Ancient Nonfiction- Sex and Vegetables

So, it's not really ancient, but it's in the public domain so it's pretty damn old. Vegetarianism and Occultism by C. W. Leadbeater and Sex: Avoided Subjects Discussed in Plain English by Henry Stanton were both interesting, if not entirely factual reads.

Veggie:

First, I thought it was hilarious how the author referred to the eating meat. Such as:

"The consumption of corpses"

"Feasting upon the flesh of dead animals"

"Defiling oneself with animals"

"Consuming decaying flesh"

And other stuff like that. I'm a vegetarian myself, but I don't run around screaming at people "HOW DARE YOU DEFILE YOURSELF BY CONSUMING THE CARCASSES OF DEAD BEINGS!" Which is essentially what this book did at times.

Honestly though, the arguments were kind of weak. Leadbeater gave examples of cultures that have thrived without meat, but they were often vague is there was usually a counter example of a culture that ate meat. And the health reasons were largely crap (ex. eating meat will cause your body to fill up with nitrogen), as the science just wasn't all that sound. Also, the "occult" part really wasn't witchcraft-related, like I expected it to be. It just referred to the "hidden" (occult) benefits of vegetarianism. I was expecting it to be about the spirits of the dead animals, at the very least. But nope. Just about more health/peace of mind benefits.

The tone was also amusing, as it was clearly written as a sort of pamphlet/instruction manual. Plus, it was written in the early 1900s, so it had slightly different language shtuff.

Overall, an interesting read, and an amusing one, but not a great one.

Sex:

Earlier this year, I read Bonk: A Scientific Study of Sex by Mary Roach. Reading an early-1900s version of a somewhat shocking sex-info book was interesting. It certainly was far less scientific, but it was interesting to learn the perspective from back then. Honestly, most of the book read like a sex-ed textbook. It covered a lot of stuff that is taught in schools. Some parts, however, where certainly different and interesting. There was some very mild sexism (shockingly mild, considering the time period), but overall, it was excellent. Those who know me are aware that I don't mind sexism in books anyway. The book was split up into a few sections, regarding boys and girls at different stages, STDs, love, marriage, and more. I thought that it was really well organized and well written, simple, yet effective for it's time. I tried to jot down notes as I listened (audiobook- yay librivox) so that I would have things to say in this post. SO:

Mix of interesting facts, quotes, and inaccuracies.

• "We may eat ever so many beefsteaks without acquiring any of the characteristics of an ox." (On why people can have sex without becoming sex-crazed animals)
• "At nine months, the fetus is thrust from the laboratory of nature in which it was born." (just found this funny)
• Apparently, masturbation is really bad for guys until age 16. Then it becomes good for them.
• Also, tight pants are bad for boys' game.
• "Sliding down banisters, for examples, provides a titillation." (Examples of how young boys masturbate)
• Masturbation causes epilepsy.
• Puberty is delayed by cold weather.
• Ever since the world war, girls have been more independent and promiscuous. (I suppose this is actually fairly accurate.)
• Girls who go to coed schools are sluts. (according to scientific studies...)
• Pregnant women should read "literature of a lofty nature" in order to have smart babies.
• If a pregnant woman eats enough fruit, childbirth won't hurt at all.
• Pouring mercury on your body is a good cure for syphilis.

The last section, which was actually about sex and love, was the best part. It approached the subject from a very modern point of view, with limited sexism (aside from comments about how women should expect to have to please there husbands, and men should attempt to avoid shocking their wives with their acts/needs... which was slightly funny). Basically, the author said that good sex is great, but a marriage needs more than that. Once you get old, he asserted, sex drive decreases. If that's all you ever had in your marriage, things will not go well from there. He talked about good conversation, and shared interests, and stuff of that sort. I thought it was a nice way to end.

Also, I find it somewhat amusing, for some reason, that he was the wife of Elizabeth Cady Stanton. It sort of makes sense. Women's rights and sex education to all... they go together fairly well, I suppose.

I will be writing a total Series of Unfortunate Events post, likely Wednesday or Thursday, and will probably write about No Exit on whichever day I don't choose. And I also need to read 2 additional books to hit 100. Those write ups will likely be posted on Friday. Then, on New Year's Day, I'll write something special and summation-y... I just haven't decided what yet.

Total Book Count: 96 (I'm gonna make it to 100!)

NonFiction: 27 (28.1%)

An Extremely Belated Post Regarding Water and Elephants

Yes, yes, I am finally going to talk about Water for Elephants. But first:

There is someone, a person who uses internet explorer, who follows the link on my facebook and checks this blog about 5 times a week. I admit, I wonder who cares enough to consistently check this thing. I mean, my writing is far from phenomenal and you can't see how strikingly good-looking I am from behind a computer screen (har). So, uh, Hi. Who are you? Or you don't have to tell me. Jeez, I was just curious. Please don't get offended. Come back.

Damn, I'm weird.

But, yes, I appreciate the views and knowing that someone cares about this at least a little bit.

...........

So, I started to write this on the 14th and then saved it as a draft. I suck at updating this blog.

So now, 2 weeks after I started this blog and 7 weeks after I finished the Water for Elephants by Sarah Gruen, here it goes. I'm just going to bullet this, since I don't remember my exact thoughts enough to really write anything formal (because... you know... this blog is typically so formal). BAM:

*WFE was a NaNoWriMo novel, and at times, it does feel like one. Certain passages feel like word wars- parts where she just wanted to write and add fluff and get words down.

*I hate when people try to make this novel symbolic. It was written to entertain. The elephant is not a symbol of world peace or something. Gawd. (Note: I read this book for English class.)

*I thought that the portrayal of Jacob (main dude) was really good when he was young, but pretty awful when he was old. It was just terribly stereotypical (which is common of NaNoWriMo novels. This is not a good thing.) and not interesting to read.

*I overall thought that the old-Jacob parts were poorly written, but I like the premise. Once again, shifting time periods of characters between chapters is common for NaNoWriMo, as it's an easy way to up your word count and avoid writer's block (I should know, I did it this year). I thought that it worked well in this novel because it brought into question the validity of young Jacob's story. Old Jacob was... old. And forgetful. What if, the reader may wonder, the story he tells is mere fabrication? Or just a confused version of the truth. The passage in which the nurse Rosemary explains to old Jacob that sometimes old folks remember things wrong and appear to be lying strengthens this.

Also, I liked how the alternating chapters connected. How some part of the previous chapter would be immediately referenced in the next (Like when Young Jacob calls "Rosie" at the end of the chapter and old Jacob awakens to hearing "Rosemary." Or other, cleverer ones that I don't remember.)

But, like I said, other than those bits the old Jacob parts were poorly written, stereotypical, and annoying.

*It vaguely reminds me of the novel Kristina Horner wrote for NaNoWriMo last year. Not that I read it. It was just about carnivals. And it was a NaNo Novel. So yeah, similarity stops there.

*I thought that August was a little stereotypical too. But I didn't mind it as much.

*The chick annoyed me. Marlena. She just didn't seem very... deep. A little bit of a flat character.

*Young Jacob was awesome. I would like him irl.

*It was clear that Gruen did a lot of research, and I liked feeling like I was learning. Plus, I loved all of the Great Depression references. (as a proud member of Academic Decathlon)

*I am excited for the movie. I like Reese Witherspoon and Robert Pattinson.

*Overall, it was a fun read, and a good book. Yay.

Total Book Count: 92 (Yeah... a lot to catch up on)

NonFic: 27 (29.3%)

Moving Away from Preteen Towards Demented Child

I was in a bad mood. This weekend was just freaking stressful (college apps... gah), and I did not feel like challenging myself with anything actually intellectually stimulating. So I read more books absurdly under my reading level!

During NaNoWriMo, Lemony Snicket wrote one of the pep talks. There were a dozen or so pep talks released over the course of the month. I only read two of them, John Green's and Snicket's. Reading Snicket's talk made me really miss the Series of Unfortunate Events. So I started looking around Lemony Snicket's website to see if he'd written anything new. He has.

But before I could start something new, I decided that I had to reread the series. Which is why I read The Bad Beginning and The Reptile Room this weekend.

Yes, they are children's books, I am aware of that. And yes, they are unfortunate and not the typical books that one would gravitate towards in times of stress and anxiety. But, I love them. They are comfort books. They were the first series that I became obsessed with to the point where I started frequenting fan sites and writing essays on my theories. The Series of Unfortunate Eventswas my first Harry Potter series.

The two books themselves were very good. I'd forgotten about a lot of stuff. The plot points I remembered for the most part, but I didn't remember all of the little references to side characters. (OMG Bruce is in the end of Reptile Room and he appears in a later book! Theory time!) I had also forgotten about Snicket's habit of defining words within the text. I like it. It's an excellent way to subtly teach children vocabulary.

I like Violet and Klaus and Sunny. I grew up with them. Or, at least, I spent a lot of 5th and 6th grade being obsessed with them. At the same time though, it feels kind of stupid to summarize the plots here. I've read them enough that I know I won't forget. I'm going to continue to work my way through the series, and I should have some more interesting posts when I can start theorizing again. The earlier books are pretty devoid of material that is usable in theories.

Also, I feel weird referring to "Lemony Snicket" as Snicket. His real name is Daniel Handler. I feel like I should refer to him as "Handler." But I guess he likes his pen name, and it serves a purpose.

I swear, I'll get around to No Exit and Water for Elephants. Soon. And I'll finish my Vegetarianism and Occultism audiobook this week. 'Tis my goal.

Total: 83
NonFic: 25 (30.1%)

Being a Preteen Again

I know that I still need to talk about Water for Elephants by Sarah Gruen and No Exit by Jean Paul Sartre, but those two books can wait.

I finished NaNoWriMo 2 days ahead of schedule, on the 28th. I'm much happier with this book than the one I wrote last year, and I really want to finish writing in (it will probably require more like 80,000 words to complete). I'm going to give myself a week-long break though, because my wrists are absolutely killing me from typing so much. I should, theoretically, have more time to read, though I fear I won't be hitting 100 books this year. It's a bit depressing, but I guess I'll survive.

I was a bit under the weather this weekend and just needed something simple and pointless to read, so I turned to First Test by Tamora Pierce. It's the first book in the third series within Tamora Pierce's larger Tortall series. I've always liked it, although I'm not typically a fan of fantasy. It was the same as I remembered it, although I found myself expecting things from the first series (the Alanna series) to happen in this book.
Basically, First Test is about a girl named Kelandry living in the realm of Tortall. She decides that she want to be a knight, even though she is a girl. She is put on "probation" and allowed to train as a page for one year to prove herself. It's a pretty typical girl-power, middle school novel, but it's well written and I liked it. I needed something mindless. And I needed to write about something mindless, not something like No Exit that requires a bit more thought.
I like that it's a cute little, everyone wins story. The girl gets to stay on as a page, she's no longer on probation, and she beats the bullies and shtuff. I needed a positive read. Can you tell I'm a wee bit overworked.
Sorry for the lack of interesting words (and shtuff) in this post. I really don't have much to say about this book, and I am exhausted. Expect more young adult fiction soon. I might actually reread the series of unfortunate events. I am just tired, and I need stuff that reminds me of my childhood, when I wasn't so busy all the time.

Much love to my readers, who seem to exist, if only in small numbers. Feel free to comment. I will love you more.

Total: 81
NonFic: 25 (30.8%)

The Stranger and a Glimpse into my Novel

IT IS NOVEMBER! You know what that means- NaNoWriMo. It seemed wrong for me to be spending time writing a blog entry (although I desperately needed to) when I had a novel to write. So, Ainsley, my main character, suddenly had an English assignment about The Stranger by Albert Camus, which I have been meaning to write a blog post about. I also finished No Exit by Jean Paul Sartre and Water for Elephants by Sarah Gruen. But I shall get to those later. Until then, let me leave you with my cop-out-I-don't-have-time-to-write-a-blog-entry-so-read-some-of-my-horrible-novel blog post on The Strange. Let me defend myself by saying I had really bad writer's block when I was writing this. Yes, I am aware that it is quite awful. But:
A. This is NaNoWriMo. I'm trying to write a novel in a month. It's about quantity, not quality, dudes. That's the point.
B. I seriously think I have some very good passages in this novel. I mean, nothing Pulitzer worthy, but passages that are definitely publishable, if the book as a whole is not.
C. Also in the spirit of NaNoWriMo, this has not been edited at all.

Onwards!
_________________________________________________

I had put off my English and Psychology assignments until the end. I hated both of those classes. I don’t like to read novels, especially not modern ones. And poetry is awful. I am not a believer in being vague about your feelings. If you want to share something with people, then share it. If you want to keep it personal, keep it to yourself. I don’t like all of the in between, vague shit.
I decided to attempt to tackle the English assignment first. I typically hate English slightly less than Psychology. It’s subjective, sure, but it’s not as personal and introspective. I had to write an informal journal about The Stranger by Albert Camus. It wasn’t a research paper or anything. My teacher had just instructed the class to write a page or two on what they thought about the book, their reaction to it, or, really, whatever they felt like. I knew a few other kids in the class were planning on writing fictional pieces, short stories in the same style as the novel or with the same themes.
I hate this sort of open-ended assignment. A research paper I can write. I can look up sources and quote articles and integrate information. I hate vagueness though, and I hate having to respond personally to a book. I am not a literary critic, and I have no intention of ever becoming a literary critic. What is the point in analyzing books? No one wants to hear my opinion, and I don’t want to share it.
I sighed and got up from my desk to retrieve my laptop from my bed, where I’d left it the night before. After I’d finished my work, I’d stayed up later doing practice problems for the chemistry subject test online. I wanted to get a perfect score on it. I needed one to get into college.
I sighed again, resolving to study more for chemistry later that night, and opened up my laptop. I carried it over to my desk and plugged it into the wall; It was low on battery. I firmly pressed the on button and waited for it to start.
I drummed my fingers against the edge of my desk anxiously, trying to think about the essay topic so that I wouldn’t waste time. I don’t like sharing my own thoughts in writing. Really, I don’t like sharing my own thoughts out loud. I would just make up a response, or formulate some fake opinions, but I can’t. I’m not creative enough to bullshit something. For these kinds of assignments, I usually just end up staring at the cursor, blinking on my computer screen, for nearly an hour before I can actually write anything.
I glanced up at the screen and opened up a blank document. I needed to start if I wanted to sleep at all.
The Stranger. Existentialism. I get that. Honestly, I wasn’t all that moved by the book. I mean, basically, the main dude Meursault just doesn’t care all that much about life. Whatever. He get’s stuff done. Actually, he’s really efficient. He doesn’t get caught up in emotions that prevent him from getting work done. Sure, he killed a guy, and that was stupid. And he has no ambition, which is about as stupid, but at least he himself isn’t stupid. He’s just... robotic, I guess. In some ways really, I envied Meursault. If he thought things out a little more, I really don’t think things would have turned out so badly for him.
I stared at the cursor blinking in the word document. I could do this.
I typed out a tentative title, “The Benefits of Being Meursault” and hit the “enter” button, starting a new line. I drummed my fingers against the edge of my laptop’s keyboard. I could do this. I could think of something. I tentatively hit a few keys.

Meursault is the epitome of the mechanical man.

I stared at what I’d written, biting my lower lip. It sucked. I would fix it later. First, I needed to get something down on paper.

From the first pages of the book, when he reports the death of his mother without displaying any signs of grief of personal weakness, he acts rationally and unemotionally. Meursault is productive, never materialistic, and always finishes what he sets out to do. In American society today, men like Meursault are difficult to find. Our society is an emotional one; It is a society in which appearance is more important than almost all else, and social intelligence is favored above academic intelligence. Perhaps, if America had more Meursaults, we would not be falling in the ranks of world power. Perhaps, with more Meursaults, we could once again become a productive and thriving nation not held back by patriotism, anti-elitism, or emotional reactions to social issues that keep our courts and lawmaking bodies tied up for months. Although Meursault certainly was detached from consequences and emotion to an unhealthy and detrimental degree at time, many of his traits are certainly enviable.
First, look at the benefit of Meursault’s stoic nature. Because he is able to emotionally detach himself from situations, he is able to handle them cleanly and efficiently. After hearing the news of his mother’s death, Meursault is able to take care of her burial and assure that all of her affairs are in order. Then, on the following Monday morning, he is able to return to work here he is just as productive as usual. The ability to continue to work in spite of personal losses is an excellent attribute to have. If everyone had this ability, the world would be a far more productive place.
Next, Meursault’s ability to detach himself from other people is enviable. Although Meursault has an intimate relationship with his girlfriend, Marie, he does not become dependent upon her at any time. In a world where a break-up is often a spirit-crushing occurrence for most people, the end of any romantic relation almost certainly leads to disastrous consequences in terms of productivity. If society learned to be more emotionally detached like Meursault, fewer people would be seeking time off or therapy following the ends of meaningful relationships. Emotional distress following the end of a relationship is a detriment to society. The money used to pay for therapy services is, in some cases, taken from the pockets of tax-payers as the government pays for medical expenses. Society, too, must pay for the drop in productivity if a person misses work. Ergo, the ability to remain avoid becoming dependent on or emotionally attached to another person would be of great benefit to society.
Last, Meursault’s ability to remain psychologically stable in the face of events that would be traumatic to another person is enviable. When Meursault sees the girlfriend of his neighbor, Raymond, brutally beaten, he is able to remain unemotional. When he later sees his Raymond bloodied after a fight with an Arab, he is able to calmly take him to a doctor and not react with desires for revenge. When he later kills the Arab impulsively, the murder is entirely unemotional. He is able to calmly fire five shots at the man and never becomes upset after the murder. Although I certainly do not advocate murder, one cannot deny that the ability to remain calm in what could be considered a highly traumatic situation would be a highly profitable trait for a person to possess. The ability to remain calm, like the previously mentioned aspects of Meursault’s personality, would improve productivity in any person.
Hence, it is clear that although Meursault’s traits are rarely pleased by the reader, his attributes certainly have their uses. A society of rational, unemotional, independent people would certainly be more productive and more stable.

I glanced at the time in the bottom corner of my computer screen. Fifteen minutes had passed since I had begun writing. Not bad. I began to read through what I had written.
Maybe it was bad, I realized, but it would have to do for the time being. I had a psych project to do, and I was doing far worse in psych than I was in English. I mean, I had a ninety-eight in English, which wasn’t amazing, but I had a ninety-six in psychology. That was unacceptable.
I saved the words document and opened up a new file, pulling out the directions for my project.
_________________________________________________

Let me know what you think about this. Try to come up with more than "It sucks" if you can. I'd appreciate some real feedback. Also, for the record, she decides to scratch this essay all togethe later and writes an entirely new one about symbolism in the novel (which, don't worry, is not actually included in the novel). She decides that this one sucks and tells too much about her desire for perfection and productivity.

Also: They just changed my high school's no-ipods policy. So I will now be listening to audiobooks during art class. Hopefully, between art and my long drives to doctor's appointments every few days, I can finish 1 or 2 audiobooks a week.

Total Books: 79
NonFic: 25 (31.6%)

No, I didn't die. I just... uh... Blinked.

So, um, hello everybody.
Figures, when I stop writing for a while, there actually is and everybody. I've been getting so many views lately. Over the past month, I've gotten nearly 400 views. I know that doesn't seem like a ton, but it's more than this blog got from January to August. So I'm pretty excited about it.
Also: HELLO RUSSIA! And Thailand! And Italy, Poland, Columbia, India, Ukraine, France, Bulgaria, Germany, and Latvia. Excuse me, but why in the world (heh... like countries... in the world... oh never mind) are you looking at my blog so much? I don't completely understand it. But I appreciate it, nonetheless.
So. Anyway. Books.
I've sadly only read 2 (almost four...) since I last posted. Yes, I know, that's pathetic. You're thinking "Jackie, you read 27 books last January. What happened this month?" But school happened. And my girl scout gold award. And college applications. And general people drama. But, now, I am hopefully going to be reading a (little) bit more. I'm still swamped with work and stuff, but I really want to begin reading again.
SO. Blink by Malcolm Gladwell was not quite as good as Outliers, but it was still quite good. Essentially, it was about how people unconsciously make decisions without thinking, judging a book by it's cover, so to speak, before they even realize they've glanced at the book. The book applied this concept to a lot of different areas, but it was probably most relevant to stereotypes.
Gladwell essentially argued that most stereotypes are relatively innate, even if a person is "unprejudiced" and not remotely racist. This is largely due to the influence that society has over us. I found one study particularly interesting. The study showed that after being prepped with an image of a black man which was flashed before them, subjects were faster to identify a gun as a gun than when white faces were flashed. Yes, this is awful, but it doesn't really surprise me. Just as people automatically associate things like "career" with men, although women also have careers, people associate "gun" with "African-American". However, even more alarmingly, people also associate words like "bad", "evil", and "thief" with African-Americans. Even Malcolm Gladwell, who is half black, found himself doing this. That, to me, was the most shocking part.
Additionally, the book talked about how much small things we do tell us about ourselves and our unconscious thoughts. There was an interesting study in which psychologists learned to predict with 95% accuracy if a couple would get divorced simply by filming them having a discussion and then analyzing their facial characteristics. It was pretty cool, but sort of scary at the same time. I like to think that I'm not the readable, but I guess, really, nearly everyone is.

I know this entry is short, but I really need to do my Chem homework now, and I want to at least post something. I love you all, readers, but I would love you even more if you commented. :)

I'm going to save the other book that I read for the next blog. It sort of goes along with the theme of another book that I'm about to finish, so I want to write about them together.

Total Books: 75
NonFic: 25 (33.3%)

Outliers and Perfectionists

I seriously did sit down to write this earlier. I swear, I'm not that much of a slacker. I finished The Case Against Perfection by Michael J. Sandel on September 3rd, but then got sidetracked by Ned Vizzini's book (see, y'know, my last entry). After finishing that blog, I finally started to write this one. THEN, I started Outliers by Malcolm Gladwell and realized that the books complimented each other too much to be written about in separate blogs. SO I waited. I'm sorry, blog-o-sphere.

Perfection was pretty underwhelming. The back cover completely hypes it up as an intellectually stimulating, extremely impressive tome. It has this gem of a quote: "Sandel explores the paramount question of our era: how to extend the power and promise of biomedical sciences to overcome debility without compromising humanity."
That quote (from Jerome Groopman of Harvard Medical School) makes Perfection seem like a Scientific American or New York Times -ish book. But it's Highlights magazine at best. The research is simplistic, the language is far from highbrow, and the conclusions drawn are biased and based almost completely off of the authors opinion. Sandel clearly does not favor genetic engineering or "designer babies". His obvious bias came through in his writing and generally made the book less enjoyable to read. I think that biomedical engineering and genetic engineering are going to be extremely prevalent in future society. It is unavoidable. To some degree, this scares me. Obviously, it will be a way for the wealthy to elevate their children even more in addition to sending them to good private schools and providing them with ample resources. Also the whole everybody-turning-into-vampire-robot-Nazis-who-are-also-zombies (ten points if you get that reference) is a bit unsettling. Genetic engineering implies that certain traits (like blond hair, blue eyes, and dimples- the most popular sperm bank request) are inherently better than other traits. Also, the implications of having a society of people who are highly manipulated by technology is sort of robot-y. However, I don't think that genetic engineering will ultimately make that much of a difference, which brings me to Outliers.

Yes, Outliers preaches that one's success is largely based off of ones circumstances, but those circumstances are not limited to genetically alterable factors like IQ (which, let it be noted, is only about 50% genetic) and physical strength. For example, while those with IQ of 115 tend to do be more successful that those with IQs of 100, the difference in success between a person with an IQ of 125 and and IQ of 160 is nonexistent (which is good new for me. Hey you! Genius! I'm just as likely to succeed as you are!). A lot of other things can be important factors in success, like opportunities in life and birth month (because those who are old for their grade tend to be more successful... bad news for me... July birthday).

Also, other slight notes about each book:

Perfection:
*I also didn't mention, this book was mad boring in parts. Sandel is not a good writer.

*The book had a lot of philosophy, which I loved. There was a lot about Kant, since he specialized in ethics and seeing people as beings who deserve respect, not things.

*There was a story about a couple who put up advertisements in a Harvard newspaper for sperm from a guy who was at least 6 feet tall, had brown hair and brown eyes, and had gotten above a 1500 on his SATs. I get that you want a specific type of kid, but that's a bit much. What happens if it doesn't work out and the kid's stupid? Or if (God forbid) the child were to be born with a serious disability? Would the parents just not love them? These are the implications of genetic engineering that I dislike. I mean, even if your child ends up being an obnoxious toe-rag, you have to realize that you designed a toe-rag for yourself. I mean, damn, that would suck.

*There were references to environmental determinism, which I studied for AP Human Geography, and a lot of references to Hitler. I find it slightly amusing/interesting that prior to WWII and the whole Holocaust thing, Americans LOVED Hitler and his views on the superior race. This was largely due to the anti-foreigners/anti-immigration stance of the time. People hated the immigrants from Asia and parts of eastern Europe. They wanted to justify their prejudices, and Hitler was a convincing speaker. It was only after WWII that all of the environmental determinist groups died down for fear of being accused of being Nazis and after realizing that they really weren't that much different from the "enemy".

Outliers:
*I'm really glad that I read it. Truly, it was excellent. I'd previously thought that Malcolm Gladwell was a bit of a ... schmaltzy writer. The type who was featured on Oprah and read by middle-aged women seeking empowerment. I mean, the subtitle is "Stories of Success"... sounds like a schmaltzy self-help book. But it's not. It's a psychology book and a sociology book. I definitely want to read his other works (which I'll add to my long list...).

*My favorite passage was about a study done on how aggressive Southerners are compared to Northerners. In the study, men (from the north and south) had to walk down a narrow hallway. In the hallway, a "confederate" would open a filing cabinet, thus blocking the hall. The confederate would then shove the man trying to pass slightly while murming "asshole".
The Northerners barely reacted to this, usually simply smirking slightly. When their saliva was tested when they reached the room at the end of the hallway (it had also been tested previously), they actually had lowered cortisol and testosterone levels. The Southerners, on the other hand, became visibly angry and their cortisol and testosterone levels spiked a TON. Then, all of the men were told of a situation in which "Larry" was trying to hook up with "Steve's" girlfriend. They were then asked to say how Steve should react. The Southerners who had been called assholes all had Steve beat the crap out of Larry, while the Northerners and the Southern control group did not.
Also, later, as they were leaving the testing room, a large confederate man walked down the narrow hallway towards them. The Northerners stepped to the side of the hall at an average of 7 feet away, regardless of whether they'd been called an asshole earlier. The Southerners who had not been insulted moved to the side at 9 feet away, deferring to the older, larger man. The Southerners who had been insulted, however, moved to the side at only 2 feet away. They were essentially picking a fight with this huge dude.
So yeah, I thought that study was cool. It was done at the University of Michigan by Cohen and Nisbett. It was used to explain why there are more "honor-based" crimes in the south, but far less random violence. It's a legacy. The murder rate when settlers first came to the area was high because they had to prove they were tough and could not be messed with. That attitude has been handed down.

*The only part of that book that I didn't like was the last chapter. It was about Malcolm Gladwell's family story. I honestly just wasn't that interested.

But, anyway READ IT. It was very good. But you can skip The Case Against Perfection.

Total Book Count: 74
Nonfiction: 24 (32.4%... and change)

Ned Vizzini Stole My Book

So some of you (because there actually is a “you” now) may know that I participated in NaNoWriMo last year. My book was about a boy named Nate who, through a surprising series of events, ended up in a psych ward.
Ned Vizzini wrote my book.
Okay, so It’s Kind of a Funny Story isn’t exactly my book, but it’s pretty dang close.
There is a dancing scene. There is a scene in which one of the hospital veterans rattles off information about all of the patients. The main character is an extremely intelligent high school freshman who finds himself overwhelmed by the stress placed upon him. There is a thin, blond girl with obvious issues who the main character has a thing for.
There are A LOT of similarities.
Also, Ned Vizzini uses "y'know". While Nate (my main character) doesn't use it, he does criticize it as a sign of “the degeneration of the English language” at multiple points in my book. The fact that it appears often in both of our novels... is annoying to me. It was MINE. Why did frikkin’ Ned have to use it too?
Ned did strike on a few things that I wish I'd included in my novel, like the presence of the DSM IV (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders Version 4) in every mental health professionals office that you will ever enter. Also, I loved that he highlighted the amount of invented terminology in therapeutic situations. I touched on a few ("process", trigger", "deflection", "semantics", "the crazy" [on the right]), but he included so many.
Yet, overall, I actually think that my book is… better. Maybe I’m a little bit biased, but I think that my characters are more likeable and my plot is more realistic. Some of Ned’s major plot points seemed really absurd and contrived (along the lines of “The teen psych ward is being renovated, so OH LOOK, we’re going to stick a teenage boy in with the adult patients, even though that’s completely unrealistic.”), which I disliked. Also, his main character, Craig, was downright annoying. My Nate is not nearly as whiney.

So yes, I guess I’d recommend this book, but only if you don’t feel like waiting until I can publish mine. Because, essentially, my book is the same. (Except you won’t want to punch the main character.)

I read two other books this week, but I didn’t feel like writing about them right now. So, you shall see a new entry soon.

Also, I just want to say HELLO to the people subscribed to my blog. I warn you now that I'm extremely informal with this thing. I really only made it so that I could keep track of what I read and make myself think about the things a I read a little bit more. But hey, maybe I'll start working harder now that I feel as if I should try to impress you.

Total Book Count: 73
Total NonFic: 24 (32.8%)

Bonk: The Curious Coupling of Sex and Science

Mary Roach writes excellent nonfiction books. I loved Stiff, which was about cadavers, and Spook, which was a scientific study of the afterlife. Bonk, about sex, was just as great as the others.

The footnotes are the best part. You must read them. Roach just makes little comments, or expands on studies mentioned. Like how "Nasal congestion is an erection inside your nose.” There are far funnier ones than that. You must read this book.

There are SO MANY funny things. Like a doctor who specializes in erectile dysfunction (“ED”) who makes metaphors about everything. The penis is a “like a tire! Flat!”. “Now he’s ready to make home run. Like a baseball bat!” He performs a surgery in which the veins of the penis are essentially tied together to help prevent blood from leaving the penis. Roach asked, "How would it feel without anesthesia?" He replied, “Like the way to treat a spy”

Also, a lot of the historical references are interesting. A medical “journal” in the 1700s declared that masturbation could cause blindness, impotency, clammy hand, acne, insanity, obesity, heart trouble and fuzzy tongues. Another stated that sex with “ugly” women decreased a man’s sperm count.

Also, the patents on some of the drugs, devices, etc. for sex-related shtuff are hilarious. They try to avoid using “sex” of “masturbation” in the titles, so they end up with things like “Device to Aid in the Pleasure of Physiological Activities”. The same goes for research projects. The names get creative.

Roach had to volunteer to be a test subject in many cases, in order to be able to understand and view (I mean... sort of) the studies. Her poor husband! The studies are typically very, um, invasive. Imagine having sex on a hospital bed while doctors on either side of you apply ultrasound wands to your back, instructing you on how to move. Awkward. Yeah. For many of the studies, the researchers will recruit porn stars, as they are obviously more comfortable in front of other people. They also recruit porn directors/producers, because they know how to film sex properly. It must be an interesting job. Imagine requesting a receipt at a sex shop because buying erotica falls under "business expenses".

In addition to being funny, it was also extremely informative. Did you know that when women orgasm, their earlobes swell slightly? Or that wearing polyester underwear/pants decreases your libido? Cotton is better. Also, dead men can have erections and people who are paralyzed can still have orgasms.

Many studies were mentioned throughout the book, and many publications as well. I'm tempted to go to the library and pick up some of her sources, like Homosexuality in Perspective, which was published in 1979. The first half is about sexual functioning in gay, straight, and lesbian couples. The other half is a gay-to-straight conversion manual. Thus, it the book was ridiculed by the public. But, the first half sounds really interesting. I think I'm too nervous to pick up a stack of books about gay sex from the library though. I might get some weird looks.

Someone asked me if the book was... practical. It's certainly not a how-to manual, and a lot of the chapters are about dysfunction. No, I don't think that the sections on ED will ever be particularly useful to me. The book was written to instruct; It was written to inform and entertain.

READ IT.

Oh, and I also reread the Fountainhead. Just to study for the test and to make sure I didn't miss anything.

Total Book Count: 70
Total NonFic: 23 (32.86%)

"Oh, And One Other Thing: Don't Get Too Excited About The Fountainhead"

^That's a John Green quote. In case you were wondering.

So I typically value John's opinion quite a bit. I think he gives excellent advice, and I am one to take excellent advice.

But, on the subject of The Fountainhead, I'm afraid I'm going to have to disobey John's wishes. I am very excited by The Fountainhead. Though, I suppose, I have not entirely rejected John's advice. Though I love the book's message, I am not solely excited about the idea of selfishness, or individuality, or independence. I am excited by the quality of writing of this book.

I always forget how much I love good books. I have read far too many mediocre young adult novels when I could have been reading true works of fiction; true works of art. The Fountainhead is just that. It is complex and detailed and long. The characters are rich and varied, though highly unbelievable and unreal. Still, it's sometimes nice to just read about extreme, impossible characters. Though, I argue, Rand does not write entirely in black and white.
Austen Heller, Kent Lansing, Mike Donnigan, Roger Enright... They're all fairly normal characters. They don't have excessively lofty ideals, nor are they ignorant or cruel. Heller is a journalist who appreciates individuality, but does not live for it. He writes, partially, to please his readers (the public), yet also maintains his integrity. Kent Lansing fights for the Aquitania Hotel, but yet also lives and functions in the real world, understanding that all people are not good or intelligent. Mike is just a good 'ol guy. He's probably the most thoroughly normal character. When Roark first meets him, he's working on whatever big building project comes up, meshing with society and adapting for each job. Yet, he recognizes that some architects are truly great, such as Roark and Cameron. He then has the strength and integrity to support the. Roger, too, is normal. He simply likes Roark's designs. Not because they're original, but because he likes them.
I like that the book isn't all extremes. Guy Francon, John Erik Snyte and a few other characters who are not necessarily protagonists, are also normal. I just want to highlight this. One of the only criticisms that Rand gets for her books is that the characters are sometimes too fantastical. They aren't really, though.

Also, in terms of the architecture, which I know is just the... medium (or something) used to present the idea of individuality, I sort of find myself not loving Roark's architecture. I mean, I like practicality, but I also like uselessness. I like narrow, dark halls and oddly shaped corners and asymmetry. When I was living in Arizona, I stayed in a very Roark-like house. It was big, open, practical, attractive and unlike any form of classical architecture. But it was too perfect and light. I used to sit inside my closet just to have a small, dark space that was less perfect. Yes, I am weird as hell. Also, I like some classical architecture stuff. I like old buildings, and I like fake-old buildings as well (though not as much).
I know the architecture itself is not very important, but I just thought I'd mention that.

Roark. How come he can rape someone and no one cares? Though, fun fact, if the average person lists their top 5 sexual fantasies, a rape situation, on average, falls at number 2 or 3. This includes situations in which the fantasizer is the rapist, the rapee, or (for gay men particularly; I find this very funny) the "organizer" in a gang rape situation. Yay fun facts about sex! (See my next post, haha.)
But anyway. I think it's funny that Roark is so perfect that no one even seems to care that he's a rapist. Nope, that's cool. Whatever.
Yet, Roark is, at the same time, really attractive. God, I couldn't imagine dating someone like that, but he's such a perfect pedestal-crush. Until the pedestal gets crushed. Hopefully it's not Doric. (Heh. Heh. I managed to make 2 bad jokes about that. This is bad.)

Also, I don't dislike Peter. Or Toohey. I feel like you're supposed to, but I don't. I mean, Peter's a wimp and Toohey's a jerk, but their actions are understandable.

Yeah. This is REALLY all over the place. More so than usual.

This was a summer reading book, so I had to write a few essays/make a few charts for it. Whee. My "informal" essay on Objectivism is actually kind of funny. It's not very good, but I used a lot of vocab that I learned in my philosophy class. Though I had to take out my description of Roark's epistemological and ontological processes. I was a little disappointed about that.

*abrupt ending*

Total Book Count: 68
NonFic: 22 (32.35%)

Chicken Soup (Finally) and MORE of the Awakening

I read 2 books today! I haven't done that in ages! (Or, upon checking my chart, since June 9th, which was still a while ago, if not "ages".) And I guess technically I didn't read 2 books today. I just finished 2 books today. I started one of them last night and the other... a month ago. Stop laughing at me.

I finally got around to reading some Chicken Soup, Paper Towns by John Green. It was a nice break. Or at least the beginning was. Or really everything but the last chapter when you realize that Margo is not at all a manic-pixie-dream-girl, but rather just a slightly selfish brat.
I also realized, upon reading it more closely, how much Qs parents emphasize the books themes in their discussions. They basically state the themes. And in a hilarious, therapisty way. Somehow I didn't realize this the first time I read it.
Oh, also, I like Lacey more. She's cute. Ben still annoys me though.

The other book was Bloom's Notes for Kate Chopin's 'The Awakening'. It was a 1970s version of sparknotes (a much better version, I might add), plus a dozen essays on the novel. Sorry though, I'm not writing anything more about it.

Total Book Count: 67
Total NonFic: 22 (32.8%)

The Awakening Revisited

I know, I know, that last post was a bit intense. I'm sorry, imaginary complaining person.

I reread The Awakening yesterday because I wanted to check over some things for summer reading. I still really dislike that book, but I apologize for my first post. Sorry Kate Chopin, I know Edna just "made a mess of things".

Edna was confused. Edna was a product of her circumstances. So were the other women in Grand Isle. So was Kate Chopin. I respect the book a bit more now though. It is well written, has an interesting message, and develops the characters reasonably well (and any lack of development seems purposeful). The themes are strong (if not pleasant) and the language is solid. I just don't think that The Awakening is a great book for me right now. I have no idea what is. I need some cold neuro books or some fun, worthless, non-chicklit books. I need some chicken soup reads.

Total Book Count: 65
NonFic Count: 21 (32.3%)

The Awakening by Kate Chopin: A "Yeah" Post

The Awakening by Kate Chopin is a required summer reading book for my English class this coming year. I've had the audio book in my iTunes since my May hospital stay, but hadn't gotten around to listening to it. I originally intended to maybe just stick one of my summer reading essays into this post; Thought I'd take the easy way out. But this will not work for several reasons.

1. Despite the fact that I finished this book on July 27th (yeah, yeah, I put off writing this blog post), I have yet to completely finish an essay. My drive has been about 0 lately.
2. I have thoughts about this book that aren't covered in any of the assigned essays.
3. I hate everything formal I’ve written lately.

So. Here goes.
I want to talk to you (and by you I mean basically no one, since the only person known to have consistently read this blog is no longer going to read it) about sexuality and perceptions. I've expressed my opinions on sex before in this blog (see my Brave New World post) but I want to discuss it further and how it relates to this novel. I'm not talking about the act itself; I'm talking about the societal views on sexuality, the emotions attached to it, the double standards, the negative connotations, etc.
So. Yeah. Here it goes. For real this time.
In the beginning of The Awakening the reader sees Edna Pontellier in a domestic situation. She is with the other "mother-women" of Grand Isle, talking to them as her husband goes away to his club and her children play with the nanny. The mother-women are the... motherly type. They are caring, kind and fulfill all of the roles that domesticity puts upon them. They have “protective wings” unlike Edna’s developing wings of freedom or ultimate broken wings.
I hate them, the mother-women. I hate their flatness and I hate their subservience.
Yet I love them. I love their simplicity and I love their lack of real cares. Wouldn’t it be nice to have no feelings but duty and no role but to perform the duties given to you?
Edna Pontellier, comparatively, is a whore. Or at least that's what she turns herself into. She cannot be a "mother-women" because she awakens to her sexuality, her sensuality and her passionate desire for independence. She falls for Robert, then for Arobin. She cannot find a medium between pure, sacred, domestic Madonna and a dirty, flighty, lusty whore.
I hate her, Edna Pontellier. I hate her flatness and I hate her objectification.
I love her. I love her drive and her… her spunk.
...
Obviously, I'm a little conflicted here. I wish that in society, everyone could accept complex people. I wish that people didn't need to have labels. I wish, as John Green would say, that someone could look into the eyes of another and see their brown-ness and their person-ness; that someone could see all of person- the good, the bad, the Madonna, the Whore, the ego, the subconscious, the id- at the same time. That these parts could be seen to form a homogenous mixture instead of a heterogeneous one. That they could be seen as ingredients that blend to make a person, not entirely separate facets of a personality (or worse, entirely different people). But it's difficult. And I worry about it.
…
I know, when I think about it, that people can do this. I can do this. It’s hard for me sometimes, but I can do this. I hate pedestals- they are my biggest personal fear of a personal flaw. Yet I do the thing I fear sometimes. I put people on pedestals. And when those pedestals crumble, there are problems.
…
I really didn’t like this book. It made me think (which is good), but I really didn’t like this book.
…
The main point of this post was supposed to be sexuality and how society views it so negatively. But I guess it wasn't really. But still: I hate the word “dirty”, I've said this before. I hate sweeping generalizations and the concept of having the Madonna for a wife and the Whore for a mistress. I hate Freud for ever thinking of this complex, even though it would have existed anyway without a name. But maybe if he hadn’t named it, people wouldn’t use the word whore. Because I don’t like that. People are complex. No one’s a whore unless it’s a job title, but it’s rarely used that way.
…
This post is a bit all over the place. I could edit it and refine my ideas a bit. But no one reads this. So yeah. Not going to bother.

3 Books Belatedly Out of Order

I read What's the Difference? once again by mental_floss! I love these books. They are so funny and clever. I will most certainly have to order more of them (I just got another $25 gift card to Amazon. I love hospital surveys that you can get free stuff for. Though, I suppose, after shelling out $1,200 a day for months, it's not all that much trouble to send me a small gift card.)

WtD explained the differences between similar things (like Manet & Monet, Pool & Snooker, Plato & Aristotle, Idiot & Moron, Lager & Ale, Samurai & Ninja, etc.) and gave a little bit of a back-story to each word/concept in addition to a "quick trip" for remembering the difference. Oh, and "People You Can Impress" with each piece of information. So yeah. It was funny and educational. Read it.


Three Willows by Ann Brashares. Ugh. I gave this book to my mom for her birthday. I am a terrible daughter. She enjoyed the Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants series (written by the same author), so I picked this up at Barnes & Noble (which might be sold. wah.) for her. It was completely aimed at a middle school audience though, and not an intelligent middle school audience either. It tells the story of three thirteen-year-olds the summer before they enter High School. They live in the same town as the now legendary sisterhood, but they themselves, although they were once friends, are no longer close. The story shifts perspective between the three girls throughout the stories (reminding me far too much of the "Full House: Stephanie and Michelle" books that I read in 1st grade).

Girl 1: Ama, the stereotypical smart girl goes to a wilderness enrichment camp (although she'd much rather go to science camp... or something) and then has to deal with feeling incompetent, not being allowed to keep her hair products, and having to share a tent with a slut. Oh, and she has a crush on a guy, but is far too shy to talk to him. But she, ya know, eventually overcomes all of her fears, rappels down a mountain and texts the cute boy. Yay for her.

Girl 2: Polly is an awkward girl with a mother who never pays attention to her and a father whom she doesn't know. She decides to be a model, develops a very brief and very stereotypical eating disorder, but then starts eating again because she sucks at modeling and wants her life and her stomach to be "full" again. (I'm dead serious. Almost all of her parts in the book try far too hard to make the diet a metaphor for life. It's just overly clichéd, overly stressed, and overly forced. It's awful.)

Girl 3: The only one I was even remotely interested in reading about. Jo was basically a complete slut [she made out with a guy on a bus before she spoke to him, which I guess is cool... if you're into that (note: if the guy/girl is sufficiently attractive, I'm not saying this is awful of anything... )]. Anyway, she makes out with this guy all summer, hangs out with cool older kids (because she's 13 and snogging a high schooler) and completely ditches her true friends. But then the guy has a girlfriend, there's drama including broken wine glasses and Jo decides that her relationship with her divorcing parents and her relationships with Ama and Polly are the really important things in life.

Shoot me.


A Brief History of Time by Stephen Hawking was extremely interesting. But, even though it was written for an audience of lay people, I was still slightly confused at times. I found it really valuable and interesting (Gawd... I have to stop using the words "really" and "interesting" in these blog posts. This is getting excessive). I was planning on rereading it (which I may still do), but then I found a great book on Hawking written in comic form. I started reading that, and it makes things so much easier. I think just hearing the theories a second time helps. I don’t have much more to say in this post. Read it if you like physics and want to be educated on time and space and shtuff.

Nerd...

A brief post of supreme nerdiness:

I finished HP 5 & 6, both of which were as good as usual. A few thoughts:
I like Ginny more than I thought I did. She's a bad ass, not the boring movie version I've been thinking of for the past year.
I still think book 6 is my favorite.
I am still not at all annoyed by ALL CAPS ANGRY HARRY at all. He's angsty. So are lots of teens. I have no complaints.

I just read Cocktail Party Cheat Sheets by mental_floss magazine today. It was EXCELLENT. It reminded me a lot of Plato and a Platypus in that it is both clever and funny. It's essentially a collection of short explanations of various topics that might come up at a cocktail party- like different religious schools, famous poets, scientific theories and dead royalty. The chapters followed no logical order (the first 10 or so were alphabetical, then it became seemingly random), but each section is self-contained, so it didn't really matter. I've always loved mental_floss magazine, which I heard of through John and Hank, who both have written for it. I only recently learned that John co-wrote CPCS along with several others.
I can actually tell which sections were written by John pretty easily. That's not that impressive, since I've listened to him vlog for years, I've read all of his fictional work, and I've met him. But I'm still rather proud of it. He has such a distinct voice... an awesome distinct voice. Also, as CPCS was written around the same time as Looking for Alaska, you can tell that John was still dwelling on those themes. There are a lot of references to the last words of the historical figures covered. Boy do I love John.
Some of my favorite topics were: Miles Davis, Alfred Nobel, Kama Sutra, Martini, Tanakh and Virginia Woolf. I didn't know much about them before I read the chapters. There were a few topics that I completely understood already (like Keynes, Machiavelli, Beowulf, W. E. B. Du Bois, etc.), but the sparknotes version was still fun to read. And the jokes were funny.

Total Book Count: 60
NonFic: 19 (31.7%)

East of Eden: A Long Post on Why I Love Long Books

Wow. Just wow. I am still reeling.

I just finish East of Eden by John Steinbeck. It was assigned for summer reading, and it was excellent. Just like Atlas Shrugged, it reminded me why I love long books. The complexity of the plot; the vividness of the characters; the flawlessness of the interwoven themes; the smoothly shifting scenes: It was beautiful, simply beautiful.

When I began to read, I’ll admit, I did not have high hopes. I didn’t like The Grapes of Wrath and I expected EoE to be the same. But it was so much better. It so perfectly captured human nature and the strange bonds of family and the existence of choice.

I loved the parallel to the story of Cain and Abel: I suppose, since I had to pay attention to this for summer reading, it stood out to me a lot. I wonder, though, if I would have still noticed everything that I did had I not been specifically looking out for it. I like to think that I would have. I’ve always found the story of Cain and Abel interesting. Sad, but interesting. They both gave what they had, and it was only in his anger and disappointment over his rejection that Cain sinned. Abel, I am sure, if similarly treated, would have reacted in the same matter. Maybe it’s my vegetarian-ness, but I like “tillers of ground” more than shepherds. I liked Cain more. Abel was undeveloped (though I suppose, in 16 lines, Cain was not more developed). He was not presented with any flaws. Cain, on the other hand, was not, in my opinion, evil. He was hurt and sad. He was a product of his circumstances. I guess I’ve always had a sort of back story in my head to the verses. In my version of the story, the character whom I like least of all, honestly, is God.

Similarly, I liked the characters in EoE that paralleled Cain far more. First, I preferred Charles to Adam. Charles, of course, was more outwardly cruel. He nearly killed Adam and sinfully slept with Cathy. But his motives always seemed to at least somewhat justify his actions. Adam, although he never did anything as wrong, never had good reasons for doing what he did. Charles acted out of love (for his father), which manifested itself as jealousy and callousness. Adam felt no love for his father and loved only the idea of his wife. Adam was dim, self-centered, and weak. He isolated himself while at war, after Cathy left, and whenever he had difficult times. His reaction to troubles (inward self pity and neglect of others) was, in my opinion, just as bad as Charles’ reaction (outward harshness). Charles, I wanted to hug. Adam, I wanted to give a Prozac and kick.

I said, before, that the character I liked least was God. I stand by this. When Adam became Father, he spurned Cal and ultimately caused the tragic ending to the story. It made me dislike him further (Though, note, despite the fact that I dislike him, he is an excellent character. I don’t want that to be confusing). Also, I didn’t like Adam’s father. Lying bastard.

Then, there was Aron and Caleb. Aron, in so many ways, is the person who I do not want to be. He imagines people as more than people and concepts as perfect when they, like all else, are flawed. It’s my favorite John Green theme personified. “What a treacherous thing to believe that a person is more than a person.” Aron carries around lofty ideals of people. He imagines Abra as being morally perfect. He attempts to convert Cal. He sees the church as perfect. And he, like his father, in order to deal with personal pain, reverts into himself and ignores the pain of those around him. He wishes to go to a monastery to escape the filth of the world and stop from feeling “dirty”. When he learns of Cathy’s profession, he flees to war, leaving those who love him to deal with the pain on their own. He is weak, he is idealistic, and he is selfish. Those qualities, I think, I fear more than cruelty.

Caleb, on the other hand is smart. He knows himself, he knows others, and he knows his flaws. He is said to be far less likeable, but this I do not understand. Cal acknowledges all the bad he possesses. At times, he indulges in self-pity, but he knows this (largely thanks to Lee) and knows that he is weak (in some ways) because of it. But, he does not let this allow him to fail. I know his motives are sometimes selfish; I know he tried to buy his father. But, I love him all the same. He was far more classically Human than Adam, and I think, more like me. (Yes, I am more like Cal, but it is Adam whom I fear.) I wanted to hug Cal.

Abra, of course, comes in here. She is smart. She is strong, yet feminine in the best possible ways. I was glad that she turned to Cal. They match. She and Aron did not.

Lee. Oh Lee. I liked the earlier chapters in which you saw him interact with Sam Hamilton (who I also really liked as a character). The pair are most certainly the most intelligent and fatherly characters in the book. I really liked the concept of timshel, “though mayest”. I love biblical quotes and I’m really interested by the different interpretations of the Bible. Timshel I found particularly interesting. I think, really, it should be common sense. People may, or may not, triumph over sin. People may, or may not, seek salvation. That is, practically, not metaphysically. I still am a hard determinist. :) They can’t really do anything but what they are predisposed to thanks to causality. Whee.

I certainly didn’t hate Cathy/Kate. She was a product of her circumstances as well, though not ones I understand thoroughly. I do not understand where her “evil” and I hate that word) came from. But I don’t really think it matters. She was what she was. She felt pain too and she felt that her actions were necessary. It’s funny that I like her more than Adam and Aron. I don’t know why I cannot simply attribute their actions and feelings to their circumstances. I suppose I am selectively not deterministic.

I was sad that Tom sort of faded from the story. He was a great fun older brother. I wish he’d stuck around more.

One thing that surprised me: I didn’t think Abra’s father was going to be a thief. I totally thought that he was one of the men that Kate had pictures of. I thought that, after hearing of her death, he immediately became “ill” out of fear that the pictures would be discovered. I assumed that he hadn’t heard they’d been destroyed because he wouldn’t see anyone. I was a little disappointed that he ended up just essentially being a white-collar criminal.

I enjoyed the second half of the story more than the first. I read the last 400 pages in a day (which would have been nothing in January, but is now something of an achievement; I had a slightly busy day too). But dang, it was good. I highly recommend it to anyone looking for an intriguing piece of fiction.

Total Book Count: 57
NonFic: 18 (31.5%)

A Dozen (Legit) New Books

The good news is that despite the fact that I've been neglecting this blog, I have been reading. The bad news is that I now have 12 books to write about... so this may be a long post.
The List Is!

45. Brave New World- Aldous Huxley
46. The World According to Garp- John Irving
47. The Lovely Bones- Alice Sebold
48. Equus- Peter Shaffer
49. Frankenstein- Mary Shelley
50. Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (UK)- J. K. Rowling
51. Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (UK)- J. K. Rowling
52. Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (UK)- J. K. Rowling
53. The Glass Menagerie- Tennessee Williams
54. Mrs. Warren's Profession- George Bernard Shaw
55. Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (UK)- J. K. Rowling
56. Plato and a Platypus Walk into a Bar- Thomas Cathcart & Daniel Klein

I suppose I should begin at the beginning.
Actually, I don't think this will be too long. As a few of these were rereads, and thus, I have little to write about most of them.

Brave New World- I wrote about it a few posts ago. I wrote quite a bit about it as well. I reread it to study for a test. It struck me that it is probably one of the least scary utopia novels that I've read. I mean, I loved the principles of 1984 when I first read it, but now I'm sure I'd be more frightened by it since I'm no longer a 12-year-old-communist. But BNW just seems a little... juvenile. I think it should be taught earlier, maybe in 9th grade.

The World According to Garp- Man, I wish I'd written about this one right after I read it. It was excellent, and I had a lot of things that I wanted to write about it, but now many of them have slipped my mind.
I thought it was an interesting, and although soap-opera-ish, an oddly realistic picture. I admire Jenny Fields (Garp's mother), but disliked her followers, though I appreciated the role that they played in the book. I generally liked Garp, though I thought that his writing was awful. He was an admirable father, if not an admirable husband. My favorite character was definitely Helen. She reminded me a lot of myself (Wow, it sounds fairly cocky to say that my favorite character is the one "like me"). But really, I think we shared a few traits. Like a certain level of emotional detachment, the ability to criticize frankly, a need for power, and a certain amount of stubbornness. Though, one striking difference, I've never bitten off a man's penis.
The only death that I really was at all upset over was Garp's son. Everyone else... to a certain extent, seemed to deserve it.
Roberta (formerly Robert) reminded me oddly of Hagrid. They're both hulking but sensitive figures with intense loyalty to their idols (Jenny and Dumbledore respectively) who provide comic relief. That being said, I've never liked Hagrid much, and I didn't particularly care for Roberta.

The Lovely Bones- I don't get it. It was hyped up so much, and I honestly didn't find it that interesting. I didn't find the rape scenes (or really any scenes) to be emotional or terribly disturbing. The characters were bland and most were underdeveloped. Bored... not going to write anymore.

Equus- SO GOOD. I love plays, and I especially love psychological dramas. I found Alan's story interesting, but even more so, I loved Dysart's story. It was more frank and sincere. Alan's seemed a little bit.... fantastic. Dysart's emotions, however, felt raw and genuine. Also, it made me want to go horseback riding (in a non-masturbatory way...). I really really miss riding.
I'd love to be able to see it. Anyone want to buy me tickets?

Frankenstein- This is the third time I've read it this year. I reread it to study for finals. It sucks more and more each time. Pft.

Harry Potter 1-4; UK editions: I'm just going to lump these together. I've read them all so many times, and discussed them all completely to death on mugglenet in addition to reading every decent editorial and 4 nonfiction books on Harry Potter. Plus I listed to Mugglecast for years. And I'm currently listening to Wrock. So I don't really feel the need to comment on plot and characters. Because it's clear that I really like the series.
Though, I should mention, I think that my least favorite book is actually the 2nd, not the 4th. I've never adored either, but I always thought the 2nd was better, although it's been close.
Also- UK-ness! It was funny to see the little changes. Like revising=studying; jumpers=sweaters; practise=practise; Rear-Admiral=rear admiral (yes, I caught a capitalization difference. I felt proud.); knitted tank top=sweater vest (that was my favorite); and a ton more that I don't feel like listing. But I enjoyed them.

The Glass Menagerie- I bought a book, "6 Great Modern Plays", for a dollar at a garage sale. They're not super modern (the book was published in 1967), but I was super excited to start. I love turn-of-the-century-era plays. I began with tGM. Honestly, not my favorite play. I had heard it was amazing... but it really didn't strike me as especially special. Maybe I'm missing the point... or the deeper meaning.

Mrs. Warren's Profession- SO GOOD! I love Shaw. This play was the first modern play to deal openly with prostitution. It was really interesting and I loved the discussion on predestination and the role of circumstances in directing the course of a person's life. I've always disagreed with Dumbledore's "Far more than our abilities, it is our choices that make us who we truly are." I think that it is our circumstances, our molecular composition, and the events that led up to our lives. I believe only in practical free will, and thus consider myself a soft determinist (borderline hard determinist). Vivie (Mrs. Warren's daughter) originally starts out agreeing with me, switches sides, and then comes back. I found it interesting.

Plato and a Platypus Walk into a Bar- SO GOOD! This actually got a 9.5/10 for my excel file. I've only given 9s to 3 other books(see if you can guess which ones, imaginary readers in the blogosphere) and I've never given a 9.5. It's one of the required books for my Philosophy course at CCM, and I devoured it. It is so witty/clever/informative/hilarious. I actually have been laughing out loud AND putting down the book to seriously reflect. Few books will make you do that. Seriously, if you are reading this blog READ THAT BOOK. I constantly am jumping up, wishing I had someone to run and share stories with. I want to make the entire book my facebook status. Everyone would 'like' it (ba-dum-tch).

Gee. That wasn't long at all. Probably partially due to the amount of rereading and due to the fact that I waited too long. All the things I could have been passionate about have... mellowed. Which is not good. I should be able to retain the emotions attached to academic thoughts longer. Oops.

Total Book Count: 56
NonFic: 18 (32.14%)

Why Librivox Kind-of-Sort-of PWNS

I was in the hospital all of last week because I hurt my leg parkouring about 45weeks ago, didn't go to the doctor for 3 weeks because I was busy studying for AP tests, and ened up having to spend 5 days in El Hospital with an IV! Yippee! (Note: Sarcasm)

So, aside from being incredibly stressed because I have SAT IIs next saturday, I also am finishing catching up on a busy week of school work. Gah.

But, while in the hospital, I did manage to listen to 2 plays in audio form (thus, the thank-you to Librivox, my favorite free audio website). I "read" Lady Windermere's Fan by Oscar Wilde and Countess Julie by August Strindberg. And I also reread BNW to study for my English test.
Plus, I am currently in the middle of another play, Hedda Gabler by Henrik Ibsen (which isn't quite as good as the other Ibsen plays I've read), The World According to Garp by John Irving (I have about 50 pages left), and The Lovely Bonesby Alice Sebold (for English lit circles). So I have quite a pile. Plus I'm reading a lovely book called Barron's Guide to the SAT II in Chemistry. Meh.

Lady Windermere's Fan was EXCELLENT. It is, I am pretty sure , my new favorite Oscar Wilde play. It certainly had a few really great quotes. "We're all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars" and "A cynic is a man who knows the price of everything, but the value of nothing."
Basically, a woman thinks her man is having an affair and confronts him. He invites the other woman to a party. There is drama. His wife leaves him for her lover. The other woman feels bad and seeks out wife-y. Then there's drama over a gifted fan left in another man's house and scandal. It's like a late turn of the century soap opera.
I love the deliciously interesting (interesting adjective combination...) female characters in this play. They are so much more striking that the male characters. The feminist part of me appreciated that.

Coutess Julie, unfortunately, was not as good. I disliked 3 of the characters. And there were only 3 characters, so there were few interesting things to distract me. The plot was okay (actually, somewhat similar to LWF in terms of the whole love triangle/affair thing). But it bored me, really.

Total Book Count: 44
NonFic: 17 (38.6%)

Reconciliation

I've sort of decided that reading cannot be my priority right now, and I don't need to stress about that. I'm busy. I had SAT IIs (history and english) on May 1st and APUSH on May 7th (today...glad that's over with). I still have AP Human Geography on the 14th and then SAT IIs for Chem and Math on June 6th. Then finals are right after that. So I've been busy, and I probably will be for a while. I've resigned myself to that. I just don't have time to read as much as I used to. I don't have a ton of time to do anything. I've basically quit youtube (3-4 videos per week, rather than 5-10 per day like I used to watch), I no longer really listen to music, and I think the last time I watched TV was in March. Schoolwork has been my priority, and it will be for some time. Hopefully, I'll be able to read a little bit more over the summer. But, I'm going to have two jobs (hopefully), getting my Gold award (ugh...), possibly be working on an independent study physics course, doing summer school work, and starting to work on college applications. So I probably won't be reading a ton. But maybe I can start at least listening to audiobooks. Perhaps I could finish Ibsen's play and also all of Henry James's works.
I'm not going to be negative about my lack of reading anymore. I'm going to try to be a lot less negative in general. I bring myself down by putting myself down to much. I guess by typing this here, I'm trying to hold myself to it. I'm sure I bring down people around too, or at the very least annoy the heck out of everyone. So there. Positivity and optimism ftw.

But.... to get back to the point of this blog, I did read two books since my last post (and two history prep books... maybe I should count those. I did read them cover to cover.) One was
Dave Barry's Complete Guide to Guys and the other was Brave New World by Aldous Huxley (who I always call Adolphus Huxley for some reason). Both were very very good.

Dave Barry's book I suppose would be classified as nonfiction, but it was largely satire. The book had chapters on how men insist on being able to fix things, the origin of female "standards", sex in general, male hygiene (or lack there of), and more. It was really really funny. I actually read it over the course of several months of doctor's visits. It was the most interesting book in the waiting room, and I'm at the doctor's office quite often, so I would read it while I waited to be called in to my appointment. would definitely recommend it, to both men and women. It was really funny, but not crude despite mild sexual humor and a few bathroom-jokes. I think it managed to avoid being immature because it was essentially mocking male immaturity, so any crass-ness was sort of there for satirical effect. It seems kind of funny to call it "satire" because I always think of satire as intelligent, biting, and witty, even though I know it isn't confined to that. While clever, the book certainly wasn't "intelligent". It was just downright funny.

I was actually rereading Brave New World for english class. I read it in the summer of 2008 on the Road-Trip-O-Hell to Arizona. I guess, associating it with a not-fun time, I'd forgotten how much I liked it. I've always found utopia novels interesting, and utopia societies in general intriguing. I really liked all of Scott Westerfeld's utopia series (Uglies, sort of So Yesterday and also sort of Peeps though that was more of just an alternate-world than a utopia) and I enjoyed 1984 and The Machine Stops. 1984 particularly intrigued me, and I seriously thought that Big Brother sounded like a good plan back in 8th grade when I thought communism and dictatorships sounded really awesome. But I no longer believe that socialism is the way to go. Especially after reading Atlas Shrugged which is probably now one of my favorite books of all time. I like capitalism and competition and having at least the possibility of changing my own place in society (even if it is unlikely that I will become a millionaire). Speaking of which, John Green's video on the debt situation in Greece last week made really interesting points about how the rich tend to stay rich and the poor tend to stay poor. But WOAH. Major tangent. I was supposed to be typing about Brave New World.
So anyway. I really liked it. In terms of the society itself, I obviously disliked the socialistic concepts of the society, and how no one could change there status, everyone was in the caste system, and the government controlled everything. But there were definitely some things that I liked about the society.
One of the main things I liked (or at least liked somewhat/appreciated somewhat) was the attitude towards sex in the book. Now, I'm not saying I agree with encouraging children to have sex by the time they are toddlers, nor do I advocate having sex with tons of people. But, I really hate that society today views sex so negatively. I hate that it is referred to as "dirty" or "perverted" when it is completely natural. I also hate how simply for having sex, a girl can be labeled as a slut. And the opposite isn't true for guys. Although in the book, the male characters do refer to "having" the girls or trying them out, I don't find it sexist, as the girls approach sex in the same matter. Everyone is objectified, which makes it far more equal if not desirable.
I also liked the idea of people not having parents, but rather growing up in communities in which they are given all of the skills they need. I think it eliminates the potential problems caused by poor parents in society. I understand that it is somewhat natural for children to be attached to their parents, but I never was, and I'm sure that if children really were separated from their parents shortly after birth (and I do think birth is okay, unlike the characters in Brave New2 World, though I don't oppose artificial insemination) they would not feel attached to them and would not have any negative side effects. Emotional relationships could be formed elsewhere, with other children or with other adult figures. But I don't like that in today's society, parents are initial role models, whether or not they make good role models or not.
I liked the idea of education and "brainwashing" to an extent. Not the "brainwashing" part, but the teaching part. I'll bet if one religiously played the same information during sleep, they would retain at least some of it. And that would be cool.
I also liked the efficiency of the entire society. Everyone worked to be efficient in whatever job they did. However, I think that such efficiency should be achieved via improved education, not brain-washing and a caste system.
I didn't like the concept of soma. I really hate psychiatric drugs and I feel like they are overused in today's society. A lot. And yet depression and anxiety levels are on the rise, so evidently they are not the answer. I believe in finding positive coping skills, not taking a vacation from your problems (and thus, being inefficient while under the influence of the drugs, both soma and modern drugs).
I could really write a book on this book. I find it really interesting. I think I want to read more Utopia novels. Like Looking Backward which kept coming up on APUSH practice tests.
In terms of the writing style/format of the book, I really liked it. Aldous Huxley has a wonderful vocabulary, I like his sentence structure, and the way he set up the plot was good. I do wish that the characters could have been developed a little bit more. I think it would have been great if the book were longer. Keep the plot the same, but develop the characters a little further. Though granted, those who are products of the brain-washed society aren't very deep, and thus cannot be developed all that much. But Bernard and John certainly could have been developed more.

Writing this felt good. I could have written a lot more, but I have stuff to do. But I enjoyed it. I remember when I used to look forward to writing my entries. It really helps that I actually liked both of these books a lot, and Brave New World made me think. Honestly, most of the books that I've read of late haven't been that good. The Dresden Files are okay, but they don't make you think and they don't have any characters whom I really love. But I feel obligated to finish the series. But I guess I just won't be in a rush to do so. There's no need to force myself to read books that I don't really like. I think that's part of the reason that I haven't been reading as much. I read Brave New World in a few days because I really liked it. And I had a ton of work over those few days, but I was able to read during breaks, actually enjoy it, and then move on to more school work and be more efficient. I think I would have more time for reading if I treated it like down-time instead of another thing that I had to do. I'm going to find some books that I like that really interest me. Maybe some good fiction, or some really interesting nonfiction books. Or things that will make me think, like BNW. I really want to love reading again, and BNW has restored my faith in my ability to once again fall in love with books.

Total Books:: 42... but that's okay.
Nonfiction: 17 or 40.4%... but that's okay as well.

Hopefully... nope. No hope this time.

Perhaps I should just accept that I am a failure. I am a disgrace of a nerdfighter. I am pathetic, unproductive, and becoming more and more ignorant as I continue to fall behind my goals.

Three Books.

Three measly books since I last wrote this blog. Want to know what my total book count for March was? One. That's right, one book in thirty days. I am A DISGRACE.

I managed to read 3 books over spring break, largely because I sort of had to. First, I finished Blood Rites by Jim Butcher. Then, I read Will Grayson, Will Grayson by John Green and David Levithan. Then, I finished Frankenstein by Mary Shelley.

Blood Rites was a solid book. It didn't wow me, but I enjoyed reading it (when I stopped being lazy and actually did read it). I was surprised to find that Thomas was Harry's brother, and I really liked the development of Harry's past. The main plot, however, (which centered around mysterious deaths on the scene of a porno shoot) was not my favorite Dresden main plot. But I liked all of the characters and learning about the vampires more. I liked learning about Murphy and her family and seeing her more. I like Murphy. She's got that whole strong-female-character thing going for her that has been missing in most of the books that I've read recently (meaning the 2 other books I've read recently, since I'm a fail at life).

Will Grayson was a fun read, but not my favorite John Green book. The chapters written by David were, in my opinion, far better than the chapter's written by John. John's Will was flat, and his Will's best friend was too stereotypically gay. I liked David's Will a lot. I thought that he was relatable and clever and funny and gay without being Gay!... if that makes sense. David's chapters did not read like "gay fiction". John's did.
I got to go meet John and David both at a book signing in NYC. It was a lot of fun, though not as amazing as I expected it to be. I'm not as involved in nerdfightaria anymore. I felt a little... out of place. And it doesn't help that since nerdfighters are so epically awesome, I felt so epically blah. I guess hanging out with amazing people when you're doubting yourself isn't the absolute best idea. But still, it was fun. I enjoyed hearing David and John answer books questions. They're both quite funny. And I got my book signed along with my copy of Looking for Alaska.

Frankenstein was okay. I think it would be a fun book to discuss seriously with other people who have read it. Unfortunately, my English class is not fond of large, involved group discussions.
Frankenstein was mentally ill, in my opinion. I could have a fun time arguing how he's not really responsible for his actions/just a product of his circumstances/etc. Though I don't know that I think that makes his behavior "okay". I like to think that even if I created something horrible, I would be able to be level-headed and asses the situation without being overly emotional. Meh. I wish that I could do that with everything. I sort of miss being able to. I could make this an extremely awkward/insightful/probing/therapeutic blog post... but no.

Total Book Count: 40
Total NonFic: 16 (40%... SLACKER!!!!!!!!)