I'm answering the questions in order in which they were asked on Ms Rear's blog
* I learned that I think about my book way more than I thought I did. While I read I don't think about all the ideas in the moment but when I sit down at home to do these post it all comes to me at once. Also, I learned that if I actually cared for the book I was reading my blogs turned out way lengthier and overall better.
*I benefited from the experience by getting feedback on thoughts that I've had on books. For example, the feedback I got when I read A Clockwork Orange really changed my thinking which I think is a good thing. Also, it got me to read almost everyday which is a pretty good thing to do.
*Writing online is a little different from a notebook. For the most part, it's kind of public. Meaning all of my classmates can read this so some people might be more personal in their notebooks than on our blogs. Also when writing online I think we might get a little more put out into our blogs. I personally write faster and more on the computer so I might write more than if I did in a notebook.
*Writing online can be liberating because our classmates can have conversations or sometimes even arguments on these blogs. Even if it's an argument, it can come out productive for someone who wants to go deeper into thinking. Also you can read other people's blogs which can widen your thinking as well. It's limiting in a way I said above. You can't go as personal on blogs since everyone can see them, when in notebooks you can write to your heart's desire.
*I think it can go both ways. Obviously online people can say things they might be too embarrassed or scared to say in real life so it might be different from a person's actual personality. It can work the other way too. Maybe the person writing online is the real "them". Being online makes a wall between everybody so nothing can hurt them, so I think overall people might a be little more "real" online than in person.
*Of course sites like facebook is abused for stuff like that. People can say stuff they would never ever say in real life in the comfort of their own home. I don't think this freedom should be limited, but it is definitely a deal of questioning your acts if you are the person writing terrible things. Although writing bad things online can be hurtful, it does give people a way to express their feelings if they don't choose to do it in person. Sometimes being online is easier. So I think it's bad to do, but shouldn't be taken away.
*Honestly I don't think I will keep up with this blog. I do not enjoy writing the actual posts but I must admit it gets my thinking going. I will definitely keep reading and thinking but keeping up with a blog is just not another thing I want to be doing. If I were going to keep up with another blog it would be on basic things that I like or that interest me. Blogs in general I think are a good thing for some people, because it gets out what they think or interests them so everyone can see it without actually meeting or talking to the person. It might be weird, but it's a good way of expressing yourself if you're into it.
Sunday, June 19, 2011
Thursday, June 2, 2011
The Communist Manifesto
There are lots and lots to talk about this book so I have to keep it a bit brief right now. One of things I've been thinking about it the list of things that Communists believe would make the most advanced society. Basically to establish a Communist society you have to abolish all that will make things unbalanced. Meaning everything has to be equal. One of the more specific rules is the abolishment of private property.
Abolishing private property. This means everything is public. I don't quite understand how that would work. In fact, it sounds completely ridiculous. Communism in general is a good thought but when you get down to how you would actually make it, it just sounds plain ridiculous. Without private property we couldn't own anything ourselves. Basically whatever's your's is mine. It's equal, but it's sure not fun for me or anyone for that matter. Communism is not about that though. It's about the productiveness of the class. Although some believe it may be productive as a whole, what's the point when you can't enjoy the good stuff in life, like owning your own house or even buying yourself something for you. There are other things needed to abolish to establish communism. I wont list them right now, but trust me. Some of those things you definitely want.
Abolishing private property. This means everything is public. I don't quite understand how that would work. In fact, it sounds completely ridiculous. Communism in general is a good thought but when you get down to how you would actually make it, it just sounds plain ridiculous. Without private property we couldn't own anything ourselves. Basically whatever's your's is mine. It's equal, but it's sure not fun for me or anyone for that matter. Communism is not about that though. It's about the productiveness of the class. Although some believe it may be productive as a whole, what's the point when you can't enjoy the good stuff in life, like owning your own house or even buying yourself something for you. There are other things needed to abolish to establish communism. I wont list them right now, but trust me. Some of those things you definitely want.
Thursday, May 26, 2011
The Book Thief
I'm only 49 pages into this book, The Book Thief by Markus Zusak and the clever writing has already dragged me in. The use of Death as the narrator is such a cool idea. I'm surprised I haven't read other books like that. But enough of that.
The Book Thief is about a little girl who was sent to foster parents in Nazi Germany. So far she just has been adjusting to her new family and displaying the weird and sometimes comical accustoms to her new life.With Death narrating it, sometimes parts of the story are in strange places, and it makes me think they were put there for a reason. I'm not too far into so I don't have much to say, but I have noticed some things within the 49 pages I have read so far. One thing is, does it matter the way you express your love, if you have it? In the book Death has a little note saying that Liesel's (the girl) new mother actually loves her, she just has a strange way of showing it. That way being her cursing at the top of her lungs and making her clean up spit from the houses fence.
In real life people have many ways of showing love. Kissing, hugging, talking, and of course the famous brotherly love I share with mine; punching and painfully harassing each other. I mean, we know it's love right? So why does it matter how we express it? Obviously as normal human beings, we don't like hurting or being hurt, but what if it's a way of expressing love? At first glance I would definitely say it matters. There are countless ways of showing love, but that doesn't mean it's good. For example, an insane person could have an obsession with me. They could kill me and wear my skin as an expression of love, and I don't think I have to tell you that's not good.
Going back to the book, Liesel's new mother supposedly loves her. She is a bit strict and foul, but her love isn't expressed in an overly horrific way. Who knows, she could be doing it to teach her a lesson? Well, the people who have read the book might know. She might just be a mean person. But anyway, as of right now, love is love and the way you express it counts too. Although you should still be grateful you have it.
The Book Thief is about a little girl who was sent to foster parents in Nazi Germany. So far she just has been adjusting to her new family and displaying the weird and sometimes comical accustoms to her new life.With Death narrating it, sometimes parts of the story are in strange places, and it makes me think they were put there for a reason. I'm not too far into so I don't have much to say, but I have noticed some things within the 49 pages I have read so far. One thing is, does it matter the way you express your love, if you have it? In the book Death has a little note saying that Liesel's (the girl) new mother actually loves her, she just has a strange way of showing it. That way being her cursing at the top of her lungs and making her clean up spit from the houses fence.
In real life people have many ways of showing love. Kissing, hugging, talking, and of course the famous brotherly love I share with mine; punching and painfully harassing each other. I mean, we know it's love right? So why does it matter how we express it? Obviously as normal human beings, we don't like hurting or being hurt, but what if it's a way of expressing love? At first glance I would definitely say it matters. There are countless ways of showing love, but that doesn't mean it's good. For example, an insane person could have an obsession with me. They could kill me and wear my skin as an expression of love, and I don't think I have to tell you that's not good.
Going back to the book, Liesel's new mother supposedly loves her. She is a bit strict and foul, but her love isn't expressed in an overly horrific way. Who knows, she could be doing it to teach her a lesson? Well, the people who have read the book might know. She might just be a mean person. But anyway, as of right now, love is love and the way you express it counts too. Although you should still be grateful you have it.
Thursday, May 19, 2011
Shakespeare Response
I recently have read Hamlet and Macbeth by William Shakespeare. I really enjoyed reading them, especially now that I can understand them better than I did the previous year. But there is one very important thing I noticed. Earlier in our philosophy unit we discussed a long list that included Communitarianism, Nihilism, and much more. Though there is one that I thought was really interesting. After reading Hamlet I decided to do research on Existentialism. And what I found was that Jean- Paul Sarte and others, who adopted Existentialism led an exact reference to one of Hamlet's speeches by Shakespeare. I looked this up to see if this has been discussed and it has, but I still think it's very interesting.
Anyway, the speech I'm talking about, that of course it extremely famous is the "To be or not to be" speech. The thought that humans choices are all from themselves demonstrates itself in this speech. As Hamlet struggles with the decision to kill his uncle but feels burdened by the fact that he was chosen for the murder. So basically Hamlet must make a decision that was forced onto him. Being the idea of Existentialism is that we make our own choice and it's always us, never a higher being (God). So perhaps great Existentialists like Sarte might have adapted this meaning into their thoughts.
I just thought it was a cool comparison and coincidence that we were studying it and I was reading Hamlet at the same time.
Anyway, the speech I'm talking about, that of course it extremely famous is the "To be or not to be" speech. The thought that humans choices are all from themselves demonstrates itself in this speech. As Hamlet struggles with the decision to kill his uncle but feels burdened by the fact that he was chosen for the murder. So basically Hamlet must make a decision that was forced onto him. Being the idea of Existentialism is that we make our own choice and it's always us, never a higher being (God). So perhaps great Existentialists like Sarte might have adapted this meaning into their thoughts.
I just thought it was a cool comparison and coincidence that we were studying it and I was reading Hamlet at the same time.
Blogpost Re-edit. Heroes
To were I'm at in the story (I watched a little more) I think the real, honest question for me is what is a "hero". Obviously you can call someone like Superman and Spiderman a hero, but in this text conflict comes up making me think that a super powers isn't what makes you the hero. That's what I want to know. What literally makes you a hero.
In the text Hiro says to his friend that they are gonna save the world and be heroes. His friend replies saying that he's not a hero, he doesn't have super powers. My first impression is that he's wrong. You don't need super powers to be a hero, you just need to help people and make the world a better place. But I keep thinking that there's something deeper than just doing something good, but I don't know what.
In the real world people like firemen, and police officers are sometimes called heroes, but for what? They're just doing there everyday job, which is no special than anyone else. What gives them the label of "hero"? But does being a hero really mean you have to be special or different. I think it's true. Being a hero means doing something special, different, or out of the ordinary for good. I'm not saying that firemen and Police officers aren't brave or good. I'm just saying that I don't think they deserve the title, "hero".
In the text DL and Hiro use their powers to help a lady who's trapped in a burning car that's about to explode. Micah calls them heroes but DL tells him that he's not. Actually I think DL is wrong about himself. I'm not completely sure but most of what he did fits what I think a hero would be. He did something special, out of the ordinary, and did something for good. The last part of being a hero I was thinking about is, the real reason the actual so called "hero" did what they did. For the last part of what I think a hero is, is the reason you did what you did has to truly be to help someone, or something. Not just for fame or to impress people, but just to really try to make a difference.
The thing is I don't know if my formula for being a hero is completely true. Someone in the FBI or CIA could do something special or out of the ordinary. They could also being doing it truly for good. But personally I still don't think people like that, are "heroes". But I think I could be wrong. A hero to one person can be a villain to another.
When Micah called DL a hero for saving the lady, he really thought that he was a hero. He believed it. He individually believed it. So to Micah, DL was the hero, but to someone else DL could have been a villain. So maybe a hero doesn't account for everyone. That means that a hero doesn't technically have to do good.
Now I'm thinking a hero isn't always someone who saves somebody, or changes the world. It's who changes you. People are always saying how someone like Kanye West is their hero. He might not be my hero, but he's the hero of that specific person. A hero is whoever you want it to be, as long as it changed you in anyway. It's not even about what the characteristics of a hero is. It's about who a "hero" is to you.
After watching the first season of heroes, for now, I know what a hero is. A hero is someone or something that changes you in anyway, and "you" have to label that someone or something a hero. No one else can tell you what a hero is. No matter how good or bad someone is, everyone can be a hero.
This was from a very long time ago that I found and I felt it would count if I re-did it
In the text Hiro says to his friend that they are gonna save the world and be heroes. His friend replies saying that he's not a hero, he doesn't have super powers. My first impression is that he's wrong. You don't need super powers to be a hero, you just need to help people and make the world a better place. But I keep thinking that there's something deeper than just doing something good, but I don't know what.
In the real world people like firemen, and police officers are sometimes called heroes, but for what? They're just doing there everyday job, which is no special than anyone else. What gives them the label of "hero"? But does being a hero really mean you have to be special or different. I think it's true. Being a hero means doing something special, different, or out of the ordinary for good. I'm not saying that firemen and Police officers aren't brave or good. I'm just saying that I don't think they deserve the title, "hero".
In the text DL and Hiro use their powers to help a lady who's trapped in a burning car that's about to explode. Micah calls them heroes but DL tells him that he's not. Actually I think DL is wrong about himself. I'm not completely sure but most of what he did fits what I think a hero would be. He did something special, out of the ordinary, and did something for good. The last part of being a hero I was thinking about is, the real reason the actual so called "hero" did what they did. For the last part of what I think a hero is, is the reason you did what you did has to truly be to help someone, or something. Not just for fame or to impress people, but just to really try to make a difference.
The thing is I don't know if my formula for being a hero is completely true. Someone in the FBI or CIA could do something special or out of the ordinary. They could also being doing it truly for good. But personally I still don't think people like that, are "heroes". But I think I could be wrong. A hero to one person can be a villain to another.
When Micah called DL a hero for saving the lady, he really thought that he was a hero. He believed it. He individually believed it. So to Micah, DL was the hero, but to someone else DL could have been a villain. So maybe a hero doesn't account for everyone. That means that a hero doesn't technically have to do good.
Now I'm thinking a hero isn't always someone who saves somebody, or changes the world. It's who changes you. People are always saying how someone like Kanye West is their hero. He might not be my hero, but he's the hero of that specific person. A hero is whoever you want it to be, as long as it changed you in anyway. It's not even about what the characteristics of a hero is. It's about who a "hero" is to you.
After watching the first season of heroes, for now, I know what a hero is. A hero is someone or something that changes you in anyway, and "you" have to label that someone or something a hero. No one else can tell you what a hero is. No matter how good or bad someone is, everyone can be a hero.
This was from a very long time ago that I found and I felt it would count if I re-did it
Thursday, May 5, 2011
Finally finished the series
You might have not known this but it has taken me over 3 years to read all of the Harry Potter books. Not because I slowly read them. But because I quit half way through for most of them. And that's exactly what I did with this last one. But now I finally finished! Hooray! So anyway, one of the things I've been thinking about it actually quite relevant to what we are doing in classwork. In our Socrates Cafe groups, my group chose the topic of Communitarianism. I think this completely relates to Harry Potter. If you don't know Communitarianism is the philosophy that the group is more important than the individual.
I disagree with the communitarianism statement fro some good reasons but I wont get into that right now. What is confusing is it's hard not agree with it in Harry Potter's situation. (Spoiler Alert!) Near the end of the last book Harry chooses to actually sacrifice himself for the life of others (which he does but soon comes back to life). The difference is that this time and the other books is that he actually let himself die. He didn't risk his life. He actually went up to Voldemort to be killed. Now this is an example of communitarianism because the group is more important than the individual ( Harry Potter).
Even though I disagree with communitarianism how can you not agree with what he did? He basically killed himself for the life of millions. Now in the real world I'm pretty sure this situation doesn't happen that often. But it completely reverses my disagreement. How can I agree and disagree. Agree to disagree? Can it be in between? Please tell me.
I disagree with the communitarianism statement fro some good reasons but I wont get into that right now. What is confusing is it's hard not agree with it in Harry Potter's situation. (Spoiler Alert!) Near the end of the last book Harry chooses to actually sacrifice himself for the life of others (which he does but soon comes back to life). The difference is that this time and the other books is that he actually let himself die. He didn't risk his life. He actually went up to Voldemort to be killed. Now this is an example of communitarianism because the group is more important than the individual ( Harry Potter).
Even though I disagree with communitarianism how can you not agree with what he did? He basically killed himself for the life of millions. Now in the real world I'm pretty sure this situation doesn't happen that often. But it completely reverses my disagreement. How can I agree and disagree. Agree to disagree? Can it be in between? Please tell me.
Thursday, April 28, 2011
another blog post alright
Honestly the last book I started to read was the hunger games which I have read before. I did a blog post on it, but I do not want to write about it again. I stopped reading it and I haven't started a new book yet. So I really don't know what to do. The most recent thing I have read that is close to fiction since rereading part of the hunger games was this short story about a guy trying to find OFWGKTA member, Earl Sweatshirt. OFWGKTA is relatively new rap group that has just started their rise to fame. A member of the group, Earl Sweatshirt at age 17 disappeared and no one knew where he was except the rest of the rap group. Now people know, but this was a short fictional story about finding Earl that I can try to write a decent blog post about.
One topic brought up in this story is the comical use of political figures and leads me to other thoughts. In this case it would be music. I do not remember who it was they were making fun of, but I do remember parts of the story. So basically what happened is Earl is captured by the political figure that he made fun of in one of his songs. This makes me think about how far the extent of the freedom of speech can go. For example you can't say a selection of cuss words on public television. I think think this completely defeats the purpose of freedom of speech. Where ever you are, you can say what ever you want. You may be charged with disturbing the peace, or charged for threatening if you use it in the wrong way. But in general, public television is definitely one of the places freedom of speech should kick in.
Why? Because the United States of America was and is a place of freedom. People in other countries can be executed for speaking out. America promised our immigrant ancestors who came to this country freedoms. And one of those freedom was the freedom of speech. The U.S is not most stable country in the world, but some of our freedoms is a reason to be proud of our country.
I do admit that cusses on television have eased up a bit. I remember when they couldn't say the S word on television and I hear it all the time on comedy central. Another topic that can be brought up is movies. Movies are different because they have ratings on them. You must meet the required age for the rating to see the movie. That is a whole other discussion, but what I'm talking about plays a role in movies too.
Sorry I couldn't write about a book exactly. Next time I promise I will.
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
Rereading Hunger Games until I find a new book
As I'm reading this book again, the question that came up early was, what would you do for your family, and at what cost?
In the book Katniss, time and time again, takes tremendous risks for her family. She hunted at the risk of getting shot, she illegally sold items for money, and she took her younger sisters place for the reaping. Wow, I mean she really cares about her family. I mean, should she really risk that much? Should she being doing these things, even at the risk of death?
There's a saying, "would you steal bread to save your family from starving"? Now, strait up I would say yes. I would definitely steal that bread. I would take that risk. But when I think about what could happen to me. I think otherwise. What if it's not just stealing bread? The consequences could be much worse than a few months in jail. It could be death. Would risk your life for your family?
In the book when Katniss takes Prim's place for the reaping, she knew she could die. She knows the rules to the Hunger Games. Battle to the death. Is it worth it? And this makes me think about why Katniss would do something about that for your family? What is it about family that is so important? What is it about family that makes you cry at their funeral, but not when you hear a random person die on the news? It's a hard question to answer, but I would say the connection and care. Family is one of the few things you can surely say is yours. This is your family, and no one else's, and it never will be anyone else's. Maybe because family is what you grew up with, and taking that away is worth stealing.
I have decided at this point in the book, that yes, in some cases I would take risks for my family. I still don't know if I would put my life at risk. But I do know that your family is the one of the most important things in your life, and you need to keep it strong.
In the book Katniss, time and time again, takes tremendous risks for her family. She hunted at the risk of getting shot, she illegally sold items for money, and she took her younger sisters place for the reaping. Wow, I mean she really cares about her family. I mean, should she really risk that much? Should she being doing these things, even at the risk of death?
There's a saying, "would you steal bread to save your family from starving"? Now, strait up I would say yes. I would definitely steal that bread. I would take that risk. But when I think about what could happen to me. I think otherwise. What if it's not just stealing bread? The consequences could be much worse than a few months in jail. It could be death. Would risk your life for your family?
In the book when Katniss takes Prim's place for the reaping, she knew she could die. She knows the rules to the Hunger Games. Battle to the death. Is it worth it? And this makes me think about why Katniss would do something about that for your family? What is it about family that is so important? What is it about family that makes you cry at their funeral, but not when you hear a random person die on the news? It's a hard question to answer, but I would say the connection and care. Family is one of the few things you can surely say is yours. This is your family, and no one else's, and it never will be anyone else's. Maybe because family is what you grew up with, and taking that away is worth stealing.
I have decided at this point in the book, that yes, in some cases I would take risks for my family. I still don't know if I would put my life at risk. But I do know that your family is the one of the most important things in your life, and you need to keep it strong.
The Woman in Black
Recently, if you haven't noticed, everybody got back from London almost 2 weeks ago. One out of the various things we did there was we had an option to go see a play called "The Woman in Black". Already that sounds a bit scary. Now this play was adapted from a book that I wish to read soon since their wasn't much time for reading on our trip, but I did read a few summaries online. Hopefully this great play is close enough to a book for you (Ms. Rear) and I think it is.
Anyway, "The Woman in Black" play is about a man who wants to put on a play on a horrifying and true, ghost story that happened in his life. I don't want to give too much away, but basically the man is haunted, and to give you a better picture, at the end of the play everyone in the theatre was either shrieking, crying, or like me, terrified to the point of loud guffaws. Back to the actual story, one of the things it made me think about was how you can never tell fully what someone's been through.
In the play, when the main character is introduced for the first time, he acts quite normal. Maybe a bit nervous and quiet, but overall you would have never guessed that he'd been through the horror you see later in the play. And now that I think about it, I judged him. And probably more than half the theatre judged him. I don't know about you, but I don't like being a "judger". But now I think, how can you not judge someone? It can be harmful, but we do it to people everyday. My question is, what does that say about ourselves?
In real life people make jokes about saying stuff like, "Hey, don't judge me, man." I don't think it's joke really. I mean, it's all fun and play, but what's funny about expecting someone is stupid just because they are homeless or because of race? I think calling someone stupid is one of the worst things you can do (if you're serious). Friends do it to each other all the time, I do it. But imagine somebody genuinely thinking your stupid. Now imagine somebody genuinely thinking your stupid because of your race.
I'm going to read the book as soon as I can get it from a library or something, but I think watching the adapted play was good enough for now. I'll do another response once I get the book.
Anyway, "The Woman in Black" play is about a man who wants to put on a play on a horrifying and true, ghost story that happened in his life. I don't want to give too much away, but basically the man is haunted, and to give you a better picture, at the end of the play everyone in the theatre was either shrieking, crying, or like me, terrified to the point of loud guffaws. Back to the actual story, one of the things it made me think about was how you can never tell fully what someone's been through.
In the play, when the main character is introduced for the first time, he acts quite normal. Maybe a bit nervous and quiet, but overall you would have never guessed that he'd been through the horror you see later in the play. And now that I think about it, I judged him. And probably more than half the theatre judged him. I don't know about you, but I don't like being a "judger". But now I think, how can you not judge someone? It can be harmful, but we do it to people everyday. My question is, what does that say about ourselves?
In real life people make jokes about saying stuff like, "Hey, don't judge me, man." I don't think it's joke really. I mean, it's all fun and play, but what's funny about expecting someone is stupid just because they are homeless or because of race? I think calling someone stupid is one of the worst things you can do (if you're serious). Friends do it to each other all the time, I do it. But imagine somebody genuinely thinking your stupid. Now imagine somebody genuinely thinking your stupid because of your race.
I'm going to read the book as soon as I can get it from a library or something, but I think watching the adapted play was good enough for now. I'll do another response once I get the book.
Thursday, March 31, 2011
Bye Bye Dad (Revised)
In a few days my dad is moving to Connecticut to take care of my grandmother. He's going to stay there for a while and he will visit, but I just feel like it wont be the same. And this makes me think about Harry in the Harry Potter series. His parents are dead and he never got to experience being a kid with a caring family family (not the Dursley's). He doesn't know how it feels to be loved by parents so what could he be missing? The answer is nothing. He doesn't know what it's like to have a family. The theme I'm getting at is kind of like "is it better to have loved and lost or never loved at all". So I wonder how he would feel if he knew his parents, and then they died.
If you think about it, orphans who never knew their parents (and are not adopted) never experience having a real family (unless they're adopted of course). So like I said, what's to miss? But it's not about that. Since I don't have the experience I can't really speak for them realistically but I would think that they aren't hurt by the missing, they are hurt by the desire. The desire to have that perfect family and being loved. Since they don't have it and sometimes will never have it, the desire hurts the most.
Obviously I'm going to deeply miss my dad when he goes away, but I always think, at least I have the memory. I know my dads coming back and stuff but you know what I mean. But I think sometimes the memories can hurt. Thinking about the good times will lead to you missing them even more. I know I'm going to remember watching all the old movies with him and yelling at the TV when we watch Top Chef. But on the other hand you at least have something to look back on and that's good enough for some people. I just know that I'm lucky, and I'm glad to have a dad.
Countless times throughout the book Harry is reminded of his deceased parents. Whether it's through pictures or seeing them in a special mirror in the earlier books, he can't seem to get away from it. Anyway, my colleague Peter Diller argues at my point. He believes that he doesn't desire a family, he misses his dead family. I disagree with that statement. He was too young to remember anything to do with his parents. If he had, he would have known he was a wizard before a half giant came knocking on their door to tell him.
But going back to theme, I think it is impossible to make the decision, especially because I haven't gone through it, and just in general there's always an opinion. But if I was to make a decision I probably would go with what Harry went through. He made a family. The Weasleys and his friends were his family and in real life it's possible to get adopted. I guess my only question now is how would it change your life if that person was alive, or you originally did have a family? What if Harry had a family? Would he be different? Would he have the tremendous courage he has now?
Thursday, March 24, 2011
Curious Incident Response
An issue that comes up in this book is fairness. Throughout the book Christopher's dad keeps holding secrets against him but I don't believe that it's fair.
In the book Christopher's dad told him that his mother died of a heart attack, but he finds out that he was lying to him. Now, strait out I would completely say that messed up and it's completely unfair. He deserves to know if his own mother is dead or not. I mean the only reason his dad kept it from him is because of his personal reasons, but why should Christopher have to suffer for his dad's problems?
In the real world, fairness can go from who gets to play Mario cart first, to secrets of death. In some ways I think if something really horrible has happened, the truth is not always the best thing to say. So maybe it is fair. Maybe the person is trying to protect them. But I still think to keep something from someone for PERSONAL reasons is completely unfair. It's your issues, so why should your sorrow keep something important from someone.
In the book Christopher's mother doesn't even know that Christopher thinks she's dead. So I think it's unfair to her too. After writing all those letters to Christopher with no response can really hurt. But still their relationship is at stake because his dad doesn't love her anymore. Why did he do it? Not really to protect him cause he has nothing to protect him from. Maybe to protect himself. To protect himself from loneliness. He knew that if Christopher knew his mother was alive he would go find her. But still, no matter what reason, he shouldn't have kept that secret. It just isn't fair. Death is nothing to lie about. When you say someone died, your saying that they aren't on the face of the earth anymore. That's pretty deep. So if his mother was alive, he should know it.
For now my conclusion is that sometimes it's fair to keep secrets, but not for your own personal reasons. Sometimes the truth can be hurtful, but it's better than ignorance. Christopher might have wanted to see his mother. His dad never thought about that, which I think was pretty selfish. He tried to do it for a good cause but it just wasn't fair.
In the real world, fairness can go from who gets to play Mario cart first, to secrets of death. In some ways I think if something really horrible has happened, the truth is not always the best thing to say. So maybe it is fair. Maybe the person is trying to protect them. But I still think to keep something from someone for PERSONAL reasons is completely unfair. It's your issues, so why should your sorrow keep something important from someone.
In the book Christopher's mother doesn't even know that Christopher thinks she's dead. So I think it's unfair to her too. After writing all those letters to Christopher with no response can really hurt. But still their relationship is at stake because his dad doesn't love her anymore. Why did he do it? Not really to protect him cause he has nothing to protect him from. Maybe to protect himself. To protect himself from loneliness. He knew that if Christopher knew his mother was alive he would go find her. But still, no matter what reason, he shouldn't have kept that secret. It just isn't fair. Death is nothing to lie about. When you say someone died, your saying that they aren't on the face of the earth anymore. That's pretty deep. So if his mother was alive, he should know it.
For now my conclusion is that sometimes it's fair to keep secrets, but not for your own personal reasons. Sometimes the truth can be hurtful, but it's better than ignorance. Christopher might have wanted to see his mother. His dad never thought about that, which I think was pretty selfish. He tried to do it for a good cause but it just wasn't fair.
Thursday, March 17, 2011
John Steinback Appreciation
John Steinback is one of my favorite writers. Of course he is the author of one of my favorite books, Of Mice and Men. One of the things I really loved about his writing, is he made such a short book (good for me) but made it so dense with interesting writing, it was almost like I read two Harry Potter books combined. He sucks you into the book by not explaining everything. And I think he does in a way to make you feel like you don't even care about that either. Some books, you really want to figure everything out and the author intentionally lets you discover themes by yourself. John Steinback isn't like the with this book. He gives you a story about two dudes who go to work on a farm. That's it. Sure, they give them a small back story but it's all kind of laid back.
Another thing I liked about his writing in the book is he really knows how to get you how he wants you to feel. If it's supposed to be sad, trust me, IT'S REALLY SAD. (Spoiler Alert) I thought it was interesting how he took such a strong guy and made him relate to this small puppy. Of course the puppy dies, which got me almost devastated and soon he dies too. Steinback fits all these great emotions into a 90 page book which I think is borderline impossible.
So, I want to appreciate John Steinback for Of Mice of Men and his other great books. He's one of the writers that gave me a reason to read in middle school. So all I can say now is a great big THANKS!
Another thing I liked about his writing in the book is he really knows how to get you how he wants you to feel. If it's supposed to be sad, trust me, IT'S REALLY SAD. (Spoiler Alert) I thought it was interesting how he took such a strong guy and made him relate to this small puppy. Of course the puppy dies, which got me almost devastated and soon he dies too. Steinback fits all these great emotions into a 90 page book which I think is borderline impossible.
So, I want to appreciate John Steinback for Of Mice of Men and his other great books. He's one of the writers that gave me a reason to read in middle school. So all I can say now is a great big THANKS!
Thursday, March 10, 2011
Harry Potter #7 Response: ya gotta do what ya gotta do
Now that I've gotten into the book a little farther, I see a new theme that I would like to talk about. And that theme is sacrifice. Not sacrifice like killing someone. But sacrificing yourself for someone or something. Or sacrificing something for someone or something. Not the creepy sacrifice. Yeah...
(Possible spoiler)
So in the book Harry is basically sacrificing his life for the world, along with Ron and Hermione. They must go find the horcruxes and destroy Voldemort. Now, try to think of it this way. Pretend you are Harry, and you're the one the whole world is relying on. Doesn't sound too great, does it? That was rhetorical. The answer was no. Now, obviously the world is worth one or three lives, maybe even a hundred. But you got to put yourself in their position. It's not to nice to think about.
Now if I were Harry, I would probably try to find every possible way out of it. Honestly, I would say, Screw Dumbledore, I need help! I would ask everyone to help for the horcruxes, not only me. And finally if it all came down to me again. I think I would do it, but I don't know if I would be able to do it. Not because it's impossible to make magic but mentally I would probably freak out. I don't see the realistic circumstances in this book. On the other hand, like I said before, magic is impossible. I just can't see myself doing something like that in the real world. Maybe that's just me, and there are a lot of people in this world. There's got to be many brave people. If you want risk your life for the whole world, that's fine with me. Just keep me out of it.
And in sacrifice in general, it's different. There are not everyday situations like that. But sometimes you might have to sacrifice for the better good. So overall, I think the majority always wins with sacrifices.
(Possible spoiler)
So in the book Harry is basically sacrificing his life for the world, along with Ron and Hermione. They must go find the horcruxes and destroy Voldemort. Now, try to think of it this way. Pretend you are Harry, and you're the one the whole world is relying on. Doesn't sound too great, does it? That was rhetorical. The answer was no. Now, obviously the world is worth one or three lives, maybe even a hundred. But you got to put yourself in their position. It's not to nice to think about.
Now if I were Harry, I would probably try to find every possible way out of it. Honestly, I would say, Screw Dumbledore, I need help! I would ask everyone to help for the horcruxes, not only me. And finally if it all came down to me again. I think I would do it, but I don't know if I would be able to do it. Not because it's impossible to make magic but mentally I would probably freak out. I don't see the realistic circumstances in this book. On the other hand, like I said before, magic is impossible. I just can't see myself doing something like that in the real world. Maybe that's just me, and there are a lot of people in this world. There's got to be many brave people. If you want risk your life for the whole world, that's fine with me. Just keep me out of it.
And in sacrifice in general, it's different. There are not everyday situations like that. But sometimes you might have to sacrifice for the better good. So overall, I think the majority always wins with sacrifices.
Thursday, March 3, 2011
Starting the Final Harry Potter (Possible Spoiler Alert!)
So finally I have started the final book of the Harry Potter series, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hollows. I'm only 50 pages into it and I already see something I want to blog about. My question is what would you say to someone that you know you might never see again? Of course I'm talking about the Dursley's in Harry's case (Which I doubt he would ever want to see again anyway).
In the book, there is actually a moment between Dudley and Harry. Dudley actually appreciated Harry for the first time in the 7 books. He gave quite a memorable goodbye (in Dudley's standards) but his parents (Harry's aunt and uncle) did not. They sort of just left. Harry didn't seem to mind but it kind of angered me. I would have wanted more. I would have wanted recognition, even if they were terrible guardians. I'm pretty sure most people would have wanted more too.
In real life, I've never really experience a time where I might never see someone again. I know my dad and his brothers have with my grandfather, but not me. Obviously many people have in this world have, and I'd be lucky if someone with that experience would respond. But anyway, I think what I'm getting at is the idea of closure. Even a plain screw you when the Dursley's left would have left me satisfied. But I guess that's just a way of making it a better book. Making the reader think about what they could have said, or why they didn't.
I'm guessing the reason Harry's aunt and uncle didn't say anything is, because they were afraid. They were afraid of saying a goodbye to someone they have tormented for 16 years. They didn't want to say that this was it and sorry for the horrible way we've treated you these past years. But I think they should have. I know it's hard to end something sometimes but I think it's the right thing to do. Whether it's mean or nice, bad or good. Sometimes it just good to end it.
In the book, there is actually a moment between Dudley and Harry. Dudley actually appreciated Harry for the first time in the 7 books. He gave quite a memorable goodbye (in Dudley's standards) but his parents (Harry's aunt and uncle) did not. They sort of just left. Harry didn't seem to mind but it kind of angered me. I would have wanted more. I would have wanted recognition, even if they were terrible guardians. I'm pretty sure most people would have wanted more too.
In real life, I've never really experience a time where I might never see someone again. I know my dad and his brothers have with my grandfather, but not me. Obviously many people have in this world have, and I'd be lucky if someone with that experience would respond. But anyway, I think what I'm getting at is the idea of closure. Even a plain screw you when the Dursley's left would have left me satisfied. But I guess that's just a way of making it a better book. Making the reader think about what they could have said, or why they didn't.
I'm guessing the reason Harry's aunt and uncle didn't say anything is, because they were afraid. They were afraid of saying a goodbye to someone they have tormented for 16 years. They didn't want to say that this was it and sorry for the horrible way we've treated you these past years. But I think they should have. I know it's hard to end something sometimes but I think it's the right thing to do. Whether it's mean or nice, bad or good. Sometimes it just good to end it.
Thursday, February 17, 2011
Responding to My homie Michael
http://michaeltaormina.blogspot.com/2011/02/reading-response-7.html?showComment=1297436047611#c8125924430107804247
In Michael's post he discusses how people change over time, more specifically in Ned Vizzini's book Teen Angst Nahh... He talks about how we don't notice it, whether it physical or psychological, if we are with them in everyday life. I too read this book, although a long time ago, I chose this post, because I think I can really connect to Michael's thinking.
Everyone changes. Whether your young, old, or middle aged, you change. Not only do you change in a physical way but also psychological like I said before. What Michael noticed was that sometimes we don't even notice it. My question is why? The obvious answer is because we're with them all the time, and it changes little by little. Although this is true, I think it's more complicated. Kids michael and my age are going through a time where we are maturing. Yes, we are getting taller, getting pimples, and obtaining hair in special places. Still, after all this happening we can't see with our stupid eyes that our friends are different from 6th grade.
In the book, like Michael says, Ned goes through a lot and changes. He goes through the same thing we are. Ned changes while his friends around him changes too. Now I think that's it. Since we are changing (at about the same rate) as each other, we are maturing both mentally and physically so we don't even know the difference. Our minds are fixed just like each other and we are going through the same thing. That's why when we go back and look at old 6th pictures we say, "Wow, we look so young." We didn't think that back then. We looked at old second grade pictures and said the same thing.
So I think Michael brought up a great point here. Even though this theory is brought up my question still remains why?
In Michael's post he discusses how people change over time, more specifically in Ned Vizzini's book Teen Angst Nahh... He talks about how we don't notice it, whether it physical or psychological, if we are with them in everyday life. I too read this book, although a long time ago, I chose this post, because I think I can really connect to Michael's thinking.
Everyone changes. Whether your young, old, or middle aged, you change. Not only do you change in a physical way but also psychological like I said before. What Michael noticed was that sometimes we don't even notice it. My question is why? The obvious answer is because we're with them all the time, and it changes little by little. Although this is true, I think it's more complicated. Kids michael and my age are going through a time where we are maturing. Yes, we are getting taller, getting pimples, and obtaining hair in special places. Still, after all this happening we can't see with our stupid eyes that our friends are different from 6th grade.
In the book, like Michael says, Ned goes through a lot and changes. He goes through the same thing we are. Ned changes while his friends around him changes too. Now I think that's it. Since we are changing (at about the same rate) as each other, we are maturing both mentally and physically so we don't even know the difference. Our minds are fixed just like each other and we are going through the same thing. That's why when we go back and look at old 6th pictures we say, "Wow, we look so young." We didn't think that back then. We looked at old second grade pictures and said the same thing.
So I think Michael brought up a great point here. Even though this theory is brought up my question still remains why?
Thursday, February 10, 2011
BLAA BLAA BLAA CALL OF POOPY
Recently I saw a commercial on T.V for a new video game that came out called Dead Space 2. At the end it said, "Your mom will hate it." This made me think about the argument of violence influencing video games. I believe that the whole thing is complete bull crap. I used to play call of duty and I'm not a serial killer. Am I? Who is really to blame?
Some people think that shooting people in video games, or stabbing people in video games, or any other violence will influence our kids to copy it. If that is even true that is not the developers fault. If it's anyone's fault, it's the parents. I know you have probably heard this a billion times but it really is the parents fault (even if it does happen). The developers try to make entertaining games, and someone discovered that shooting people online is a fun thing to do. No argument there. If you don't want your kids to play the game, DON'T BUY IT FOR THEM. Of course kids are gonna find ways to get around their parents rules, but still thats still up to the parents to control it.
A few years ago a game called "Manhunt"was banned from Australia. It was basically about a serial killer who would murder people in different levels of gore. I admit that I had the game and I somewhat enjoyed it. I also do admit I could understand why some parents would fear buying it for their kids. It is a very, very, very violent game. But I still believe it shouldn't have been banned. It just seems a bit ridiculous. Banning a video game from a country. I mean come on? If the game was really that bad in the first place I think that developers wouldn't have let it in stores. Games have been denied before.
I can understand how some could believe that people would want to "copy" game. But I still stand by my point. DON'T BUY IT IF YOU CAN'T HANDLE IT.
Some people think that shooting people in video games, or stabbing people in video games, or any other violence will influence our kids to copy it. If that is even true that is not the developers fault. If it's anyone's fault, it's the parents. I know you have probably heard this a billion times but it really is the parents fault (even if it does happen). The developers try to make entertaining games, and someone discovered that shooting people online is a fun thing to do. No argument there. If you don't want your kids to play the game, DON'T BUY IT FOR THEM. Of course kids are gonna find ways to get around their parents rules, but still thats still up to the parents to control it.
A few years ago a game called "Manhunt"was banned from Australia. It was basically about a serial killer who would murder people in different levels of gore. I admit that I had the game and I somewhat enjoyed it. I also do admit I could understand why some parents would fear buying it for their kids. It is a very, very, very violent game. But I still believe it shouldn't have been banned. It just seems a bit ridiculous. Banning a video game from a country. I mean come on? If the game was really that bad in the first place I think that developers wouldn't have let it in stores. Games have been denied before.
I can understand how some could believe that people would want to "copy" game. But I still stand by my point. DON'T BUY IT IF YOU CAN'T HANDLE IT.
Thursday, February 3, 2011
Bye Bye Dad (Revised)
In a few days my dad is moving to Connecticut to take care of my grandmother. He's going to stay there for a while and he will visit, but I just feel like it wont be the same. And this makes me think about Harry in the Harry Potter series. His parents are dead and he never got to experience being a kid with a caring family family (not the Dursley's). He doesn't know how it feels to be loved by parents so what could he be missing? The answer is nothing. He doesn't know what it's like to have a family. The theme I'm getting at is kind of like "is it better to have loved and lost or never loved at all". So I wonder how he would feel if he knew his parents, and then they died.
If you think about it, orphans who never knew their parents (and are not adopted) never experience having a real family (unless they're adopted of course). So like I said, what's to miss? But it's not about that. Since I don't have the experience I can't really speak for them realistically but I would think that they aren't hurt by the missing, they are hurt by the desire. The desire to have that perfect family and being loved. Since they don't have it and sometimes will never have it, the desire hurts the most.
Obviously I'm going to deeply miss my dad when he goes away, but I always think, at least I have the memory. I know my dads coming back and stuff but you know what I mean. But I think sometimes the memories can hurt. Thinking about the good times will lead to you missing them even more. I know I'm going to remember watching all the old movies with him and yelling at the TV when we watch Top Chef. But on the other hand you at least have something to look back on and that's good enough for some people. I just know that I'm lucky, and I'm glad to have a dad.
Countless times throughout the book Harry is reminded of his deceased parents. Whether it's through pictures or seeing them in a special mirror in the earlier books, he can't seem to get away from it. Anyway, my colleague Peter Diller argues at my point. He believes that he doesn't desire a family, he misses his dead family. I disagree with that statement. He was too young to remember anything to do with his parents. If he had, he would have known he was a wizard before a half giant came knocking on their door to tell him.
But going back to theme, I think it is impossible to make the decision, especially because I haven't gone through it, and just in general there's always an opinion. But if I was to make a decision I probably would go with what Harry went through. He made a family. The Weasleys and his friends were his family and in real life it's possible to get adopted. I guess my only question now is how would it change your life if that person was alive, or you originally did have a family? What if Harry had a family? Would he be different? Would he have the tremendous courage he has now?
Countless times throughout the book Harry is reminded of his deceased parents. Whether it's through pictures or seeing them in a special mirror in the earlier books, he can't seem to get away from it. Anyway, my colleague Peter Diller argues at my point. He believes that he doesn't desire a family, he misses his dead family. I disagree with that statement. He was too young to remember anything to do with his parents. If he had, he would have known he was a wizard before a half giant came knocking on their door to tell him.
But going back to theme, I think it is impossible to make the decision, especially because I haven't gone through it, and just in general there's always an opinion. But if I was to make a decision I probably would go with what Harry went through. He made a family. The Weasleys and his friends were his family and in real life it's possible to get adopted. I guess my only question now is how would it change your life if that person was alive, or you originally did have a family? What if Harry had a family? Would he be different? Would he have the tremendous courage he has now?
Thursday, January 27, 2011
Harry Potter #6 Movie-Book Comparison
As I continue to read Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince, I notice more and more things that is different with the movie. I'm am one of the people who watched the movie first before reading the book. I'm now going to finish all of them before the second part of the 7th movie comes out. Anyway, I think that they are very different, but not necessarily in bad ways.
People always say that the book is always better than the movie. That's usually true, especially with the last four Harry Potter Books I've read. In this one, I believe that they did a pretty good job. I think they chose good parts from the book, that would be good for a movie. Of course they can't put everything in because then it would be a 5 hour movie. They basically got the whole plot right, and that's what they're supposed to do. I mean, I don't like how people go into a movie expecting it to be bad. WHY WOULD YOU GO THEN? It's not gonna be the same as the book for christ's sake. And then they complain about not adding in things from the movie. I know it could be frustrating, but really who cares? it's not like they're gonna change it. Obviously they put it in for a reason. I'm not really defending the Harry Potter movie. I'm just saying that making a big fuss out of it is kinda ridiculous.
As I read the book I see more and more that is slightly changed. At times I almost got annoyed but I caught myself. The author is a part worker on the movie, so she must have had a say in it. So if she lets it happen, I think I can too. It's not big things though. It's not like Voldemort is a girl in the movie. It's more like how things are done or happened. For example, when Ron thinks he drinks the liquid luck, it doesn't exactly happen how it does in the book, but it's fine. I just believe that people who obsess over movies from books are cry babies.
And this is not only with the Harry Potter series. it's with all kinds of Book Movies. But don't get me wrong. There are some great movies made from books, for example Fahrenheit 451 is one of my favorite books and movies. Some things are changed, but I just don't care enough to complain. It entertained me and that's what it's supposed to do.
If you have an argument I'd be happy to debate with you.
People always say that the book is always better than the movie. That's usually true, especially with the last four Harry Potter Books I've read. In this one, I believe that they did a pretty good job. I think they chose good parts from the book, that would be good for a movie. Of course they can't put everything in because then it would be a 5 hour movie. They basically got the whole plot right, and that's what they're supposed to do. I mean, I don't like how people go into a movie expecting it to be bad. WHY WOULD YOU GO THEN? It's not gonna be the same as the book for christ's sake. And then they complain about not adding in things from the movie. I know it could be frustrating, but really who cares? it's not like they're gonna change it. Obviously they put it in for a reason. I'm not really defending the Harry Potter movie. I'm just saying that making a big fuss out of it is kinda ridiculous.
As I read the book I see more and more that is slightly changed. At times I almost got annoyed but I caught myself. The author is a part worker on the movie, so she must have had a say in it. So if she lets it happen, I think I can too. It's not big things though. It's not like Voldemort is a girl in the movie. It's more like how things are done or happened. For example, when Ron thinks he drinks the liquid luck, it doesn't exactly happen how it does in the book, but it's fine. I just believe that people who obsess over movies from books are cry babies.
And this is not only with the Harry Potter series. it's with all kinds of Book Movies. But don't get me wrong. There are some great movies made from books, for example Fahrenheit 451 is one of my favorite books and movies. Some things are changed, but I just don't care enough to complain. It entertained me and that's what it's supposed to do.
If you have an argument I'd be happy to debate with you.
Thursday, January 20, 2011
Harry Potter #6 Response (Possible Spoiler Alert)
I just recently started Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince and I'm about 280 pages in. Something I've been thinking about is the issues: insecurity and acceptance. Voldemort and all his death eaters go crazy over the fact that they are all purebloods, and everyone else should be killed, when really Voldemort was the son of a muggle and so called "squib". This confuses me, and makes me think about whether the Death Eaters would care if they knew.
Voldemort, aslo known as Tom Riddle must be very insecure to lead a pack of pureblood, ferocious, murderers on a quest to kill all non-purebloods when he is not pureblood himself. He's obviously denying it, and just hates the idea of his childhood and parents. In real life, people deny what they can't accept all the time. Which leads me to the idea of his death eaters accepting him. I wonder if they would accept him as one of them after all he's done in their movement.
If they were to accept him, which I would really believe, they would have to accept all the other mudbloods and halfbreeds, which I would completely not believe. These people are thieving killers whom are obviously deranged. But this makes me think about acceptance in general. Acceptance is by the individual, no?
Racists don't all of a sudden accept other races. That's who they are. We can all conclude that racism is wrong, sexism is wrong, homophobia is wrong, but where does this get us? It's mostly due to the ignorance isn't it? And this leads me back to insecurity. Sometimes homophobes are insecure and actually gay themselves, but as an individual they think it's ok. Just because they are gay doesn't mean they can't be against it. So now they think that they are fine, but the rest of the homosexuals are bad. The problem with this, is they aren't realizing that there are other individuals who feel the same way. So they are alright too all of a sudden, but the rest are still bad?
I don't exactly know where I'm going with this but I know that somethings funny here. As I read on hopefully I will be able to write more.
Voldemort, aslo known as Tom Riddle must be very insecure to lead a pack of pureblood, ferocious, murderers on a quest to kill all non-purebloods when he is not pureblood himself. He's obviously denying it, and just hates the idea of his childhood and parents. In real life, people deny what they can't accept all the time. Which leads me to the idea of his death eaters accepting him. I wonder if they would accept him as one of them after all he's done in their movement.
If they were to accept him, which I would really believe, they would have to accept all the other mudbloods and halfbreeds, which I would completely not believe. These people are thieving killers whom are obviously deranged. But this makes me think about acceptance in general. Acceptance is by the individual, no?
Racists don't all of a sudden accept other races. That's who they are. We can all conclude that racism is wrong, sexism is wrong, homophobia is wrong, but where does this get us? It's mostly due to the ignorance isn't it? And this leads me back to insecurity. Sometimes homophobes are insecure and actually gay themselves, but as an individual they think it's ok. Just because they are gay doesn't mean they can't be against it. So now they think that they are fine, but the rest of the homosexuals are bad. The problem with this, is they aren't realizing that there are other individuals who feel the same way. So they are alright too all of a sudden, but the rest are still bad?
I don't exactly know where I'm going with this but I know that somethings funny here. As I read on hopefully I will be able to write more.
Friday, January 7, 2011
Rereading A ClockWork Orange.
POSSIBLE SPOILER ALERT
I recently watched this movie so I decided I wanted to read this book again. After reading about half way through, one of the issues that came up in my head is what it means to be a good leader. Alex claims to be the leader, but he makes decisions in the book that make me think otherwise.
In the book George, Pete, and Dim decide that there should be no leader. This angers Alex, so he basically beats the crap out of his gang members and stabs Dim. He believes this makes him a leader. If he was a real leader, I think he would take charge, but not like that. I think he should have taken charge but he definitely went to far. So now I think that yes, he is being a leader, although not in the best way.
What you would think of when you hear a leader in the real world is like a general or something. Generals take charge, give orders, and go through with them. I believe that's a good leader. A leader gets things done right.
In the book when Alex gets arrested he starts to blame his droogs (gang members) and says that they made him do it. That definitely does not make a good leader. I think a good leader would take responsibility for what has happened, whether they actually did it or not. A good leader wouldn't have ratted out his/her followers. So now, even though Alex is taking charge, giving orders, and getting things done, he still doesn't take responsibility.
So for now, in this moment of the book, I decided what a good leader is, and how Alex is definitely not one. A good leader takes charge, gives orders, gets things done, and takes responsibility. The responsibility part was the only thing Alex was missing. Maybe he wasn't cut out for the job. And now, the consequences have fallen on his head. I'm just wondering about his droogs though. Maybe it wasn't him who was the bad leader. Maybe it was the the droogs who were bad droogs.
I recently watched this movie so I decided I wanted to read this book again. After reading about half way through, one of the issues that came up in my head is what it means to be a good leader. Alex claims to be the leader, but he makes decisions in the book that make me think otherwise.
In the book George, Pete, and Dim decide that there should be no leader. This angers Alex, so he basically beats the crap out of his gang members and stabs Dim. He believes this makes him a leader. If he was a real leader, I think he would take charge, but not like that. I think he should have taken charge but he definitely went to far. So now I think that yes, he is being a leader, although not in the best way.
What you would think of when you hear a leader in the real world is like a general or something. Generals take charge, give orders, and go through with them. I believe that's a good leader. A leader gets things done right.
In the book when Alex gets arrested he starts to blame his droogs (gang members) and says that they made him do it. That definitely does not make a good leader. I think a good leader would take responsibility for what has happened, whether they actually did it or not. A good leader wouldn't have ratted out his/her followers. So now, even though Alex is taking charge, giving orders, and getting things done, he still doesn't take responsibility.
So for now, in this moment of the book, I decided what a good leader is, and how Alex is definitely not one. A good leader takes charge, gives orders, gets things done, and takes responsibility. The responsibility part was the only thing Alex was missing. Maybe he wasn't cut out for the job. And now, the consequences have fallen on his head. I'm just wondering about his droogs though. Maybe it wasn't him who was the bad leader. Maybe it was the the droogs who were bad droogs.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)