not think like humans, they are truly a different creature.
Elves, or the fair folk or the fey or whatever else you might call them, tend to share this trait. They have their rules, and will follow them strictly and expect you to, as well. What are they? I don't know them all. This was, again, an essential part of the scary part of the fairy lore. It was what made them scary, because you might do something that to us is, at worst, a minor faux pas, and then you look up and grin sheepishly and--poof. Or worse yet, just saying thank you.
2. Glamour: Ah, yes. Who can forget fey glamour? Besides, well, anyone the Fair Folk want to forget. That just goes without saying. Vampire glamour tends to work much the same way, with the creature in question having control over it, and strength varying, without varying too much in any one story--usually. Series, of course, explore this much more extensively.
3. Holy Objects: Yes, believe it or not, these originally worked on fey. This detail is usually glossed over or forgotten in modern myth, but it was present, nonetheless.
5. Hunting You Down: Think about this for a moment, for vampires. Does it really make sense? If the person tells anyone about vampires in a world where there is a masquerade of some sort going on, no one will believe him or her. If there is no masquerade (or this would break it, somehow), and the vampire wants to stop him or her anyway, then just kill the human. Vampires are superstrong, superfast, stuperstealthy, etc. Why not?
And the usual response is either nothing or that the vampire gets bored. If that's not it, then there might be rules governing treatment of humans to avoid detection, but then we get back to the fey very easily. There are strict rules for the Fair Folk to follow in most lore, and they had to be followed exactly. Sometimes, breaking them results in them being hunted down. This could mean being tossed out or getting the Wild Hunt after you.
(Incidentally, this is totally Sunday. And if it weren't, the fact that I had a bonus update this week would totally make up for it.)
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki.php/Main/TheFairFolk
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki.php/Main/OurVampiresAreDifferent
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki.php/Main/Jiangshi
1. Uncanny Factor: This is an essential part of vampire mythology that horror fans do not complain about (as much). The basic idea that vampires, whether friendly or not, are not like us. They are not human, they do not think like humans, they are truly a different creature.
Elves, or the fair folk or the fey or whatever else you might call them, tend to share this trait. They have their rules, and will follow them strictly and expect you to, as well. What are they? I don't know them all. This was, again, an essential part of the scary part of the fairy lore. It was what made them scary, because you might do something that to us is, at worst, a minor faux pas, and then you look up and grin sheepishly and--poof. Or worse yet, just saying thank you.
2. Glamour: Ah, yes. Who can forget fey glamour? Besides, well, anyone the Fair Folk want to forget. That just goes without saying. Vampire glamour tends to work much the same way, with the creature in question having control over it, and strength varying, without varying too much in any one story--usually. Series, of course, explore this much more extensively.
3. Holy Objects: Yes, believe it or not, these originally worked on fey. This detail is usually glossed over or forgotten in modern myth, but it was present, nonetheless.
5. Hunting You Down: Think about this for a moment, for vampires. Does it really make sense? If the person tells anyone about vampires in a world where there is a masquerade of some sort going on, no one will believe him or her. If there is no masquerade (or this would break it, somehow), and the vampire wants to stop him or her anyway, then just kill the human. Vampires are superstrong, superfast, stuperstealthy, etc. Why not?
And the usual response is either nothing or that the vampire gets bored. If that's not it, then there might be rules governing treatment of humans to avoid detection, but then we get back to the fey very easily. There are strict rules for the Fair Folk to follow in most lore, and they had to be followed exactly. Sometimes, breaking them results in them being hunted down. This could mean being tossed out or getting the Wild Hunt after you.
(Incidentally, this is totally Sunday. And if it weren't, the fact that I had a bonus update this week would totally make up for it.)
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki.php/Main/TheFairFolk
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki.php/Main/OurVampiresAreDifferent
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki.php/Main/Jiangshi
Monday, October 12, 2009
Planning: Known/Unknown Knowns/Unknowns
Yes, the title can be combined in any fashion. This will be a short post explaining how, with the three traditional combinations first, then the fourth, Unknown Knowns.
Known Knowns
This is simple enough, and should, hopefully, be the basic of any plan. It means something that you know you know, essentially a truth that you know about.
Known Unknowns
These are also integral in the making of a plan. These are the variables you cannot predict--whether because of insanity, lack of information, or anything else. In other words, it is something you know you do not know--so you can prepare for it.
Unknown Unknowns
These are the things you simply cannot prepare for. There is something that could mess you up or help you, but you have no idea it exists. In short, you don't know what you don't know.
Unknown Knowns
Here is where I get the most odd looks. This is fair, since the only reason I thought of this was because I imagined known/unknown knowns/unknowns as a chart, the former on the top and the latter on the side. What is this? This is something you should know, something you either have been told or have learned, but you do not remember it. Put another way: it's true, you would recognize it, but it doesn't quite make it into your head when you're planning.
(As a side note, something I found while spell-checking this: My computer recognizes known, unknown, and unknowns, but not knowns. Weird.)
Tropes for planning (Warning: Addictive):
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BatmanGambit
And when you figure everything out quickly:
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/IndyPloy
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosSpeedChess
Known Knowns
This is simple enough, and should, hopefully, be the basic of any plan. It means something that you know you know, essentially a truth that you know about.
Known Unknowns
These are also integral in the making of a plan. These are the variables you cannot predict--whether because of insanity, lack of information, or anything else. In other words, it is something you know you do not know--so you can prepare for it.
Unknown Unknowns
These are the things you simply cannot prepare for. There is something that could mess you up or help you, but you have no idea it exists. In short, you don't know what you don't know.
Unknown Knowns
Here is where I get the most odd looks. This is fair, since the only reason I thought of this was because I imagined known/unknown knowns/unknowns as a chart, the former on the top and the latter on the side. What is this? This is something you should know, something you either have been told or have learned, but you do not remember it. Put another way: it's true, you would recognize it, but it doesn't quite make it into your head when you're planning.
(As a side note, something I found while spell-checking this: My computer recognizes known, unknown, and unknowns, but not knowns. Weird.)
Tropes for planning (Warning: Addictive):
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BatmanGambit
And when you figure everything out quickly:
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/IndyPloy
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosSpeedChess
Sunday, October 11, 2009
Short Haircuts
For about a year previous to this, I have been looking around at short haircuts, since I wanted to cut mine. During my research, I read several sites that said that people with thick hair should not get short haircuts. I also ran across some horror stories, up to and including a woman's boyfriend breaking up with her.
Well, I was on the fence, leaning toward short hair. So I brought it up around some friends. And then:
"Girls cannot have short hair."
I don't believe I need to elaborate upon the immediate reaction of every female at the table, including myself.
Next haircut appointment, I arrive a little early, flip through some magazines, and get my hair cut from mid-back down to about an inch, with side bangs.
And the horror stories? ...Not so much. I got a bunch of compliments on my new hairstyle, and the worst comment I got was that I look like my mother. Bringing this up in front of anyone while we are both in the room is a good way to get a few laughs.
I know several girls from my school were horrified at the idea of their hair being cut short, yet everyone--everyone--seemed to like my hairstyle. So my main question is...why the terror? What is this obsession with long hair? Some justifications I hear around are that long, healthy hair takes years to grow, so it means the person has been well-taken care of, that guys grow up wanting to rescue Cinderella and Rapunzel, and none of these princesses have short hair, so guys aren't going to want to 'rescue' girls with short hair, etc., etc.
My view? My neck pain's dissipating, I'm getting fashion compliments, I'm not hiding behind my hair anymore, and I feel better after running. Short hair rocks. And anyway, I'm more of a knight than a princess.
Tropes That Occured to Me While Writing This (they didn't inspire, they're just sort of related):
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RapunzelHair
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RapeOfTheLock
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HairTropes
Well, I was on the fence, leaning toward short hair. So I brought it up around some friends. And then:
"Girls cannot have short hair."
I don't believe I need to elaborate upon the immediate reaction of every female at the table, including myself.
Next haircut appointment, I arrive a little early, flip through some magazines, and get my hair cut from mid-back down to about an inch, with side bangs.
And the horror stories? ...Not so much. I got a bunch of compliments on my new hairstyle, and the worst comment I got was that I look like my mother. Bringing this up in front of anyone while we are both in the room is a good way to get a few laughs.
I know several girls from my school were horrified at the idea of their hair being cut short, yet everyone--everyone--seemed to like my hairstyle. So my main question is...why the terror? What is this obsession with long hair? Some justifications I hear around are that long, healthy hair takes years to grow, so it means the person has been well-taken care of, that guys grow up wanting to rescue Cinderella and Rapunzel, and none of these princesses have short hair, so guys aren't going to want to 'rescue' girls with short hair, etc., etc.
My view? My neck pain's dissipating, I'm getting fashion compliments, I'm not hiding behind my hair anymore, and I feel better after running. Short hair rocks. And anyway, I'm more of a knight than a princess.
Tropes That Occured to Me While Writing This (they didn't inspire, they're just sort of related):
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RapunzelHair
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RapeOfTheLock
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HairTropes
Saturday, October 3, 2009
Vampires
Vampires. Love 'em, hate 'em, they're everywhere these days. It's like unicorns all over again, except people seemed to just ignore the fact that unicorns used to be this powerful, wild creature. I don't mean that unicorns were all death and destruction, but most people remember the virgin capture. It was to tame a unicorn. There was a wild creature there to tame.
So, why are some people so obsessed with vampires remaining monstrosities (because yes, any smart being who is always evil is a monstrosity)? It could be because of our most basic definitions of what a vampire is: a humanoid that sucks blood. Losing blood is a dramatic and gory way to die. Strictly speaking about pain, bleeding is not the worst way to go, but it looks bad, it sounds bad, and, if you are around, it smells bad. Scent gives a very visceral reaction.
The biggest complaint I hear is that vampires are being treated as sympathetic and/or kind creatures. The explanation I usually get is that you can see clearly by looking at Dracula, Nosferatu (and occasionally Carmilla) that vampires are evil beings. Pointing to these vampires as the original undermines the point that they are trying to make, as vampires predate the printing press by a long ways. Assyrian, Babylonian, and ancient Hebrew tradition have some written examples, and vampire myths exist in enough separate cultures to suggest a fairly universal idea. Not all these vampires were good, but as to whether they were actually evil...that's not always spelled out any more clearly than it would be for a human in a story. Not even getting into a debate of what is evil...
The secondary complaint I hear, which is usually latched onto the first, is that vampires are becoming hypersexualized. This is an...interesting argument, especially when coupled with a reference to Carmilla or Dracula. Dracula is a thinly veiled "those gol derned foreigners are comin' into our town and rapin' our wimmin!" (Apologies to anyone who actually talks like that or knows anyone who does.) [Note upon rereading: I like Dracula. I've read through it, and enjoyed the book. This is not an insult to the it.] Carmilla is a precursor for lesbian vampires everywhere. Even without that, vampires' lust for blood and lust for sex are commonly combined or conflated in one way or another. If you are saying that older is better, having borderline hypersexualized vampires is all but required.
Why does this bother me so much? Because this restricts vampires to forces, like a tornado, an earthquake or a tsunami. If a vampire just is evil, there is no motivation because there is no choice. A vampire by that definition, or indeed any being with no choice in his or her morality, is not a character, s/he is a force. Even if the vampire was good, that person is dead and gone.
The hypersexualization mostly bothers me because it is a part of the original myth. It would be like calling succubi or incubi hypersexualized. It is a centerpiece of the mythology. Making them without it is completely fine, but don't tell me that doing so is better.
In Summary: Vampires have no 'original' mythology. Don't tell me you, who probably hasn't even been around 100 years, know what happened when bloodsucking humanoid creatures were created. And please don't tell me that's the only way to write them.
P.S. Did you know sunlight didn't kill vampires until very recently? Usually it just de-powered them. True story. [Later: And, of course, really old vampires tended to not physically leave their graves.]
Tropes To Look At (WARNING: This site will ruin your life, suck up all your time, and may addict you to the point that you will no longer be able to have a normal conversation without thinking in tropes. Believe this troper. She knows.)
(Oh, reading anyway? Alright.)
[Note: None of these contain an actualy continuation of my blog post, they just are some of the tropes that got me thinking.]
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main.VampireTropes
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FriendlyNeighborhoodVampire
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/VampiresAreSexGods
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/YourVampiresSuck
How addicting is this site? While pulling those links up I started browsing through. I got to non-vampire related tropes, and I almost reflexively linked to wiki walk. Gah!
(And for those of you who want more on that beginning bit: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Unicorn )
So, why are some people so obsessed with vampires remaining monstrosities (because yes, any smart being who is always evil is a monstrosity)? It could be because of our most basic definitions of what a vampire is: a humanoid that sucks blood. Losing blood is a dramatic and gory way to die. Strictly speaking about pain, bleeding is not the worst way to go, but it looks bad, it sounds bad, and, if you are around, it smells bad. Scent gives a very visceral reaction.
The biggest complaint I hear is that vampires are being treated as sympathetic and/or kind creatures. The explanation I usually get is that you can see clearly by looking at Dracula, Nosferatu (and occasionally Carmilla) that vampires are evil beings. Pointing to these vampires as the original undermines the point that they are trying to make, as vampires predate the printing press by a long ways. Assyrian, Babylonian, and ancient Hebrew tradition have some written examples, and vampire myths exist in enough separate cultures to suggest a fairly universal idea. Not all these vampires were good, but as to whether they were actually evil...that's not always spelled out any more clearly than it would be for a human in a story. Not even getting into a debate of what is evil...
The secondary complaint I hear, which is usually latched onto the first, is that vampires are becoming hypersexualized. This is an...interesting argument, especially when coupled with a reference to Carmilla or Dracula. Dracula is a thinly veiled "those gol derned foreigners are comin' into our town and rapin' our wimmin!" (Apologies to anyone who actually talks like that or knows anyone who does.) [Note upon rereading: I like Dracula. I've read through it, and enjoyed the book. This is not an insult to the it.] Carmilla is a precursor for lesbian vampires everywhere. Even without that, vampires' lust for blood and lust for sex are commonly combined or conflated in one way or another. If you are saying that older is better, having borderline hypersexualized vampires is all but required.
Why does this bother me so much? Because this restricts vampires to forces, like a tornado, an earthquake or a tsunami. If a vampire just is evil, there is no motivation because there is no choice. A vampire by that definition, or indeed any being with no choice in his or her morality, is not a character, s/he is a force. Even if the vampire was good, that person is dead and gone.
The hypersexualization mostly bothers me because it is a part of the original myth. It would be like calling succubi or incubi hypersexualized. It is a centerpiece of the mythology. Making them without it is completely fine, but don't tell me that doing so is better.
In Summary: Vampires have no 'original' mythology. Don't tell me you, who probably hasn't even been around 100 years, know what happened when bloodsucking humanoid creatures were created. And please don't tell me that's the only way to write them.
P.S. Did you know sunlight didn't kill vampires until very recently? Usually it just de-powered them. True story. [Later: And, of course, really old vampires tended to not physically leave their graves.]
Tropes To Look At (WARNING: This site will ruin your life, suck up all your time, and may addict you to the point that you will no longer be able to have a normal conversation without thinking in tropes. Believe this troper. She knows.)
(Oh, reading anyway? Alright.)
[Note: None of these contain an actualy continuation of my blog post, they just are some of the tropes that got me thinking.]
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main.VampireTropes
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FriendlyNeighborhoodVampire
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/VampiresAreSexGods
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/YourVampiresSuck
How addicting is this site? While pulling those links up I started browsing through. I got to non-vampire related tropes, and I almost reflexively linked to wiki walk. Gah!
(And for those of you who want more on that beginning bit: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Unicorn )
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
