This article was about how a Syrian rebel was caught (in a video) apparently "taking a bite from the heart of a dead soldier". It has been shocking to many people. The rebel, identified as Abu Sakkar, is a rather well known rebel from the city of Homs. The Human Rights Watch claims that this is a war crime, and it may be as the Syrian Coalition says he will be tried in court. This took place recently, in the war that still rages in Syria. Time Magazine said it has spoken to Sakkar, who confirmed that he had indeed bitten one of the soldier's organs, yet it is still unclear whether or not it was truly the heart, or another organ.
The author wants me to feel shock, disbelief, horror, and perhaps disgust. The author did not need to add much into the article for the reader to experience the emotions, as the thought of biting an organ of another person is similar to the thought of cannibalism, and naturally, we pale at the thought of cannibalism. The author does use subtle phrases though, to plant the emotions into readers' minds. Such phrases include "taking a bite" as this phrase is often used casually and possibly positively, which in this case, that is neither casual nor positive, would be highly disturbing. The author also places others' reactions to the video into the article to propose to readers how they could/should feel about the subject. These reactions are all negative, such as describing how the video is gruesome and one of the worst ever seen by BBC's Jim Muir, or how the Human Rights Watch believes the subject to be "particularly disturbing".
I was shocked and slightly appalled by the subject of the article as removing one's organ and biting it is cannibalistic and unnatural for the actions of people. Perhaps as people, we are disgusted by such actions as they seem too "animal-like" for us humans (although we are actually animals...). What drives people to act in such ways? War. War changes people, often for the worse. It's tragic, I believe, for perhaps the rebel would not have acted this way if his country was not war torn and with many societal issues (as all countries have at times of war). War is much more than just death and/or victory, as war has no victory, and there is no one in the war torn country that it doesn't affect. I believe that Sakkar's actions do not reflect merely the horror of his actions, but also the horror of war and its affect on those involved in it.
Putting him on trial will not change much, as the circumstances of Syria will probably not be greatly affected from one man's punishment.
Tuesday, May 14, 2013
Wednesday, May 8, 2013
The Tragedy of Romeo and Juliet- essay
The Consequences of Impetuosity
"For never was a story of more woe/ Than this of Juliet and her Romeo." (5.3.320-321) Perhaps this was true only because The Tragedy of Romeo and Juliet could have been prevented. Though some things may have been fated, the lovers' actions were not. So in the end, it was their own impetuosity that brought them to their untimely deaths. Their impetuous actions show that fate played no part in the tragedies that unfolded. As most of The Tragedy of Romeo and Juliet by William Shakespeare was a telling of impetuous actions and their consequences, we learn through Romeo and Juliet's impulsive actions and decisions that impetuosity often leads to dire results, so if they used rationality rather than impetuosity, perhaps there would be no tragedy for the play to tell.
The suicides of Romeo and Juliet were the acts of impetuosity that ended it all. For if they thought rationally before acting, they would not have died. They would have realized that life is too precious to waste, and that by killing themselves, they would make those around them, those who loved them, suffer as well. As Lady Capulet said, "My child, my only life," (4.5.24) it shows that there were people other than Romeo who loved Juliet, and Juliet failed to realize this when she chose impetuosity over rationality. And as Romeo said, "Here's to my love... Thus with a kiss I die," (5.3.119, 120) it shows that he too forgot about those who loved him and therefore would suffer if he died, as he thought of only Juliet when he made his impulsive decision. And in the end, it was those who loved Romeo and Juliet who truly suffered for the lovers' impetuosity.
While the lovers' suicides marked their ends, it would not have come to be if not for Romeo's second main act of impulse. If Romeo did not seek revenge on Tybalt for killing Mercutio, he would not have killed him, and therefore would not have been banished. And if he was not banished, he would not have missed Friar Lawrence's letter (about Juliet) and therefore would not have believed Juliet's death was real. When he faced Tybalt to avenge Mercutio's death, he said, "And fire-eyed fury be my conduct now... Either thou or I, or both, must go with him" (3.1.129, 134). This shows that he let impulse take control of his actions before considering the consequences that would result from the death of Tybalt. By the time logic caught up with his actions, it was much too late.
Despite Romeo and Juliet's continuous acts of impulse throughout the play, the course of tragedies truly came to be from their first few "blissful" and impulsive moments together, starting from the moment they met and fell in love. As the Chorus said, "Alike bewitchèd by the charm of looks," (2.0.6) Romeo and Juliet fell in love impulsively as they were drawn to each other's physical appearance. And since they fell for each other's looks, there was really only a very limited amount of true love involved, or perhaps none at all. They were too impetuous, as they agreed to marry each other after only one meeting. Romeo proposed to Juliet on impulse as after one meeting he already asked "Th' exchange of thy love's faithful vow for mine," (2.2.134) to Juliet. He acted irrationally, without considering the low probability of true love at first sight (as it is highly improbable that love can be "faithful" after just one meeting). Juliet was equally impulsive as Romeo when she accepted his proposal by saying, "I gave thee mine before thou didst request it," (2.2.135) (as it is senseless to say such seemingly sincere words when they have only just met). Their thoughts and fantasies of love made them impetuous which blocked all rationality. Their love was the root of the problem in the play since if they didn't fall in love they wouldn't have experienced all the tragedies in the play and therefore would not ultimately lose their lives.
The Tragedy of Romeo and Juliet did not have to be a tragedy if not for the lovers' impetuosity and lack of rational reasoning. Their impetuosity doomed them from the moment they fell in love, but they could have changed their fate if they thought rationally throughout the rest of the play. Unfortunately, though, they did not. This tragic play that ended with the deaths of the young lovers shows that there are almost always consequences with impetuosity and rash/impulsive decisions. Perhaps Shakespeare wanted to teach the audience through his play to always use rationality over impetuosity so we will not have to face tragic situations such as those in Romeo and Juliet. And perhaps The Tragedy of Romeo and Juliet is not only the greatest love story ever told, but also the story that we always can, and should, learn from.
"For never was a story of more woe/ Than this of Juliet and her Romeo." (5.3.320-321) Perhaps this was true only because The Tragedy of Romeo and Juliet could have been prevented. Though some things may have been fated, the lovers' actions were not. So in the end, it was their own impetuosity that brought them to their untimely deaths. Their impetuous actions show that fate played no part in the tragedies that unfolded. As most of The Tragedy of Romeo and Juliet by William Shakespeare was a telling of impetuous actions and their consequences, we learn through Romeo and Juliet's impulsive actions and decisions that impetuosity often leads to dire results, so if they used rationality rather than impetuosity, perhaps there would be no tragedy for the play to tell.
The suicides of Romeo and Juliet were the acts of impetuosity that ended it all. For if they thought rationally before acting, they would not have died. They would have realized that life is too precious to waste, and that by killing themselves, they would make those around them, those who loved them, suffer as well. As Lady Capulet said, "My child, my only life," (4.5.24) it shows that there were people other than Romeo who loved Juliet, and Juliet failed to realize this when she chose impetuosity over rationality. And as Romeo said, "Here's to my love... Thus with a kiss I die," (5.3.119, 120) it shows that he too forgot about those who loved him and therefore would suffer if he died, as he thought of only Juliet when he made his impulsive decision. And in the end, it was those who loved Romeo and Juliet who truly suffered for the lovers' impetuosity.
While the lovers' suicides marked their ends, it would not have come to be if not for Romeo's second main act of impulse. If Romeo did not seek revenge on Tybalt for killing Mercutio, he would not have killed him, and therefore would not have been banished. And if he was not banished, he would not have missed Friar Lawrence's letter (about Juliet) and therefore would not have believed Juliet's death was real. When he faced Tybalt to avenge Mercutio's death, he said, "And fire-eyed fury be my conduct now... Either thou or I, or both, must go with him" (3.1.129, 134). This shows that he let impulse take control of his actions before considering the consequences that would result from the death of Tybalt. By the time logic caught up with his actions, it was much too late.
Despite Romeo and Juliet's continuous acts of impulse throughout the play, the course of tragedies truly came to be from their first few "blissful" and impulsive moments together, starting from the moment they met and fell in love. As the Chorus said, "Alike bewitchèd by the charm of looks," (2.0.6) Romeo and Juliet fell in love impulsively as they were drawn to each other's physical appearance. And since they fell for each other's looks, there was really only a very limited amount of true love involved, or perhaps none at all. They were too impetuous, as they agreed to marry each other after only one meeting. Romeo proposed to Juliet on impulse as after one meeting he already asked "Th' exchange of thy love's faithful vow for mine," (2.2.134) to Juliet. He acted irrationally, without considering the low probability of true love at first sight (as it is highly improbable that love can be "faithful" after just one meeting). Juliet was equally impulsive as Romeo when she accepted his proposal by saying, "I gave thee mine before thou didst request it," (2.2.135) (as it is senseless to say such seemingly sincere words when they have only just met). Their thoughts and fantasies of love made them impetuous which blocked all rationality. Their love was the root of the problem in the play since if they didn't fall in love they wouldn't have experienced all the tragedies in the play and therefore would not ultimately lose their lives.
The Tragedy of Romeo and Juliet did not have to be a tragedy if not for the lovers' impetuosity and lack of rational reasoning. Their impetuosity doomed them from the moment they fell in love, but they could have changed their fate if they thought rationally throughout the rest of the play. Unfortunately, though, they did not. This tragic play that ended with the deaths of the young lovers shows that there are almost always consequences with impetuosity and rash/impulsive decisions. Perhaps Shakespeare wanted to teach the audience through his play to always use rationality over impetuosity so we will not have to face tragic situations such as those in Romeo and Juliet. And perhaps The Tragedy of Romeo and Juliet is not only the greatest love story ever told, but also the story that we always can, and should, learn from.
Thursday, May 2, 2013
Snow Flower and the Secret Fan 2 *spoiler alert*
The Order of Fate
I have continued reading Snow Flower and the Secret Fan by Lisa See. Lily with her laotong (a sworn lifelong friend that is actually deeper than a regular sworn sister, although the relationship is similar) Snow Flower are now seventeen, and Lily is about to marry. They are both betrothed, they both have bound feet (Lily's are considered perfect so she is marrying into an upper class wealthy family in Snow Flower's village of Tongkou), and they have been very good friends over the years. Lily's cousin Beautiful Moon (who was like a sister to Lily since they lived together and were good friends and suffered the pain of footbinding together at the same time) was going to marry to an upper class family close to Lily's future family, so they were delighted that they were going to spend their lives together, however, Beautiful Moon died from a bee sting in the last chapter with Snow Flower and Lily being fifteen. This is all I have read so far.
It saddened me that Beautiful Moon died so tragically and so young. A quote from this part of the book stood out to me, as it said that with Lily's family being poor and all of a sudden needing to face numerous weddings (that are very expensive), it disrupted the balance of the universe so the gods killed Beautiful Moon to balance it back. "There is no life without death," it said, followed by , "This is the true meaning of yin and yang." I wondered if this was true. Do the skies really control the balance of the world? Do they add and take away lives to keep the universe's scale at a constant balance? This would be an interesting way to view life, for it means that death is meaningful, that we die to put the world back into balance. I wondered if the meaning of yin and yang was truly as the story told. Does life and death creating universal harmony and balance, constantly changing but at the same time constantly keeping equal weight on both sides of the scale? With life comes death, so I believe that when life occurs, death must too. While I type this post, someone dies, yet someone is also born. Is this fact simply coincidental to the belief that fate and gods control the universe or is it actually the truth that the skies are actually able to take away or add life simply to create balance? One could think that this shows how insignificant we are, as we are simply pieces of weight on fate's scale. But one could also think that we are important, for as I have said before, if we are not taken to the other side of the scale, how would the universe keep balance? The skies may depend on these little weights to manage something as great as the universe. I am not saying that gods must exist, but if I were to believe the theories and views of life from this book, this is how I would perceive it. And I do believe that greater powers exist, or, rather, I don't know if they exist but I want to believe they do since if they did not, the world truly would have no hope or significance and nor would life.
Yin and Yang is balanced, equal, much like how life and death should be. I think Lily understands this, for even though she mourns her cousin's death, she does not believe that it was unfair. For, who's to decide whether life or death comes at a fair time or not (I am conflicted about this because family friends will always die too early in the eyes of loved ones, yet the death would seem to be worth it when seeing that it keeps universal balance)? How do we know whether someone was or wasn't meant to die? Lily accepts most things in life as part of a bigger picture, which prevents her from falling into the depths of anger and depression. I wonder though, if she has an opinion on fate and the gods, or does she simply accept that life is life, and that we are only game pieces on fate's board, that we are destined to walk one path, so what happens to us in life is out of our control.
I have continued reading Snow Flower and the Secret Fan by Lisa See. Lily with her laotong (a sworn lifelong friend that is actually deeper than a regular sworn sister, although the relationship is similar) Snow Flower are now seventeen, and Lily is about to marry. They are both betrothed, they both have bound feet (Lily's are considered perfect so she is marrying into an upper class wealthy family in Snow Flower's village of Tongkou), and they have been very good friends over the years. Lily's cousin Beautiful Moon (who was like a sister to Lily since they lived together and were good friends and suffered the pain of footbinding together at the same time) was going to marry to an upper class family close to Lily's future family, so they were delighted that they were going to spend their lives together, however, Beautiful Moon died from a bee sting in the last chapter with Snow Flower and Lily being fifteen. This is all I have read so far.
It saddened me that Beautiful Moon died so tragically and so young. A quote from this part of the book stood out to me, as it said that with Lily's family being poor and all of a sudden needing to face numerous weddings (that are very expensive), it disrupted the balance of the universe so the gods killed Beautiful Moon to balance it back. "There is no life without death," it said, followed by , "This is the true meaning of yin and yang." I wondered if this was true. Do the skies really control the balance of the world? Do they add and take away lives to keep the universe's scale at a constant balance? This would be an interesting way to view life, for it means that death is meaningful, that we die to put the world back into balance. I wondered if the meaning of yin and yang was truly as the story told. Does life and death creating universal harmony and balance, constantly changing but at the same time constantly keeping equal weight on both sides of the scale? With life comes death, so I believe that when life occurs, death must too. While I type this post, someone dies, yet someone is also born. Is this fact simply coincidental to the belief that fate and gods control the universe or is it actually the truth that the skies are actually able to take away or add life simply to create balance? One could think that this shows how insignificant we are, as we are simply pieces of weight on fate's scale. But one could also think that we are important, for as I have said before, if we are not taken to the other side of the scale, how would the universe keep balance? The skies may depend on these little weights to manage something as great as the universe. I am not saying that gods must exist, but if I were to believe the theories and views of life from this book, this is how I would perceive it. And I do believe that greater powers exist, or, rather, I don't know if they exist but I want to believe they do since if they did not, the world truly would have no hope or significance and nor would life.
Yin and Yang is balanced, equal, much like how life and death should be. I think Lily understands this, for even though she mourns her cousin's death, she does not believe that it was unfair. For, who's to decide whether life or death comes at a fair time or not (I am conflicted about this because family friends will always die too early in the eyes of loved ones, yet the death would seem to be worth it when seeing that it keeps universal balance)? How do we know whether someone was or wasn't meant to die? Lily accepts most things in life as part of a bigger picture, which prevents her from falling into the depths of anger and depression. I wonder though, if she has an opinion on fate and the gods, or does she simply accept that life is life, and that we are only game pieces on fate's board, that we are destined to walk one path, so what happens to us in life is out of our control.
Thursday, April 25, 2013
Snow Flower and the Secret Fan
Wrongs of the Ancient Society
I have begun reading Snow Flower and the Secret Fan by Lisa See. It is about a girl named Lily, who lives in the Qing Dynasty. The story starts off with Lily being eighty years old and after a brief explanation of her life as an elderly who has lived too long and a reference to Snow Flower who is to be the second main character in the story (Snow Flower is like a "sworn sister" to Lily) the next chapter starts with Lily being a very young girl. Much like other cultures at the time, sons were more "precious" than daughters, and in Lily's family with numerous sisters, and two brothers (one six years older than her, and the other is still an infant), Lily is clearly not very "precious". All the daughters in the family seek their father's care and attention and compete for time to spend with the "treasured" Elder Brother. Lily will have her feet bound and it is explained that well-bound feet often led to a good match and a wealthy future while poorly-bound feet often lead to the contrary along with misfortune. This is all I have read so far.
It's shocking how many unfair traditions are revealed within a span of slightly more than two chapters. Firstly, the value of sons over daughters is tragic. I pitied Lily when she said that she felt important when her elder brother smiled or talked to her and she felt loved when her father sensed her sadness and therefore let her sit in his lap and held her like a pearl in his hand. It was tragic since such a simple gesture from her brother such as smiling meant so much more than what people nowadays interpret smiles from brothers. And the fact that she mentioned that at the specific moment when her father held her she was precious, was sad since doesn't that mean she isn't regarded as precious most of the rest of the time?
Another wrong is, obviously, the act of binding feet. Perhaps foot binding would not be so wrong if it, when done "well", did not bring good results regarding class, fortune, and husbands. I believe that it is wrong and unfair because such cruelty should not be regarded as "worth it" for the results afterward. Because, then, wouldn't foot binding be thought of as a privilege of sorts, rather than an act of cruelty? In this case, if I was a girl in Ancient China, perhaps I would actually rather have my feet bound "beautifully" in order to have a life of leisure, rather than have my feet not bound but live a life of hardship as servants, constantly being bought and sold. This statement sounds ridiculous and shocking, but is it really that strange when we add the consequences of unbound feet into the picture as well? No, I don't believe so, which is exactly the problem. When a family in Ancient China has money to bind feet, do the family members really have a choice of whether or not they should bind the daughters' feet? I don't think they do, since in a way, the parents bind their daughters' feet in hopes that the daughters will live a happy and good life by "catching" a good husband through the "beauty" of their feet. I think this is actually a form of care. And for the daughters themselves, they don't have a choice either because firstly, it's not their decision, and secondly, is feet and walking more important than a good life? Of course one could argue that without the ability to walk, life has no purpose, but perhaps in the ancient society, those who don't need to walk are considered lucky since when they don't need to walk, they don't need to work. Again, one could argue that there is a difference between choosing not to walk, or not being able to. Then again, perhaps an argument for this situation is actually rather unnecessary since one can't truly argue about the past (as it already happened), and also, I still don't think the family would sacrifice the daughters' future for their pairs of feet so an argument probably wouldn't persuade them to doom their daughters' futures anyway.
In the end, I believe the ancient society carries many wrongs, like foot binding. But since one can't change the past, we must try to understand why people would get their feet bound and if there was really an option or argument to not bind feet when considering the consequences/disadvantages of doing so. Therefore, I still find the act of binding feet cruel, but I think that not only the daughters deserve pity, but the parents deserve understanding as well since no parent wants to see their children in pain, but in a way, they truly had no choice.
I have begun reading Snow Flower and the Secret Fan by Lisa See. It is about a girl named Lily, who lives in the Qing Dynasty. The story starts off with Lily being eighty years old and after a brief explanation of her life as an elderly who has lived too long and a reference to Snow Flower who is to be the second main character in the story (Snow Flower is like a "sworn sister" to Lily) the next chapter starts with Lily being a very young girl. Much like other cultures at the time, sons were more "precious" than daughters, and in Lily's family with numerous sisters, and two brothers (one six years older than her, and the other is still an infant), Lily is clearly not very "precious". All the daughters in the family seek their father's care and attention and compete for time to spend with the "treasured" Elder Brother. Lily will have her feet bound and it is explained that well-bound feet often led to a good match and a wealthy future while poorly-bound feet often lead to the contrary along with misfortune. This is all I have read so far.
It's shocking how many unfair traditions are revealed within a span of slightly more than two chapters. Firstly, the value of sons over daughters is tragic. I pitied Lily when she said that she felt important when her elder brother smiled or talked to her and she felt loved when her father sensed her sadness and therefore let her sit in his lap and held her like a pearl in his hand. It was tragic since such a simple gesture from her brother such as smiling meant so much more than what people nowadays interpret smiles from brothers. And the fact that she mentioned that at the specific moment when her father held her she was precious, was sad since doesn't that mean she isn't regarded as precious most of the rest of the time?
Another wrong is, obviously, the act of binding feet. Perhaps foot binding would not be so wrong if it, when done "well", did not bring good results regarding class, fortune, and husbands. I believe that it is wrong and unfair because such cruelty should not be regarded as "worth it" for the results afterward. Because, then, wouldn't foot binding be thought of as a privilege of sorts, rather than an act of cruelty? In this case, if I was a girl in Ancient China, perhaps I would actually rather have my feet bound "beautifully" in order to have a life of leisure, rather than have my feet not bound but live a life of hardship as servants, constantly being bought and sold. This statement sounds ridiculous and shocking, but is it really that strange when we add the consequences of unbound feet into the picture as well? No, I don't believe so, which is exactly the problem. When a family in Ancient China has money to bind feet, do the family members really have a choice of whether or not they should bind the daughters' feet? I don't think they do, since in a way, the parents bind their daughters' feet in hopes that the daughters will live a happy and good life by "catching" a good husband through the "beauty" of their feet. I think this is actually a form of care. And for the daughters themselves, they don't have a choice either because firstly, it's not their decision, and secondly, is feet and walking more important than a good life? Of course one could argue that without the ability to walk, life has no purpose, but perhaps in the ancient society, those who don't need to walk are considered lucky since when they don't need to walk, they don't need to work. Again, one could argue that there is a difference between choosing not to walk, or not being able to. Then again, perhaps an argument for this situation is actually rather unnecessary since one can't truly argue about the past (as it already happened), and also, I still don't think the family would sacrifice the daughters' future for their pairs of feet so an argument probably wouldn't persuade them to doom their daughters' futures anyway.
In the end, I believe the ancient society carries many wrongs, like foot binding. But since one can't change the past, we must try to understand why people would get their feet bound and if there was really an option or argument to not bind feet when considering the consequences/disadvantages of doing so. Therefore, I still find the act of binding feet cruel, but I think that not only the daughters deserve pity, but the parents deserve understanding as well since no parent wants to see their children in pain, but in a way, they truly had no choice.
Thursday, April 18, 2013
BBC News' Fame May 'Lead To A Shorter Life' Non-Fiction Blog Post
This article is about how performers (actors/actresses, singers, etc.) and sport stars die younger than those who have academic careers. The article says that "they may be paying a high price for their career". The author wants me to know about how performers and sports stars die earlier. According to the text, those who have performer/sport careers die at an average of 77 years of age. Those who have academic careers however, have an average life span of about 82 years. Researchers say that the reason behind this is still unknown but perhaps it relates with stress. Performers/sport stars often have stress and this may be part of the reason behind the results of the study.
The author wants me to feel perhaps slightly shocked and/or curious. He/she says in the article that having a "glittering career" may lead to a shorter life. The word "glittering" is often positive so there is a slight shock at the contrast of such a positive-sounding word in contrast with death, which to most people, is a negative thing. The author describes how the reason behind these results are unknown which naturally, causes curiosity since as people, we always seem to need an explanation/reason for everything. The contents of the article itself gives shock since successful performers and sports stars are often looked upon as idols and seem to live in a perfect life. We forget that nothing is ever perfect. The author uses this image that is implanted in people's minds to conflict with the article's contents to cause shock, curiosity, and maybe even confusion. He/she doesn't need to use many tricks to give readers these emotions since our minds beliefs are the causes of these feelings.
I felt slightly shocked since I too believed that fame is a positive thing so those who have fame should live a luxurious life. Shouldn't luxury play a part in a long life? I also thought about whether or not age really matters when one's life is successful. If a performer or sports star lives his/her life to the fullest with few regrets, should it matter that he/she lives several years less than those with other careers? And maybe if these performers/sport stars enjoyed life to the fullest, they wouldn't be living a shorter life. The root of the problem may be that these careers carry a great amount of stress, which causes many of life's issues. Perhaps the solution is to not let stress eat away at life.
If one's life is meaningful, and as long as it is not cut short tragically, one's age is only a number and nothing else.
The author wants me to feel perhaps slightly shocked and/or curious. He/she says in the article that having a "glittering career" may lead to a shorter life. The word "glittering" is often positive so there is a slight shock at the contrast of such a positive-sounding word in contrast with death, which to most people, is a negative thing. The author describes how the reason behind these results are unknown which naturally, causes curiosity since as people, we always seem to need an explanation/reason for everything. The contents of the article itself gives shock since successful performers and sports stars are often looked upon as idols and seem to live in a perfect life. We forget that nothing is ever perfect. The author uses this image that is implanted in people's minds to conflict with the article's contents to cause shock, curiosity, and maybe even confusion. He/she doesn't need to use many tricks to give readers these emotions since our minds beliefs are the causes of these feelings.
I felt slightly shocked since I too believed that fame is a positive thing so those who have fame should live a luxurious life. Shouldn't luxury play a part in a long life? I also thought about whether or not age really matters when one's life is successful. If a performer or sports star lives his/her life to the fullest with few regrets, should it matter that he/she lives several years less than those with other careers? And maybe if these performers/sport stars enjoyed life to the fullest, they wouldn't be living a shorter life. The root of the problem may be that these careers carry a great amount of stress, which causes many of life's issues. Perhaps the solution is to not let stress eat away at life.
If one's life is meaningful, and as long as it is not cut short tragically, one's age is only a number and nothing else.
Thursday, April 11, 2013
Clockwork Prince *spoiler alert
Repetitive Themes
I am reading Clockwork Prince by Cassandra Clare. This is the sequel to Clockwork Angel, and they are part of The Infernal Devices series. In the first book, a girl named Tessa Gray was pulled into the world of demons, vampires, werewolves, and Nephilim Shadowhunters (angel and human "hybrids" who kill the demons). She met Will and Jem (both Shadowhunters and the story continued with mixed feelings, love, fighting, and shock of who the real enemy was. A love triangle developed and everyone felt, and in this book, still feels confused. So the sequel so far has only continued to talk about the obvious issues and the complicated relationship between Tessa, Will, and Jem. This is all I have read so far; this will be a short post since I haven't read much and don't really want to continue reading.
Although I enjoyed Clockwork Angel, I am thinking that perhaps I will abandon Clockwork Prince. I think it is because the themes and characters of the story are too similar to the styles of other books that are highly popular. It is a repetitive plot and highly predictable. I don't particularly like the theme of vampires and demons of the like, nor do I tend to like books about half-angels. This isn't because I don't like the subjects themselves but more because I think such themes have been appearing constantly in books, perhaps too frequently. But, despite this, I could tolerate (and even liked) the first book of the series as the themes did not revolve around the typical themes as it does now in the second book. Such themes include a love triangle and a character not wanting to hurt the other but in the end quite possibly will. Perhaps I am wrong, but I think I can guess who Tessa will end up being with at the end of the series.
It amazes me how repetitive particular themes have been in books right now. Is it the popularity of these themes that are driving authors to to write so frequently about them? Don't readers tire from the constant repetition of subjects and plots? I wonder what makes a theme suddenly popular, when it wasn't popular before? Does it only take one author and one best-selling book to create such a trend of themes in books?
Perhaps I will continue reading the book to see if it really is as predictable as I assumed (because I may be wrong if I finish the entire series and the ending proves to be different than my predictions), or perhaps I might just return it and start another book.
I am reading Clockwork Prince by Cassandra Clare. This is the sequel to Clockwork Angel, and they are part of The Infernal Devices series. In the first book, a girl named Tessa Gray was pulled into the world of demons, vampires, werewolves, and Nephilim Shadowhunters (angel and human "hybrids" who kill the demons). She met Will and Jem (both Shadowhunters and the story continued with mixed feelings, love, fighting, and shock of who the real enemy was. A love triangle developed and everyone felt, and in this book, still feels confused. So the sequel so far has only continued to talk about the obvious issues and the complicated relationship between Tessa, Will, and Jem. This is all I have read so far; this will be a short post since I haven't read much and don't really want to continue reading.
Although I enjoyed Clockwork Angel, I am thinking that perhaps I will abandon Clockwork Prince. I think it is because the themes and characters of the story are too similar to the styles of other books that are highly popular. It is a repetitive plot and highly predictable. I don't particularly like the theme of vampires and demons of the like, nor do I tend to like books about half-angels. This isn't because I don't like the subjects themselves but more because I think such themes have been appearing constantly in books, perhaps too frequently. But, despite this, I could tolerate (and even liked) the first book of the series as the themes did not revolve around the typical themes as it does now in the second book. Such themes include a love triangle and a character not wanting to hurt the other but in the end quite possibly will. Perhaps I am wrong, but I think I can guess who Tessa will end up being with at the end of the series.
It amazes me how repetitive particular themes have been in books right now. Is it the popularity of these themes that are driving authors to to write so frequently about them? Don't readers tire from the constant repetition of subjects and plots? I wonder what makes a theme suddenly popular, when it wasn't popular before? Does it only take one author and one best-selling book to create such a trend of themes in books?
Perhaps I will continue reading the book to see if it really is as predictable as I assumed (because I may be wrong if I finish the entire series and the ending proves to be different than my predictions), or perhaps I might just return it and start another book.
Thursday, April 4, 2013
To Kill A Mockingbird 3
Aren't We All Under The Same Sky?
So far, in To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee, Atticus has left for a short while so Scout and Jem are under the supervision of Calpurnia, their cook/servant. One Sunday, Calpurnia decides to take them to her church, an African American church called First Purchase. There, most people respect them, except they encounter an African-American woman who declares that white people do not belong at an African-American church. Finally, after things settle down and church ends, Scout and Jem find out that Atticus' case is that his client (an African-American man) is being charged with rape, yet quite possibly is not actually guilty.
In the argument between Calpurnia and the woman (Lulu) at church, a particular part of the dialogue stood out to me. After Lulu said: "...they got their church, we got our'n. It is our church, ain't it, Miss Cal?" Calpurnia replied by saying: "It's the same God, ain't it?" At this, I paused, for it sounded like such a strong sentence, as though a piece of moral values and truth was placed in the dialogue. I thought that what Calpurnia said was very true, even though I am not religious and therefore do not truly believe in God. Perhaps it is not so much to do with God as I thought that it had to do with us being the same. We all share something in common with everyone else. We are all of the same species, the same structure, and we all abide by the laws of life and nature. These laws, I believe, is that we all follow the same sequence of nature, we grow and we die. No specific type of race has a natural advantage over others, their is no race that lives particularly longer or are extremely smart or powerful. Even though our background and places of origin are different and may affect us, we are still quite alike. Are we not all living under the same sky? Do we not all eat and breathe and think? Who has the right to say one does not belong in a public place? No one should have such a right, regardless of race or colour.
It is tragic though, for no one is completely free of prejudice (at least I think). Do we really look/judge solely with our hearts and not with our eyes? I don't believe so, for looking with the heart usually only supports or balances our judgment of appearance, it does not provide the whole opinion. I usually don't believe those who say they have no prejudice, I think that they are either lying , or they are one of those people who are able to bring forth their heart's judgment before their eyes', or at least use inner judgment more than the judgment of appearance.
When will we rid ourselves of prejudice? But then again, is it completely necessary? Is it good enough to balance our eyes' judgment with our heart's? I'm not sure, but perhaps it is.
So far, in To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee, Atticus has left for a short while so Scout and Jem are under the supervision of Calpurnia, their cook/servant. One Sunday, Calpurnia decides to take them to her church, an African American church called First Purchase. There, most people respect them, except they encounter an African-American woman who declares that white people do not belong at an African-American church. Finally, after things settle down and church ends, Scout and Jem find out that Atticus' case is that his client (an African-American man) is being charged with rape, yet quite possibly is not actually guilty.
In the argument between Calpurnia and the woman (Lulu) at church, a particular part of the dialogue stood out to me. After Lulu said: "...they got their church, we got our'n. It is our church, ain't it, Miss Cal?" Calpurnia replied by saying: "It's the same God, ain't it?" At this, I paused, for it sounded like such a strong sentence, as though a piece of moral values and truth was placed in the dialogue. I thought that what Calpurnia said was very true, even though I am not religious and therefore do not truly believe in God. Perhaps it is not so much to do with God as I thought that it had to do with us being the same. We all share something in common with everyone else. We are all of the same species, the same structure, and we all abide by the laws of life and nature. These laws, I believe, is that we all follow the same sequence of nature, we grow and we die. No specific type of race has a natural advantage over others, their is no race that lives particularly longer or are extremely smart or powerful. Even though our background and places of origin are different and may affect us, we are still quite alike. Are we not all living under the same sky? Do we not all eat and breathe and think? Who has the right to say one does not belong in a public place? No one should have such a right, regardless of race or colour.
It is tragic though, for no one is completely free of prejudice (at least I think). Do we really look/judge solely with our hearts and not with our eyes? I don't believe so, for looking with the heart usually only supports or balances our judgment of appearance, it does not provide the whole opinion. I usually don't believe those who say they have no prejudice, I think that they are either lying , or they are one of those people who are able to bring forth their heart's judgment before their eyes', or at least use inner judgment more than the judgment of appearance.
When will we rid ourselves of prejudice? But then again, is it completely necessary? Is it good enough to balance our eyes' judgment with our heart's? I'm not sure, but perhaps it is.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)