Blogging Portfolio Oct. 5

 Welcome to Adrienne's Blogging Portfolio October 5 for Quarter 1! Below you will see different categories connecting you with some of the best blogs and comments (If I do say so myself) that I have written! Accompanying each link is a short paragraph that explains why they are the best blogs ever. Some of these blogs overlap with each other in the different sections, but each blog corresponds with the varying topics, focusing on different aspects. Pardon me if they sound a bit autobiographical and pro-me. I know I am slightly biased. Nevertheless, please enjoy reading my blogs- and feel free to comment further on any of them! (And sorry for all of the exclamation marks too...)

Coverage:


Forests: The Shadow of Civilization

I think this blog represents my ability to blog. Not only do I summarize and write my thoughts on the article Forests: The Shadow of Civilization, but thoroughly analyze and improve upon the ideas of the article. Reading really makes me think about lots of things, and writing all of these thoughts down is what a blog is for. The only thing I would change is the title- I would refine it to something like "The Circle of Life: an Unhappy Family Tree". In my blog Forests: The Shadow of Civilization, I feel that I got down a lot of insightful ideas and address many of those "unanswerable" questions that can be talked (or blogged) forever.

Depth:

Why do we read novels?

Although at first this blog was merely a spurt of ideas from my mind directly to the keyboard, once Julie and I started discussing the broad ideas of mine things started to clear up. In one of my comments, I reference a book that helps clear up my ideas and give evidence that proves the fact that books are our friends more undeniable. As Julie and I continue to discuss, our ideas and comments become stronger and explicit as we support them with evidence from other books and writers. This discussion shows that a lot of depth can be achieved with a simple question: Why do we read novels?

Interaction:


Reaction to Psychology of the Novel

In this blog I respectfully point out a different interpretation of Psychology of the Novel, giving a comparative to Aishwarya's opinion. I think Aishwarya wrote out her thoughts quite clearly, and it made me think about what the author might have meant about the ideas he wrote about. In replying to Aishwarya's blog, the varying explanation leaves room for argument, leaving the door open to further discuss novels.

Discussions:

Why do we read novels?

This blog not only demonstrates that the blogs I write can be thought provoking (I hope), but also begins a discussion between another fellow blogger and I.  It is so easy to have a discussion on something that one is adamant and strong about. I loved blogging on this subject, and discussing it even further with Julie was enjoyable.

War is Peace, Ignorance is Strength, Freedom is Slavery

This blog of mine about the North Korean Gulag and its connection to 1984 seemed to have trigger a lot of thought from fellow classmates. They agreed with some ideas I had, and wrote about things I hadn't expanded on. As Monique says, I "allow the reader (me) to really ponder what you are saying. (which is the effect a blogger should have on a reader)". I have found that writing these blogs have shown me what blogging is about: not just writing down ideas, but a discussion with anybody out there who cares to read about your opinions. These comments told me what I was doing right and what I needed to improve upon.

Totalitarian State of the 21st Century

This is Julie's blog about the North Korean Gulag: all by itself a complicated story. However, on Julie's blog, together we think further not only on the implications of the story but the thoughts behind Shin, and why he feels what he feels. We discuss thoroughly what makes Shin leave, why Shin regrets his decision, and what might happen afterwards. Through several comments, a lot of information is processed, uncovered, and explained. I feel that this blog portrays a good element of both Julie's and my ability to look in-depth and discuss an idea/article.

Xenoblogging:

Nature vs. Machine: What is Humanity?

Nina's blog on the relationship between nature, machine, and humanity sparked a lot of thought for me. So, I commented. Not only was I the first to comment and think about what Nina had blogged on, but I expanded on what she said and the ideas she had. I took a statement that I thought was particularly astute and developed it into a firm idea, grabbing facts and stories from life (well, Animal Planet, but... It's a creditable source). Nina's blog was quite profound, and I was happy to comment and broaden her ideas.

Manipulation of Truth: What is Truth?

The blog Javiera wrote on the manipulation of truth made a good beginning, and I was happy to comment further on the concepts that she talked about. Here, I talk a little about the ideas she says and ask questions to invoke a bigger discussion relating a broad idea to the world today. I think these comments show an intellectual discussion that both of us maintain and keep going.

Write and Wrong of Writing

In Sabrina's blog, I comment about what I think is definitely right about her ideas and what I feel needs a little more explaining. I ask several questions about the statements she makes, as well as bringing up examples from our world to reveal other perspectives about writing, and what it should and should not be used for. This idea of what writing is used for is an interesting idea, and I'd like to keep talking about this.

Wildcard:




Polar Opposites

In this blog, I talk about an idea (inspired by Nina) and hope to make my readers think about my opinions that may influence how they think and what they think. I want people to consider both motives and actions, as well as love the world. I try and show readers how I view the world a little bit, and connect my thoughts to even broader, larger ideas that involves every human being. I have learned that blogging is not only writing, but discussing, and I believe that this is what I accomplished here.

Polar Opposites

I have come to realize that polar opposites are, in fact, more similar and go together than many other things in life. This idea I have really thought about after reading Nina's blog about how nature and machines are sort of the same, and complement each other. Polar opposites seem to have a lot in common, and this concept applies to many things.

The first thing that comes to my mind are people: it is often enough that those who seem completely different from each other tend to get married. My parents, for one. There are a multitude of differences between them- their personality, the way they look at things, even their physical attributes. Black and white vs. the philosophical discussions, straight to the point vs. taking forever to get to the point,  and practical vs. loving to go around on walks taking pictures of random things. For some reason, although one person dislikes a majority of things that another person loves to do, two people can still be the best of friends. Arguments are not always a bad thing. Sometimes slightly raised voices debating over an idea does not mean that there is anger. Many times when my parents 'talk', there are smiles and laughs between the- yet if I hadn't been there I would have thought they were serious and quite angry. Perhaps it is because of the way I have grown up, but I notice many times when polar opposites get along much nicer than those who are almost the same.

Not only can couples make great polar opposites, but individuals themselves (and no, I am not talking about dual personalities). Inside the human body, there are scores of contrasting systems. For instance, our brain. Split into two sides, the left brain is empirical, with analytical and scientific thought. The right side is the opposite, not looking at the facts, but the imagination, using creativity and art. It is interesting to notice that in one brain, and one body, there are antipodes.

http://share.sweska.net/files/left_right_brain_xp.jpg

Contrasts can be found not only in the brain, but in the entire body itself. Around 60% of a person is water- yet despite consisting more than half of oneself being water, we still drown in a few minutes. Isn't that weird?

This irony carries on through all people and the world.

Anyways, my parents, despite their minds seeming incompatible, still manage to find common ground- and love each other all the more for it. They love all that antique stuff, exotic foods, and a bunch of other stuff. Even though I admit that my parents are not at all alike, I could not exactly put them on the opposite sides of a line. The same goes for the brain: one may be analytical and the other creative, both rely on each other to make decisions and live life. I think it's safe to say that polar opposites are closer to each other than we realize.

Also, not only do polar opposites somehow have things in common, but cannot exist without the other. I mean, without polar opposites, there cannot even be a word to define just one word (without its antonym). Let me take the example of good and evil: one cannot exist without the other. If there was no evil, no poverty, hatred, death, ect., then I do not think that good could exist either. Out of poverty can come determination, from hatred forgiveness, and death to love. For if we have no reason to be determined, than how can determination exist? Or forgiveness, love, or friendship? If no evil existed, we would not be able to recognize that good exists, because without this comparison, it would just be life, and everything would be the same. Part of loving humanity comes from the ability to get past evil and be good. If poverty causes people to strive and do great things, can this be considered bad? And without hatred, forgiveness could not exist, because we must first hate before we can forgive. The definition of forgive (according to the Oxford Dictionary) is this: "to stop feeling angry or resentful towards (someone) for an offense, flaw, or mistake". "Evil" may live in the form of arrogance and mistakes, but good is what is morally correct. If everything was morally correct, than we would fail to think about what is right, and we would not be good- we would just be conforming to the norm. Forgiveness is- what I think- an aspect of humanity, and without forgiveness, humans would not the humans they are today.  Furthermore, if death were not to be, there could not be a strong love between people and the world (not to mention a colossal population). Death causes us to hold on all the more strongly to ourselves, others, and the things we value. If nothing died, and everything was always there, we could not appreciate what we had. Like the common saying goes, "we don't notice it's there until it's gone" (or along those approximate lines). To be good, we must truly think about what and who we are, with all of our motives underneath. An act of good, let's say giving a bunch of videos to someone, can be considered kind, but if the motive is merely because the videos were poorly made and the giver just wanted to get rid of them, it takes away at least a bit of the good from the action.

I think the idea that there are polar opposites (yet not polar opposites) illustrate a much grander and mind-boggling idea: that nothing has only one truth/fact. We live in a 3D world, and there are multiple perspectives to a single object or idea. There is not black and white, but a rainbow: and nothing can be said for certain and without debate.

War is Peace, Ignorance is Strength, Freedom is Slavery

 War is Peace

Born and Raised in a North Korean Gulag by Choe Sang-Hun was a shocking story. I hadn't known what happened in North Korea, and Shin Dong Hyok's story brought a lot of emotions along. As I was reading, the first thing I noticed was how the authorities, the cause of Shin's miseries, was merely "a part of life" to him. They had always been there, and always would be. Instead, Shin blames the ones closest to him- the ones that love him the most: his mother. Even now, knowing what he does, still he blames his mother. When he is told that he was paying for his ancestor's crime, he also blames them, and hates them for this. I guess, from the view of the North Koreans, turning the hate onto friends is a useful tactic. This same tactic is used in 1984. Instead of party members joining together against Big Brother, the Party turns any hatred anyone might have onto Goldstein and their fellow members. People, especially children, are encouraged to denounce any disloyal follower. This denouncing of friends also accomplishes something else that both the Party and the North Korean gulag try and accomplish. In the Korean prison, much is done to destroy any semblance of unification or relationships. An arranged "marriage" is given to exemplary workers, and the couple see each other a few times a year. Even a child like Shin after growing up (age 11) fails to see his entire family at one time. This broken relationship leaves little chance of any rebellion or even talking of a better time. In Orwell's novel, people are expected to first love Big Brother before their spouse, and along with creating a shameful image of sex, makes marriage dull and relationships lacking any real love whatsoever, seen when Winston talks about his past marriage. By both preventing marriages/relationships and turning hatred onto friends, along with all the work piled up on the workers, rebellion, and more importantly thought is a rare occurrence.

Ignorance is Strength

Shin lives in his own fishbowl world: a world that consists only of his own work camp. I was unaware of how little he knew of the world, let alone his own country. This ignorance prevents him from knowing about the outside world, and how life could be. Although ignorance gives another person control over oneself, one thing that Yoon Yeo Sang of the North Korean Human Rights in Seoul said brought more thoughts upon my head. When he commented on the North Korean work camps, "'He comes from a place where people are deprived of their ability to have the most basic human feelings, such as love, hatred and even a sense of being sad or mistreated'", it seems like a bad thing: who wouldn't want to love? However, along with the life of knowledge of the world comes hatred, sorrow, and mistreatment.  At first Shin can't stand being in a camp when there was a whole world to explore. Afterward, though, Shin begins to regret- something that is very hard to understand. "Shin said he sometimes wished he could return to the time before he learned about the greater world, 'without knowing that we were in a prison camp, without knowing that there was a place called South Korea'". This statement, while seeming very sad and mad to us, makes sense to Shin. In the gulag, he didn't have all these emotions, which complicate life so much. He wanted instead security, and to forget about the world, along with all of its problems. In his ignorance, he was happy, and that is where he was strong. In the world, he can't even obtain a driving license. I think what he doesn't understand, is that without problems and sorrow, we couldn't enjoy life as much as we do. The happiest moments are when you overcome your problems, and if there was no evil in the world, how would we know what was good?

Freedom is Slavery

So Shin would prefer to be told what to do, and to be back in that prison camp, in his slavery. He felt he was happier there. Or perhaps, he didn't know what happiness was, and so he could not be unhappy either. Freedom is not just doing what one wants to do, but surviving and being happy. To Shin, the prison camp was happy, because life was always the same, and the problems that he had (for instance torture and all that stuff) was not a problem to him: just a part of life. Shin was free of worry and of problems. In that way, freedom is slavery. As in 1984, the workers in the prison camp did not worry about jobs or transportation or any of the usual things that most worry about. Winston is kept so busy so he has a limited amount of time to think those rebellious thoughts. And although all of the Outer Party members live in relative poverty, none of them think much of it because it has always been like that. They are free of worry of almost everything (apart from fear of being taken to the Ministry of Love).


These phrases may apply, but not to the common man. They work only when one looks at the overall Party's ideal: to stay in power. In order for the Party to keep their reign, they use these three phrases: War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, and Ignorance is Strength. To keep peace within their realm, they make war with Eastasia and Eurasia. Turning anger upon others instead of themselves is a handy way to keep "peace".  Freedom, and more specifically, happiness, exists only when people do not have to worry too much about problems, and gain security: thus, slavery. And in ignorance, people are united and cannot question their leader, and thus together, they have strength. It is interesting to see that these quite contradictory sayings are, in fact, true. A subjective truth, however, because these truths are only an illusion. Although it may seem like war is peace, it is not. And while freedom is slavery, it is not. It just isn't. War may cause a little peace, but not all of it. And slavery is not freedom. Freedom is more than that. These three phrases serve only as an excuse for Oceania to keep on living the way it is.

Truth... Does it exist?

Talking and presenting in class was helpful to clear out what truth is. Not that truth is any clearer, but it is easier to say what isn't truth. The objects and concepts that the class had were placed relatively where I would put them, give or take a few inches. I think the ones I most disagree with are the scientific concepts that are counted as objective truths. The one problem I see with this is that theories are based upon no other forces interacting- but in the real world, there are always these other factors. So technically, we can't actually test a concept, since there will always be other factors to affect the result. So how can we really know? However, I do consider science to be objective (I'm just not sure it can be proven to be so). Sure, it will change, but science as a whole works. This considering that objective truth is our world and the things we see and touch, it not being a hallucination and brain-washing and living in a false world. For that would just get chaotic and confusing, and probably make us all go insane.

The truth that we told in class was more of a truth to ourselves, if not to others. For some reason, you believe in something, even if there is no proof: your own personal truth. In the articles that we read (and changed) before, there is a manipulation of truth. Not that what they say might not be true, but they try very hard to make it your truth too, not by stating facts, but by giving you emotions. We never seem to be able to think straight when we are angry, loving, or sad. Each article uses vague words, for example "weapons of mass destruction", which give images and terror to our minds, more so than just "bombs" or any one specific thing. Some also create metaphors and imagery in our mind, making us feel righteous, or using words that show how the victims are feeling. Writing is more than just stating facts: it's about allowing the reader to feel what you are feeling. And in some cases, manipulate the reader into feeling what you want them to feel.

In 1984, by George Orwell, this sort of happens. In the Ministry of Love, the "torturers" turn your world upside down until what you imagine and believe is true: 2 + 2 = 5. O'Brien doesn't allow Winston to think, to rationalize, and so Winston can't defend his world and truth. So, Winston's truth is torn away from him and replaced with not truth at all. Newspeak also helps with this destruction of truth. Language itself is subjective, with several meanings to one word and different words for the same meaning. Orwell considers language to be vague and broad, and in Newspeak, it becomes even more so. As words are taken away from the dictionary again and again, words and meanings become vaguer and vaguer until all truth is lost. How can one prove something if what you are saying does not even mean anything? This also helps take away control and power from someone over themselves, and disables a person from defending what they feel is right. I guess, seeing that the Outer Party members are left with nothing to hang on to sanity, they are forced to love Big Brother. Not because they actually love him in the full sense of the word, but because they need a constant to keep their world straight. If not, then they would be insane. Up would be down and left would be right. So destroying someone's reality gives control and power to another.

This is the whole reason we have science: to understand the world and put it in terms we can understand. Our curiosity to understand the world is what has created science. We must have facts and knowledge to keep our sanity, and feel like we have an understanding of ourselves and what we perceive as our world and life.

So perhaps whether truth exists or not should not be answered. Even if we never did get an answer, just the debate would make us crazy. If we did eventually find an answer, it could destroy all our perceptions.

Orwell vs. Modern Times

I found changing those two articles quite hard. For one thing, not being the author, I didn't know exactly what the article meant all the time, so in changing the sentences I might have changed the meaning. Also, I don't think Orwell or modern times are perfect in English.

I understand why Orwell thinks what he thinks, but the major thing I do not agree with are the metaphors. I don't think that all the common ones have lost their meaning. "A picture speaks a thousand words" may be overused, but, for me, I still get a feeling from it. While it may be better to make your own metaphors, I don't think it's wrong to use some ones that already exist. That being said, some of the articles were quite exaggerated with their use of metaphors and imagery. I mean, I was sometimes laughing at how "powerful" the speaker was trying to get. Trying being the important word. Writing like that just takes away the point of what you're talking about. Which may be the point in some politicians. But, overall, I think both Orwell and modern English have their own applications, and as the world changes, so should English. Neither one should be used all the time. Perhaps Orwell will cringe at this next phrase, but I have a strange urge to write it anyways: "There's a time and a place for everything".

Sometimes writing is used to make a person think a certain way. And in that case, some authors do everything they can to brainwash and force your to think their way. Communism, propaganda, and politicians all do this. Even nations do this a little bit to create a stronger unity and nationalism. It's part of human nature to want to control a bit of life, and gullible people are like sitting ducks. That's why education is important. It's not the grammar, history lessons, or math equations that I come to school for- it's because at school, there are thoughtful and important lessons to be learned. I learn about life: how people think, how they might manipulate you, or love you, and how we should think, and how to live in the world. In English we are learning to question what people write, and to not just take it all in and believe it. In history we look past all the facts to analyze why leaders act as they do. We look at several books, all of which say the opposite, and get down deeper into the past. In math, we use equations in everyday life so we can apply all that we learn in school to the outside world. In each case, we have to learn grammar, history lessons, and math equations. Now that we've got the basis of that down, it's interesting to really go in depth- even if that's hard, because we've been trained to accept everything a teacher says.

Back to my original point, no matter if Orwell is right or wrong (and I think he is a little of both), I doubt we (as a world) are going to end writing to manipulate. People in power love this all too much. What we can do, however, is, in school, learn to know what people are meaning (not just saying) and choose to agree or disagree, with all the facts in hand.

Language and Thought

George Orwell's Politics and the English Language brings up good points about the English language. What I liked most was the overall idea about how language has begun to limit thought rather than express it. Language nowadays seems to cover and confuse what we are saying- not clarify it. Now that this idea has taken hold in my mind, every time I write I find myself thinking about how vague I am. It's not specific. Writing is hard...

This concept that Orwell says applies to Newspeak in 1984 too. Orwell says "... to think clearly is a necessary first step towards political regeneration". Newspeak limits the ability to think, cutting down thousands of words and adding to the vagueness- no longer are their synonyms (although every synonym is slightly different from each other): a replacement of "good" for superior, beneficial, exceptional, and magnificent. Just good, doublegood, plusgood, ect. In Orwell's novel, he brings up the idea that soon, when Newspeak is all that the people of the Party know, they will not have the ability to rebel because the concepts and words to think of rebellion will simply not exist. On the last page, The vague words have multiple meanings and can be twisted any way.

I also found that Orwell's examples of modern English, while they sound much more knowledgeable, are also a lot more confusing. There are so many multi-syllable words that just fuzz up the mind. They flight right over me. Modern English seems to consist of long sentences and uncommon words. Like Orwell says, people have to think less and less- just using the phrases already created: "prose consists less and less of WORDS chosen for the sake of their meaning, and more and more of PHRASES tacked together like the sections of a prefabricated hen-house". More limiting of the mind. Also, reading the well-known verse (not that I knew it) from ECCLESIASTES, his writing seemed much more meaningful and thoughtful than the impersonal scientific modern English version. It seemed almost like a joke.

When I write, I am going to try and think about what I am thinking about- and see that image in my mind. I want to make sure it makes sense. What Orwell writes sort of freaks me out- "A speaker who uses that kind of phraseology has gone some distance towards turning himself into a machine". It scares me because it is sort of true. I've always thought that thinking is what makes us human (Not the only thing, but pretty much at the top of the list). If we don't think as we write or speak, what are we? Also, Orwell comes up with an even more important "enemy of clear language": insincerity. Not only does language cause us to lose our intelligence, but our emotions as well. If thinking is at the top of the list of what makes us humanity, emotion is in second place. Our thoughts and emotions make us who we are. It seems that we are losing both. We gotta think for ourselves. I don't think that we are losing all thought and independence so far, but we are on our way. Perhaps that is a warning in 1984- our society is losing thought and independence, by language and loss of compassion and humanity! Even Winston, who thinks more than many other Outer Party citizens, kicks away that arm like a piece of garbage. Still gives me shivers. I trust in us humans, though, not to lose what we call humanity.

Why do we read novels?

The Psychology of the Novel has a fascinating way of looking at how authors write their novels, how readers read, and what really makes a good book. Although I have thought about many of the author's ideas, there are quite a few new ones that hadn't occurred to me. According to the author, there are many different elements that make a story interesting. The narration of a novel creates a relationship with the reader. I find it interesting that the author creates an analogy by comparing a novel to a friend. It often seems that way to me. Not that I actually talk to it, or anything, but a good novel is one that you feel understands who you are and what you believe. It's comforting. The author says that a "novel is the only imaginative form that must have both action and point of view, suspense and reflection. In this it seems to mimic the way life feels". I guess that's why I like novels too. It is like life, but not.


One thing I didn't understand was when the author said "the world is full of people who are rather proud they don't read novels". What the author says afterwards, about"enlarging a reader's willingness to suspend disbelief" is very true. Reading is about your imagination, about walking (or more accurately, reading) down a path of thought that you have not taken before. About learning something new. About living a different life and learning from others' mistakes. About expanding your imagination, understanding others, and more importantly, understanding yourself! How can people be proud to not read about other opinions, stories, about failing to learn?! It is incomprehensible! Anyone who does not love reading is either in denial or has just not read the right book yet. Books... are books. There is no other word to describe them.


There was one concept that I found intriguing about the first line of a book and what it does to the reader. The author says that it creates the atmosphere and prepares you for the story, so you know where it will lead and accept the rules of imagination. I read the first line of a few books I had lying around the house, and the author's concept applies. Although the first line also tries and hooks you with a weird sort of thing that makes you want to find out what on earth the author is talking about, it also tells the reader about the style of the author, and what to look forward to further down the novel. For instance, comparing the introductions to Great Expectations by Charles Dickens and The Star of Kazan by Eva Ibbotson, one can tell the books are for different audiences and with different styles. The former novel begins with "My father's name being Pirrip, and my Christian name Philip, my infant tongue could make of both names nothing longer or more explicit than Pip" (Dickens, 6). From this sentence we can deduce it is from the first person point of view about a child, and the style of the author is rather a more educated way of writing than the novel by Eva Ibbotson. A children's writer, this is obvious from her first sentence, "Ellie had gone into the church because of her feet" (Ibbotson, 6). One should really pay attention more to the first sentence of a book.


As I was reading about suspense and how at times it is better to slow down reading then scouring through it, a thought occurred to me. The speed of reading, for me, changes. A book may be read better and more understandable if read slower or faster, but I think the speed can be determined by the author. I have read many books, and the speed that I read at changes with each book and at different times. My reading changes because the writing from the author changes. As suspense increases, the author writes in a style that makes me read faster and quicker- but if I need to pay attention to details, the author writes more details, and the words make me read slower and pay more attention. A good author should be able to control what the reader looks at and what the reader notices.

One thing the author also says about novels is that they incorporate different aspects that people read. Some read for intellectual reasons, some for adventure, some just for a simple story- the list goes on. However, I think that the books that one rereads are the ones that contain multiple of these aspects. The author late says that good books "work perfectly at lower levels of play... even though there is more to be discovered as the reader grows more sophisticated". This is why some books are better to read than others. For instance, I have read Ender's Game I don't know how many times. I like this book because it has a good plot but also makes someone think about bigger things too. I understand Ender, as well as many other characters, and a very interesting and absorbing storyline. However, there are different parts of the book that contain different intellectual, suspenseful, and thoughtful elements, and so sometimes I can just open to a certain part of the book depending on what mood I am in.

There are so many things in a book that determine whether it is a good fit for a reader. Lots of things. The Psychology of a Novel points out many of these components. However, I think that the most important thing that the author has mentioned about a good book is that a novel is your friend. Reading a novel is a relationship: if you don't like the book, you don't "hang out" with it anymore. And if you love it, because it understands your thoughts and emotions, then it's your friend. You read it more than once. You feel what the author writes, and you live the author's story. And it remains a memory.

Books are books.