So I'm almost halfway through my driver's ed class on a Wednesday evening. Katie's next to me, and all other people I could wish to make contact with are within about 5 feet of me. And I just found out that we're not getting a mid class break...which I'm alright with, considering I ate before coming here. Katie says hi.
We're reading through the new texting law, which, by the way, covers a lot more than texting, and is officially in action tonight at midnight (yesterday?). So there's obviously no texting, but there's also no phone, iPod, mp3, or any electronic device usage of any kind while operating a vehicle.
By the way "in operation of" also means while stopped at a sign or in traffic...even if you're in park. Which kind of sucks. It also counts if you're on the side of the road and parked. You're only safe on the shoulder of the road.... Or if you're having a mental breakdown.
I'm sure you're wondering how this relates back to the Crucible. Well. The law exempts those of us who can claim a temporary mental breakdown. This works for most, if not all, of the laws today. If law has always been law, it seems funny that back in Salem people didn't think about mini meltdowns, but they were absolutely positive that Satan was embracing their town.
Point: What if the girls were just a little crazy? Imagine growing up in a society that literally dictates EVERY part of your life? How can you save any semblance of individuality you could have once had? Answer: You Can't.
So it really doesn't seem like such a crazy idea.... Does it?
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Friday, September 24, 2010
Play by the Book
It's really no secret that plays are easier to read than book literature. As we're reading the Crucible, and I'm in my living room at midnight with 40 pages to go, I find myself thinking "Well hey, at least it's not Great Expectations".
So why, exactly, are plays so much faster and easier to read? The answer can be found in the secret to all literary authors' successes: DESCRIPTIONS.
Novels will go into epic descriptions multiple pages long about the character's feelings or surroundings. The action of the story is sprinkled in amongst these block texts of boredom. Plays are written solely to progress the plot. They have to be, because characters can't exactly turn out an analysis-ready, 5 minute long monologue describing a tree their cat is in. Let alone the image of the poor kitten sitting up in the branches with no want or way to get down.
Any non-active parts of plays will be written in the italicized stage directions, but you don't really have to read those. I never do unless I'm trying to block a scene or something. You can read the dialog in a play and get as much information about the story, but in much less time. Most lines are also easy to understand, because the actor has to be able to grasp their meaning quickly so that they can play the character.
And this is why plays are much easier to read than novels.
So why, exactly, are plays so much faster and easier to read? The answer can be found in the secret to all literary authors' successes: DESCRIPTIONS.
Novels will go into epic descriptions multiple pages long about the character's feelings or surroundings. The action of the story is sprinkled in amongst these block texts of boredom. Plays are written solely to progress the plot. They have to be, because characters can't exactly turn out an analysis-ready, 5 minute long monologue describing a tree their cat is in. Let alone the image of the poor kitten sitting up in the branches with no want or way to get down.
Any non-active parts of plays will be written in the italicized stage directions, but you don't really have to read those. I never do unless I'm trying to block a scene or something. You can read the dialog in a play and get as much information about the story, but in much less time. Most lines are also easy to understand, because the actor has to be able to grasp their meaning quickly so that they can play the character.
And this is why plays are much easier to read than novels.
Sunday, September 19, 2010
Which came first, the character or the story?
From analyzing the different archetypes of literary characters in class, it seems like if your characters are lacking in some basic qualities, your story will fall flat on it's plot-failed face. But, according to the kind of success books like Twilight have with their admittedly addictive and enthralling plots, but characters that lack the depth of a puddle in July, are fully developed characters really strictly necessary to satisfy today's readers?
And then take all of the teen novels that girls all over the world spend hours and hours reading. The kind of books that cause you to spend a straight 6 hours one day getting through because you can't put them down, but that you know you will never remember the main character's name of, or the town it took place in. Now take Harry Potter. Where does THAT take place? Alright, so it's a series AND a movie. Maybe the facts get beaten into your head around book number 3, or movie number 2. But what about the main character's name in the popular "City of Ember" Trilogy? That one's a movie too.
Now this isn't to say that the City of Ember books aren't entertaining, and don't have a great plot line. They do, infact, and from what I've gathered from reviews, and from my own reading, the plot is precisely what makes the books such page turners. But the characters have no internal conflict, and not much depth. Their sole purpose seems to be to propel the plot along, and nothing more. Can a book survive on plot alone?
Now lets look at a book whose plot may be slightly less appealing to today's day and age. Great Expectations. Remember the main character's name? How about what country it takes place in? But I'm going to be honest; maybe it's my astonishing lack of literary class, but I did not find Pip's story to be a particularly quick moving read. Is it a coincidence that the globally acclaimed classics with brilliant writing tend to have more to do with the characters than the plot?
How about Catcher in the Rye? Sure, you could spend hours analyzing the plot, and how symbols in it relate to the characters, but the book would be nothing without Holden's crazy, contradictory internal monologues. These two books are examples of how books can indeed, be wild successes from the characters alone, with some side help from the plot to give the characters something to work with.
And that brings us to Twilight. This book seems to be the biggest exception to the rule that characters make the book. Everyone knows where Twilight took place. They know the character's names, their history, even their favorite colors, foods, and what car they drive. But any critic will tell you that Twilight's characters are nothing special. They're as flat as a piece of paper, and quite honestly, about as blank. But the population for the past couple years has been Vampire obsessed. And it's not just that more people are watching Buffy. So what is it that makes Twilight so ridiculously addictive?
The plot. It's connectable, an easy read, moves quickly, and is almost never lacking in action. And what teenage girl hasn't put herself in Bella's shoes? But that's just it; girls don't identify will Bella specifically because there isn't much to connect to, other than the basic qualities everyone would like- kindness, ingenuity, and a little clumsiness (only enough for her to fall so that Edward can catch her). No, girls identify with the plot. Because who wouldn't want to fall in love with the perfect boyfriend archetype, only in vampire form? And Bella is the MOST developed main character in Twilight, being the sole human. The rest of the characters rely on the "fate" or "expectations" of their kind to drive their string of the plot. Twilight's plot is what gives it such wild success on paper and in theaters world wide.
And yet, as a whole, people seem to be satisfied with Twilight. Is the whole nation lacking in literary selection skill? or have books like Twilight simply become the norm of what is an acceptable read? It's not like the nation goes around reading Charles Dickens before bed any more.
And then take all of the teen novels that girls all over the world spend hours and hours reading. The kind of books that cause you to spend a straight 6 hours one day getting through because you can't put them down, but that you know you will never remember the main character's name of, or the town it took place in. Now take Harry Potter. Where does THAT take place? Alright, so it's a series AND a movie. Maybe the facts get beaten into your head around book number 3, or movie number 2. But what about the main character's name in the popular "City of Ember" Trilogy? That one's a movie too.
Now this isn't to say that the City of Ember books aren't entertaining, and don't have a great plot line. They do, infact, and from what I've gathered from reviews, and from my own reading, the plot is precisely what makes the books such page turners. But the characters have no internal conflict, and not much depth. Their sole purpose seems to be to propel the plot along, and nothing more. Can a book survive on plot alone?
Now lets look at a book whose plot may be slightly less appealing to today's day and age. Great Expectations. Remember the main character's name? How about what country it takes place in? But I'm going to be honest; maybe it's my astonishing lack of literary class, but I did not find Pip's story to be a particularly quick moving read. Is it a coincidence that the globally acclaimed classics with brilliant writing tend to have more to do with the characters than the plot?
How about Catcher in the Rye? Sure, you could spend hours analyzing the plot, and how symbols in it relate to the characters, but the book would be nothing without Holden's crazy, contradictory internal monologues. These two books are examples of how books can indeed, be wild successes from the characters alone, with some side help from the plot to give the characters something to work with.
And that brings us to Twilight. This book seems to be the biggest exception to the rule that characters make the book. Everyone knows where Twilight took place. They know the character's names, their history, even their favorite colors, foods, and what car they drive. But any critic will tell you that Twilight's characters are nothing special. They're as flat as a piece of paper, and quite honestly, about as blank. But the population for the past couple years has been Vampire obsessed. And it's not just that more people are watching Buffy. So what is it that makes Twilight so ridiculously addictive?
The plot. It's connectable, an easy read, moves quickly, and is almost never lacking in action. And what teenage girl hasn't put herself in Bella's shoes? But that's just it; girls don't identify will Bella specifically because there isn't much to connect to, other than the basic qualities everyone would like- kindness, ingenuity, and a little clumsiness (only enough for her to fall so that Edward can catch her). No, girls identify with the plot. Because who wouldn't want to fall in love with the perfect boyfriend archetype, only in vampire form? And Bella is the MOST developed main character in Twilight, being the sole human. The rest of the characters rely on the "fate" or "expectations" of their kind to drive their string of the plot. Twilight's plot is what gives it such wild success on paper and in theaters world wide.
And yet, as a whole, people seem to be satisfied with Twilight. Is the whole nation lacking in literary selection skill? or have books like Twilight simply become the norm of what is an acceptable read? It's not like the nation goes around reading Charles Dickens before bed any more.
Friday, September 10, 2010
Puritanism: "The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy"
The Puritans, although through methods that can now be viewed as wrong, or unnecessary, have definitely contributed to the American Dream. They came to America not to pursue an already established religious settlement with ideals that matched their own, but rather to create their own settlement. In a way they accomplished both main parts of the American Dream- Finding freedom, and creating a new, and better life for themselves.
The Puritans came to America to create a more "pure" church environment. Although they decimated the Native American population, and destroyed most of the future settlers' hopes of getting along with them, they did accomplish their goal. And is that not a corner stone of the American Dream? To accomplish one's goal? They came to create a new environment, and they did it. They deserve some credit for that.
Puritanism was defined by H. L. Mencken as "The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy". This definition in and of itself clues the reader into the fact that the Puritans were not a particularly easy-going bunch. The Puritans destroyed much of the Indian population, and refused to accept any theology that wasn't strictly, well, theirs. Ironic, considering the original reason they came to the new world was, in essence, for religious freedom. Perhaps the reason they rejected all other theologies was the heart of their own religion- Predestination. The Puritans believed that from the second they were born, they were destined for heaven or hell, regardless of their actions in life. With such an extreme center of religion, is it so unbelievable that those who believed they may be destined for heaven after all might not want to tempt their chances with strange and unusual theologies?
The Puritans did contribute to the American Dream, but they definitely deserve their reputation in history. They were an intolerant people, especially to those who lived on their land before them. They massacred the Indian population, and shunned any new American Dream seeking settlers if they didn't share their strict religion.
The Puritans came to America to create a more "pure" church environment. Although they decimated the Native American population, and destroyed most of the future settlers' hopes of getting along with them, they did accomplish their goal. And is that not a corner stone of the American Dream? To accomplish one's goal? They came to create a new environment, and they did it. They deserve some credit for that.
Puritanism was defined by H. L. Mencken as "The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy". This definition in and of itself clues the reader into the fact that the Puritans were not a particularly easy-going bunch. The Puritans destroyed much of the Indian population, and refused to accept any theology that wasn't strictly, well, theirs. Ironic, considering the original reason they came to the new world was, in essence, for religious freedom. Perhaps the reason they rejected all other theologies was the heart of their own religion- Predestination. The Puritans believed that from the second they were born, they were destined for heaven or hell, regardless of their actions in life. With such an extreme center of religion, is it so unbelievable that those who believed they may be destined for heaven after all might not want to tempt their chances with strange and unusual theologies?
The Puritans did contribute to the American Dream, but they definitely deserve their reputation in history. They were an intolerant people, especially to those who lived on their land before them. They massacred the Indian population, and shunned any new American Dream seeking settlers if they didn't share their strict religion.
Wednesday, September 1, 2010
Finding the American Dream
How does the American Dream affect my family? To be honest, when I first thought about it, i had no idea. My family's lived here for a pretty long time, they didn't make an epic journey upwards through the social classes. They were always living comfortably in the middle class. My immediate family is the same story. Middle class, comfortable, not immigrating from anywhere other than Illinois or California. I'm blessed and privileged and I know it.
But the more i thought about it, the more I realized it had to come from somewhere. Somewhere along the line my family did immigrate from somewhere, and come here. I knew I had European relatives, and that my mom had a book my great grandfather wrote about our family's history on her side, but I'd never paid it much attention. So over dinner I talked to my parents and tried to come up with something. And this is what I've got.
My Grandpa's Grandparents immigrated to America. They lived on a farm in Iowa. When my Grandpa was growing up on the very same farm with his 5 brothers, German was still being spoken in the house as the predominant language. They all grew up with a tie to German culture and language. But none of the 5 sons wanted to be farmers. Somewhere along the line they adopted the idea that they could become more than what they were. My Grandpa became a nurse aboard ships in WWII, and a YMCA executive. Another son became a pastor, another a teacher. The last two were a doctor and a Sociologist.
From here I know what came next. My Grandpa got to travel all over the world establishing YMCA offices. He lived in Hong Kong for years with My grandma, my Dad, and my Aunt. He traveled all across Europe, to Indonesia and India.
He started out on a farm in Iowa. An average farm, with 5 sons, and parents and grandparents who hadn't even adopted English. He broke the mold, and became something different.
And not one of the 5 sons were farmers.
But the more i thought about it, the more I realized it had to come from somewhere. Somewhere along the line my family did immigrate from somewhere, and come here. I knew I had European relatives, and that my mom had a book my great grandfather wrote about our family's history on her side, but I'd never paid it much attention. So over dinner I talked to my parents and tried to come up with something. And this is what I've got.
My Grandpa's Grandparents immigrated to America. They lived on a farm in Iowa. When my Grandpa was growing up on the very same farm with his 5 brothers, German was still being spoken in the house as the predominant language. They all grew up with a tie to German culture and language. But none of the 5 sons wanted to be farmers. Somewhere along the line they adopted the idea that they could become more than what they were. My Grandpa became a nurse aboard ships in WWII, and a YMCA executive. Another son became a pastor, another a teacher. The last two were a doctor and a Sociologist.
From here I know what came next. My Grandpa got to travel all over the world establishing YMCA offices. He lived in Hong Kong for years with My grandma, my Dad, and my Aunt. He traveled all across Europe, to Indonesia and India.
He started out on a farm in Iowa. An average farm, with 5 sons, and parents and grandparents who hadn't even adopted English. He broke the mold, and became something different.
And not one of the 5 sons were farmers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)