Blogging Reflections

What did you learn about yourself as a reader from creating and keeping up with your blog?

I learned that I often end up thinking asking questions about why characters act certain ways, and why people act in certain ways. I also often question the motives of character that we perceive as wrong and try and decide whether that is actually true. I also found that I like books that have interesting questions in them. I usually have more to say.

In what ways did you benefit from the experience?

It forced me to think about books. I would often start my blog post with one idea, and as I started to write, my idea would change, and ultimately I would have to re write the post because my ideas had totally changed. Sometimes I would be reading a book I thought I had nothing to say about. Because I had to do a blog post I would just start writing. All of the sudden I would discover some theme or lessen to take away from the book that I never would have seen before. It also increased my writing stamina. I started this project barely able to write a page. Now I find myself going way over that and having to cut the entry down because it’s too long. I also used to think writing a page typed was really hard. Now, if I know what I want to say, I can do it in a half hour.

Is writing online different than in a notebook?  In what ways? In what ways can writing online be liberating?  Limiting?

It is so different. Personally, I prefer writing my computer. It is easier to edit for one, I don’t have to deal with erasing and crossing out. I can write something, hate it and delete it. I am the type of person that revises as they write. The negative flip side of that is that sometimes you just need to write everything down and revise later.  I also type faster then I write so I like that as well. I also feel like I have more control when I am writing on line. I know that sound weird but it is true. I can always go back and change my post if necessary. I also control the setting the blog is viewed in. I also like that I am not just writing for the teacher. Other people will read the work and that is motivating.

Do you think that people are more real online or do we create online personalities that project the best of ourselves? Or something else?

I think that we have the capability to edit ourselves online. Having said that I don’t think we necessarily do that. In fact, often people are less edited online. I am not exactly sure what a person’s real self is. I don’t think they are more or less that online. I think some people try and project their best selves while others don’t. I think we often try and project the person we want to be seen as.

Do you think that teenagers abuse the freedom that being online gives you on sites like facebook? Do people type things they would never say to a person's face? Do you think this is a good or bad thing? Why?

I think that people say things that they would never say to a person’s face online. I think the general lack of voices and faces on the internet is a bad thing. It is absolutely more convenient and I believe it should exist. Having said that, important conversations should never be had on facebook. Arguments, confrontations, and other such things need to happen face to face, or at least on the phone. The anonymity facebooks gives you and the other person allows fights to go on forever. You never have to face the other person’s emotions if you are online. Some people argue that you can articulate exactly what you want to say, something you can’t as easily do in person. The problem with this though is that people don’t because they don’t view the person they are arguing with as another person.

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

I am not sure I could see myself keeping up with my blog. I might try. I don’t think I will create another blog. I do have a tumblr though. Actually I have two. One is for images I take. The other is a doctor who tumblr. Usually I think blogs are really cool. They are interesting and fun ways of spreading information and images, or just talking. Sometimes they can get obnoxious though. 
(Also, a link to my doctor who tumblr for anyone interested: http://thenesteneduplicate.tumblr.com/ )

Sorry I couldn't resist :) Ignore it if you don't watch doctor who.

I Have a Neurotic Mother

I am currently reading Vaclav & Lena by Haley Tanner. The first half of the book is the story of two ten-year-old Russian immigrants (Vaclav came here when he was four, and Lena came here as a baby, but was raised by her grandmother so she went into kindergarten speaking only Russian) living in Brighton Beach, Brooklyn in around 2003 (that’s a guess, they don’t provide actual dates). The second half of the book fast-forwards 7 years later to when Vaclav and Lena are 17. I have just started that bit. 

A character I think is really interesting is Vaclav’s mother, Rasia. She did everything she could to get her son here so he could have a better life. Rasia is often bewildered, perplexed or frightened by American things. She finds Vaclav’s new skinny jeans weird and when Vaclav says he is going to Ozzie’s, she asks who this Ozzie person is and if they are a drug dealer. At first I just found this hysterical. Originally I thought it was simply because of how badly Rasia misinterpreted what Vaclav said. Then I started thinking about it more. Vaclav really just has a neurotic mother.  This is something I can relate to. As I kept thinking about it, there are a lot of ways in which Vaclav’s mother isn’t so different from an American mom. She is hates Vaclav’s girlfriend, she is always really worried about him, she makes him do his homework every night, and ultimately, she really just wants what is best for him.

 I think that often, we look at people who are from a culture that is different from ours as something foreign or alien. We see that they eat different food then we do or have different customs and we back away. We get so caught up in all the little details that are different, that we forget about the big picture. Even as cultures or mannerisms change, there are certain things that we all share. Our values may rank in importance differently but they are still all there. We are all ultimately human. We all care about people and want things and have hopes and dreams and fears. We spend so much time picking out all the little things that make us different from someone else, that I think we begin to forget about all of the things that make us the same, and those are the things that really matter.

The House of the Scorpion, Clones and Doctor Who

I am currently reading The House of the Scorpion by Nancy Farmer. The book is about a little boy named Matt who is actually the clone of a rich drug lord, Matteo Alacran. While most clones are, by law, altered at birth so they have no intelligence and can only stand around and drool, Matt was not, because Matteo Alacran didn’t want him to be. So Matt feels like any other 7 year old boy, but when the general population of the house finds him, they put him in a pen and treat him like he is the most disgusting thing simply because most clones are like that.

Our group is only about fifty pages in, but this book already raises some pretty big questions in my head. Specifically, what does it mean to be human? Matt is not seen as a human. He is seen as animal or beast. He is not even considered a “he” but an “it”. I think that Matt is a human. He lived until he was seven like any other human boy would. He is just as different from Matteo Alacran as one identical twin is from another. He has his own memories and experiences to make him his own person. It is our memories that make us who we are. Matt has a life and memories and experience different from Matteo Alacran, and he is therefore his own person and definitely human.

This made me think about an episode of Doctor Who I watched recently (don’t judge me). The episode was called "The Rebel Flesh". In this episode, the characters meet a group of people who are using copies of themselves created from a special type of matter to stay safe while working near dangerous chemicals. These copies are temporary bodies the real people control like puppets and only exist while in use. That is, until a big storm comes are the copies become entirely individual people with control over their own minds. But they have the same memories as the people they are copies of, up until the moment the separation occurred.

I couldn’t help but ask myself if these people were humans who should be allowed to live as well, or if they were just matter and a collection of stolen memories that should be killed. After all, they are going to want to go home and live the lives they were living in the memories they unintentionally stole. It is very clear to me that these people are alive, but I am not sure if they are human. I believe that our memories are what make us who we are, and these copies have no true memories of their own. At the same time, it isn’t their fault that they are an exact copy of someone else. They didn’t choose to take someone else’s memories. I don’t think you can kill the copies. They are human and they didn’t ask to be what they are.

I think the point of all of this is that it isn’t how you are born or the way you are born or even if you are born that make you human. They thing both the clone type character have in common is that they believe they are human. If you have a real and true belief that you are human, then you are, and should be treated as such.

Psychopaths Rule the World

I am currently reading The Psychopath Test by Jon Ronson. The book is about psychopaths and the author’s journey through discovering more and more about them. Psychopaths rule the world. 1% of the world’s population is psychopathic but 4% of corporate CEOs are psychopaths. They can’t feel empathy or remorse and while this can lead to great economical success (even if it is not through entirely moral ways). It also leads to mental institutions and prison. In the author’s first encounter with a psychopath, he meets a man named Tony.

Tony is a psychopath who got put in a mental institution when he pretended to be crazy to get out of jail time. Once he arrived in the mental institution it was determined that he was actually psychopathic, not crazy. Tony has been trying to get released since he first entered the institution. Evidence presented by the author of the book shows that being a psychopath is most likely a physical deformity in the brain rather then a mental illness. It is even believed by some people that it is genetic. There is currently no known therapy to treat psychopaths. Tony has been in the mental institution for four years longer then the seven year maximum on the crime he commit, with currently no chance of release.

This question has been bothering me since I first read about it. On one hand Tony has served his time. I don’t want to feel empathy for a man who can’t feel it himself, but I can’t help but think how strange it must be for him. He has been in jail since he was seventeen because he made a stupid decision. The crime he committed was not particularly psychopathic. He could become a regular functioning member of society. But he is also a psychopath and that can’t be cured. 25% of prisoners are psychopathic but psychopaths commit 60% of crime in prisons. They don’t learn from punishment, and Tony’s experience in the mental institution wouldn’t stop him from committing another crime. He is a danger to others because of the way his mind works. Its wrong to lock him up but it is probably for the greater good if he is locked up.

If I could release Tony I don’t think I would. I really and truly feel bad for him. At the same time if he went out into the world to kill someone, it would be on my hands, and I don’t think I could live with that.

Seeing Inside Your Head

I am reading An Abundance of Katherines by John Green. The book is about a boy named Colin who was a child prodigy and is slightly socially awkward. He goes on a road trip with his friend Hassan and they end up in a small town called Gutshot where they meet Lindsey. Lindsey is popular in her small town but isn’t an airhead. She is also a social chameleon. She fits into whatever situation she is put into. When Lindsey and Colin are sitting and talking, Colin asks Lindsey “Do you every wonder whether people would like you more or less if they could see inside you?” Colin thinks they would like him less, or at least the Katherines (Colin only dates girls named Katherine, hence the book title) would like him less because they always seem to dump him when they get to know him. Lindsey thinks that people would hate her because they would see through the façade she puts up in different situations to the real her.

I think the whole idea of people seeing you on the inside is really interesting. I think that there would be less animosity and hate in the world if we could see inside each other. We would be forced to see the humanity in everyone. That being said, I don’t think I would want people to see inside my head. I think that my head is my place. Lindsey isn’t just a social chameleon because she wants to fit in. I think she puts on different aspects of herself for different people so that no one can get to close to her and that private place in your head stays that way. Colin seams pretty upfront. Even so, he hides certain things. He hides his failures and how emotionally tormenting they are for him because that is one part of him he doesn’t want people to see. I think everyone has at least one of those.

To answer Colin’s question in the beginning, I don’t know if people would like me more if they saw me on the inside. Part of me says no and the other says yes. It is hard to tell. Even if showing me on the inside would make everyone love me, I don’t think I would do it. I don’t want to entrust that much of myself to anyone. So, do you every wonder whether people would like you more or less if they could see inside you? Would you let them if you could?

This Blog Post Has Been Banned

I just recently finished The Golden Compass by Philip Pullman. The book is incredibly complicated and I am not going to explain the entire plot to you! The book does take place in a fantasy world in which the church runs basically everything, and they appear to be very corrupt and controlling. This is a really controversial topic. Philip Pullman paints the church as an awful politically motivated body that tries to eliminate anything that could remove their power.

When the book was published, I know this caused a lot of controversy. People said that they didn’t want their children reading this because of what it implied about religion and the legitimacy of God as a perfect being. People said they didn’t want a child reading the book because they didn’t think it was “appropriate content” for kids. This is ridiculous. All of the content in this book is appropriate for any child over the age of eight. The real reason that people don’t want their kids reading this is because it gives a world-view different from their own. People who refuse to listen to the other side of an argument are never going to have their views evolve and become more complex and sophisticated. This is why I am against banning books because of the ideas contained in them. It is important to read books from all different points of view.

When we refuse to listen to an idea we disagree with, we deny ourselves the chance to understand that idea a little better. Our nation is so divided right now that our legal system can barely get anything done. If we stopped trying to sensor ideas we disagreed with, we might be able to more easily work together. I am not saying whether or not I agree with the ideas in The Golden Compass, but I appreciate the book for its great writing, great characters and interesting ideas. That should be enough to get it put in any library.

Something Borrowed- Destructive Friendships

I have just finished reading Something Borrowed by Emily Griffin. The book is from the point of view of a girl named Rachel, who’s best friend, Darcy, is getting married. Darcy and Rachel have been best friends since they were five. Darcy was always the pretty one and Rachel was always the smart hard worker. From the very beginning of the book Darcy comes off as obnoxious and egotistical. Rachel though has always been a good and supporting friend. Rachel was actual the one who introduced Darcy to her husband to be. All of this changes though when Rachel and her best friend’s fiancé hook up.  This and the relationship that follows lead Rachel to question everything about her friend ship with Darcy and drags up a lot of interesting stories.

While reading this book, I found myself comparing Darcy’s friendship with Rachel to one of my really old friendships. I felt like I could relate each of the stories about school that Darcy told, to a story about my own friendship. I think that most girls have a friendship like Darcy and Rachel’s. This started me onto a topic I find really interesting: boy’s verses girl’s friendships. One really big difference between boys and girls friendships is how they get competitive. Often, when boys get competitive they are fairly obvious about the fact that they are competing. When girls get competitive, it is very underhanded. They want to seem like they are not being competitive at all. When Darcy wanted to beat Rachel’s SAT score, she asked Rachel what she got. Then Darcy said she got five points higher. Darcy then said it’s just five points, basically the same score, and that she didn’t really care about it. The SATs are scored in increments of ten. Darcy must have cared about her score or she wouldn’t have lied.

I feel like girls do this a lot to get ahead if they aren’t. They lie and cheat to be ahead and I think this book expresses an aspect of that really well. I know this post doesn’t really have a clear point, but I think that the fact that this book made me think so much is a sign of a good book. The relationship between Darcy and Rachel is in many ways very true to life, and that is what makes me like it so much.