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.

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.

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.

 

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.

BBC News' Who, What, Why: What is 'ungoogleable'? Non-Fiction Blog Post

This article talks about "ungoogleability", why some people would or would not want to be "ungoogleable", and whether or not one can actually be completely "ungoogleable". The author wants me to know why some people would want to be "ungoogleable" or why others would not. As the author says: " To be ungoogleable might be a blessing or a curse." The author explains this by including examples of how some companies may want to be known on Google so customers may find them easily, while someone may want to be invisible on Google so his/her past will not affect his/her future (his/her past won't be available for the world to see). "Ungoogleability" means more privacy. The author explains that many things can be found on Google nowadays, and though some may be harder to find than others, with more thinking and time, one would most likely still find the answer, as said in the article: "...even supposedly ungoogleable things can usually be found. Most people use Google in haste. But a bit of thinking can often turn up the correct result."

The author wants me to feel/understand each of the situations (wanting to be ungoogleable and not wanting to be ungoogleable). He/she does so by adding details into his/her examples so the reader fully understands each problem. He/she also adds phrases such as "shooting itself in the foot" to give readers an even better understanding by relating to such well-known phrases. He/she also wants readers to understand  how "powerful" Google is, and how hard it is to truly stay invisible to Google. He/she makes readers believe Google is powerful and hard to stay invisible to, by adding personification. For example, the author says: "Trying to outwit Google's search capability has been popular for a while." By using the term "outwit" it implies that Google can think, and thinking is a very human action, an action that can usually only be performed by a living thing.   

I personally would want to be considerably ungoogleable. Perhaps not completely invisible, but as of right now, I wouldn't want the world to know who I am. I would become extremely annoyed if people could know about me without my permission as one would if he/she had information posted on the internet. It makes me feel that my identity is not in my hands. If I had a company though, I would not want to be invisible on Google at all. I think the author did well with helping me understand each situation and I agree with each situation as to why in some cases it's best to be ungoogleable and not ungoogleable in others. I do wonder though, is it possible to stay ungoogleable throughout one's life, or is "ungoogleable" simply a wish that will always be out of reach?

To Kill A Mockingbird 2

Is Love the Truly the Most Powerful?



I have finally continued reading To Kill A Mockingbird (as I was previously finishing Yeh Yeh's House) by Harper Lee. The problem is beginning to surface as the problem is worsening in the story. Scout's and Jem's father, Atticus, is taking a case (as he is a lawyer) involving Tom Robinson (an African American man) being his client as well as the person who is being charged. Since Scout and her family live in a Southern Alabama town at the time of extreme racism against African Americans, they are facing much criticism from the townspeople and even their relatives, as Atticus is helping a black man. Scout and Jem find it hard to control their rage when people talk badly about their father, but Atticus tells them to let it go as he knows that it will only get worse so getting angry and violent will not help. This is all I have read so far.

I found it strange how most of the people Atticus, Scout, and Jem knew as friends and family, turned against them because Atticus was defending a black man. Does the answer of whether or not someone should be helped depend on the person's colour rather than our own moral values? Apparently, at that time, the answer was yes. It was both saddening and enraging how Scout's relatives said Atticus ruined their family by helping a black man; this is not how people should speak about a family member in times of trouble! Shouldn't Scout's relatives, rather than criticize Atticus, encourage him that these harsh times will pass? What is the point of "family" when you can't even count on them to support you and encourage you to stay determined in times of physical/mental need?

Hate is just as, or perhaps more powerful, than love. Scout's relatives hate for African Americans ruined their love for her, Jem, and Atticus. I did not think this at first as I challenged myself with examples where love is greater than hate, for example, Romeo and Juliet. Their love ended their families' hate for each other. However, when I thought about it further, I realized that's not true (that love is more powerful), since hate was the reason why Romeo and Juliet died in the first place. I am still trying to prove my conclusion wrong, as the world would be such a dark and sad place if hate was the strongest power of all. 

Love may be strong, but, though I hope not, perhaps hate is stronger.

Daughter of Smoke and Bone

 Devils, Family, or Both?



 I have begun reading Daughter of Smoke and Bone by Laini Taylor. It is about seventeen-year old Karou, who is an art student in the city of Prague. She sketches the monstrous (literally) characters of her "stories" into her sketchbooks and her friends and classmates often "read" her sketchbooks and praise Karou for her wild imagination. Only Karou knows that the "stories" and her characters are real. She doesn't know much about her past, only that the chimaera (the monsters she sketch) have been the only family she has ever known. The chimaera have the power to give wishes (wishes come in solid forms such as beads and coins), yet they are not good beings. The main chimaera of the group is Brimstone (he has Ram horns and the eyes of a crocodile), the one who has always seemed like Karou's father, and he often sends her on errands to bring back teeth (for a reason still unknown, Brimstone collects teeth, and not for a hobby but for serious purposes). Regardless of the animal or person the teeth belonged to, or whether or not it was legal to take the teeth, she is always sent to retrieve them. Karou's errands may be close in distance or very far, yet distance is not too much of an issue as they have portals that transport them to all destinations. Black hand prints have been scorched into the doors of the portals by creatures that either are or are similar to, angels, because apparently Brimstone and the chimaera are devils. However, Karou does not know this yet. This is all I have read so far.

I am curious as to how Karou will react when/if she finds out what Brimstone and the chimaera are. Would she stay in denial? Would she defend her "family"? Or would she abandon them, too scared, shocked, and angered to return? I feel conflicted on whether I would want Karou to stand with her "family" or against them if she discovered the truth. I believe that wrongdoings should be acknowledged, that the person who committed the wrong should pay consequences, yet I also believe that one should stand for his/her family if his/her family has always stood up for him/her and cares for him/her. It does not make a difference whether or not there is a blood relationship because family doesn't have to be biologically related, which makes me want Karou to stand for her family even more, as she is not technically related to the chimaera, yet they still took care of her. However, obviously I can't say that just because they took care of Karou that they are good creatures, if they actually are devils, then they can't be truly good, can they? Can kindness and the warm sense of family come from the hearts of the evil? I think it could, yet would people feel more compassion towards those beings if those beings showed kindness? Or would it make no difference to anyone except for those who received the kindness of the evil? I believe that Karou should stand for her family, yet, the devil is evil so when I compare this situation with people who are evil, I find that I don't want other people to stand up for them. Is it because I don't believe that evil people can be kind? I'm not sure. It's strange how I seem to feel more compassion for the monsters in the book than for real people who committed extreme wrongs in real life. Do those people deserve compassion? I simply don't know.