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.

A Movie in My Head

I just finished reading Will Grayson, Will Grayson by John Green and David Levithan. The book alternates perspectives between two boys named Will Grayson. Their lives start out as seeming unconnected, until the two of them meet by chance. Will Grayson 1 ends up introducing Will Grayson 2 to his gay friend Tiny. Tiny is working on a musical about his life. Will Grayson 2, is gay as well, and he and Tiny hit it off. While in this relationship, Tiny realizes that his musical can’t be about him, it needs to be about love. When Tiny does this, the musical becomes about all of his experiences with love and about the people in his life as well. As a result of this, the musical is whole lot better.

Tiny’s experience is really important. We often think of our lives as movies, TV shows, musicals etc. and we are the stars of these stories in our heads. This makes sense because we are in our head. Sometimes though, we confuse being the star, with it all being about us. Life is not “A Story About Me”. If we get too caught up in thinking about our lives as only about us, then they wont be as nice to live. This is something that is related to a lot of other characters lives. 

In the beginning of the book, Will Grayson 1 (aka W.G.1) has two rules, shut up and don’t care. He believes that this is the best way to avoid getting hurt. If he doesn’t care and doesn’t talk then he cant get hurt. But caring about something, anything is a big part of what makes life worth living. Caring and learning and making mistakes are integral parts of what make us human. W.G.1 refuses to let other people be parts of his little movie of life. A movie in which only one character affects the plot is a boring one. The supporting characters need to get in there too or what is the point. You don’t have a plot. Then, later in the book, he starts to let people in. He lets himself care about other people. He does get hurt, but by the end he is a happier person. This can be said for almost all of the characters. Once they let other people be part of the plot of their life movie, they start to enjoy it more and more.

Your life is a story about you and the interactions you have with other people. If you lose sight of how those people affect you life, or try to pretend they don’t then you will ultimately be less happy. You are the star of you own movie, but it isn’t all about you.

Popularity (Revised)

*This is a revised copy of an old post. To see the original post click here *

I am currently right in the middle of a book called Looking for Alaska by John Green. The book is about a boy who decides to leave his boring school in Florida behind and go to a boarding school. Lots of interesting things happen to him, and many of them are as a result of the rivalry between the “in” crowd and the “out” crowd. The “in” crowd is the segment of the school that is rich kids. The kids in the “out” crowd all hang out with each other (this boarding school is small) and, for the most part, avoid the “in” crowd kids. Still, they consider themselves less popular because… well there isn’t really a reason. This got me thinking. The kids in the “out” crowd don’t want to hang out with the “in” crowd and vice versa. Why should one group be considered more popular? The popularity of the “in” crowd does not seem to be based on anything. The “in” crowd kids don’t have more friends or better grades, or nicer faces. The only reason appears to be that they have more money.

When I was in 6^th grade, I first started to discover that there were popular people in our school. I am not quite sure how I knew who was popular. I think my friends pointed the people who were popular out to me. Then I knew they were popular, and I started to realize that everyone else did to. That was my first real life encounter with the idea of popular people. It just always made sense to me. Of course there are popular people. I never thought to question it.

            After a lot of thinking on the topic of popularity I believe I have a theory as to why people are popular. Popularity is all about perception. If we all expect someone to be popular, then they are popular, and this only reaffirms our belief in their popularity. This applies to Looking for Alaska as well. In the book, when people started looking for who was going to be popular, they saw the rich kids. There is a stereotype that the rich kids are the popular ones, so when there was a group of much wealthier kids, it was assumed that they would be popular, so they were.

           

            In truth, popularity is not that important. It won’t give you a better life. You wont become immortal. You can be the least popular kid in the school, and still have friends who care about you. The kids in Looking for Alaska prove that. They said that it was fine they weren’t popular because they were going to hang out with other kids, and they are perfectly happy. All in all, the concept of popularity is just a circular mind trick that we play on ourselves. If you think about it like that, it seems kind of sill how much we care about popularity.