Its not that I don't enjoy reading, or that I don't have time, I just have no inspiration to read. I would much rather sit in front of the television letting my brain rot away than put in the effort to finish a book. (I hate not finishing books). However, recently I have found myself spending countless hours in Half-Price Books reading the book summaries and picking out numerous books that I would someday like to read. I doubt that I will ever read half of them, but at least I have them in case I do.
Anyway, as for my author, (I have very few to choose from) I like Jodi Piccoult. Her books are not the typical teenage girl books, but more for the young adult. I admit that the first book I read by her, I had chosen because the cover was pretty colors, but that is beside the point. Many of her books are written from various characters points of view, which I enjoy, it gives a fresh look at whats happening. For example, in her book The Faraday Girls, she switches around from each of the 5 sisters points of view. I would compare Piccoult's books to the Shopaholic books written by Sophie Kinsella. I also enjoy her books becuase she sets them in different places around the world. The one set in Australia has been my favorite. Her books are very well written and interesting and I highly recommend them to everyone (okay, mostly girls).
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
I don’t read non-fiction consistently. I’ve read some really good non-fiction books here and there, but sadly, as interesting as a topic may be, I usually am so burned out on the real world that I want to escape it with fiction. I really do love to read, but I just don’t get to read as often as I wish and I hate that. And most of time, when I do get to read, I’ll choose a book on the topic, not the author. I feel like there are just way to many books I have to read out there and so I never get wrapped up into one author. So lately, meaning about the past two years, I’ve been jumping around a lot with my book choices. But before then, and sometimes still, I really got into books by Sarah Dessen. They are perfect girl books I suppose you could say. They are so relatable and well, seem “real.” What I mean by this is that they stay out of the cliché area most teen girl books fall into that I can’t stand. She really develops her main character and makes them real; they seem like your friends. I admire that respects teenage girls and doesn’t make them mindless, predictable characters they can be portrayed as. Unlike gossip girl or those books that glorify these mean, scandalous teenagers, Dessen works to create characters you can respect and admire. I enjoy her writing style and her stories, which keep me coming back to her name time and again.
I do not read nonfiction. Ever. Never ever ever. EXCEPT for all of the articles in my Practical Horseman magazine, but I don't think that really counts. Or does it? It kind of does, and I'm actually going to go with that. Most of the article are written by different people in each issue, so that aspiring riders can get inside tips from ALL of the pros. But a couple are written by the same people every single month, and one of those authors is my favorite nonfiction author(He's actually written some books, too, so he is a real author, I promise.). His name is George Morris. Now, you probably don't know it, but you just read the name of the (arguably) most famous man to ever sit in a Hunt Seat Saddle. He is the coach of the U.S equestrian team, has countless awards and honors racked up from his junior and amateur(though it's hard to believe he ever was one) days, and currently has the most elite opinion on all that is good and proper in the land of equitation, or the form of the rider while riding. Also known as GM, he is the Jesus, God, and prophet of Hunters, Jumpers, and Equitation. Thus, he writes an "Equitation Clinic" each month, in which unsuspecting and naive people present photos of themselves for slaughter-- er, critique. His style of writing is always the same. Always. His tone is condescending, even when he's praising someone, and I love it. His personality, which I have never experienced, only heard about, shines through. Legend has it that he once made a rider in a clinic dismount and roll on the floor of the arena because she was cleaner than her horse, and he makes at least one person cry per clinic. The reader feels like they are right there, and a kind of bond, almost, is formed with the poor, poor person that subjected themselves to the critique. He also has this manner of explaining faults so that they seem foolish, and often offers very easy(sounding) solutions. So why do we all love this man, who I'm sure you think sounds horrible? I have no idea. We just do.
princess books
I agree with a lot that has already been said: It's next to impossible for me to pinpoint my single favorite author. But I can tell you I don't have a wide variety of non-fiction writers to choose from.
One author I deliberately return to time and time again is Meg Cabot. But, again, more because I've been able to identify her as a teenage-girl-fiction writer than because of the fact that she's Meg Cabot. Probably her more famous writings, The Princess Diaries, are somewhat distinct for their being in diary-format, although that isn't completely original or unheard of. This series, as well as everything else I've read from her, has this cutesy little touch of fantasy. But they're novels intended for teenage audiences, which helps me feel less stupid about still wanting to read princess stories.
But essentially, what makes me like Meg Cabot's writing so much is, again, its nice girlie styling. And I've found similar appeal in many many many different authors (among these: Kieran Scott, Judy Blume, Victoria Ashton). Meg Cabot just happens to come to mind when at the library or writing in the class blog.
One author I deliberately return to time and time again is Meg Cabot. But, again, more because I've been able to identify her as a teenage-girl-fiction writer than because of the fact that she's Meg Cabot. Probably her more famous writings, The Princess Diaries, are somewhat distinct for their being in diary-format, although that isn't completely original or unheard of. This series, as well as everything else I've read from her, has this cutesy little touch of fantasy. But they're novels intended for teenage audiences, which helps me feel less stupid about still wanting to read princess stories.
But essentially, what makes me like Meg Cabot's writing so much is, again, its nice girlie styling. And I've found similar appeal in many many many different authors (among these: Kieran Scott, Judy Blume, Victoria Ashton). Meg Cabot just happens to come to mind when at the library or writing in the class blog.
Nerdfighters!
I don’t have a favorite non-fiction writer because; well I don’t read non-fiction books. My favorite fiction author, like Libby, is John Green. Currently he has 3 books published. My absolute favorite book by him is Paper Towns. John Green writes his books in a way that you feel like you’re in the story; you have a personal connection with each one of his character. His books are crafted in a way that you can see John’s personality. In his book Looking For Alaska, I was saw a lot of his personality and sense of humor through the main character, Miles.
He and his brother, Hank Green, have a YouTube channel, Vlogbrothers, where they post videos weekly. They call their viewers Nerdfighters. They first started their show in 2007 as a competition for each other. For the entire year of 2007, they couldn’t communicate with each other in any textual way. So, no emails, instant messages, text messages or any other written way. If one of them happened to break the rule, they would be punished. One of my favorite punishments was to John. Hank and the nerdfighting community challenged him to wax his beard. And John, being a dedicated vlogger, did as he was told. John posted his video challenge, and the website got to view his painful dare, and the blood in which he shed for the sake of a video. After the challenge, John found out that waxing your beard is actually dangerous because it’s a very tender area.
Paper Towns was being written after the Vlogbrothers started their challenge. I got to see John talk about his writers block, see a day in the life of a writer, and become extra pumped for the release of his third novel. After the book was published, John hosted a sort of ‘book club’ where he would talk about sections of the book and explain how he got the ideas for it. Nerdfighters also sent John ‘toys’ that were based on his novels. For example, in his first book, An Abundance of Katherines, one of the character’s parents collects black Santas so of course John received multiple black Santas for his own collection.
The point of those stories was to say that I feel as though I personally know John Green. I can see John’s voice through his writing. John and Hank green still vlog, so I still get updates about my favorite author. Now John talks about news on Sundays, answer questions on Tuesdays, and Hank makes music videos on Wednesdays, and between the two of them, they post other videos randomly. I love that I got the experience to see John Green life before I read his books. Seeing him on an almost daily bases, talking about his own life problems and struggles he might be encountering, was really neat. Currently, he is working on the screen play for Looking for Alaska, which if all go to plan, should start filming this summer.
John Saul
i have truly never read a non-fiction book, other than sports books, unless i have been assigned to do so. I LOVE reading fiction though, especially anything close to being a horror book. My favorite author ever is John Saul. i started reading his books in the 7th grade(ish). The first of his books I read was "The Guardian", and at the end of it there was a prologue to the book he wrote after that. So i decided to read it, i needed a new bathroom book anyway (the bathroom is where i do most of my reading). I love way he uses suspense and foreshadowing, and then occasionally there is the twist ending. His books are hard to put down, which is why most of my family thinks I'm constipated. His books have you trying to think ahead every time, and you second guess yourself a lot. He gets you attached to a character and then leads you to believe that they are the "bad guy". I'm always thinking, no way, he can"t be the killer, I mean what the heck he seemed like such a good guy. And then BOOM he switches directions on you, sometimes you have no clue who could possibly be causing trouble. I love that at the end of every book he writes there is a prologue to his next book, because of this I have a stack of his books almost up to my knee. i usually cant start another book if i read one of his prologues, i always feel like I'm missing out. John Saul writes in a way that it makes you feel like you're watching a movie, in fact i am extremely disappointed that i have never found a movie based on one of his books.
I Want to "Date" Rachel Louise Snyder
"Mom's who wear jeans to match their teen's jeans..."
-unknown white lady, 2009
When I buy books, I have an unforgivable habit of overestimating my intelligence. And patience. I come home with brand-kinky-spankin' new copies of Touch the Top of the World: A Blind Man's Journey to Climb Farther than the Eye Can See and The J-Curve: A New Way to Understand Why Nations Rise and Fall. Sure, Jon Stewart might have interviewed the author on TV, and he might have seemed cool; and I might feel like I can handle three hundred pages of braille lessons for the sake of my self-betterment. But that doesn't make a blind man who conquered Mt. Everest three times interesting. Nothing can. It is boring enough to crush one's soul, to flay their mind and gut their hopes and dreams. That's why half the non-fiction books on my bookshelf are more or less unread. I'm not really that into learning, and the books are not really that into being good. We're just not right for each other.
There are happy exceptions, of course. The occasional books about global finance or cod that digests easily in my upper gizzard (cod metaphor-read the book.) The most consistent feature amongst them is an author: Rachel Louise Snyder. She's a fortyish white American, living for the past twelve years and the foreseeable future in her adopted home of Cambodia, and working part time as a reporter for various blogs and the Chicago Tribune. She also wrote a few books, one of which tells you where pants come from. Fugitive Denim: A Story of People and Pants in the Borderless World of Global Trade is my favorite non-fiction book of all time, more because of the People part than the Pants part.
Unlike so many non-fiction authors, Rachel doesn't write like she's making a textbook. She uses my favorite non-fiction style: trying to make it read as much like fiction as possible. Anecdotes of experiences with friends and tour guides throughout the industry make up the entire book. Not supporting paragraphs before a return to the author's thesis on the retroactive destabilization of the Kurdish local governments by American drone bombings. The entire book. Constant Reader becomes much more attached to the relationships between the people than between industries and developing governments. And as you become invested in the characters and their struggles to survive in a rapidly changing enviroment, the author herself becomes an integral part of the story. It is through her rather honest but emotional perspective that we view these relationships; she tells us which of the individuals are "bad guys," which are "good guys." And her relationships with them allow little snapshots of Rachel to come through her neutral photographer's lense. She's a really cool person (sorry.) The book's end brought much more grief for the end of Am and Nan's relationship with Rachel -but they were a power trio! She introduced them to American food!-than for the collapse of Cambodian labor-advocacy organizations. This might seem like a mistake on the author's part, but the mere fact that I remembered the collapse of the Cambodian labor-advocacy organizations is proof her bet payed off. By making her friends, her acquaintances, and herself the star, Rachel ensures that even the least Constant Reader remembers what she's talking about.
Guardians of Ga'Hoole
I don't like this assignment one bit. For a different reason than Jessica's. I honestly couldn't tell you the last time I read a non-fiction book for pleasure and therefore do not have a favorite writer of the sort. I do however remember the fiction series that I read during my younger years known as the Guardians of Ga'Hoole by Kathryn Lasky. She does write non-fiction books for children and young adults but I never read any of those. I stopped reading the series on book 7 because that was all that was out and I thought they were finished. Now I find out that there are 15 out now. I loved Kathryn's fictional writing more than anything I've ever read before. I have always been a fan of comedy and mystery books, but when I started reading this action and adventure novel it was like entering a whole new world and I can still remember the pictures and imagery it put in my head over 5 years ago. It had such a great impact on me that anything I read after this was garbage. I think I owe my failure of interest in reading to Kathryn. Her writing was so pure, smooth and simple that the book of hers that I was reading at the time never left my sight. I know people say they have a book that they can't just put down when we all know they most likely did at one point. I NEVER put this book down. The personification of the animals allowed for adding on of future and history of the plot that is not allowed by non-fiction. The only thing I hate is that she is not "well known" so that everyone can experience the pleasure that her writing brings. The world that she creates in storytelling is just as magical as Harry Potter. Everyone should read at least the first one. They aren't a hard read and are pretty short.
John Green
Recently (by which I mean several months ago) Kam recommended an author to me, and I didn't have anything I was really itching to read at the time, so I bought one of his books. My selection was made easy by the simple fact that's only written three, so An Abundance of Katherines introduced me into the world of John Green. I can now say without a doubt that it is truly a lovely world.
I have now finished his first two books and I'm about 200 pages into his third, and I'm actually kind of irritated that I'm writing this blog instead of reading it now. John Green is seriously the kind of author who makes you hate yourself, because he makes you wish you could read faster and slower at the same time. I find myself devoting hours in a single sitting to ripping through his pages as quickly as possible, eager to know about Colin's relationship problems and just where exactly Margo has been hiding for the past 100 pages. And at the same time, I wish I could slow all of it down, to make those last few paragraphs stretch on for ten more books. I sadly compare my remaining 100 pages to the 200 I've already read of Paper Towns -- his latest book -- and I wish it wouldn't pass so quickly.
John Green has a very personal, informal writing style. His books are told from the first person point-of-view of the main character, and it gives his writing a sort of voice. Instead of a nameless narrator who hides behind a smoke screen the entire story, he speaks from a character, one who has a name and a personality and thoughts of his own. I feel like when I read from that person's point of view, I think with that character, and I grow with that character through the novel. And his endings. Don't even get me started. The first book he published (the second one I read) made me seriously rethink my view of life and death. When an author can have that effect on his readers -- that's one seriously powerful pen.
I have now finished his first two books and I'm about 200 pages into his third, and I'm actually kind of irritated that I'm writing this blog instead of reading it now. John Green is seriously the kind of author who makes you hate yourself, because he makes you wish you could read faster and slower at the same time. I find myself devoting hours in a single sitting to ripping through his pages as quickly as possible, eager to know about Colin's relationship problems and just where exactly Margo has been hiding for the past 100 pages. And at the same time, I wish I could slow all of it down, to make those last few paragraphs stretch on for ten more books. I sadly compare my remaining 100 pages to the 200 I've already read of Paper Towns -- his latest book -- and I wish it wouldn't pass so quickly.
John Green has a very personal, informal writing style. His books are told from the first person point-of-view of the main character, and it gives his writing a sort of voice. Instead of a nameless narrator who hides behind a smoke screen the entire story, he speaks from a character, one who has a name and a personality and thoughts of his own. I feel like when I read from that person's point of view, I think with that character, and I grow with that character through the novel. And his endings. Don't even get me started. The first book he published (the second one I read) made me seriously rethink my view of life and death. When an author can have that effect on his readers -- that's one seriously powerful pen.
Louise Rennison
I do not like this assignment one bit. Asking me my favorite author is like asking me to choose between Queen, The Temptations, and Stevie Wonder. Impossible. Especially because I don't really read according to author; I feel like there are too many books to read, so why focus on just a few favorite authors? I'd rather expand my horizons. Granted, I haven't read that many non-fiction books, which is something I tried to work on this summer. The problem with non-fiction for me is that I read to take a break from everything, so I don't particularly want to spend my free time learning something when I'm forced to learn (not that I don't enjoy it) seven hours, five days a week.
Which brings me, vaguely, to my current favorite author. Louise Rennison writes fiction novels in the form of a diary of a teenage British girl. My favorite thing about her books is that they are hilarious and provide an excellent break from the drudgery of daily life. Her writing is funnier than half the people I know. Seriously, my sides are hurting just thinking about it. The other thing I like about her writing is that it's very realistic. Many books written for teenage girls are often over-dramatized. The characters in Rennison's books do get into some crazy shenanigans which may be hard to believe, but the books aren't sappy or cliche like most teen novels. In terms of the actual writing style, the tone is very colloquial (I hope I'm using that correctly). She almost creates her own language, which adds to the, sometimes crude, humor.
I would not necessarily call Rennison my friend. To me, the book isn't about the author- it's about the story. And I don't really read by authors, counting down the minutes until their next book comes out, so it's hard to develop a friendship when you're more of a freelance reader.
Which brings me, vaguely, to my current favorite author. Louise Rennison writes fiction novels in the form of a diary of a teenage British girl. My favorite thing about her books is that they are hilarious and provide an excellent break from the drudgery of daily life. Her writing is funnier than half the people I know. Seriously, my sides are hurting just thinking about it. The other thing I like about her writing is that it's very realistic. Many books written for teenage girls are often over-dramatized. The characters in Rennison's books do get into some crazy shenanigans which may be hard to believe, but the books aren't sappy or cliche like most teen novels. In terms of the actual writing style, the tone is very colloquial (I hope I'm using that correctly). She almost creates her own language, which adds to the, sometimes crude, humor.
I would not necessarily call Rennison my friend. To me, the book isn't about the author- it's about the story. And I don't really read by authors, counting down the minutes until their next book comes out, so it's hard to develop a friendship when you're more of a freelance reader.
Monday, September 28, 2009
Simon Says...
I don't really like nonfiction. I'm not gonna lie, I think it's really boring about 95% of the time. Now, On Writing, that was a great book. Not being sarcastic. If Mr. Logsdon hadn't said Stephen King, I definitely would have chosen him as my favorite, because that guy is great.
But I also really like this guy, Simon Rich. He's hilarious. HILARIOUS. I don't really know if you'd consider him a real nonfiction writer, but he doesn't write actual fiction/novel type writing either. I remember the first time I read some of Rich's stuff. Elina actually had to do a commentary or something--for this blog, actually!--and she just brought a couple books home from the library, two of them being Free Range Chickens and Ant Farm: and Other Desperate Situations, both by Simon Rich, and the books were like little collections of anecdotes that Rich had created to teach people about life and circumstances in life, etc.
I just could not stop laughing at the stories. Rich's style is very sarcastic and very informal. He takes historic events and symbols and gives them a new, kind of ironic life. I know that sounds a little dramatic, but I mean it like this: Rich portrays Batman complaining to the mayor of Gotham City that the prison is shoddy and should be paid for by the budget for the city's symphonic orchestra; or how to save millions of people, a man goes back in time to kill Hitler while he's still young, but ends up getting run out of town for killing a baby. "...But it's Hitler!" I think I like him so much because he's so much younger than a lot of other writers, and he's more in tune with my generation's humor; I think his writing is a little more related to me.
Not only is Rich an amazing writer, I also admire all that he's accomplished. He's one of the youngest writers to be hired by Saturday Night Live, he's an alumnus of Harvard University (and he was the president of the Harvard Lampoon,) and I am just counting down the days until his third book comes out, (due in late November!)
But I also really like this guy, Simon Rich. He's hilarious. HILARIOUS. I don't really know if you'd consider him a real nonfiction writer, but he doesn't write actual fiction/novel type writing either. I remember the first time I read some of Rich's stuff. Elina actually had to do a commentary or something--for this blog, actually!--and she just brought a couple books home from the library, two of them being Free Range Chickens and Ant Farm: and Other Desperate Situations, both by Simon Rich, and the books were like little collections of anecdotes that Rich had created to teach people about life and circumstances in life, etc.
I just could not stop laughing at the stories. Rich's style is very sarcastic and very informal. He takes historic events and symbols and gives them a new, kind of ironic life. I know that sounds a little dramatic, but I mean it like this: Rich portrays Batman complaining to the mayor of Gotham City that the prison is shoddy and should be paid for by the budget for the city's symphonic orchestra; or how to save millions of people, a man goes back in time to kill Hitler while he's still young, but ends up getting run out of town for killing a baby. "...But it's Hitler!" I think I like him so much because he's so much younger than a lot of other writers, and he's more in tune with my generation's humor; I think his writing is a little more related to me.
Not only is Rich an amazing writer, I also admire all that he's accomplished. He's one of the youngest writers to be hired by Saturday Night Live, he's an alumnus of Harvard University (and he was the president of the Harvard Lampoon,) and I am just counting down the days until his third book comes out, (due in late November!)
I've stopped reading a lot this year. It's kind of sad really, but I've been trying to pick up a book more often when I can.
When I did read a lot though, I definitely had my favorites. Sharon Creech's book Walk Two Moons, was and still is one of my all-time favorite reads. It's the only book I was ever able to read multiple times. I've read some of her other books as well Bloomability and I think another I liked is called Cherry Blossom or cherry something....I may have made that up, but I know there is another book of her's that was memorable to me out there.
I think I liked her so much because of the way she showed people the world in her stories. There were generally two distinct moods in Walk Two Moons: sad, yet hopeful and optimistic, and happy, even if out of place. I really enjoyed both of these and felt that I could relate to her. That probably sounds really generic, I hope not everyone else has said that. I really try not to be conformist. Which actually brings me to another reason I like Sharon Creech so much is because she is very unique in her writing and her personality. Her writing is almost quirky in nature. For example, I remember in one of her books she compared spaghetti and meatballs to worms in mud. You would think that would disgust you and make you want to push your plate to the side, but instead it sort of make you giggle because the way she presents it, it seems to happy-go-lucky. I guess the best way for you to understand what I mean is for you to read the books. And you should. I wholeheartedly recommend them.
When I did read a lot though, I definitely had my favorites. Sharon Creech's book Walk Two Moons, was and still is one of my all-time favorite reads. It's the only book I was ever able to read multiple times. I've read some of her other books as well Bloomability and I think another I liked is called Cherry Blossom or cherry something....I may have made that up, but I know there is another book of her's that was memorable to me out there.
I think I liked her so much because of the way she showed people the world in her stories. There were generally two distinct moods in Walk Two Moons: sad, yet hopeful and optimistic, and happy, even if out of place. I really enjoyed both of these and felt that I could relate to her. That probably sounds really generic, I hope not everyone else has said that. I really try not to be conformist. Which actually brings me to another reason I like Sharon Creech so much is because she is very unique in her writing and her personality. Her writing is almost quirky in nature. For example, I remember in one of her books she compared spaghetti and meatballs to worms in mud. You would think that would disgust you and make you want to push your plate to the side, but instead it sort of make you giggle because the way she presents it, it seems to happy-go-lucky. I guess the best way for you to understand what I mean is for you to read the books. And you should. I wholeheartedly recommend them.
i would not consider my family or myself the reading type. yes we can read, but it isn't one of our predominant leisure activities. i have read few books outside of school assignments and most were fiction. however i did particularly enjoy the writing of Jared Diamond author of Guns, Germs and Steel. he presented his argument with facts as well as first hand experiences to convey his point. the organization was splendid as it started with very specific issues and eventually incorporated the smaller issues into the common knowledge broad topics. i like this scheme because it gets you focused on a narrow scope and then it feels like your eyes have been opened for the first time when the larger declaration is issued. i also appreciate the form of support. i feel like you are more believable if you have been there or know someone with firsthand experience because it gives a credibility that simple facts do not.
The Truth About Forever and many more
It’s really hard to type with a band-aid on your finger. Not just any finger either, no, it had to be on my pinkie, the finger we all learned in elementary school is used to hit the backspace key, and I, being very indecisive when I write as well as typo-prone, use that key a lot. I just thought I should mention that before I begin.
It’s all Jessica’s fault. I thought that was another point that needed mentioning before I begin. You see, last year, in Spanish 3, our little corner of the room got into a discussion about our favorite books and authors instead of learning the pluperfect tense, and Jessica suggested that I read The Truth About Forever by Sarah Dessen. You can probably see where this story is going, yes, now I’m hooked on Dessen. Here’s why:
1) She creates her own little world in each book and then, generously, lets me visit. I know that this can be said about many authors, and should not necessarily qualify someone for greatness, but in Dessen’s case, it does. She doesn’t just create a world, she creates a world that is almost impossible to leave. While I do not think of Dessen herself as a “friend”, I do consider her characters as “friends”.
2) She makes her books relate to the reader. In each book I find myself thinking at least ten times through the course of the book “wow, this reminds me so much of something in my life” or “wow this character is just like me!”
3) Her books are never predictable or cliché. The girl doesn’t always get the guy. In fact, sometimes the guy goes to jail. The books don’t always have happy endings, but even when they don’t, they aren’t depressing, the characters walks away smarter. As do I.
4) Her books always teach me something. I always walk away from a book with a new understanding of the world around me, and I always close the book better off then when I opened it. After all, isn’t that really the sign of a good book, and an even greater author?
It’s all Jessica’s fault. I thought that was another point that needed mentioning before I begin. You see, last year, in Spanish 3, our little corner of the room got into a discussion about our favorite books and authors instead of learning the pluperfect tense, and Jessica suggested that I read The Truth About Forever by Sarah Dessen. You can probably see where this story is going, yes, now I’m hooked on Dessen. Here’s why:
1) She creates her own little world in each book and then, generously, lets me visit. I know that this can be said about many authors, and should not necessarily qualify someone for greatness, but in Dessen’s case, it does. She doesn’t just create a world, she creates a world that is almost impossible to leave. While I do not think of Dessen herself as a “friend”, I do consider her characters as “friends”.
2) She makes her books relate to the reader. In each book I find myself thinking at least ten times through the course of the book “wow, this reminds me so much of something in my life” or “wow this character is just like me!”
3) Her books are never predictable or cliché. The girl doesn’t always get the guy. In fact, sometimes the guy goes to jail. The books don’t always have happy endings, but even when they don’t, they aren’t depressing, the characters walks away smarter. As do I.
4) Her books always teach me something. I always walk away from a book with a new understanding of the world around me, and I always close the book better off then when I opened it. After all, isn’t that really the sign of a good book, and an even greater author?
I grew up in a household that loves to read. We get two different newspapers a day, we have more books than space at our house and my mom likes to talk about how when I was a baby my dad would wake me up when he woke up at 6 and we would read while eating our oatmeal together. All my board books had oatmeal smeared in them. All of this is to say that I have read a lot in my lifetime. I did not however read non-fiction that often. So I'm going to use a fiction author instead.
Two books (aside from Harry Potter because that is just to cliche) that I can read over and over are The Secret Life Of Bees and Prep.
The Secret Life Of Bees is by Sue Monk Kidd, she has a way of writing vividly and creating characters so that you can picture it. But she doesnt include to many details that you feel like you are drowning or losing plot in the wash.
Prep is by Elizabeth Curtis Sittenfeld. Like Sue Monk Kidd she involves details. But my favorite part of her writing is that she can get into the head of a high school girl. It is very accurate and covers a long amount of time without any boring parts.
Two books (aside from Harry Potter because that is just to cliche) that I can read over and over are The Secret Life Of Bees and Prep.
The Secret Life Of Bees is by Sue Monk Kidd, she has a way of writing vividly and creating characters so that you can picture it. But she doesnt include to many details that you feel like you are drowning or losing plot in the wash.
Prep is by Elizabeth Curtis Sittenfeld. Like Sue Monk Kidd she involves details. But my favorite part of her writing is that she can get into the head of a high school girl. It is very accurate and covers a long amount of time without any boring parts.
Sunday, September 27, 2009
Favorite Author
Perhaps one of my largest lamentations is the fact that I don't read often enough. Moreover, during the year I only read books that are assigned to me and during the summer I only occasionally read a book for leisure. As a result, my scores in reading comprehension are often lower than they should be and my vocabulary is not as developed as I would like it to be. Nonetheless, on occasion I have read without being forced to for a grade and in that rare time, I have developed an admittedly undeveloped preference for some authors over others.
Dune is, in my opinion, a masterpiece of science fiction and a melodramatic yet realistic collection of highly creative ideas originating in the mind of Frank Herbert. This book uses fast paced action to draw the reader in and pays close attention to every detail of the fabricated setting and characters imaginable. Unlike many science fiction authors who only scrape the surface of their fantastical worlds, Herbert focuses on the natives, their customs, wildlife, history, government, socioeconomic status, etc. Additionally, Herbert adds a dramatic appeal to his writing which adds to the sense of urgency in it and serves to romanticize his writing. Each sentence is written with this sense of urgency and the writing as a whole seems to be full of emotion and a degree of mystery, leaving the audience and the characters guessing as to the future. Accompanied with this drama is the author's appeal to fiction on a grandiose scale. Furthermore, Herbert creates characters whose each action has gigantic repercussions on the situation as a whole, and he creates a setting that is enormous and encompasses a broad and ever changing landscape. Hence, he creates a setting of boundless possibilities and gives his characters space in which to fully develop. Overall, these and other aspects of his writing make his stories come to life in a unique and unrivaled way.
Dune is, in my opinion, a masterpiece of science fiction and a melodramatic yet realistic collection of highly creative ideas originating in the mind of Frank Herbert. This book uses fast paced action to draw the reader in and pays close attention to every detail of the fabricated setting and characters imaginable. Unlike many science fiction authors who only scrape the surface of their fantastical worlds, Herbert focuses on the natives, their customs, wildlife, history, government, socioeconomic status, etc. Additionally, Herbert adds a dramatic appeal to his writing which adds to the sense of urgency in it and serves to romanticize his writing. Each sentence is written with this sense of urgency and the writing as a whole seems to be full of emotion and a degree of mystery, leaving the audience and the characters guessing as to the future. Accompanied with this drama is the author's appeal to fiction on a grandiose scale. Furthermore, Herbert creates characters whose each action has gigantic repercussions on the situation as a whole, and he creates a setting that is enormous and encompasses a broad and ever changing landscape. Hence, he creates a setting of boundless possibilities and gives his characters space in which to fully develop. Overall, these and other aspects of his writing make his stories come to life in a unique and unrivaled way.
Rowling y Snicket
Ill be honest with all of you, I DONT READ BOOKS! The only books i read are for school and besides that i haven't picked up more then 5-10 books since high school began. This probably explains why my reading scores are so low and i've been thinking about beginning to read so i can score higher but i just don't have time.
Well ill skip all that personal stuff about me and just get to the actual blog. My favorite author is by far J. K. Rowling, and the only reason for this is because i have read the whole Harry Potter series and actually enjoyed it. I know its going to sound like a typical answer a student should give, but i guess the author just has her way of keeping me glued to the book. I really don't have an explanation for how she does it, but she does. The adventure, the magic, and the teenage characters are something that i can probably relate to in one way or another and its fun seeing the struggles and success of someone else.
The second author is one that was my favorite in middle school, Lemony Snicket. I know many people might have enjoyed his books except the parts about his personal life, but thats what made his books sort of stand out to me. They were different from everything else i read and for that reason i continued to read them and wait for the new books to come out. Snickets account of the most randomest things is something i also do and i have many people to vouch for me. I will tell someone something that happened to me that weekend and ill finish the story and usually 4 out of 5 times the person will just stare at me thinking theres more left. Or they will be like "whats the point?"
Well thats all i have. I think i'm the first person to post a blog this time so i'm sure everyone will be reading this and realizing it sucks, but i'm fine with that.
Well ill skip all that personal stuff about me and just get to the actual blog. My favorite author is by far J. K. Rowling, and the only reason for this is because i have read the whole Harry Potter series and actually enjoyed it. I know its going to sound like a typical answer a student should give, but i guess the author just has her way of keeping me glued to the book. I really don't have an explanation for how she does it, but she does. The adventure, the magic, and the teenage characters are something that i can probably relate to in one way or another and its fun seeing the struggles and success of someone else.
The second author is one that was my favorite in middle school, Lemony Snicket. I know many people might have enjoyed his books except the parts about his personal life, but thats what made his books sort of stand out to me. They were different from everything else i read and for that reason i continued to read them and wait for the new books to come out. Snickets account of the most randomest things is something i also do and i have many people to vouch for me. I will tell someone something that happened to me that weekend and ill finish the story and usually 4 out of 5 times the person will just stare at me thinking theres more left. Or they will be like "whats the point?"
Well thats all i have. I think i'm the first person to post a blog this time so i'm sure everyone will be reading this and realizing it sucks, but i'm fine with that.
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Assignment: Who's your bestest buddy? Literarily speaking that is.
I lied. Really I just changed my mind but “I lied” is a bit more interesting as an opener dontcha think.
This week is a ramp-up to next week’s assignment. Instead of writing like your fav writer, your number one read, your mac-daddy of prose—tell us who like so much. Oh and this is the tricky part—why do ya love ‘em so much? Now I’m speaking specifically about non-fiction writers here but if your desperate you can pick a fiction writer remember desperate is different than lazy. My first love (staring off into the distance with puppy-dog glassy eyes and a hint of longing) is Stephen King. I started reading his books oh so many years ago but what I remember most is not his stories (as terrifyingly wonderful as they were) he would often times have a forward or postscript and he would “talk” to us, to me. He affectionately called me “constant reader” and shared some of his personal and professional life with me by telling me of his inspiration, his own struggles—we became “friends.” So much so that when he was struck by a car I was worried I’d never get to “talk” to him again (I know totally creepy of me). Now he also writes a monthly column on pop-culture for Entertainment Weekly (he shares the space with 3 others, sometimes I read Diablo Cody’s piece but it feels like I’m cheating on my friend—yeah I know weird) and I look forward for his updates and thoughts and ideas.
Like most of us, we develop new friendships without totally dissing our older friends. I’ve since become “close” to Roger Ebert as well as Dave Barry. They talk to me fairly regularly now and it’s nice to have their company. So who are your “friends, and why are you drawn to them?”
Roger Ebert's Blog
Dave Barry's Blog
Stephen King's website
This week is a ramp-up to next week’s assignment. Instead of writing like your fav writer, your number one read, your mac-daddy of prose—tell us who like so much. Oh and this is the tricky part—why do ya love ‘em so much? Now I’m speaking specifically about non-fiction writers here but if your desperate you can pick a fiction writer remember desperate is different than lazy. My first love (staring off into the distance with puppy-dog glassy eyes and a hint of longing) is Stephen King. I started reading his books oh so many years ago but what I remember most is not his stories (as terrifyingly wonderful as they were) he would often times have a forward or postscript and he would “talk” to us, to me. He affectionately called me “constant reader” and shared some of his personal and professional life with me by telling me of his inspiration, his own struggles—we became “friends.” So much so that when he was struck by a car I was worried I’d never get to “talk” to him again (I know totally creepy of me). Now he also writes a monthly column on pop-culture for Entertainment Weekly (he shares the space with 3 others, sometimes I read Diablo Cody’s piece but it feels like I’m cheating on my friend—yeah I know weird) and I look forward for his updates and thoughts and ideas.
Like most of us, we develop new friendships without totally dissing our older friends. I’ve since become “close” to Roger Ebert as well as Dave Barry. They talk to me fairly regularly now and it’s nice to have their company. So who are your “friends, and why are you drawn to them?”
Roger Ebert's Blog
Dave Barry's Blog
Stephen King's website
Sunday, September 20, 2009
Chocolate Milk
We've all heard the criticism-TV rots your brain, it kills brain cells, it breaks into your house at night and kidnaps your loved ones. Now these may be true, but I still watch my fair share of tube. About 99% of what I watch can be classified as ESPN or sitcoms, and I'm happy with that. If you take out the two S's-Scrubs and sports, I probably only watch 2 hours of TV a week. But we all know I gotta have my Scrubs and i can't live without my sports. This leads us into the different tastes and preferences that people have. Go up to ten different people and ask them their favorite TV show and you get ten different answers. The wide variety of shows on TV fuels this fire, but the pure difference in personality and likes in all of us causes this as well. Personally, I like to laugh (sitcoms) and I heart sports, which leads to my two favorite things to watch on TV.
la television
I think television, really, is the culmination of everything we love…
And everything we hate.
Television is nothing short of us, people, projected onto a screen for the world to see. All of our faults, our weaknesses, and our secrets, revealed to the masses; did you ever think a scarier thought? We love it for the same reasons that we love our lives and the world around us, and we hate it…well, you get the picture. Nobody’s life is perfect, is it?
I’m going to stop comparing television to life now, because I think that is a seriously dangerous activity, more dangerous the sky diving, swimming with sharks, and walking through a lightning storm with a giant metal pole taped to your forehead, combined. I think the only problem with television is not the media influence, the ads, or the violence. It’s the fact that we tend to draw so many parallels between our lives and television, and we format our lives to fit our screens. Keeping in mind that television is our lives projected on screen; shouldn’t it be the other way around?
As far as shows go, I love Glee, because it makes me smile and sing along. I don’t really spend enough time watching television to hate any shows, and if I ever happened to stumble on one that irked me, it was quickly forgotten and is not worth mentioning.
After all, our lives can get pretty boring sometimes.
And everything we hate.
Television is nothing short of us, people, projected onto a screen for the world to see. All of our faults, our weaknesses, and our secrets, revealed to the masses; did you ever think a scarier thought? We love it for the same reasons that we love our lives and the world around us, and we hate it…well, you get the picture. Nobody’s life is perfect, is it?
I’m going to stop comparing television to life now, because I think that is a seriously dangerous activity, more dangerous the sky diving, swimming with sharks, and walking through a lightning storm with a giant metal pole taped to your forehead, combined. I think the only problem with television is not the media influence, the ads, or the violence. It’s the fact that we tend to draw so many parallels between our lives and television, and we format our lives to fit our screens. Keeping in mind that television is our lives projected on screen; shouldn’t it be the other way around?
As far as shows go, I love Glee, because it makes me smile and sing along. I don’t really spend enough time watching television to hate any shows, and if I ever happened to stumble on one that irked me, it was quickly forgotten and is not worth mentioning.
After all, our lives can get pretty boring sometimes.
TV: Good stuff, sometimes.
I personally rarely watch the T.V. The only thing I *used* to watch is the weekly Leverage. Now that the season has ended this year, I'm back to watching no T.V. I simply find it less interesting then playing on the computer. By that, my favorite show is obviously Leverage, and my least favorite...I don't have one. T.V. has its ups and downs. It is a good distraction if you are mentally and/or physically tired, but if you watch too much, it's a bit overkill. A lot of T.V. IS bad for you (I don't know about T.V. causing increased violence, I believe there was some research disproving that, or perhaps that research was for games only), not to mention all the ads. You only spend a good 2/3s of the show actually watching the show itself. The other third is full of rather annoying ads that we groan at everytime we see. The biggest problem I see with T.V. is also the most obvious: it makes people who watch too much fat. Note though, that all the problems with the T.V. only occur if you watch too much, so if you keep it low (I don't know exactly what low is, 1-2 hours seems lower then nessessary), you'll be fine.
And Mr. Logsdon, yes, you are an awful person because you love T.V. D: For shame.
And Mr. Logsdon, yes, you are an awful person because you love T.V. D: For shame.
Television
I wish that I could spout my discontent with the way in which television has manipulated our populace and pride myself in refusing to spend countless hours of my time watching my favorite shows. This, however would be an outright lie and case of hypocrisy. In reality, television has become a daily ritual of stress relief and entertainment. No matter how bad of a mood I am in, 30 minutes of my favorite show can often serve as a temporary answer to my problems. Sometimes these shows are informative, such as news programs and TV documentaries. In this case, television serves as an excellent medium through which information can be communicated as well as a source of education on various subjects. However, more often than not, television uses violence and comedy to lure its watchers. The articles given focus upon this seeming mindlessness and see it as a major source of violence and health problems in society. These correlations presented are undeniable and quite frightening. However, these correlations do not mean that that every person who watches television is going to be violent and inactive. Many of my classmates, as well as myself, are very active and involved and watch television in the tiny amount of free time that they have, between extracurriculars and schoolwork. It is a guilty pleasure in many cases, but a pleasure nonetheless, serving to alleviate stress and humor us. Yes, we could be spending our time more usefully, but entertainment in its purest form has been craved by humanity since the beginning of time. Sometimes we all need a guilty pleasure and this alone doesn't make us bad people. In conclusion, television can serve as both a form of entertainment and a source of degradation in society. In many cases, this effect depends upon the audience and their ability to live multifaceted lives that are not wholy dependent upon this guilty pleasure. As is the case in almost every instance, moderation is the key.
WOOT for the 21st century!
I don’t really understand the negative influence that society has on TV. Yes, it might be keeping us inside and on couches instead of outside or exercising, but honestly, the people who are considered couch potatoes would probably find some other non-stimulating activity to engage in if TV wasn’t an option. What’s so wrong with like a TV show? You’re allowed to have favorite movies, book, music, but not a favorite TV show? I find TV shows to be impressive to be honest. Movies get months, sometimes even years to complete, but in a TV series, a new episode comes on weekly. The way series can keep a plot line flowing, change characters in and out and give each person a fully developed personality is well.. neat. I know I sound like I’m in love with TV, but I’m actually not. I follow a few shows on a weekly base, but other than that, I don’t watch that much television. I have a TV with cable in my room, so the temptation is always there. I’m a pretty impatient person, so waiting to see the next episode often gets on my nerves. I think that’s part of the reason I liked The O.C. so much. I started watching it after it ended, so I only have to wait a day to know what happened next. My mom and I usually watch TV together. She secretly likes the typical girl shows like Gossip Girl and 90210. But to answer the question, I look at TV as a reward, a treat, or even something to relax you. I don’t think you should be considered a bad person is you like watching excessive amounts of TV, or TV at all for that matter. If you want to spend every spare moment you have watching the latest sit-com, then more power to you.
I Love Television
I love it. Hands down. I think television is underrated, I really do. Especially cable; I didn't have cable until I was entering high school, and as much as I want to say I don't like it because it distracts me, wastes my time, rots my brain, etc., I can't get enough. I think it's because I subconsciously feel like I have to make up those first thirteen years of my life without the seventy other channels, and I really do watch too much T.V. But my parents somewhat control my sister and I in our television watching by requiring that we submit a schedule of shows we want to watch during the week--only one hour a night. Right now, I'm writing up House for Mondays, The Office for Tuesdays, (I'm going to have to make a plea for this one) Glee AND So You Think You Can Dance for Wednesdays, and undecided for Thursdays.
Anyway, I understand where people come from when they say television is unhealthy, and I agree to an extent. I think that instead of sitting and watching television, you could be doing something so much more worthwhile--get that extra practice test out and score that much higher on the ACT, or go outside and start a vegetable garden or run around the block--I get it. But on the other hand, the pleasure that television brings people, the joy of watching someone else's life being flipped upside down in "reality" or fiction just brings a euphoria (or in some cases relief) to the viewers. "They've got it worse than me, yes!" or "I totally knew that was going to happen! Yes!" or even "I totally didn't see that coming, yes!" Guiltfully, I say that I DO get that pleasure, of watching trashy VH1 shows or watching people get hurt and suffer on Survivor for my enjoyment, but that's what T.V. is for! Yes, it's manipulating, but it continues to be an escape for me; I can turn on my television and see House curing someone's incurable disease and not have to think about doing physics homework or an English blog.
And if you think about it, I've actually learned a lot from television--I've learned about the law from Law and Order, about politics (yes, actually, I have) from Family Guy, and about Lupus and the Bends from House. I may watch trashy VH1 shows but, luckily, some shows have made education entertaining enough that I don't really realize I'm learning about something in the process.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that I do watch a lot of television. And I enjoy it. A lot. But that doesn't make me a lazy person or an uneducated person. Television was created to be an escape and entertainment, something to make you laugh or cry or think. I'm just saying that I'm fulfilling my t.v.'s purpose: I watch television and I'm proud to say it!
For some, tv might be a negative thing. The violence, distraction, and manipulation to buy products that is provides us with in no way benefits us; but statistics mean nothing to the individual. Personally, tv doesn't bother me. I don't watch it much because I don't have time to. If I'm not out at the farm working, riding my horse, or doing homework, I generally want to sleep or hang out with my friends. I watch tv on the weekends sometimes though, like this past rainy sunday morning I watched scrubs re-runs. Otherwise tv is something that is not a big part of my life. I think it is something for when you are sick and your brain can't handle doing other things, like reading or art of some kind. When I'm that sick I normally just want to sleep anyway. I guess some people feel that it effects them to a point that they have become passionate about debating the subject, but I don't have a problem with it, its just there if I ever feel like I need it.
I have mixed feelings about television. If I told you I didn't watch a fair amount of TV I'd be lying. I love to watch the certain shows I follow and get into the plots and characters probably too much. But in excess, I definitely think it is a problem. I watch the shows I plan ahead to see but everything else just seems so boring and a waste of my life. It amazes that the kids I babysit can go all night watching cartoon network or nick, and don't care what is actually on or how many times they have seen the episode. It seems like they turn off their minds and stare, I don't think they even realize what the shows are about. I don't see the appeal of that kind of TV.
Another thing thats kind of unrelated but really bothers me is the stigma put on TV, as opposed to movies. They are so similar, but how come if you are a movie buff it makes you interesting, and if you you have alot of knowledge about TV you sound lazy and kinda lame? If you invited a friend over for a movie marathon it sounds fun but if you ask them to come over for 6 hours to watch TV it sounds horrible, right? People always stress turning off your TV, but have you ever heard a cause urging you to stay away frm the movie theater? Movies are seen as more intelligent, thought- provoking and I guess just more sophisticated overall, but have you seen some of the movies that come out? I can't believe millions of dollars go into making them. I like movies better myself, but is that because I honestly see them as being more enjoyable or because I can't help but pick up the bad vibe people place on watching television?
I <3 Indian Rugby Channel
I get two thousand channels on my television. That is not a hyperbole. I get five ESPNs, both C-SPANs, three Nicklodeons, a pair of Disney Channels, four that end in -NBC, the full HBO, Discovery and Showtime! suites, and most major Mexican, French Canadian, and Chinese government-sponsored networks. And the Indian Rugby Channel. Which, for some reason which old men must sit on mountains to ponder, exists. Hmm.
And yet, despite the endless sea of programming available to me, I rarely find something to watch. I tape a handful of shows; there are still John Dailys and Colbert Reports on our DVR from March 2008. But no one in my family can really sit down for hours and watch TV. It's just so inane or infuriating or UK football that we can't bear to watch it.
I guess that's why I don't understand the"too much TV is destroying our children's minds" argument. I agree that the programming is stupid stupid stupid. But it's still impossible for me to imagine anyone that attached to their television; anyone who could watch enough TV to actually get around to dumbing them down. There's no way a human being could survive it. Their mind would give up. Too many questions. "Why would someone willingly hold themselves perfectly still and stare at the boobs on a show hosted by Jerry Springer, a former mayor of Cincinnati? Why would Tom Delay or Patti Blagojevich volunteer to appear as regular cast members on reality shows? Why is neither Glen Beck, nor Keith Olbermann dead? Why is Larry King dead, but still allowed to keep his TV show?" They'd have to kill themselves or risk going mad and eating their own children. It's just not feasible.
Also, watch Better Off Ted on Monday at ABC. Very underrated show.
The television - and my shows
Although there is little time in my life for television I enjoy the time I get lounging in my basement at the same time every week when my favorite shows are on. I have to say the DVR is probably the best invention ever, usually during the week I cant find time to watch TV but I just set the TV to DVR the show and then I can watch it whenever I want. At the moment, there are about 7-10 shows that are set to record and if im lucky I can watch maybe 3 of them each week.
The shows that I enjoy the most include: Monk (even though it is not very good anymore), Psych, Wipeout, CHUCK (my all time favorite), Ace of Cakes, and What not to Wear. There are also my old favorites which include Gilmore Girls, Veronica Mars, and Fresh Prince of Bel-Air.
There are also multiple shows which I do not like very much which include: 17 kids and counting, Glee (I wanted this to be good, but it was horrible), and almost every disney channel show.
Anyway, television, watched in moderation is fine. If your spending over 15 hours per week in front of the television, that could be bad for you. Also, if this blog was about movies, it would be a whole different story.
The shows that I enjoy the most include: Monk (even though it is not very good anymore), Psych, Wipeout, CHUCK (my all time favorite), Ace of Cakes, and What not to Wear. There are also my old favorites which include Gilmore Girls, Veronica Mars, and Fresh Prince of Bel-Air.
There are also multiple shows which I do not like very much which include: 17 kids and counting, Glee (I wanted this to be good, but it was horrible), and almost every disney channel show.
Anyway, television, watched in moderation is fine. If your spending over 15 hours per week in front of the television, that could be bad for you. Also, if this blog was about movies, it would be a whole different story.
Television
To be brutally frank about the subject, I find statements like "TV is destroying our country" overstated and generalized in the extreme. Our generation's exposure to entertainment through television is not destroying our country, it's simply changing it. It's like saying the development of indoor plumbing will be the world's downfall. Of course watching TV in excess won't do you any favors, but since when has anything in excess been healthy? No one supports letting ten year olds stay glued to a TV screen for fifteen hours a day, but it's ridiculous to say that watching your favorite show every Monday night is morally wrong. On the topic of advertisements, I feel like people exaggerate about how much advertising really impacts consumers. Anyone who owns a TV sees commercials all the time for products they don't want -- the theory is that if you don't want a product, don't buy it. A silly jingle isn't going to brainwash you into blowing your life's savings on useless things. Advertising is what keeps our economy thriving, and anyone who says TV advocates the "evil" of advertising to mass audiences is just advocating consumers who are too weak to say no to Tony the Tiger.
television
as wonderful as tv is, it is ruining the health of america. this is not an "i hate tv" rant because i love it. however it cannot be argued that is has changed society for the worse. i point to Steven King's "On Writing" for a little support and relevance. in his book he says that he was part of the last generation to learn to write before they started watching tv. he is glad of this because he says it allowed him to develop his style and didn't disable his creative brain from the start. this is one of the major problems with tv, it hurts the creativity of our brains and impedes our progress as thinkers and writers.
tv also usually requires you to be sitting or laying down for a long period of time. maybe fast food isn't all to blame the increase in ameria's waste sizes. perhaps it this answer is a combination of poor eating despite some of the best technology and growing techniques, and the fact that most americans spend most of their time, when they're not sitting in front of a computer at their office job, in front of their television. kids don't have to become as creative to have fun and a relationship now consists of sitting on the souch together watching each others' favorite shows.
tv also usually requires you to be sitting or laying down for a long period of time. maybe fast food isn't all to blame the increase in ameria's waste sizes. perhaps it this answer is a combination of poor eating despite some of the best technology and growing techniques, and the fact that most americans spend most of their time, when they're not sitting in front of a computer at their office job, in front of their television. kids don't have to become as creative to have fun and a relationship now consists of sitting on the souch together watching each others' favorite shows.
I think TV, in its best form, provides a nice distraction. Maybe it's the only thing that can get you to stop worrying about your busy schedule for an hour. Or maybe it's the only way a family can spend time together after a huge fight without screaming their heads off. Maybe the last episode of The Office is the only thing you can talk to your crazy aunt from Ohio about. Or maybe the sometimes-creepy little kids' shows that run during the school day are the only thing that can put you to sleep when you're staying home with a 102 degree temperature. On the other hand, you shouldn't go overboard with watching TV. It may be a good distraction, but it can lead to procrastination or even poor coping methods.
Personally, I love watching movies on TV. I can not tell you how many times I've watched Men in Black, and yet it still makes me laugh. I dislike certain shows as well, particularly the Lifetime and Disney channels. Lifetime is just frightening 90% of the time- my mom used to watch it with me to get me to carry around a bottle of pepper spray. And Disney is an atrocity. I think Walt Disney is rolling in his grave (or maybe not, he was quite the businessman). Also, the Disney movie "Don't Look Under the Bed" gave me nightmares for years.
Personally, I love watching movies on TV. I can not tell you how many times I've watched Men in Black, and yet it still makes me laugh. I dislike certain shows as well, particularly the Lifetime and Disney channels. Lifetime is just frightening 90% of the time- my mom used to watch it with me to get me to carry around a bottle of pepper spray. And Disney is an atrocity. I think Walt Disney is rolling in his grave (or maybe not, he was quite the businessman). Also, the Disney movie "Don't Look Under the Bed" gave me nightmares for years.
dependency
I love TV (and movies!), and am always really impressed by those who don't. That's not to say that people who enjoy television are in any way inferior. It's simply a matter of taste. And with modern advances like DVR, a favorite sitcom really doesn't have to interfere with one's daily routine. It really is, or has at least become, a way of release, much like many other habitual things (like exercise, eating chocolate, calling your best friend), as well as even an appreciation for others' creativity or ingenuity or whatever.
Of course, too much tv-watching can turn out to be negative (to a debatable extent). But this really does hold true for anything: excessive exercise can make you too bulky; eating chocolate too often can make you chubby; and if you call your best friend with every little problem, there's no way you're gonna be able to convince her to keep in touch with you in college. We, as humans, have the tendency to depend on other things. We take comfort in the idea that Jessica or Rachel or our mothers or our chocolate stashes will always be there. But at some point we need to be able to take care of ourselves, or at least stop eating so much chocolate(and maybe letting Rachel get off the phone to finish her homework every so often).
But back to the intended topic of this assignment, TV really can't be that bad. There's no harm in spending occasional Sunday afternoons watching Gossip Girl or Glee or 90210 recordings (as long as we commit to promises we make to our fathers about never acting like Naomi Clark, despite how beautiful her hair and clothes might be).
Of course, too much tv-watching can turn out to be negative (to a debatable extent). But this really does hold true for anything: excessive exercise can make you too bulky; eating chocolate too often can make you chubby; and if you call your best friend with every little problem, there's no way you're gonna be able to convince her to keep in touch with you in college. We, as humans, have the tendency to depend on other things. We take comfort in the idea that Jessica or Rachel or our mothers or our chocolate stashes will always be there. But at some point we need to be able to take care of ourselves, or at least stop eating so much chocolate(and maybe letting Rachel get off the phone to finish her homework every so often).
But back to the intended topic of this assignment, TV really can't be that bad. There's no harm in spending occasional Sunday afternoons watching Gossip Girl or Glee or 90210 recordings (as long as we commit to promises we make to our fathers about never acting like Naomi Clark, despite how beautiful her hair and clothes might be).
tv
I of course watch tv. Maybe not as much as stretch... but i watch a considerable amount. We're talking Scrubs, How I Met Your Mother, House, Two and a half Men, It's Always Sunny in Philidelpia, 30 Rock (I never got into The Office though), and Sportscenter EVERY single day. I think of tv as a good thing. It provides more than just entertainment you know. The weather channel is very helpful, the news is vital, heck, we watched Obama on tv.
To be honest, i do not have a strong opinion on tv. I watch it mostly just because it is there. We could all survive without it, but we sure can all survive with it as well. I'll take my chances on my brain melting and watch me some UK football.
The one thing i do hate about tv is all the commercials. I do get a lot of information from them, but they annoy me to no end.
I've also watched the food channel some, and they have this show where they make these awesome cakes. I want one.
To be honest, i do not have a strong opinion on tv. I watch it mostly just because it is there. We could all survive without it, but we sure can all survive with it as well. I'll take my chances on my brain melting and watch me some UK football.
The one thing i do hate about tv is all the commercials. I do get a lot of information from them, but they annoy me to no end.
I've also watched the food channel some, and they have this show where they make these awesome cakes. I want one.
I don't think TV turns bad until it turns into an addiction-- and I've never really heard of anything like that. I mean, if you'd rather sit and watch TV than go do something with your friends or you become obsessed with the lives of fictional characters, that's not good. But what's wrong with watching TV every day? As long as you're getting your work done, it really shouldn't matter. Personally, I don't really have time to watch TV all that much. With a horse that needs to be ridden every day and demanding classes, there just aren't enough hours in the day. I definitely can't watch anything that requires a commitment, like a series. But I do love those weekend cartoons, especially Courage the Cowardly Dog, whenever it comes on. It's possibly my favorite show(no, I'm not kidding). I also enjoy House, the Cooking Channel, and almost anything on Bravo. But my absolute favorite thing on TV to watch, that I will actually go out of my way to see, are those specials on TLC. The weird ones. Like Tree Man, Feral Children, and those people that are covered in hair. I just love those. I have no clue why.
TV is gooooooooooood.
Television is one of the greatest inventions of mankind. It comes in many shapes, sizes, colors, brands, pixels, definition, screen composition, and with many different wonderful channels for viewing pleasure. Sure if you've never been exposed to the full potential of tv its easy to criticize, ridicule or just not care about all of us couch potatoes. In fact when some one tells me that tv rots my brain I laugh at them because of their ignorance and lack of logos in that statement. TV is so relative to everyday social life above almost everything other than our own life. I love watching TV obviously; The Office, It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia, Scrubs, Comedy Central, 30 Rock, ESPN, and How I Met Your Mother just to name a few shows. I like these because they peek my interest. I love laughing and I love sports and what better place to receive these than TV. If I'm just sitting at home and these things are readily available I'm going to take advantage of it. Reading is slow boring, and does not interest me slightly so don't tell me I could be reading cause I'm not going to listen. Some people say they love getting wrapped up in a good book well I love getting wrapped up in a good show. I do realize that TV is there for the ads and not the other way around but commercials are becoming less effective everytime they play over and over again (unless its a food commercial. I love food almost as much as TV.). One thing that TV has over music, books, and magazines is the visual. The counter argument to this is that the latter should allow you to create your own image and use your imagination. I'm a reality guy and I like things definite and set in stone. Although I can't say I don't love music cause I do. So pretty much TV is good.
Nope.
Well, my TV history is a little lacking. I have never had cable, and for a while I didnt even have a tv. Before I was five and I still had a TV I would watch things like Arthur and Barney. Then when I was fiveish a tape got stuck in my VCR player and so we got rid of my whole TV. Then when I was eight we got the TV device back but no cable and it lived in our closet except during UK games. Then twoish years ago my dad broke down and got a nice flatscreen something or other television. Now it lives in my living room, but we still dont have cable. We watch movies sometimes but basically it is like a empty picture frame.
As a result I really don't get quite a bit of pop culture references but I did read much more as a child. I am totally glad that my parents kept me from watching television. I dont think watching tv makes you a worse person, stupid or boring. I am just very glad I dont have the temptation.
As a result I really don't get quite a bit of pop culture references but I did read much more as a child. I am totally glad that my parents kept me from watching television. I dont think watching tv makes you a worse person, stupid or boring. I am just very glad I dont have the temptation.
Saturday, September 19, 2009
NO CABLE NO TV
It shouldn't be too hard to figure out that i don't watch tv. Its not because i don't enjoy it, its just that i only get 13 channels. Before, when we actually did have cable, i would watch tv about an hour to two hours a day. Usually it would be ESPN, and if not that then something like CSI. I have never really been a huge fan of tv unless there is a UK game on. If there is then i either go to the game or go to a friends house to watch it. Regarding the question about what shows i hate, i could seriously care less. I don't watch enough of it so i wouldnt know what shows are good and what aren't.
I consider tv as a form of entertainment and nothing else. I rarely sit down to watch something educational on tv and i feel most people do the same. Besides that, i agree that it is a complete waste of time. If your like me, then you gain nothing out of it except pure enjoyment. Now people might argue that you might as well watch tv if your bored and have nothing else to do, and i also agree with that. The only thing is you should keep it controlled and not be like some people who watch it 5+ hours a day
I consider tv as a form of entertainment and nothing else. I rarely sit down to watch something educational on tv and i feel most people do the same. Besides that, i agree that it is a complete waste of time. If your like me, then you gain nothing out of it except pure enjoyment. Now people might argue that you might as well watch tv if your bored and have nothing else to do, and i also agree with that. The only thing is you should keep it controlled and not be like some people who watch it 5+ hours a day
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Why do you criticize TV?
I absolutely love TV, other than music, it is probably my favorite form of entertainment. My favorite show ever is Scrubs, and i almost cried when i found out that they were ending the series during y freshman year. Then, i found out that another station would be picking it up, and once again i almost cried, but this time out of joy. I don't believe there are any problems with TV, it is a way to escape from the pressures of the real world. If TV rots your brain then i would be a vegetable. Now, yes there are tons of ads on TV, but that is just a way to help with it's production, and profits. Like all other corporations, TV was made to provide something for the people, and in return they get a profit. Other corporation's saw TV as a way to help their own profits, and there is nothing wrong with that. There are advertisements in magazines, and newspapers, does that mean they're just another way to advertise to a mass audience? Is it because it requires almost no thought that people think TV is evil? Is it a sin to be able to kick back, relax, and watch your favorite show, without any thoughts? I think that there are just people in this world who will always be skeptical of anything they think is "too good", and you just have to tune them out and go about your business.
Assignment: It will rot the brain
The Emmys broadcast Sunday night and that means the beginning of the new television season. That’s right we’ve got our old favorites: House, Heroes, Gossip Girls, The Office, Survivor, CSI, NCIS, The Mentalist, et.al., along with some new hopefuls: Glee, The Good Wife, Eastwick, Community, and Flashforward. So what are your thoughts on TV? What show do you love? What show do you hate? Is TV a wonderful form of entertainment, social commentary, crafted silliness creating a diversion at the end of the day? Or is TV fundamentally something more insidious: the delivery system for advertising product to a mass audience? Can it be both? Take a look at some of this:
http://www.csun.edu/science/health/docs/tv&health.html
http://www.turnoffyourtv.com/ check out the links at the bottom
http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/departments/elementary/?article=toomuchtv
I love me my TV—does that make me a bad person?
What are your thoughts?
Sunday, September 13, 2009
Obama's Speech
Overall, I thought that Obama's speech served its purpose: to motivate the nation's children to do well in school. In order to accomplish this goal, the president tried to connect failure in school to failing one's duties to the nation and, was, at times, very anecdotal. In other words, he tried to connect with students on an individual as well as on a universal level. Additionally, he used words that were emotionally loaded in order to motivate the nation's youth. However, in spite of the president's many attempts to connect with students, the speech was admittedly boring and dry. In many ways Obama employed the same style of speech that he employed on the campaign trail when running for president. Considering his audience, this was not necessarily a good idea. Children often do not have the attention span to listen to a long and bombastic speech. Given these mistakes in identifying audience, Obama did an excellent job of connecting with students on a personal level, using stories of children who were able to overcome adversity in order to succeed as well as stories from his own past to encourage students to put their best foot forward. Hopefully his speech inspired at least a few struggling students that education is essential and not to be taken lightly. If so, it was successful.
Obama's speech was just what was expected-a non-political, motivational talk. I thought it was admirable of Obama to want to reach out to the nation's children and his speech had some important notes in it, such as the value in hard work. One thing I noticed specifically was how much Obama related the actions to his own experiences. He talked about hard work and adversity that he had overcome, as well as how his mother homeschooled him as a child. By relating to his personal experiences, I felt like he made himself seem like a more trustworthy source.
Obama's Speech
I like his speech, and for one main reason. We missed 15 minutes of class, more or less. Why did I not care for the speech itself? Simply put, it was boring. He spent those 15 minutes talking in the same tone of voice, and the same pitch. If you took a sound level meter, it would be the exact same level of loudness the whole time. As Greg said, he was no Mr. Pope (who is the god of speaking...even if he tried, he could not be boring). As I'm rewatching the video, I also notice that his face doesn't really change either. It looked like this the whole time: -_- His mouth, eyes, and eyebrows are lines.
In spite of all of that, however, I also realize that it was a heartfelt speech. He obviously cares about this, and he didn't mention anything about being a Democrat (which many Republicans were afraid of). He also was occasionally funny, or at least, I thought some things were funny. He did connect to students sometimes as well, such as when he referenced Twitter and Facebook.
Overall, he did a decent job. I didn't really like it for some of its content, but it kept my attention. Even when many people were talking around me, I still watched it, so he did something right.
@Obama: It's Rowling, not Rowlings. >.<
In spite of all of that, however, I also realize that it was a heartfelt speech. He obviously cares about this, and he didn't mention anything about being a Democrat (which many Republicans were afraid of). He also was occasionally funny, or at least, I thought some things were funny. He did connect to students sometimes as well, such as when he referenced Twitter and Facebook.
Overall, he did a decent job. I didn't really like it for some of its content, but it kept my attention. Even when many people were talking around me, I still watched it, so he did something right.
@Obama: It's Rowling, not Rowlings. >.<
obamalicious
Honestly, I was a little worried about writing this, since I didn’t actually pay that much attention to the speech in class. You see, I had some math homework to finish up before my next hour, and it seemed like the more important thing. So you can imagine my relief when I found a link to the video in the prompt, and after clicking it and listening to the speech, I couldn’t help but think that finishing my math homework had been the right thing to do. That was, after all, one of Obama’s main points, was it not? To work hard, study hard, and do your homework?
His other main points were that we were the future of America, and that America needed us, that we can’t be successful without hard work, and that no matter what we’re going through, there are no excuses for not working hard in school. He organized his speech by fully reviewing one point before smoothly moving on the next, telling us inspiring anecdotes for each point on the way.
Like even the greatest of speeches, it did have its flaws. One of these flaws was his apparent lack of facial expressions. I don’t think I ever saw any part of his face move other than his jaw, up and down as his “inspiring” words flowed forward. Another flaw was how he seemed to suggest that the chances of us being successful through sports or music or even writing were slim, while in almost the same breath he told us that “you can’t let your failures define you- you have to let them teach you”, citing famous athletes and writers as examples.
Contradictions and apathy aside, it made me very happy to hear the president talking directly to his students. It was a great idea, the speech was well organized, well delivered, and you know what?
I actually feel inspired.
His other main points were that we were the future of America, and that America needed us, that we can’t be successful without hard work, and that no matter what we’re going through, there are no excuses for not working hard in school. He organized his speech by fully reviewing one point before smoothly moving on the next, telling us inspiring anecdotes for each point on the way.
Like even the greatest of speeches, it did have its flaws. One of these flaws was his apparent lack of facial expressions. I don’t think I ever saw any part of his face move other than his jaw, up and down as his “inspiring” words flowed forward. Another flaw was how he seemed to suggest that the chances of us being successful through sports or music or even writing were slim, while in almost the same breath he told us that “you can’t let your failures define you- you have to let them teach you”, citing famous athletes and writers as examples.
Contradictions and apathy aside, it made me very happy to hear the president talking directly to his students. It was a great idea, the speech was well organized, well delivered, and you know what?
I actually feel inspired.
I wouldn't say that Obama's speech was insightful, but I think it had a strong meaning to it. Even though I found it somewhat boring and trite, I appreciated his effort to make his input to the students of America. His speech showed that he cares about the future of the United States. To be quite honest, I didn’t really hear much of Obama’s speech when it was first aired. But I came home and watched it again with my family. This time I found it to be much more meaningful. Obama is really dedicated in making sure that students know how important it is to stay in school. I didn’t really understand the anger that many parents had towards him. He wasn’t trying to corrupt America’s youth, but instead to push them towards success. Obama’s intentions were positive and his speech was very well delivered. I would hope that his words would influence many kids to stay focused in school.
I watch C-SPAN for fun. Not often, because that would melt my brain. But on the occasional day when the Daily Show is on break and a Kat Williams marathon/the Chicago Fire is playing, I can survive off of how funny it is that David Akaka is a person. Akaka. Akakakaka. Hah.
But even I found President Obama's speech to the nation's students boring. It was fatally long, for one thing. The President is used to orations before voters and States of the Union; but the children and teenagers of America cannot handle that lengthy a speech. At the very least I can't. The only teacher I know of who can speak, with no student interaction, for minutes at a time, and not make me want to cuddle the boy or girl next to me and go to sleep is Mr. Pope; and that's just because he jumps up and down and violently shakes your table. President Obama did not jump up and down. He did not shake my table. He spoke in a measured, even voice that was not quite a monotone, but was no where near the vocal peaks-and-valleys of a Mr. Pope. He delivered an inspirational speech in a manner which was perceivably designed to make sure that nothing stood out; to eliminate as much vocal variation as possible; to make it boring.
I suppose he assumed that, like everyone else, the school children of America would hang on his every word not because he is a brilliant orator, but because he is President. Which is natural; normally this happens, and it should. Boring Presidents have important things to say too. But kids need a different tack than the Democratic Party campaign donors; we need variation and anecdotes and entertainment. Or else Obama just becomes another boring teacher, and worse, a boring teacher who can't even tell you're not paying attention. There was no reason for a student to listen to him. He should've known his audience better, and planned a speech for older versions of his kids, not younger versions of his voters.
Obama’s speech did a good job getting his point about the importance of school across and also showed us how Obama is looking to America’s future- he realized that school children are the future and he sees importance in making sure we start our futures off right, beginning with school.
I think Obama did a good job of expressing what he wanted to say to the various age groups he was aiming for. He was trying to not only motivate young children to make goals and try new things, but also speak to those that were at the age where dropping out of school was a possibility. (In all honesty, it’s difficult to believe that this speech from the president could keep those kids who wanted to leave school from leaving, but, if it only helped one kid in America, that is still progress.)
One thing I liked was how he spoke of his own childhood and what he went through to get to school, you could see he paid attention to his audience and what they could relate to or understand. Rereading the text version you can also see he kept this throughout the piece- he tried to use examples kids understood and gave respect to his audience. Although he may have bigger things on his mind than homework, he never talked down to his audience of kids like they were, well, kids. I think Obama did a good job of being mindful of who he was talking to, getting his message across and being proactive about our future.
Obama's speech
So honestly, I didn't pay all that much attention to Obama's speech, i had anatomy homework i hadn't done. But the bits and pieces i did watch really grabbed my attention, so much that i was kind of mad at myself for not being able to pay attention to my work. I thought the way he was relating his childhood to the struggles of many children in today's world was insightful. i also think that by explaining how hard he had it as a child it was supposed to make you think, "Hmmm, my problems aren't nearly this bad and still i complain almost every day." At least that is what i was thinking, i was wondering why i hadn't done this anatomy homework at home. Crazy concept right, doing your homework at home, I've never been that good at it. When you think about it, it doesn't make all that much dedication. Obama on the other hand had to wake up ridiculously early to get a DECENT education. i have to wake up at five sometimes to get a great education, and i take that for granted. I feel that Obama's speech was so interesting because he tried to make you think, he tried to make you contradict your developed way of life. he wanted to change the way you THINK about school.
I think that this speech was primarily engineered to establish Obama as a man that has one foot in the future. He wants to show America that he is ready to prepare us and motivate us beyond the set time he has as our president, by reaching out to posterity and showing them that the future is in their (our) hands. But the speech had other reasons, like genuniely trying to motivate students and make for a better world etc.
I'll be honest that I'm not exactly sure how to breakdown this speech but what I've learned in class so far is that a persuasive speech generally has three components: ethos, pathos, and logos. Obama's already established reputation gives him his ethos, so that component is a given. Logos comes along in the first part of the speech. He begins to talk about how the government does it's best to provide the resources necessary for learning in schools and it's only logical that we do our part to and try our best in every way. It also appealed to pathos because he started to talk about students as an individual, which makes you think and relate to what he is saying on a more personal level. He said that each one of us had something to offer and that it was our privilege and responsibility to share it with our country.
I'll be honest that I'm not exactly sure how to breakdown this speech but what I've learned in class so far is that a persuasive speech generally has three components: ethos, pathos, and logos. Obama's already established reputation gives him his ethos, so that component is a given. Logos comes along in the first part of the speech. He begins to talk about how the government does it's best to provide the resources necessary for learning in schools and it's only logical that we do our part to and try our best in every way. It also appealed to pathos because he started to talk about students as an individual, which makes you think and relate to what he is saying on a more personal level. He said that each one of us had something to offer and that it was our privilege and responsibility to share it with our country.
Obama's Speech
One fact that's hard to refute, regardless of whether you agree with his politics or his opinions, is that President Obama has a comanding presence. Even when addressing school children as young as five years old, the way in which he speaks could hold even my attention -- and I consider myself almost embarrassingly apathetic toward most things involving politics. In his education speech last Tuesday (which I admit to only having just watched) Obama had to choose his words carefully, no matter how natural his diction seemed. His audience was enormous, not only in size, but in variety. It's difficult to relate to people who are much younger than you and also widely spaced in maturity among themselves. The simple act of making this speech impact that large of an audience was a challenge all by itself, and one that Obama handled quite well.
Because his message was such an important one, one that needed to stick in every mind that heard it, loaded phrases are almost a necessity. He used these specifically to invoke certain feelings in his audience. "If you quit on school," he says halfway through the speech, "you're not just quitting on yourself, you're quitting on your country." His remarks are direct, they're strong, and they're meant to stick with you even after the speech ends. He delivers each word confidently, and it's effective -- if a speaker believes wholly in what he's saying, his audience is more likely to believe what he's saying, too.
Overall, in his fifteen minute address, Obama delivered a message that school children from anywhere in our country could hear, could understand, could relate to, and could be motivated by. His political and personal agenda aside, he crafted his discourse well and hopefully made an impression on all those who listened to it.
Because his message was such an important one, one that needed to stick in every mind that heard it, loaded phrases are almost a necessity. He used these specifically to invoke certain feelings in his audience. "If you quit on school," he says halfway through the speech, "you're not just quitting on yourself, you're quitting on your country." His remarks are direct, they're strong, and they're meant to stick with you even after the speech ends. He delivers each word confidently, and it's effective -- if a speaker believes wholly in what he's saying, his audience is more likely to believe what he's saying, too.
Overall, in his fifteen minute address, Obama delivered a message that school children from anywhere in our country could hear, could understand, could relate to, and could be motivated by. His political and personal agenda aside, he crafted his discourse well and hopefully made an impression on all those who listened to it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
