One Minute Writer: Ivores
This is the prompt at today's One Minute Writer:
Carnivores...herbivores...omnivores. Create an "___ivore" word to describe yourself and your eating habits.
Don't forget to check out the other responses and join in yourself!
Groundivore - I eat anything (almost) that comes out of the ground but not anything that is born of another independent, living organism! hehe In other words, I'm a vegetarian but I kind of like the "groundivore," might stick with it.
Single Word Meme
1. Where is your cell phone? Desk
2. Where is your significant other? None
3. Your hair color? Brown
4. Your mother? Wonderful
5. Your father? Deceased
6. Your favorite thing? Animals
7. Your dream last night? ummmm....
8. Your dream/goal? Land
9. The room you’re in? Bedroom.
11. Your fear? Lonliness
12. Where do you want to be in 6 years? Unknown
13. Where were you last night? House
14. What you’re not? Alone
15. One of your wish-list items? I-Pod
16. Where you grew up? Everywhere
17. The last thing you did? Talked
18. What are you wearing? Clothes :))
19. Your TV? On
20. Your pet? Here
21. Your computer? Laptop
22. Your mood? Blah
23. Missing someone? Yep
24. Your car? Yaris
25. Something you’re not wearing? Socks
26. Favorite store? Michael's
27. Your summer? Great
28. Love someone? YESSSSSSSSSS
29. Your favorite color? Blue
30. When is the last time you laughed? Today
31. Last time you cried? Monday
The Friday 56: 11/28/08
Rules:
* Grab the book nearest you. Right now.
* Turn to page 56.
* Find the fifth sentence.
* Post that sentence (plus one or two others if you like) along with these instructions on your blog or (if you do not have your own blog) in the comments section of this blog.
*Post a link along with your post back to this blog.
* Don't dig for your favorite book, the coolest, the most intellectual. Use the CLOSEST.
HAPPY FRIDAY!
Dennison sighed. "Look, lady," he said. "I'm more interested in helping people than trees. Sorry."
--The Forest is Crying by Charles de Lint
Teaser: Bird Bones
She must have stepped into a story, she thinks - one of Annie's stories, where myths mingle with the real world and the characters never quite know which is which. Annie's stories were always about the people, but the mythic figures weren't just there to add color.
For the rules, go here.
Monday Musings: Book Fads
How do you feel about wide-spread reading phenomenons - Harry Potter, for instance, or the more current Twilight Saga? Are these books so widely read for a reason, or merely fads or crazes? Do you feel compelled to read - or NOT to read - these books because everyone else is?
Well, if you read my posts on the first two books in the Twilight series, then you know how I personally feel about these books. However, that doesn't mean I think they're just a fad. I personally loved Harry Potter, as I've stated before, even though it was originally intended for children and young teens. Rowling is a wonderful writer. I don't necessarily think the same thing about Meyer but there are many people who do. I believe that once these books get some recognition that there are more people who pick them up simply because they heard about the series through it's popularity but there is something about each of these that appeals to certain people. Even though I thought Twilight was...well, you know, that doesn't mean that there aren't others that genuinely like the books because of the something about the book itself, not because of its popularity. Sometimes I do feel compelled to read a book because of its popularity. I figure, if it's so popular, there must be something to it.
New Moon
I apologize in advance. :)) If you can't stand to read my review of this, skip to the end for recommendations.
SPOILER ALERT! Don't read if you think you might read the book and haven't yet.
I just was very frustrated by this book. First of all let me point out some things that bothered me in the first book that carried over into this one:
1. Bella's aversion to blood and preference for sunlight.
Why make such a big deal about these issues over and over again if it doesn't mean anything more than that. It's a vampire novel. I keep waiting for the punch line. What's the special thing about her that makes these so very important. If they're not anything other than what they seem, then quit making it such a major issues all the time. Your readers are not stupid. We remember when you wrote that before. We didn't forget.
2. Rosalie
There is never any real conflict with Rosalie. This could have made a great addition to the storyline. Rosalie HATES her and Rosalie is a vampire. HELLO! If you don't want the girl around, confront her. Scare her. Conflict is a good thing in a novel. Meyer pushes it out of the way like it's inconvenient. Even the conflict that does happen (James in the first and the Volturi in the second) in the story is always wrapped up so fast that it's hardly worth bringing up.
3. The werewolves
Talk about a source of great conflict! There could have been more about this in the first book. I know I kept waiting for it. So Jacob is mad and can't be her friend and he and Edward think maybe they wouldn't be able to be around each other without possibly killing the other. Oh, please. Have them fight for goodness sake. Show me something real. And why in the hell does it take her so long to figure out that Jacob is a werewolf? She figured out Edward so quickly and she's a smart girl. Meyer writes this part like Bella's an idiot. Why did it take Jacob so long? He grew up with the stories. He knew what to look for. Assuming that your readers and your characters can't figure it out until it stands right in their faces and screams at them is insulting.
Ok, so New Moon itself. Why (other than the above) was I so frustrated. Because Bella fell apart like Edward died. I'm sorry, but going completely comatose for weeks and living like a zombie for months because your boyfriend left you is grounds being committed. They weren't even together for a year. She acted like her spouse of ten years died. The ironic thing is something very similar happened to a friend of mine while I was reading this. Maybe it's why I was so irritated by it in the book. Because I could see someone in real life doing this. This is what happens when you don't have an identity of your own. When your entire life is wrapped up in someone else; when your entire life IS someone else's life, you will fall apart like this because you have nothing of your own to live for. No one should let themselves be lost so much in another person that they simply have no life if that person leaves. I made mention of the fact in my post about Twilight that we really don't know anything about Bella. The reason is because she doesn't have a life outside of Edward. Why does she want to be vampire so badly? Because she hasn't let herself become a real person. What does she want out of life (besides Edward)? What does she want for her future (besides being a vampire)? Nothing. She didn't have any wants before either so she has nothing to fall back to.
I was a little encouraged when she decided to develop her friendship with Jacob. I thought, "Finally, something other than moping is about to happen!" She was actually finding something that made her happy, being with friends and finding things she liked outside of Edward. But then that all fell apart when she said:
It was Jacob himself.
What???!!! So she simply traded one boy to depend on and lose herself in for another. Yeah, that's a good thing. And she says it like it is! Does Meyer really believe this is a good thing? And later while she's putting herself in dangerous situations simply to "hear"Edward's voice (oh, yeah, good thing) she gets hurt and says, "I tried to tell myself that fear was pointless. I'd already lived through the worse thing possible." That is just simply not true. If she believes that her boyfriend leaving her is the worse thing possible that could happen, the girl's headed straight for the psych unit when something truly awful happens. What kills me is she even admits it yet doesn't seem to know or care why she feels this way. She says, "I'd been broken beyond repair. But I needed Jacob now, needed him like a drug."
That's exactly what this is like. Her addiction to boys taking care of her is exactly like an addiction to a drug and just as unhealthy. THEN, just when she's finally starting to believe she can live without Edward (even though she's simply trading him for Jacob instead of living for herself) HE COMES BACK! We're supposed to be happy about this I think. Meyer and many of her fans (I guess) are just overjoyed that it works out this way. The world makes, sense. Bella and Edward are together again! No, instead of figuring out how to be own person, she simply throws herself into his life that much more.
If someone can give me a REALLY good reason why I should continue this series, then maybe I'll think about it. I simply can't see myself reading anymore of it. Plus, I'm sure the fans of the series don't want to read my hate posts about it!
If you want some good vampire novels, check these out:
Anita Blake, Vampire Hunter by Laurell K. Hamilton.
Talk about down and dirty vampires, werewolves, witches, and other nasties. Anita Blake starts the series hunting all these things and within a couple books is so intertwined with them that she starts to become less and less human.
Of Saints and Shadows by Christopher Golden
The vampires are the good guys in this and they take on the inner circle of the Catholic church. This is a series too but the first book is the best.
Vampire Chronicles by Anne Rice
Seriously, if you like vampire novels and you HAVEN'T read at least the first three books in this series, you're not a vampire novel fan. You know nothing about vampire literature. I read these in high school a couple years before the movie Interview with the Vampire came out. It sealed my loved for vampire novels and later my addiction to Buffy.
The Friday 56 - First post
So I found this on a friend's Facebook page and have seen it a couple different places but haven't seen it as a weekly thing anywhere. If anyone else has, and I'm stepping on toes, let me know! I'm calling it The Friday 56.
Rules:
* Grab the book nearest you. Right now.
* Turn to page 56.
* Find the fifth sentence.
* Post that sentence (plus one or two others if you like) along with these instructions on your blog or in the comments section of this blog.
*Post a link along with your post back to this blog.
* Don't dig for your favorite book, the coolest, the most intellectual. Use the CLOSEST.
"You've got flies in your eyes," Yossarian repeated. "That's probably why you can't see them."
--Catch-22
Happy Friday!
Which Writer?
This website has an analyzer that will tell which writer your writing most resembles. I came out 52% like Frank Baum. I have never read anything by him but I guess I will have to now! I did however, (like all children) see the movie! I'm flattered.
The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins
First of all to my Christian friends who read this and want to run away screaming at the terrible things you believe I am about to say, I'm sorry. There is no reason for that if you can keep an open mind.
So I picked up the God Delusion because I was intrigued by the premise. Did he mean that the God of Abraham and therefore Jews, Christians, and Muslim is a delusion or did he mean that ANY god is a delusion? Well, he pretty much gets that out of the way right away. He doesn't believe in any god. I don't agree with everything in the book. It seems that he makes a fairly logical argument for the most part but then when it gets down to the nitty-gritty, he grasps at just as many straws as the rest of us. He simply shades his doubt with science. The truth is, we simply don't know. If you're truly interested in my beliefs, I'll explain a few things at the end of this review. I think it might be interesting after this. By the way, this is probably my longest post ever.
Dawkins is actually very funny. He had me laughing throughout most of the book. He retells a story by Bertrand Russell called the parable of the celestial teapot:
Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.
Dawkins then goes on to talk about the Flying Spaghetti Monster which is a popular internet deity. Apparently there is a Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Moster. "I haven't read it myself, but who needs to read a gospel when you know it's true?...The fact that orbiting teapots and tooth fairies are undisprovable is not felt, by any reaosnable person, to be the kind of fact that settles any interesting argument...I have found it an amusing strategy, when asked whether I am an atheist, to point out that the questioner is also an atheist when considering Zeus, Apollo, Amon Ra, Mithras, Baal, Thor, Wotan, the Golden Calf and the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I just go one god further."
Dawkins' main point is in chapter 4: WHY THERE ALMOST CERTAINLY IS NO GOD. He makes many points but it all boils down to the same thing in the end. If there is a being that has created the universe and therefore us, if this being also can simultaneously read the minds of millions people who are also simultaneously praying to this being for many (mainly frivolous) different things, if this being is the ultimate designer then who designed him (or her)? This being would have to have the most amazing scientific knowledge, far beyond anything close to what we have but a being this great could not just poof into existence out of nothing. A being like this would HAVE to come from somewhere and then that points to another creator. So is that creator the ultimate creator? If a being could create another being who could create a universe and listen to the prayers of people everywhere, who created THAT creator? Do you see? This is an endless loop that ultimately doesn't make sense. There can be no end. In othe words, "How do they (theists) cope with the argument that any God capable of designing a universe, carefully and foresightfully tuned to lead to our evolution, must be a supremely complex and improbable entity who needs an even bigger explanation that the one he is supposed to provide?"
This argument is in the middle of the book and Dawkins goes on to make some other very fine points regarding the harm religion can cause. For example, he talks of a study done with more than a thousand Israeli children, ages 8 to 14 in which they were to discuss the Battle of Jericho in the Book of Joshua:
Joshua said to the people, "Shout; for the LORD has given you the city. And the city and all that is within it shall be devoted to the LORD for destruction...But all silver and gold, and vessels of bronze and iron, are sacred to the LORD; they shall go into the treasury of the LORD." Then they utterly destroyed all in the city, both men and women, young and old, oxen, sheep, and asses, with the edge of the sword...And they burned the city with fire and all within it; only the silver and gold, and the vessels of bronze and of iron, they put into the treasury of the house of the LORD.
The children were then asked, "Do you think Joshua and the Israelites acted rightly or not?" An overwhelming majority of the children gave total approval. When asked why, their answers were all religiously based:
God promised them land, and gave them permission to conquer. If they would not...then there would have been danger that the Sons of Israel would have assimilated among the Goyim.
God commanded him to exterminate (lovely word) the people so that the tribes of Israel will not be able to assimilate...
Joshua did good because the people who inhabited the land were of a different religion...
Genocide is condoned through religion. Where have we seen this before?
A control group was given the same story only "Joshua" was changed to "General Lin" and " Israel " was changed to "a Chineese Kingdom ." The results were opposite. This time the children, without the influence of religion, saw the terribleness of exterminating a group of people. "When their loyalty to Judaism was removed from the calculation, the majority of the school children agreed with the moral judgements that most modern humans would share. Joshua's action was a deed of barbaric genocide."
I ask another question, why exactly does God need silver, gold, bronze, and iron? What is an all-knowing, powerful deity who doesn't live on the earth going to do with these things? Why would he need to destroy a city for them? Shouldn't he just be able to take them?
I will leave you with some wonderful quotes from our founding fathers.
As the Government of the Unites States of America is not in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from the religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
--Treaty of Tripoli as drafted by George Washington and signed by John Adams (give that to whoever tries to convice you our founding fathers meant us to be a Christian nation).
--Also, 'Musselmen' and 'Mehomitan' were contemporary words to refer to Islam, which makes this paragraph more than a little ironic right now
Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because if there be one, he must more approve of the homage to reason than that of blindfolded fear.
-Thomas Jefferson
Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone on man.
-Thomas Jefferson
During almost 15 centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry, and persecution.
-James Madison
Lighthouses are more useful than churches.
-Benjamin Franklin
This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it.
-John Adams
And a few others:
Religion...has certain ideas at the heart of it which we call sacred or holy or whatever. What it means is, 'Here is an idea or a notion that you're not allowed to say anything bad about; you're just not. Why not? - because you're not!
-Douglas Adams
What impresses me most about Catholic mythology is partly its tasteless kitsch but mostly the airy nonchalance with which these people make up the details as they go along. It is just shamelessly invented.
-Richard Dawkins
The great unmentionable evil at the center of our culture is monotheism
-Gore Vidal
Another Problem
Teaser: New Moon
From pg. 265
As we walked, I struggled for the right thing to say, but nothing came. I just got more and more angry that Jacob had gotten sucked in...that Billy had allowed this...that Sam was able to stand there so assured and calm.
Help?
Second, how do I cross out text? I'd like to add a feature with the books I'm reading for challenges and cross out the ones I read as I go.
Twilight
So I'm taking a break from The God Delusion to read some other books. Honestly, I think I read about as much as I will of it and maybe I'll write about it tomorrow or the next day. Saturday I decided to get going on the Whitcoulls List Challenge. Naturally I started with Twilight. Everyone I know seems to have already read this. I was going to wait until I saw the movie because I know now that I read the book I'll hate it but then a friend of mine gave me the entire series to read. I couldn't resist. I started Saturday and finished last night!
If you don't already the know the synopsis of this story (are you living in a cave?) it's about a human girl and her vampire boyfriend. I have to admit I had told myself I wasn't ever going to read this and the reason is kind of silly. I am a HUGE Buffy fan. Have been since Season Two (didn't initially watch Season One for another silly reason: the movie was stupid!). I thought, "Seriously, we've already done the tortured vampire loves the human girl thing. What a rip off." Everyone assured me this wasn't so. I agree now that except for that bit, it's nothing like Buffy. However, if it wasn't so popular I still don't think I would have gotten passed the first couple of chapters.
The book is obviously written for young teenage girls. Of course this wouldn't be the first time I read a children's series. I loved Harry Potter, but the writing in those seemed to age along with Harry. I was very impressed with how Rowling did that. I'm hoping the same thing happens with this series, because now that I've read the first book, I HAVE to read the rest! The story is told in a very single minded fashion. Not only do we only see what Bella sees (not that big of deal, lots of well written books are done this way) but the only characters that are fleshed out are Bella and Edward. I just read 498 pages and I know nothing about her mother, father, friends, previous life, or Edwards family other than surface stuff. I realize this is a long book and maybe it would have made it even longer to flesh out characters a little more but the type is fairly large and spaced out too. That has a lot do with it. Another thing that makes it single minded is the entire story is about her and Edward getting together. Ok, I realize this is plot of the book but most good books will give have other smaller plotlines interspersed with the main one.
I won't completely be down on the book. I did get sucked in to the story. After all, I finished it in a weekend. I enjoyed the story itself and it's easy to get passed the little things that I mentioned in the previous paragraph. Bella and Edward really do draw you in. I actually found myself wishing she would become a vampire! Of course, my friend that gave me the books ruined that part for me and I know what's coming. I still was wishing for it right then.
On that note, don't you hate when people tell you things about later books in a series and then say, "but I'm really not ruining anything for you." Well, of course you are! I haven't read that yet! If she talks about brushing her teeth in later books, I don't want to know.
I have to say that even though I am not fond of the simplicity of the writing (I like my characters to be completely messed up!) I really did enjoy the book and recommend it to anyone who has not yet read them (if I'm not the only on the planet left).
UPDATE: I just found a site dedicated to hating Twilight. I obviously don't hate it but I thought it was interesting. It has a funny cartoon of a boy being chased by crows and says: Edward is sparkly. Crows like sparkly things. http://www.gaiaonline.com/forum/books/anyone-else-can-t-stand-twilight/t.24736495/
Here are some wonderful points that I wish I had made and some I did that just sound better than the way I said it:
- Being clumsy is not a character flaw!
- Ms. Meyer's vampires are perfect. We respect her attempt to do away with the classical image of vampires, however, she made them super fast, strong, beautiful, etc.... She also did away with their weaknesses. And they shine, that speaks for itself.
- If the first 200 pages of your book rely on the mystery of a character's identity, don't slap "First, Edward was a vampire" on the back cover. (We realize this is not Ms. Meyer's fault, and the choice was made by the publishers. However, this isn't a "Why we hate Stephenie Meyer" list, it's why we hate Twilight. So I would consider this a legitimate reason.)
- The author constantly repeats certain things that she's already described in full detail. (Bella's extremely noisy truck, Edwards 'perfectness', how bad she was at volleyball, etc.)
- Ms. Meyer's first-person POV sucks. She just can't pull it off. Why is that? Because she doesn't find a way to explain anything but Bella. We never get to know how Edward works because Bella never thinks it, of course, and Ms. Meyer shows no other way of expressing it.
(NOTE: We all know about Midnight Sun, so please don't bring it up as you're sole argument for this point. We've heard it all before, but the fact is that, Ms. Meyer shouldn't have to write another book to explain things that should have been shown in the original.)
- Much too little actual conflict in the story. But this probably stems from having flawless main character.
- She threw away the best part! The actual falling in love! It's supposed to happen slowly... there's supposed to be intimacy and sweetness and awkwardness. But no. It's right-off-the-bat in love. They both know it instantly. From then on it's just fighting to stop his species from keeping them apart.
- Why do they love each other anyway? She smells good and he’s hot… what?
- It's just not healthy to teach young girls that True Love involves the guy watching you while you sleep. Not to mention the messes in New Moon, omitted for spoiler reasons.
- Edward is HOT. We get it. Good for you.
One Minute Writer: Veterans
Today's One Minute Writer is about Veterans. Here's my piece:
I've known several veterans in my life but the one that comes to mind first is my old college roommate and good friend, Tammi. We often talked about our lives growing up in the Air Force and then she went and did something dumb: joined the Army! hehe She's recently out of it after doing two stints in Iraq. Both times I was very much afraid for her and am glad she is home and in a nice safe job. I love her and all the other vets I've known, including my mother (wonderful woman!).
Teaser: A little more of the same....
So I figure I'll give one more teaser of this book, The God Delusion, before I write about it. I hope even my Christian friends like this one:
I was careful to concede that religious people don't think in a Biblical way anymore. For me, this demonstrated that our morals, whether we are religious or not, come from another source; and that source, what it is, is available to all of us, regardless of religion or lack of it.
--pg. 255
Don't forget to look at some others from the Tuesday Teasers.
A delusional teaser
The religious behaviour may be a misfiring, an unfortunate by-product of an underlying psychological propensity which in other circumstances is, or once was, useful. On this view, the propensity that was naturally selected in our ancestor's was not religion per se; it had some other benefit, and it incidentally manifests itself as religious behaviour.
One Minute Writer: Stranger
Who's got the time to journal daily? You do.
1. Read the daily writing prompt.
2. Push "Play" on the timer on the right side of the screen.
3. Spend 60 seconds or less writing a response to the daily prompt.
So here's mine:
Today I locked myself out of my house. As I was walking the dog and calling my boyfriend to get his spare key, a stranger with her dog heard me on the phone leaving him a message. Knowing I would not get back in my house right away, she was kind and offered my dog some water.
Happy Day
Book Teaser
A moment later Merle surged upon the coyote, sriking it on its left hip with his right shoulder and knocked it off its feet. As the coyote regained his footing and fled with its tail stuck between its legs Merle turned and sprinted back to me, cleared the irrigation ditch in a bound, landed on the road where I stood in amazement, and began to turn circles in the air, barking in wild paroxysms of glee.
Teaser Tuesday (On Saturday :) )
I snapped my fingers, pointed at the ground and siad "Down!" Marley collapsed in a heap, hitting the ground with a thud.