Reality TV. Oxymoron. It just defies logic that something designed to appeal to an audience and is edited can qualify as reality. Yet it has to if it wants to be on TV. And so it goes back and forth, the people react in a real way, they don't have scripts, but the producers got to choose who is on the show and what parts to show.
But really, what does reality TV offer? A chance for people to observe the dark side of the human condition. The shows generally revolve around some kind of prize because who would put themselves through that willingly without a pay off? Actually lots of people would, being famous is the top choice now between fame and riches in surveys. Never mind it never says what you are famous for, it could be because you managed to flunk out of more schools than anyone else ever.
Why is this? Why are people obsessed with fame? What is so appealing about being constantly observed by thousands upon millions of people? Is it a product of high school? Advertising? Or is it actually a part of simply being human?
Lets look at them all. First on the list is the idea of high school.
In high school there are cliques, it is that way for teens, no matter where you are. And there are the groups of people everyone knows, or know someone who knows. Why? These kids are the ones who are louder in class, more confident in their assumptions maybe. Or the genius, the one kid who knows everything in every class that they are in. Then there is the outsider, the one who is outside everything you expect to the point they stand out simply because it is what they do. And finally the goofs, those people who are known because they are the targets for the bullies, the screw ups, the people everyone gets to mock.
Therefore we see people who are known in high school, and for myself at least i felt an envy for them, i wasn't the most widely known (that might have changed in the last few years, i am not sure). And i have to wonder, this being known, is it addicting for the people in high school? Do we learn there that being known means being popular, that it is always a good thing? High School, and the school system in general seems to lean towards that it is, but that may just be social interaction.
Now to look at the idea it is part of the human condition. Humans have evolved through millions of years to the state we are now (sorry if you don't believe that, but your gonna have a problem with a lot of stuff i write if you don't). Now the way the theory of evolution works is that the more you reproduce the more your genes are passed on. If your genes get passes on a lot they become the norm. When you are the hunter/warrior/magician that everyone knows in the tribe you are probably gonna get opportunities to have sex. Therefore these people who are famous got to pass on their genes. If there was anything in those genes which encouraged becoming well known they would get passed along, becoming part of the human race.
Even if it was just the desire for fame was part of the genes then it still would get passed on. Even if it was something where becoming well known was simply a side effect like being an alpha male/female it has since probably become part of who we all are, the same way it is common to have strong sexual desires (after all if you wanna pass your genes along your gonna need to have a lot of sex, and i mean A LOT!).
The final one is of course something which gets a lot of blame for the problems now. Society itself. We are a culture of attention whores. Yes we are. Yes we are. Deal with it. You don't like attention? Probably actually kinda common, but i bet you are also kinda jealous of those people who are funny or smart and sit there with everyone looking at them and don't feel nervous at all.
Or do you look at celebrities? Do you read magazines with famous people on the covers and skim through the articles about them? Do you mock certain famous people? Guess what?
Paying attention to it means you are participating in the cycle which makes you... can you guess? ... An attention whore. That's right, i am one too don't worry, i don't think i am that special. Yes, i think participating in the cycle makes you a part of it. And once you are a part of it i get to call you attention whore (i really like typing that and don't know why).
We live in a society where even if you don't really like celebrity you have to know about it, like it or not. How many people know that Brittney Spears shaved her head at some point? If you did just write i did in the comments.
We see all these famous people who may not have their lives together but they get to go out and spend time with other perfect looking people and buy insanely expensive things that at times are simply ridiculous but still kinda cool. In seeing these kinds of lives is it all that odd that we think we would be better suited for it, buying only practical things, giving to charity, keeping a level head when dealing with the paparazzi. We might think we could do it all, and so we want our chance to try.
And that is what reality TV offers a chance to do, to make the money needed for it and jump start the fame as well. But in the end it isn't real, your fame will fade because you stop producing drama for free, and within a year (at the most except for the lucky few) you will be gone from the public as they fawn over their new favorite as well as the actors and actresses who were they before you and will be after.
In the end it all looks to be a fantasy wrapped in delusions hacked apart through editing until it might as well be a soap opera. Reality? Try cheap, the true reason there are so many. They are the cheapest show that networks can do because they don't need actors except for the host, they don't need sets, and people volunteer. And its why i wont watch, i try to pull out from the cycle as much as i can.
And yet here i am writing for other people, contributing to the media, proving that i too am an attention whore.
27.5.09
25.5.09
Anorexic Nestlé Cow
Hello out there in internet land. What are you doing here? You have the world at you fingertips! The most comprehensive grouping of information available since the first recordings of human discovery is sitting in front of you and yet your reading my ramblings? Wow.
Either i am good or you are REALLY bored. Well as long as you are here i might as well continue rambling. Yes, yes i am your dancing monkey and here comes the music.
I work in a grocery store, more specifically in the dairy/frozen department of an unnamed grocery store. This store will remain unnamed so they don't fire me because more than likely i will rant about how much i hate them so...
But there is time for that later, right now i want to talk about a line of products put out by Nestlé which are the skinny cow ice cream snacks.
These snacks freak me out every single time i look at them. I mean seriously i defy you to look at that cow for more than 30 seconds without wincing once (and yes wincing in your mind counts!).
Here is a link to what a regular cow is supposed to look like: COW
Ya, look at those cows. Compare. Seriously, wtf!!!!
This cow actively looks like it is suffering from some kind of internal parasite. If i saw a cow that looked that unhealthy i would wonder why someone hadn't shot it for its own good. Like really, this product is the thing that pisses me off most in the world. (yes more than taco bell, mcdonalds, or STYROFOAM!!! oh how i hate Styrofoam too...)
This cow is an advertisement for anorexia, yes i know it seems like over reacting but when you consider how frighteningly common eating disorders are becoming it is a little more disgusting that this is how a giant company chooses to advertise.
Don't get me wrong, i don't like anything that proclaims fat-free, low fat, low carb, fiber, or anything like that. Nutrition is simply too complex a thing for us to try and analyze, as with most things it becomes increasingly specialized within its own field until you can study just one nutrient and understand it to the loss of all the others (and you probably wont understand it either). Just eat real foods, people have survived on it for a very long time, i am sure you will be fine.
My problem is a cow that is thinner than most people i know! Parents are now supposed to be on the lookout for eating disorders in their children under 10. That is ridiculous. And yet there are websites out there for people who are "pro-ana" which stands for pro anorexia. Yes, that exists too.
Anorexia is not something to advocate for, it is a mental disorder. When you avoid eating the way someone with anorexia does your organs to not get enough nutrients to actually grow. Your heart, lungs and liver as well as other internal organs do not grow when they are supposed to so that they will remain undersized for the rest of your life.
Please, don't listen to the dieing cow, eat fresh fruit and vegitables. Exersise. And be happy with who you are, it will serve you better in the long run.
23.5.09
Shortest Post
This will be my shortest post, or so i hope. The actual topic is aviator sunglasses. Here is what i have to say:
You don't look good in them, no matter who you are, you look like a bug or an alien. I don't care what your friends say, they are just being nice. You don't look good in them, no one does.
You don't look good in them, no matter who you are, you look like a bug or an alien. I don't care what your friends say, they are just being nice. You don't look good in them, no one does.
20.5.09
Writing From Wes
So i am sitting here thinking what to write, what to write? And the thing that comes to my mind is the book i am reading now. I finished the book the Scalpel The Sword yesterday and today began Nightlife by Rob Thurman.
Honesty this work reminds me of Jim Butcher, minus some of the skill. Which is not a bad thing, as Jim Butcher is (in my humble opinion) a very good author, so to minus only some skill is saying that while he is good, he is not as good.
Which brings me to a brief recommendation. Read the Dresden Files by Jim Butcher until you get bored of them, and see what someone who has learned how to write rather than picked it up. He talks about in his blog the technique which he uses to write, and explains where he learned it.
Which actually kind of brings me to a different topic. Well, different than the one i was planning. I was going to talk about, well write about, how reading something good makes it difficult to write, but now i want to write about how some people learn to write. And more specifically how i learned to write.
Learning to write was not something that school did for me. They had us write stories in grade school and essays as we got older. To say that school encouraged me to write would be a lie. That's not to say that my early teachers told me to never ever try to write anything because it would be a crime against the literary gods (i bow and prostrate before you). Rather i never got told that i should be writing, or that i should be encouraged at all.
And no this is not a whiny complaint against my teachers, they were good enough to teach me most of the basics.
But writing properly was never really taught, we were taught the format, aka:
- a story must have a beginning, a middle, and a end
- a story must have a conflict
- a story must have a main character
- stories are better if they have other characters
and that was about it. Were we taught about description? About the power of words to stir people, to raise up your emotions? No we weren't.
Do you remember me referring to the 10,000 hours necessary to become a master at anything? That means that you need to be encouraged to do something throughout your teens to be ready for university. That means that you need to begin writing back when you are 10 years old. Grade 6.
Your talent needs to be encouraged and people need you to start writing or playing the piano or whatever when you are 10.
But this is another flaw in the modern school system, there is all kinds of support should you be smart (aka good at science/math/english/any other class), and there is all kinds of support should you display a talent in some other art such as music or painting. But no teacher watches for someone to be good at writing.
And i think it is partially the fault of Shakespeare and other classic authors, and the rest of the blame goes to Stephanie Myer and J.K. Rowling.
The idea that authors such as Shakespeare and crew cannot be matched by our modern authors means that no matter how good the little kid sitting in the fourth row back writes he isn't a match, so why try? Teachers go through just as much school training as most of us, they learned about each of these authors, hell probably read more of them than the rest of us. It certainly places them in a position where they are the one most likely to start the encouragement. After all, aren't parents more likely to notice if the teacher points it out?
Now the second part of the blame goes to J.K. Rowling and Miss Myer as they are the tip top of the modern author. What does that mean? Well in complexity of work and character development they both are about as skilled as George Bush writing anything more complicated than his name(sorry for the personal attacks here, but i needed something that was both something i would say and would explain my point).
Neither of them develops their characters very well, both of them are light on artistic descriptions, and yet both with their simple plots have dominated the literary world, resulting in so many people spending hours at a time interpreting their words. I've been over this before, i am jealous, but it also places even more of a burden on kids. They are reading Harry Potter and its not all that more complicated than their own work and yet the teacher doesn't respond. Way to kill the dream.
Ya this post has been filled with my cynical bitterness and yet i still feel like there is something missing. Something that needs to be said...
Ah yes, how i learned to write, since i wasn't encouraged and didn't start writing for pleasure until grade 11 it does feel like i owe a bit of an explanation(particularly to those who for some reason think i am good). Its simply really, i did too things.
I read.
And i thought about what i read.
If you read a lot of things and think about what makes each and every one of them a decent/terrible read eventually you are gonna know how to write something. Either that, or your a sad pathetic waste of skin who needs to be shot for his own good(you know who you are). As for writing good, i still don't think i do, and i hope i never do because as long as i think my writing isn't good enough i am going to keep reading and keep trying to do better.
Who knows, maybe i can get my 10,000 hours by the time i am 25.
Here's to hoping!
Honesty this work reminds me of Jim Butcher, minus some of the skill. Which is not a bad thing, as Jim Butcher is (in my humble opinion) a very good author, so to minus only some skill is saying that while he is good, he is not as good.
Which brings me to a brief recommendation. Read the Dresden Files by Jim Butcher until you get bored of them, and see what someone who has learned how to write rather than picked it up. He talks about in his blog the technique which he uses to write, and explains where he learned it.
Which actually kind of brings me to a different topic. Well, different than the one i was planning. I was going to talk about, well write about, how reading something good makes it difficult to write, but now i want to write about how some people learn to write. And more specifically how i learned to write.
Learning to write was not something that school did for me. They had us write stories in grade school and essays as we got older. To say that school encouraged me to write would be a lie. That's not to say that my early teachers told me to never ever try to write anything because it would be a crime against the literary gods (i bow and prostrate before you). Rather i never got told that i should be writing, or that i should be encouraged at all.
And no this is not a whiny complaint against my teachers, they were good enough to teach me most of the basics.
But writing properly was never really taught, we were taught the format, aka:
- a story must have a beginning, a middle, and a end
- a story must have a conflict
- a story must have a main character
- stories are better if they have other characters
and that was about it. Were we taught about description? About the power of words to stir people, to raise up your emotions? No we weren't.
Do you remember me referring to the 10,000 hours necessary to become a master at anything? That means that you need to be encouraged to do something throughout your teens to be ready for university. That means that you need to begin writing back when you are 10 years old. Grade 6.
Your talent needs to be encouraged and people need you to start writing or playing the piano or whatever when you are 10.
But this is another flaw in the modern school system, there is all kinds of support should you be smart (aka good at science/math/english/any other class), and there is all kinds of support should you display a talent in some other art such as music or painting. But no teacher watches for someone to be good at writing.
And i think it is partially the fault of Shakespeare and other classic authors, and the rest of the blame goes to Stephanie Myer and J.K. Rowling.
The idea that authors such as Shakespeare and crew cannot be matched by our modern authors means that no matter how good the little kid sitting in the fourth row back writes he isn't a match, so why try? Teachers go through just as much school training as most of us, they learned about each of these authors, hell probably read more of them than the rest of us. It certainly places them in a position where they are the one most likely to start the encouragement. After all, aren't parents more likely to notice if the teacher points it out?
Now the second part of the blame goes to J.K. Rowling and Miss Myer as they are the tip top of the modern author. What does that mean? Well in complexity of work and character development they both are about as skilled as George Bush writing anything more complicated than his name(sorry for the personal attacks here, but i needed something that was both something i would say and would explain my point).
Neither of them develops their characters very well, both of them are light on artistic descriptions, and yet both with their simple plots have dominated the literary world, resulting in so many people spending hours at a time interpreting their words. I've been over this before, i am jealous, but it also places even more of a burden on kids. They are reading Harry Potter and its not all that more complicated than their own work and yet the teacher doesn't respond. Way to kill the dream.
Ya this post has been filled with my cynical bitterness and yet i still feel like there is something missing. Something that needs to be said...
Ah yes, how i learned to write, since i wasn't encouraged and didn't start writing for pleasure until grade 11 it does feel like i owe a bit of an explanation(particularly to those who for some reason think i am good). Its simply really, i did too things.
I read.
And i thought about what i read.
If you read a lot of things and think about what makes each and every one of them a decent/terrible read eventually you are gonna know how to write something. Either that, or your a sad pathetic waste of skin who needs to be shot for his own good(you know who you are). As for writing good, i still don't think i do, and i hope i never do because as long as i think my writing isn't good enough i am going to keep reading and keep trying to do better.
Who knows, maybe i can get my 10,000 hours by the time i am 25.
Here's to hoping!
Cottage Life
So yesterday i got back from a cottage trip and it left me with a bunch of thoughts, first one being how awesome it was. I got to spend 4 days with my girlfriend without parents around, all day and night. I just became so simply relaxing for my body and soul.
It just felt so renewing and refreshing to just be, just do, not worry about work or parents, or chores or anything at all. It was all around wonderful.
And yet the moment i got there i felt the bullshit.
In order to understand this point fully i need to travel back to high school (shocking, i seemed to have actually learned a lot there). It was a movie we watched about the death of suburbia. And it talks about how suburbia was supposed to blend the best of the urban life with the rural life.
This means that it is supposed to be close enough to walk wherever you need (urban good side). At the same time it is supposed to be far enough away from the city that you get to experience nature- note the yard(rural good side).
Seems awesome right? Now the problem is that it doesn't work that way. I mean you can live in suburbia and live close enough to walk, but close enough to be convenient in the modern mind? Nope. Furthermore has anyone ever seen nature in suburbia? I haven't besides the squirrels and the birds and the occasional raccoon/skunk.
Sorry people, doesn't count. Most nature you wont even see in actual forests cause animals have smartened up to avoid people, we tend to kill them/trap them/poison them.
So suburbia is basically a house with lots of space and creature comforts and a yard which we can design the way we want.
And what is a cottage? A house with a lake view and a yard you can design, so close to your neighbors that all the animals run away.
The trip up there was fun but at the same time it would have been just as fun to hang out at a house without parents down here. Because that's what it was, a house with a very nice view of water, in suburbia. Forget real nature, it seems to me to simply be an imitation that makes you feel a little bit better and you don't have to worry about the dust there as much.
It just felt so renewing and refreshing to just be, just do, not worry about work or parents, or chores or anything at all. It was all around wonderful.
And yet the moment i got there i felt the bullshit.
In order to understand this point fully i need to travel back to high school (shocking, i seemed to have actually learned a lot there). It was a movie we watched about the death of suburbia. And it talks about how suburbia was supposed to blend the best of the urban life with the rural life.
This means that it is supposed to be close enough to walk wherever you need (urban good side). At the same time it is supposed to be far enough away from the city that you get to experience nature- note the yard(rural good side).
Seems awesome right? Now the problem is that it doesn't work that way. I mean you can live in suburbia and live close enough to walk, but close enough to be convenient in the modern mind? Nope. Furthermore has anyone ever seen nature in suburbia? I haven't besides the squirrels and the birds and the occasional raccoon/skunk.
Sorry people, doesn't count. Most nature you wont even see in actual forests cause animals have smartened up to avoid people, we tend to kill them/trap them/poison them.
So suburbia is basically a house with lots of space and creature comforts and a yard which we can design the way we want.
And what is a cottage? A house with a lake view and a yard you can design, so close to your neighbors that all the animals run away.
The trip up there was fun but at the same time it would have been just as fun to hang out at a house without parents down here. Because that's what it was, a house with a very nice view of water, in suburbia. Forget real nature, it seems to me to simply be an imitation that makes you feel a little bit better and you don't have to worry about the dust there as much.
14.5.09
My Talent, Your Talent, or The World's?
So last night i talked about writer's block and why i hate it. Because it blocks my talent. T0day i got up, and while i would like to say the first thing i thought of was the topic for this post, that would be a terrible, horrible lie. The reasons for that are A) this blog is not that massive a part of my life, it isn't. B) i am not that deep of a person that these things well up from solely inside me, they all have some connection to the real world. For me to try and claim it is all me is a lie, and steals credit from where it is due.
That is not to say that i don't take credit for my work in it, the conclusions i draw, the connections i find. That i due deserve credit for, but is every single detail here a result of just me? Hell to the no. Which brings me to the origin of this post.
See, i recorded this show that is on global and is AMAZING! (in my humble opinion) called Lie to Me. I watched it this morning when i woke up i rolled over, turned on my TV and started watching. Through the course of the episode one of the main character's boyfriend got injured and sent to the hospital. He was however MIA for most of the episode, and while her boss was aware of this he refused to tell her, knowing she was more useful if she remained ignorant of this.
At the tail end of the episode she confronts him about this and his response is "you still don't get it do you, it isn't all about you anymore. You have this talent, but it isn't yours and it isn't all about you anymore."
Now in this episode they are working to help stop terrorist attacks inside the United States, which we can all agree i hope is a good thing to do. Yet the moment she had found out that he was missing most likely she wouldn't have been able to do anything but wait for a call about him.
Now at first it seems cruel to force her to continue to work but consider how important it would be to do whatever you could to stop further attacks, yet the moment she found out she disappeared. Now this is understandable, someone you care deeply for is hurt, of course you want to be there.
But she is one of the few people who can tell what to look for to see someone lying. She has a talent that can save lives, if she stays focused, so does it still belong to her? Should it?
Now consider the book Outliers by Malcolm Gladwell in which he discusses the people whom do exceptionally well in the world, showing the factors which helped them. One of the keys is that anyone who becomes a "master" or "expert" at something has about 10,000 hours of practice.
It has even been found that no matter the starting talent, if you get your 10,000 hours you will be an expert. But think about how long that takes, there are 8760 hours in a year, meaning that if you simply do an activity for a year straight, no sleep, no breaks, no eating, you are almost an expert, and most defiantly a zombie.
Now at first this seems like no big deal, whoever practices the most gets to be the best, only fair right?
Wrong.
Consider economic factors, if someone has to work to save money to go to university, or college, or trade school, or even to help with their families bills they suddenly have less time. Then what about time spent with friends or family? What about school? You start to see the pattern here, the more advantages given the easier to get the 10,000 hours.
But this seems to display that you owe your "talent" to your environment more than yourself. Talent becomes more a gift given to you by the world you are in and less by something "special" about you. It reminds me of something from the show Californication where the main character is talking to his ex-not-wife and she says that the worst part is that he isn't writing, he has this incredible gift and he isn't using it.
Think about it, would it have been enough for her if he had been writing on his own? Probably because the way she cares about him, but deep down she would have been hoping for him to try and publish something else. In the end she wanted him to work more, to share his gift with the world. Don't most people have a kind of responsibility to do this? Share the talent, because if we don't then there is no meaning for it, and without meaning things tend to become worthless.
That is not to say that i don't take credit for my work in it, the conclusions i draw, the connections i find. That i due deserve credit for, but is every single detail here a result of just me? Hell to the no. Which brings me to the origin of this post.
See, i recorded this show that is on global and is AMAZING! (in my humble opinion) called Lie to Me. I watched it this morning when i woke up i rolled over, turned on my TV and started watching. Through the course of the episode one of the main character's boyfriend got injured and sent to the hospital. He was however MIA for most of the episode, and while her boss was aware of this he refused to tell her, knowing she was more useful if she remained ignorant of this.
At the tail end of the episode she confronts him about this and his response is "you still don't get it do you, it isn't all about you anymore. You have this talent, but it isn't yours and it isn't all about you anymore."
Now in this episode they are working to help stop terrorist attacks inside the United States, which we can all agree i hope is a good thing to do. Yet the moment she had found out that he was missing most likely she wouldn't have been able to do anything but wait for a call about him.
Now at first it seems cruel to force her to continue to work but consider how important it would be to do whatever you could to stop further attacks, yet the moment she found out she disappeared. Now this is understandable, someone you care deeply for is hurt, of course you want to be there.
But she is one of the few people who can tell what to look for to see someone lying. She has a talent that can save lives, if she stays focused, so does it still belong to her? Should it?
Now consider the book Outliers by Malcolm Gladwell in which he discusses the people whom do exceptionally well in the world, showing the factors which helped them. One of the keys is that anyone who becomes a "master" or "expert" at something has about 10,000 hours of practice.
It has even been found that no matter the starting talent, if you get your 10,000 hours you will be an expert. But think about how long that takes, there are 8760 hours in a year, meaning that if you simply do an activity for a year straight, no sleep, no breaks, no eating, you are almost an expert, and most defiantly a zombie.
Now at first this seems like no big deal, whoever practices the most gets to be the best, only fair right?
Wrong.
Consider economic factors, if someone has to work to save money to go to university, or college, or trade school, or even to help with their families bills they suddenly have less time. Then what about time spent with friends or family? What about school? You start to see the pattern here, the more advantages given the easier to get the 10,000 hours.
But this seems to display that you owe your "talent" to your environment more than yourself. Talent becomes more a gift given to you by the world you are in and less by something "special" about you. It reminds me of something from the show Californication where the main character is talking to his ex-not-wife and she says that the worst part is that he isn't writing, he has this incredible gift and he isn't using it.
Think about it, would it have been enough for her if he had been writing on his own? Probably because the way she cares about him, but deep down she would have been hoping for him to try and publish something else. In the end she wanted him to work more, to share his gift with the world. Don't most people have a kind of responsibility to do this? Share the talent, because if we don't then there is no meaning for it, and without meaning things tend to become worthless.
13.5.09
Writer's Block
So here i am, sitting on my lazy but preparing to write a new post, and what should wander its way into my head to write about? Nothing. At all. Which created an idea. Writer's block, most common bane of my existence, shortly followed by my job.
Why is writer's block so horrible? That has to be the most stupid question i have ever written. And yet the answer might be incredibly informative. Writer's block is frustrating to me because writing was the first thing i did that people said i did really well. It was my talent. And it is still, at least in theory.
So writer's block is my form of a baseball player's slump, where no matter what i do, nothing is right. Add to this that with my own writing nothing is ever good enough anyways and writer's block becomes my own personal pit of despair.
And yet i like it. Some sick, perverse part of me enjoys this suffering, this knowing that right now i can't produce anything great because out of it will come something better than before. And thats what gets me through my writer's block, that and forcing something out like this post. Something that i don't know where came from or where it is going.
Why is writer's block so horrible? That has to be the most stupid question i have ever written. And yet the answer might be incredibly informative. Writer's block is frustrating to me because writing was the first thing i did that people said i did really well. It was my talent. And it is still, at least in theory.
So writer's block is my form of a baseball player's slump, where no matter what i do, nothing is right. Add to this that with my own writing nothing is ever good enough anyways and writer's block becomes my own personal pit of despair.
And yet i like it. Some sick, perverse part of me enjoys this suffering, this knowing that right now i can't produce anything great because out of it will come something better than before. And thats what gets me through my writer's block, that and forcing something out like this post. Something that i don't know where came from or where it is going.
10.5.09
Calling Out to Vegans
So recently i have decided to attempt to decrease my intake of meat hoping for it to eventually lead to becoming completely vegetarian. Part of my steps toward this is looking up recipes online that i can make next year involving no meat (the reason i will make them next year is my dad used to be a beef farmer, seriously think i could live here and not eat meat?).
The way i look them up is to use an attachment for Firefox called StumbleUpon, which lets me go from random web page to random web page. Because i put vegetarianism as one of my interests i run across vegan website after vegan website. Both sites that offer information on what it is and sites that offer recipes.
My problem with these websites is that there is simply no justification for veganism that i can understand, most of them seem to be born of ignorance.
The way i understand it is vegans do not use animal products because of the fact that they believe this is morally wrong. Now in some instances i can understand this. Is it healthier to cut down on meat consumption? Yes. Is it morally wrong by my standards to feed animals hormones so that they produce more of a desirable product? Yes.
The problem is that there are farmers out there whose products are actually organic and raised in conditions which are not abuses tolerated simply because they increase profit. These would actually be the kinds of places you would want to buy food from if you actually want to effect change into the world.
Furthermore the idea of not eating meat is to keep animals alive correct? Well animals like chickens and cows have been raised by humans for so long that they would die off if no one was paid to keep them, especially considering how much food they eat.
Finally one thing i came across over and over is the idea that dairy cows don't like being milked. I can't comment for other species but i know that the Holsteins my dad used to have would make the same noises they made during birth if he was late for milking them. They have been bred for hundreds of years to increase the milk they produced until it became the amount they produce now which is more than their calves can even eat.
So with these things in mind consider your choices in life. And learn a little more before you judge.
The way i look them up is to use an attachment for Firefox called StumbleUpon, which lets me go from random web page to random web page. Because i put vegetarianism as one of my interests i run across vegan website after vegan website. Both sites that offer information on what it is and sites that offer recipes.
My problem with these websites is that there is simply no justification for veganism that i can understand, most of them seem to be born of ignorance.
The way i understand it is vegans do not use animal products because of the fact that they believe this is morally wrong. Now in some instances i can understand this. Is it healthier to cut down on meat consumption? Yes. Is it morally wrong by my standards to feed animals hormones so that they produce more of a desirable product? Yes.
The problem is that there are farmers out there whose products are actually organic and raised in conditions which are not abuses tolerated simply because they increase profit. These would actually be the kinds of places you would want to buy food from if you actually want to effect change into the world.
Furthermore the idea of not eating meat is to keep animals alive correct? Well animals like chickens and cows have been raised by humans for so long that they would die off if no one was paid to keep them, especially considering how much food they eat.
Finally one thing i came across over and over is the idea that dairy cows don't like being milked. I can't comment for other species but i know that the Holsteins my dad used to have would make the same noises they made during birth if he was late for milking them. They have been bred for hundreds of years to increase the milk they produced until it became the amount they produce now which is more than their calves can even eat.
So with these things in mind consider your choices in life. And learn a little more before you judge.
8.5.09
Scalple, Sword, Sad
So i just finished work at 11 o'clock and it is presently almost 12. I mention the time simply because that is why this post shall be both short and might not make as much sense.
Ok so in order to totally understand this post i am gonna need to tell a story from back in the day.
Back when i entered into grade 11, well entered isn't really right. Back when i was in high school in semester 2 some guy (or girl) decided to donate books to the school library. This seemed like a great idea to me because the school was new so we didn't really have any books.
For some stupid reason which i never understood (and probably never tried to understand) the school refused the offer and took all the books then threw them out. Well luckily for me and a bunch of other people i had english first period with Mrs P who loved books and gave permission for me and another guy named J to go out to the dumpster and pull them all out. Yes this is a dumpster dive tale.
We collect the shopping cart from Zellers that tends to sit around the school (another story, maybe in another post). I jumped into the dumpster and passed books out to him, he piled them into the cart and then we took it back to the class. Because we collected the books we got first pick from Mrs P.
Anywho one of the books i got was called The Scalpel, The Sword about the life of a brilliant Canadian surgeon who lived at the beginning of the 1900s. I never read it until now despite getting the book years ago. And i find it is a brilliant story. It is a work of captivating genius where it only has one character that you get any depth from and so few lines of actual dialogue and yet it is better than so many books that i have ever come across in the fiction side of the fence.
Which makes me question why is that? I mean fiction writers get so much room to play around, they create their own world, every single character, every thought and yet non-fiction seems to contain so much more quality than fiction. Why?
And the only conclusion i find is that it is far too easy to publish a book. (continued the next day, but don't worry i worked at 7 am so my rambling will be at least as bad as before)
I think the main virtue of these non-fiction books i have quoted so far, at least the ones about a specific person all share is that they are something which can show us what it means to truly feel empathetic. As well with books which are written about a person who has lived a famous life or changed the world in some manor we see what the protagonist of a novel truly should be like.
So many stories are about the man character who is completely ordinary and then thrust into a difficult situation where they need to develop new skills so they do. This shift in character is somewhat gradual but in the end is not as true to form as the person in a non-fiction book whom acts the same way through the entire book, seeming to simply become more of who they already are(don't know who said it first but it wasn't me).
Anywho my main point is this, read a few non-fiction books about people who changed the world. Make sure they have good authors. Then, after you get your taste of true characters from them, go back to fiction and start reading now that you know what a good book feels like.
Ok so in order to totally understand this post i am gonna need to tell a story from back in the day.
Back when i entered into grade 11, well entered isn't really right. Back when i was in high school in semester 2 some guy (or girl) decided to donate books to the school library. This seemed like a great idea to me because the school was new so we didn't really have any books.
For some stupid reason which i never understood (and probably never tried to understand) the school refused the offer and took all the books then threw them out. Well luckily for me and a bunch of other people i had english first period with Mrs P who loved books and gave permission for me and another guy named J to go out to the dumpster and pull them all out. Yes this is a dumpster dive tale.
We collect the shopping cart from Zellers that tends to sit around the school (another story, maybe in another post). I jumped into the dumpster and passed books out to him, he piled them into the cart and then we took it back to the class. Because we collected the books we got first pick from Mrs P.
Anywho one of the books i got was called The Scalpel, The Sword about the life of a brilliant Canadian surgeon who lived at the beginning of the 1900s. I never read it until now despite getting the book years ago. And i find it is a brilliant story. It is a work of captivating genius where it only has one character that you get any depth from and so few lines of actual dialogue and yet it is better than so many books that i have ever come across in the fiction side of the fence.
Which makes me question why is that? I mean fiction writers get so much room to play around, they create their own world, every single character, every thought and yet non-fiction seems to contain so much more quality than fiction. Why?
And the only conclusion i find is that it is far too easy to publish a book. (continued the next day, but don't worry i worked at 7 am so my rambling will be at least as bad as before)
I think the main virtue of these non-fiction books i have quoted so far, at least the ones about a specific person all share is that they are something which can show us what it means to truly feel empathetic. As well with books which are written about a person who has lived a famous life or changed the world in some manor we see what the protagonist of a novel truly should be like.
So many stories are about the man character who is completely ordinary and then thrust into a difficult situation where they need to develop new skills so they do. This shift in character is somewhat gradual but in the end is not as true to form as the person in a non-fiction book whom acts the same way through the entire book, seeming to simply become more of who they already are(don't know who said it first but it wasn't me).
Anywho my main point is this, read a few non-fiction books about people who changed the world. Make sure they have good authors. Then, after you get your taste of true characters from them, go back to fiction and start reading now that you know what a good book feels like.
6.5.09
Blind Faith
So while i would like to write another post simply expounding out great books and all the reasons why you should read them instead i find it nessesary to write this one about the death of privacy (but luckily i am using a book as a prop so i get the best of both worlds :D).
See, the book Blind Faith by Ben Elton takes place in a future world where privacy has been deemed a perversion of the worst regard. People spend the majority of their lives broadcasting themselves online, everything from their birth, to their first time having sex, to nights spent making love to their husband or wife.
His book is loosely based on the plot of the book 1984 by George Orwell. I hope you know the basic dealio but if not let me lay it out.
The government is now an authoritarian state where if they consider you a threat, your a threat, and threats must be killed. Faith is one of the most important things in Blind Faith, the church and the government are basically the same thing. Science has been labeled about as bad as privacy and books. Yes, books are also banned. There are people resiting but they aren't very successful.
Now the reason i am writing about this is because i have a problem with the lack of privacy increasing over the internet. Sites like facebook and flicker are both things which promote the utter lack of privacy in increasing ways.
There was a section on a radio broadcast not long ago where one of the DJs talked about how they were "friends" with members of Coldplay and Green Day. The other responded with "no, your not, they don't really care that much about what happens to you.I'm your friend, but they are just people you follow online."
My problem with this is the same one i have with facebook. There are people on facebook who have 700 and some odd friends, and to call them all friends is insane. To think that you have the level of intamacy with that number of people to call them friends is simply nuts.
Things like reality TV and websites like these reduce privacy and the idea of privacy. There was once a time where if you wanted to watch someone break down and express every single range of emotion and laugh at them you watched Jerry Springer. Now instead you flick to nearly any channel and you can usually find something on throughout the day where you can mock people.
And yes i know i am on facebook, i admit i am a bit of a sellout, i want to expand my network in an effort to help myself become both more well rounded and more successful as an author. I know that i don't really stand up against it enough anymore but what i dislike is more people calling several hundred people friends or handing out updates to whoever feel like it.
See, the book Blind Faith by Ben Elton takes place in a future world where privacy has been deemed a perversion of the worst regard. People spend the majority of their lives broadcasting themselves online, everything from their birth, to their first time having sex, to nights spent making love to their husband or wife.
His book is loosely based on the plot of the book 1984 by George Orwell. I hope you know the basic dealio but if not let me lay it out.
The government is now an authoritarian state where if they consider you a threat, your a threat, and threats must be killed. Faith is one of the most important things in Blind Faith, the church and the government are basically the same thing. Science has been labeled about as bad as privacy and books. Yes, books are also banned. There are people resiting but they aren't very successful.
Now the reason i am writing about this is because i have a problem with the lack of privacy increasing over the internet. Sites like facebook and flicker are both things which promote the utter lack of privacy in increasing ways.
There was a section on a radio broadcast not long ago where one of the DJs talked about how they were "friends" with members of Coldplay and Green Day. The other responded with "no, your not, they don't really care that much about what happens to you.I'm your friend, but they are just people you follow online."
My problem with this is the same one i have with facebook. There are people on facebook who have 700 and some odd friends, and to call them all friends is insane. To think that you have the level of intamacy with that number of people to call them friends is simply nuts.
Things like reality TV and websites like these reduce privacy and the idea of privacy. There was once a time where if you wanted to watch someone break down and express every single range of emotion and laugh at them you watched Jerry Springer. Now instead you flick to nearly any channel and you can usually find something on throughout the day where you can mock people.
And yes i know i am on facebook, i admit i am a bit of a sellout, i want to expand my network in an effort to help myself become both more well rounded and more successful as an author. I know that i don't really stand up against it enough anymore but what i dislike is more people calling several hundred people friends or handing out updates to whoever feel like it.
Books
So i said i would post a list of books i think people should read in order to be considered, by me at least, a well read person of modern authors. Here it is, my list.
First i think people need to read non-fiction. It is no good simply to read fantasy books or mystery books or whatever genre you choose. By doing this you begin to exist within a simple echo chamber where you ignore all the real things going on around you. Furthermore the real word contains some of the greatest wonders possible (ha, possible, that's a good thing considering they are REAL) and also, for me at least, are very easy to empathize with.
So for the non-fiction books i recommend i say anything by Malcolm Gladwell. He writes books which have become massively successful about what makes ideas, or people successful and does it in a way which to me was engaging and made me think about what he was saying. Someone like my little sister finds them to be tiring to read and i have to agree, they are books which take time to digest but are well worth the effort.
I highly recommend the book Lucky by Alice Sebold, as well as any of her other books. All of her works are quite depressing yet they also are beautiful. It reminds me of the idea of seeing the beauty in the profain. Lucky is her autobiography which is simply... moving. If that book does not ensipire empathy within you and some kind of... pain inside then you are simply as hard as stone and as unfeeling as... i don't know what, it is beyond me to describe it. She is simply the best writer i have ever read, and if one day i can even be compared to her in a slight manor then i will consider it a success. I also recommend reading her fiction works as they both are simply brilliant too.
The next book i will recommend is also a none fiction book which couldn't help but remind me of Alice, it is called Bloodletting by Victoria Leatham. This is also an autobiography, though her story deals with something perhaps not as horrifying as Alice's at first but then slowly it seeps inside you and brings about an understanding which is as difficult to avoid as a bullet from point blank range.
I am also going to recommend the book The Game by Neil Strauss. At first this seems like the kind of book that will only be read by horny men, be they 13 or 39 (or older) but if you read it eventually you begin to find a story that in a way is similar to so many fantasy books. A young student seeks a power and begins to train under masters to gain it. Eventually he becomes on of the greatest and slowly is corrupted by his own power, until at the final moments he realizes it and gives it up for love. Whether or not this continues on into his life is up to the reader to imagine but the story is something you should read.
Don't give up on non-fiction books, these are only a few of the great ones i have read. In fact most non-fiction i read contains a brilliant story that just needs to be understood. The interpretation of writing we do tends to lend deeper meaning to works than actually is often there, but it teaches us about ourselves. non-fiction can do this very well if it is simply given the chance. The next list will be probably the longest, the Fantasy Genre.
First i think people need to read non-fiction. It is no good simply to read fantasy books or mystery books or whatever genre you choose. By doing this you begin to exist within a simple echo chamber where you ignore all the real things going on around you. Furthermore the real word contains some of the greatest wonders possible (ha, possible, that's a good thing considering they are REAL) and also, for me at least, are very easy to empathize with.
So for the non-fiction books i recommend i say anything by Malcolm Gladwell. He writes books which have become massively successful about what makes ideas, or people successful and does it in a way which to me was engaging and made me think about what he was saying. Someone like my little sister finds them to be tiring to read and i have to agree, they are books which take time to digest but are well worth the effort.
I highly recommend the book Lucky by Alice Sebold, as well as any of her other books. All of her works are quite depressing yet they also are beautiful. It reminds me of the idea of seeing the beauty in the profain. Lucky is her autobiography which is simply... moving. If that book does not ensipire empathy within you and some kind of... pain inside then you are simply as hard as stone and as unfeeling as... i don't know what, it is beyond me to describe it. She is simply the best writer i have ever read, and if one day i can even be compared to her in a slight manor then i will consider it a success. I also recommend reading her fiction works as they both are simply brilliant too.
The next book i will recommend is also a none fiction book which couldn't help but remind me of Alice, it is called Bloodletting by Victoria Leatham. This is also an autobiography, though her story deals with something perhaps not as horrifying as Alice's at first but then slowly it seeps inside you and brings about an understanding which is as difficult to avoid as a bullet from point blank range.
I am also going to recommend the book The Game by Neil Strauss. At first this seems like the kind of book that will only be read by horny men, be they 13 or 39 (or older) but if you read it eventually you begin to find a story that in a way is similar to so many fantasy books. A young student seeks a power and begins to train under masters to gain it. Eventually he becomes on of the greatest and slowly is corrupted by his own power, until at the final moments he realizes it and gives it up for love. Whether or not this continues on into his life is up to the reader to imagine but the story is something you should read.
Don't give up on non-fiction books, these are only a few of the great ones i have read. In fact most non-fiction i read contains a brilliant story that just needs to be understood. The interpretation of writing we do tends to lend deeper meaning to works than actually is often there, but it teaches us about ourselves. non-fiction can do this very well if it is simply given the chance. The next list will be probably the longest, the Fantasy Genre.
5.5.09
Twilight
So anyone who knows me on any kind of personal level knows that one of my major pet peeves is Twilight, well, the Twilight series. They have been a pet peeve of mine ever since i read them in July last year.
Why you may ask do i hate Twilight so much? Is it simply because everyone else likes it? (as one friend suggested i might?) Is it because i am a deeply religious person who believes that Twilight is a crime against God (HA!)? Could it be because i am secretly jealous of her?
In reality the reason i give for disliking Twilight is because i believe that the writing is complete and utter crap.
But in a way it is those other reasons too. I do dislike it because it is popular, because i believe that twilight is tooo popular. There are many other authors out there who have just as much talent as her, or more. Yet she somehow became this amazingly popular author with work that strikes me as mediocre at best. So i dislike them because this book becomes the standard for good writing and anything harder than it or more complicated than it is deemed not good enough. So i dislike it because it becomes the standard simply because so many people like it that if you don't you must hate it because it is popular or because something is wrong with you rather than simply being well read and realizing it isn't that great.
As for the crime against God comment there, i threw that in because it was simply a reason and i needed a few more. But thinking about it now i have a few things to say (i love tangents). First and foremost, even though i dislike Twilight i would hardly call it a crime against God, against the gods of literature sure (if they exist) but the Almighty descibed in the bible? i doubt it.
Lets for fun examine the reasons why it could be:
- Supernatural creatures, nope they are in the bible
- Murder, nope they are in the bible
- Lust, DEFFINATLY in the bible
- Defying ones parents, in the bible
- Motercycles, ok not in the bible but i don't recall them being forbidden either
- Swear word, they might be bad but i don't think the bible forbids them either
- Violence, anyone note what happens in Egypt all the time? or to Jesus?
- Devorce, there we go, the one thing forbidden that i cannot get around.
So twilight is a crime against the Christan God and probably a couple others because the main character's parents are devorced.
And as for the final reason, am i secretly jealous of her? Yes. How could i not be jealous of her? I want to one day be a published author and i have to say i doubt i will ever be anywhere near as successful as she has been with these 4 books. So yes, i do dislike her also because i am jealous of her.
My main problem with her though is the same problem i have with Shakespeare. Beware fans, i am gonna tear them both apart even if it alienates everyone i know.
Shakespeare wasn't good in his time. Did you get that? I said Shakespeare was not good in his time. As in his works made money but not much, as in people went to see it but it wasn't the favourite. In fact the main reason he was successful was because the queen happened to be a fan.
Did you get that? The reason that teenagers are forced to read these ancient works in english is simply because it appealed to one royal back in the century.
That is not to say his work does not contain its own moments of beauty. Or that i am not sometimes jealous of the way the english he uses sounds, where rather than attempt to condense the message down to the tiniest bit of wording possible so it can all be sent in a text he expounds out his point until you understand it in its entire breadth.
Yet we expect teenagers to read this, the same ones who think Twilight is amazing. They both have their own moments of glory, those sentences that will still be quoted by lovesick teens a century from now or more. but to expect them to read the entire thing then is simply an insane notion. They both work within their groups but neither is truly fantastic for their time and i think we need to realize this. Next post i will list some books to read in order to truly see the great unknown writers of our time.
Why you may ask do i hate Twilight so much? Is it simply because everyone else likes it? (as one friend suggested i might?) Is it because i am a deeply religious person who believes that Twilight is a crime against God (HA!)? Could it be because i am secretly jealous of her?
In reality the reason i give for disliking Twilight is because i believe that the writing is complete and utter crap.
But in a way it is those other reasons too. I do dislike it because it is popular, because i believe that twilight is tooo popular. There are many other authors out there who have just as much talent as her, or more. Yet she somehow became this amazingly popular author with work that strikes me as mediocre at best. So i dislike them because this book becomes the standard for good writing and anything harder than it or more complicated than it is deemed not good enough. So i dislike it because it becomes the standard simply because so many people like it that if you don't you must hate it because it is popular or because something is wrong with you rather than simply being well read and realizing it isn't that great.
As for the crime against God comment there, i threw that in because it was simply a reason and i needed a few more. But thinking about it now i have a few things to say (i love tangents). First and foremost, even though i dislike Twilight i would hardly call it a crime against God, against the gods of literature sure (if they exist) but the Almighty descibed in the bible? i doubt it.
Lets for fun examine the reasons why it could be:
- Supernatural creatures, nope they are in the bible
- Murder, nope they are in the bible
- Lust, DEFFINATLY in the bible
- Defying ones parents, in the bible
- Motercycles, ok not in the bible but i don't recall them being forbidden either
- Swear word, they might be bad but i don't think the bible forbids them either
- Violence, anyone note what happens in Egypt all the time? or to Jesus?
- Devorce, there we go, the one thing forbidden that i cannot get around.
So twilight is a crime against the Christan God and probably a couple others because the main character's parents are devorced.
And as for the final reason, am i secretly jealous of her? Yes. How could i not be jealous of her? I want to one day be a published author and i have to say i doubt i will ever be anywhere near as successful as she has been with these 4 books. So yes, i do dislike her also because i am jealous of her.
My main problem with her though is the same problem i have with Shakespeare. Beware fans, i am gonna tear them both apart even if it alienates everyone i know.
Shakespeare wasn't good in his time. Did you get that? I said Shakespeare was not good in his time. As in his works made money but not much, as in people went to see it but it wasn't the favourite. In fact the main reason he was successful was because the queen happened to be a fan.
Did you get that? The reason that teenagers are forced to read these ancient works in english is simply because it appealed to one royal back in the century.
That is not to say his work does not contain its own moments of beauty. Or that i am not sometimes jealous of the way the english he uses sounds, where rather than attempt to condense the message down to the tiniest bit of wording possible so it can all be sent in a text he expounds out his point until you understand it in its entire breadth.
Yet we expect teenagers to read this, the same ones who think Twilight is amazing. They both have their own moments of glory, those sentences that will still be quoted by lovesick teens a century from now or more. but to expect them to read the entire thing then is simply an insane notion. They both work within their groups but neither is truly fantastic for their time and i think we need to realize this. Next post i will list some books to read in order to truly see the great unknown writers of our time.
Welcome
Hey welcome to my blog, somehow you managed to get here, whether through facebook or tribe or word of mouth you got here. Either way welcome here, where you, oh lucky you, get to read some of my thoughts. Some. Cause if i wrote them all you would suffer the following A) insanity B) total and complete corruption of your soul C) compulsive eating D) destruction of all self esteem and E) all other memories being erased.
Since i don't really want to be responsible for all of that because guilt tends to eventually get annoying i have decided to instead simply post some things.
This is a bit of my thoughts and writing, do with them what you will, pass them on, or ignore them. But either way, Welcome.
Since i don't really want to be responsible for all of that because guilt tends to eventually get annoying i have decided to instead simply post some things.
This is a bit of my thoughts and writing, do with them what you will, pass them on, or ignore them. But either way, Welcome.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)