Well, this will be the last blog post I have to write for the year 2010. Wow, I've read so many books, each so well-written, intriguing, and just amazing in their unique ways. But there's one series that really has impacted my writing and reading style/life greatly.
To start the year off, I was completely, totally obsessed with The Vampire Diaries by L.J Smith. I still am and I'm waiting for the next book in the series to come out next year. The way that she was so descriptive was, to me, amazing because trying to use very descriptive language in my writing always turns out boring or unnecessary to my story. It's the series in general that has impacted my style in the language arts. One thing I really learned from that series was that I'm a vampire; OK no, that's not true (umm... hehehe...).
As a writer, I learned that in fantasy, there's always some sort of interaction between humans and fantastical creatures. In the Vampire Diaries, that interaction is the base of the plot. I learned that the bad guy, or antagonist, is the person you'd least expect it to be. Just like any other story, for the most part, the main character ends up changing in some way, whether it's helpful to their society or not.
There has to be some sort of battle between good and evil throughout the book. In The Vampire Diaries, I used to think that the battle was between Stefan and Damon because Damon was always making Stefan and Elena suffer since he, too, loved Elena. But as I started to type up this post, I realized that no... he was never evil himself; it was his past and all of the painful experiences that he'd gone through that were evil themselves; he was just a victim of them, though he never wanted to admit it. This bring me to my next point.
Moments. As tiny as they can be, together they form an event in life and eventually a life itself. We all have those good moments and those bad moments. And there are those moments that one would rather not share with anyone. Reading the series as a writer, moments must have purpose in a book, especially in fantasy because that one moment can be the one that changes the course that one character's life veers off to. Like when Elena walked in to Stefan's room and found him feeding on a white dove (book 1). It was that moment when she realized that hey, Stefan is a vampire. If L.J Smith would've decided to have made Elena find out later, the book would've been written differently.
I would, of course, prefer to let the words of each page sink in as a reader because I enjoy the story more. God, Stefan and Damon are so attractive (but Damon more) in the actual T.V show, The Vampire Diaries (Thursdays @8pm on the CW11 *-*). Anyway, Stefan, as any other main character, has a rebellious side to him. But their stubbornness is what often leads them to their problems. You need to read the series to understand why Stefan is against drinking human blood but it's basically because he feels that he's taking someone else's life so he can get the energy he needs to sustain his life.
The biggest theme/idea I got from reading The Vampire Diaries was that there are times when trying to bring peace can lead up to creating war. I really hate turning on the T.V or reading the newspaper and constantly watching/reading the same thing; there's yet a war going on. War is caused by many reasons and in the end, it's the government that gains something from it. But is it necessary? I would love to say no because that's what I thought until I looked at the subject closer and realized that some wars are fought to bring peace to two different sides or to settle disputes that without war, would end up in massive chaos. In the end, the people don't have a voice if there's someone that's superior to them.
To conclude my final blog post for the year 2010 (that sounded nice) I want to tie up these ideas that I evolved throughout this post. L.J Smith is undoubtedly an author that I admire both as a writer and as a reader because her series, The Vampire Diaries is packed with ideas and words that combined... combined... combined what? Well combined, are amazing, awesome, wickedly great, descriptive, and outstanding. I have so much more to say about this series so I'm definitely going to write about it in my next post because they're really powerful ideas that I would prefer to write about separately.
Enjoy life, make new year's resolutions, make the holidays amazing because waking up early next year will be painful and just... chill. So yeah... watch the Vampire Diaries. =)
Monday, December 20, 2010
Monday, December 13, 2010
If Cruelty Can't Be Beautiful, Why Have Perspective?
If there's one thing that I dislike about the way the world is, it's that it's so cruel. I, as well as many others, feel that something must be done about cruelty because in our perspective, it's awful.
There's this small line that I came upon while I was reading Possessed by Kate Cann that I found quite thought provoking. The line was, Beauty is Cruel. Cruelty is Beautiful. I thought that this line was a bit disturbing at first due to the fact that many try to make this world a better place. Afterwards, I looked a bit deeper and I realized that my first reaction to this line was to be perturbed because I was taught that cruelty is just purely distasteful; I basically grew up feeling this way towards cruelty because the perspective of everyone surrounding me was just that; disturbing.
My reaction was both right and wrong. What made it right and wrong was that cruelty is just a matter of perspective, as are many other situations in life. For others, like whoever wrote this line, cruelty isn't awful; it's quite nice... quite beautiful. But according to them, what makes it beautiful? Is it because suffering, to them, is a pleasant sight, or is it because knowing that this world isn't perfect is a comfort?
Perspective makes up about 50% of our daily lives. Though what we think may seem unimportant to society, if no one had a say, how would we be living today? Would we still be "uncivilized"? Would "civilized" even be a word to describe a group of people? Though perspective is an immense part of how we live, who we're surrounded by builds a base for what we think.
So what really makes up one's perspective? To me, perspective is made up of what others have told me to believe but also, what I think about what they say and whether I agree with it or not. It's made up of what I've experienced and what I learned as a result of that experience.
I remember growing up laughing if a guy in class got pink construction paper but that's only because I had been shown that pink is a girl color. To be honest, I'm highly opposed to this statement; not that I'm emo but i prefer black over pink. What is it that made it bad if a guy liked pink? Why was it bad? It was because in others' perspective, pink was just a girl color so I went along with it.
Thinking deeper, I'm wondering, if we are all entitled to an opinion, why do many refuse to share it and decide to go along with what everyone else says? There's this certain fear that many have that if they think distinctively than those surrounding them, they'll be treated differently or they might think that what they have to say is wrong.
So I guess that beauty can be cruel; if you think it is than well, it is. Cruelty might just as well be beautiful if injustice is wrong. There's no "correct" answer and you don't have to believe what those surrounding you say if you don't believe it yourself. It's called perspective and everyone is entitled to one.
There's this small line that I came upon while I was reading Possessed by Kate Cann that I found quite thought provoking. The line was, Beauty is Cruel. Cruelty is Beautiful. I thought that this line was a bit disturbing at first due to the fact that many try to make this world a better place. Afterwards, I looked a bit deeper and I realized that my first reaction to this line was to be perturbed because I was taught that cruelty is just purely distasteful; I basically grew up feeling this way towards cruelty because the perspective of everyone surrounding me was just that; disturbing.
My reaction was both right and wrong. What made it right and wrong was that cruelty is just a matter of perspective, as are many other situations in life. For others, like whoever wrote this line, cruelty isn't awful; it's quite nice... quite beautiful. But according to them, what makes it beautiful? Is it because suffering, to them, is a pleasant sight, or is it because knowing that this world isn't perfect is a comfort?
Perspective makes up about 50% of our daily lives. Though what we think may seem unimportant to society, if no one had a say, how would we be living today? Would we still be "uncivilized"? Would "civilized" even be a word to describe a group of people? Though perspective is an immense part of how we live, who we're surrounded by builds a base for what we think.
So what really makes up one's perspective? To me, perspective is made up of what others have told me to believe but also, what I think about what they say and whether I agree with it or not. It's made up of what I've experienced and what I learned as a result of that experience.
I remember growing up laughing if a guy in class got pink construction paper but that's only because I had been shown that pink is a girl color. To be honest, I'm highly opposed to this statement; not that I'm emo but i prefer black over pink. What is it that made it bad if a guy liked pink? Why was it bad? It was because in others' perspective, pink was just a girl color so I went along with it.
Thinking deeper, I'm wondering, if we are all entitled to an opinion, why do many refuse to share it and decide to go along with what everyone else says? There's this certain fear that many have that if they think distinctively than those surrounding them, they'll be treated differently or they might think that what they have to say is wrong.
So I guess that beauty can be cruel; if you think it is than well, it is. Cruelty might just as well be beautiful if injustice is wrong. There's no "correct" answer and you don't have to believe what those surrounding you say if you don't believe it yourself. It's called perspective and everyone is entitled to one.
Monday, December 6, 2010
You Can't Trust the Directors of Movies that are Based on Books that Have Been Previously Written
Here I am, freezing and angry because they won't turn the heater up in this place cornered by 4 walls that I know of as my home. I'm still taking in the fact that I've now seen Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows twice; I've never done that with any other movie. Though I'm still trying to take in all of the details from the movie, I'm also going over the parts,in utter disappointment, that they took out or made less intense and thought-provoking as they were in the book.
I know that this isn't the first book that they've made into a movie and I know as well that it won't be the last one. But the thing with movies is that they tend to ruin the book and not just because they take some scenes that aren't important. Every scene, to me at least, in a book is well-written, for the most part, and has a purpose; if it wasn't meaningful then the author wouldn't have thought to write it in the book in the first place because it just wastes paper. In my opinion, removing scenes from a book when making a movie takes away purpose to the film.
When you're writing a book, you're basically taking ingredients and testing them and mixing them until you have created a whole new appetizing invention that needs every single ingredient in order to have that same savory flavor. When a director removes a scene from the book, he/she (I'll let you pick the gender of the director) is basically removing an ingredient, as diminutive as it may seem, that changes the course that the author's enticing invention takes.
Like in the part where Hedwig dies (tear, tear); in the book, J.K Rowling makes it so emotional that I really start to cry. Her use of words to express her death makes it more painful and truly makes me feel. Disappointingly, in the movie, we just see Hedwig being killed by a Death Eater's spell and she just falls from the sky. It was still really sad and heartbreaking (yes I am very emotional) but it didn't have the same power, actually seeing it, than it did with J.K Rowling's use of words.
Isn't a picture worth more than a thousand words? Then why why wasn't this scene as powerful as it could've been? I generally like the books that are turned into movies because I can see how director's see the story. Even though I enjoy watching movies that were based on books I've read, if it's a fantasy book, it destroys my imagination, turning my fragments of creativity into the pile of old books with torn pages that are mistaken with nothing but rubble.
This is the bad thing about watching the movie before reading the book; when you watch the movie first, you see how the directors want you to see, just to name a couple, Hogwarts or Terabithia. Actually reading the book first, declares your mind the creator of the world and you see the imaginary world and myriad of creatures how you feel like picturing them. The purpose of writing a book in which the world is fantastical, is so it represents a larger theme where you can add your own spices to it; the author just creates a base for this world.
You can't trust the directors of movies that are based on books that have been previously written. If you do trust them, you're an idiot... no, I'm just kidding but honestly, they can NOT be trusted. Don't be mistaken, I admire, respect, and thank the director that casted Rupert Grint (better known as Ron Weasley), Emma Watson (Hermione Granger), Daniel Radcliffe (Harry Potter), and Oliver and James Phelps (Fred and George!!!).
You might completely agree with me or you might contrast in opinion so comment if you'd like. Do you know of any other books that have been partially screwed by the movies?
I know that this isn't the first book that they've made into a movie and I know as well that it won't be the last one. But the thing with movies is that they tend to ruin the book and not just because they take some scenes that aren't important. Every scene, to me at least, in a book is well-written, for the most part, and has a purpose; if it wasn't meaningful then the author wouldn't have thought to write it in the book in the first place because it just wastes paper. In my opinion, removing scenes from a book when making a movie takes away purpose to the film.
When you're writing a book, you're basically taking ingredients and testing them and mixing them until you have created a whole new appetizing invention that needs every single ingredient in order to have that same savory flavor. When a director removes a scene from the book, he/she (I'll let you pick the gender of the director) is basically removing an ingredient, as diminutive as it may seem, that changes the course that the author's enticing invention takes.
Like in the part where Hedwig dies (tear, tear); in the book, J.K Rowling makes it so emotional that I really start to cry. Her use of words to express her death makes it more painful and truly makes me feel. Disappointingly, in the movie, we just see Hedwig being killed by a Death Eater's spell and she just falls from the sky. It was still really sad and heartbreaking (yes I am very emotional) but it didn't have the same power, actually seeing it, than it did with J.K Rowling's use of words.
Isn't a picture worth more than a thousand words? Then why why wasn't this scene as powerful as it could've been? I generally like the books that are turned into movies because I can see how director's see the story. Even though I enjoy watching movies that were based on books I've read, if it's a fantasy book, it destroys my imagination, turning my fragments of creativity into the pile of old books with torn pages that are mistaken with nothing but rubble.
This is the bad thing about watching the movie before reading the book; when you watch the movie first, you see how the directors want you to see, just to name a couple, Hogwarts or Terabithia. Actually reading the book first, declares your mind the creator of the world and you see the imaginary world and myriad of creatures how you feel like picturing them. The purpose of writing a book in which the world is fantastical, is so it represents a larger theme where you can add your own spices to it; the author just creates a base for this world.
You can't trust the directors of movies that are based on books that have been previously written. If you do trust them, you're an idiot... no, I'm just kidding but honestly, they can NOT be trusted. Don't be mistaken, I admire, respect, and thank the director that casted Rupert Grint (better known as Ron Weasley), Emma Watson (Hermione Granger), Daniel Radcliffe (Harry Potter), and Oliver and James Phelps (Fred and George!!!).
You might completely agree with me or you might contrast in opinion so comment if you'd like. Do you know of any other books that have been partially screwed by the movies?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)