Mystery Science Theater 3000: Hamlet

Seeing as we're studying hamlet, I thought this would spark your interests.
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5
Part 6
Part 7
Part 8
Part 9
Part 10
Part 11
Enjoy.

Twilight 4

Now that my personal story is aside, I have an announcement to make.
I am re-reading Twilight.
It's been a few years. I've learned a lot more about grammar since, and I must say...I don't remember the text being nearly this frustrating.
"I stared without breathing across the long room,..."
Second paragraph in, and Meyer has already set a GLORIOUS standard for the way she constructs her sentences.
If there's any one thing Meyer could actually improve on, it's her lack of proper nouns. She displayed a gross overuse of "it". What is "it"? Half the time she says "it", there's no indication of what "it" is.
Second sentence in the first chapter and Meyer has committed yet another abominable literary sin: A character making a precise measurement, without inferring that they were told so by an instrument. How does Bella know that it's 75 degrees Fahrenheit? Is she guessing? If so, why doesn't she say it was about 75 degrees? Rather, why use numbers at all? Why not just say it was balmy? I don't know how she feels about 75 degrees. She might think that's cold, having lived in Phoenix. But Meyer isn't telling us how Bella feels. All she did was somehow calculate the temperature. Is she a human being, or a computer? If I wanted to know the temperature, I would have read the output for a thermometer. As this is a first-person narrative, I'm more interested in how the character feels, not just what they observe.
That's not to say observations aren't important. What was rather frustrating in this respect was Meyer's "rule of one". Thoughts/feelings, dialog/conversation, actions/movement: no two of these three essential literary elements could occupy the same paragraph. Is this what people mean when they say Meyer has a "unique style"? Because to me it just looks like a really good way to KILL THE TEXT. If they're not used together when suitable, there are crappy transitions that make no sense.
And with that, I will tell you what frustrated me most of all. Three words: CHOPPY SCENE PROGRESSION.
My friends, this is something a writer should never EVER do. And in the first three pages, Meyer breaks the rule. First, Bella is in a car, and her mom is driving her to the airport. Narrative, narrative, thoughts, feelings, dialog, etc. All of the sudden...WHOOP! She's getting on the plane. Does anything happen in between that? Is there a terminal? How long does she have to wait for the flight? What does she do while she waits? What does her mom do?
Next, she gets in her dad's car. It hints here and there about him driving, but never says he started the car...eh?
Show-don't-tell...here's where things need to die.
Breakfast with Charlie was a quiet event.
Would you mind DESCRIBING it for me? Actually, I'd be quite interested in this scene, since it may actually spark some CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT, Heaven forbid!
And the general way she styles her sentences: "This happened and then this, which did this." That's...not good writing.
COMMA ATTACK!: Though their noses, all their features, were straight, perfect, angular.
THAT IS ONE BAAAAAAAD SENTENCE. Can't get any worse, right?
But all this is not why I couldn't look away.
...WRONG! And now...MORE COMMAS! I stared because their faces, so different, so similar, were all devastatingly, inhumanly beautiful.
And people call it a SAGA?!! Four fat novels of this "writing"?
Done with the first chapter, and already so many blasphemies committed. WHEN WILL IT END.

Twilight 3d

So I met her yesterday. It was rather entertaining.
I got a ride to THS after school. There, I waited so I could hang out with friends and such. It was really good to see them again.
Anyway, I formulated this hilarious plan. After school got out down there, me and my friend went down to Esther's house (she was already home by then) and waited on the sidewalk until the Twilight girl came. We knew it was her by the book she so pompously sported between her arm and her waist. Don't exactly know what the point of that was, seeing as she's read it, I'd say, AT LEAST FOUR TIMES ALREADY. You'd think she'd have picked up on the book's flaws by then! And her not being Mormon?: Total lie. For honesty's sake, what is this person? (My favorite quote from her so far: "Well if you had the thinking brain of mine that I have, you would think that Edward Cullen is just SO AMAZING!!!" Okay, first of all, the reason we don't like him is because WE DO THINK. Second of all, I would rather die than reduce my mind to her level.)
So she didn't even really look at us when she walked up to Esther's house and was let in. It was great. We waited a while before we rang the doorbell.
And when we walked into the living room...it was both very awkward and very funny. She wasn't sure which one to give the death glare to--me, or my friend--because she didn't know which one was Stephen. Well, Andrew (that was his name) eventually had to leave, which narrowed it down. But it was funny to see her confused.
I did my best to just stay off the subject of Twilight. Really, I didn't want any trouble. I was only there for Esther's safety. I think the fangirl was trying her best not to yell at me, so she passively objected to me by picking up her book and pretending to read it. I paid no mind. She got really ticked when I started scratching Esther's back. And I don't know WHAT was going on in her head when she saw us holding hands. I think she was trying to prove to herself that my love for Esther was invalid, so she could be unchallenged in her beliefs that Edward Cullen is OMG SEW E-MAZING (I guess she figured that our relationship being healthy and satisfying would be enough to contradict her twisted point of view).
Conflict became unavoidable when she made it that way. She got to a point where she wouldn't shut up about trying to make Esther realize that Edward Cullen is a god-like pinnacle of the male creature. It was time to pull out my arsenal.
I used the "emotionally abusive" card. It was rather easy, seeing as she couldn't present anything against it except "I DON'T CARE WHAT YOU SAY, HE'S THE GREATEST!!!OMG!!!1!!!one"; also, Esther's family was backing up most of what I was saying. What helped most of all was her mother's input. Yes, she agreed that Edward Cullen was an emotionally abusive boyfriend. There was nowhere the fangirl could go with this except out in all directions. She did an amazing job of holding back her violent nature in my presence. I didn't want any trouble, but it appeared she was rather intimidated by my art of speech.
This whole ordeal brought out a lot of my character. I found that though I may appear adamant and uncompassionate over the internet, in real-life confrontations I found it much easier to regard objectors as human beings. I was actually moved by my conscience to treat her with as much respect as I could manage. I spoke in matter-of-fact tones about matter-of-fact things, conducting myself in a civil manner just as I had promised. When we weren't arguing about Twilight, I was shocked to find that I had a tendency to be friendly with her. I just wanted to hang out and have fun.
I guess, deep down, I am very compassionate with other human beings. I don't want there to be any conflict. Yes, if someone has a wrong idea, I make it my job to correct them (some consider that a flaw in my character), but in real-life confrontations, I never want to raise my voice or be offensive/aggressive.
I suppose if Twilight was never written, there would be nothing between me and those fangirls. I might actually enjoy their company at all times. It's hard to believe, but they are still human beings, and as such, I have a weak spot for unconditional respect.

Twilight 3c

(Note: Read Twilight 3a and 3b before you read this one.)

"Dear Twilight fangirls,
Esther has told me of her concern regarding certain groups of girls trying to convince her that Edward Cullen is the epitome of the romantic gentleman. While I myself have formulated a number of reasons (both logical and ethical, as well as pathological) to dissent such a premise, you will excuse me for sticking to the matter at hand.
It is evident that her opinions of what makes the perfect gentleman differ greatly from your own. And; being the age that we are, having that inherent inexperience in the ways of romantic love; it is useless to debate upon such matters with other people your age, especially those who have found love and are in a long-lasting, satisfying, healthy relationship. I recommend you cease attempting to force your opinions on those who have good reason to disagree with them. In the end, all you will become is an irritation.
Esther's main reason for not converting to your legion of idolatry is simple. She does not believe, nor does she have cause to believe, that Edward Cullen exemplifies any of the traits she finds to be ideal. This reason for disagreeing with your manifestations of vampiric worship is deeply important to her, as it is rooted in her firmest and most personal beliefs which, among other existentially wholesome things, have greatly to do with her testimony of the Gospel. I understand if you may not have noticed this as you were attempting to turn her into one of the millions of screaming Ed-crazies, but you are being extremely disrespectful of her most sacred religious beliefs. I implore you to stop at once.

With the deepest will for you to open your hearts to understanding,
Esther's significant other

(That one guy.)

(Yeah. Him.)"

Or something like that. (I don't have a copy of the letter...if I can get one, I'll fix it.)
I typed it all up, printed it out, and handed it to Esther. I smiled as she read it to herself. When she was done, she handed it back to me.
"Think it'll work?" I asked.
She opened her mouth as if to say yes, but instead said "Nope."
"Well, I admit, some of the vocabulary may be a bit beyond their level--"
"A bit?"
"Okay, you've got a point. But, see, that's why I made sure they could understand the most important part of it."
"Which part is that?"
"The one about your testimony. I mean, there's no way they would even dare utter his name in your presence if that's the case!"
"What makes you think that will make them stop?"
"Well, it's our sub-culture, isn't it? If you so much as suggest that their conduct is working against God, they would immediately back off. The young women in our society hold the Gospel in an honor so high, they're simply too scared to continue on doing something that would be considered unholy."
"Still, I don't think this will help. In fact, they'd probably just be more annoying."
"We'll see what happens."

This was all on Saturday. Let's fast forward to Wednesday.
Up until this point, Esther had not been confronted by a single fangirl--fancy that! But the one that finally spoke up about our favorite one-dimensional pedophile proved to be the most abject human being I have ever before conversed with. I mean, I've dealt with some pretty irrational twits, but this one has got to be the twittiest. And physically abusive.
It became evident that in writing the letter, I made one failed assumption: That the intended recipient(s) would have any sense of logic or reasoning.
To tell me of the troubling incident, Esther contacted me through instant messaging. Here's a log of the conversation (I'm Henroshi):

(04:36:42 PM) Henroshi Saitsun: Greetings
(04:36:49 PM) Arahi, Vampaia: ello
(04:36:57 PM) Arahi, Vampaia: thanks to you I am now bruised
(04:37:04 PM) Henroshi Saitsun: ?
(04:37:12 PM) Arahi, Vampaia: read the emails
(04:38:08 PM) Henroshi Saitsun: That reaction makes no sense
(04:38:31 PM) Arahi, Vampaia: well she's glaring at the screen right now
(04:38:46 PM) Henroshi Saitsun: Um...say what?
(04:38:54 PM) Arahi, Vampaia: she
(04:38:55 PM) Arahi, Vampaia: is
(04:38:57 PM) Arahi, Vampaia: staring
(04:38:58 PM) Arahi, Vampaia: at
(04:39:00 PM) Arahi, Vampaia: the
(04:39:02 PM) Arahi, Vampaia: screen
(04:39:03 PM) Arahi, Vampaia: right
(04:39:04 PM) Arahi, Vampaia: now
(04:39:10 PM) Arahi, Vampaia: !
(04:39:19 PM) Henroshi Saitsun: I know what you said
(04:39:33 PM) Arahi, Vampaia: then why did you ask for me to repeat myself?
(04:39:43 PM) Arahi, Vampaia: thats what makes non sense
(04:39:51 PM) Henroshi Saitsun: I was expecting clarification
(04:39:56 PM) Henroshi Saitsun: Not repetition
(04:40:06 PM) Arahi, Vampaia: what do you need clarified?
(04:40:11 PM) Arahi, Vampaia: she's about to eat me!
(04:40:20 PM) Henroshi Saitsun: Why is she in your house?
(04:40:30 PM) Arahi, Vampaia: We have to do a school thing together
(04:41:02 PM) Arahi, Vampaia: although we're not doing much right now
(04:41:06 PM) Arahi, Vampaia: ...
(04:41:10 PM) Henroshi Saitsun: ...Did she even read the letter?
(04:41:14 PM) Arahi, Vampaia: yesh
(04:41:18 PM) Henroshi Saitsun: And comprehended it?
(04:41:35 PM) Arahi, Vampaia: Because of that question she kicked me
(04:41:48 PM) Henroshi Saitsun: Did she comprehend it or not?
(04:43:42 PM) Arahi, Vampaia: D=
(04:43:59 PM) Henroshi Saitsun: Tell her to stop using violence as a means of enforcing her beliefs.
(04:44:17 PM) Arahi, Vampaia: She can't help it
(04:44:41 PM) Henroshi Saitsun: What do you mean she can't?
(04:44:50 PM) Arahi, Vampaia: She...just...can't?
(04:45:25 PM) Henroshi Saitsun: I believe there was something in gospel principles called "bridling your passions".
(04:45:46 PM) Arahi, Vampaia: *she stares blankly*
(04:46:11 PM) Arahi, Vampaia: *and slaps me*
(04:46:48 PM) Arahi, Vampaia: and atacks the keyboard
(04:46:50 PM) Henroshi Saitsun: This is ridiculous
(04:47:00 PM) Arahi, Vampaia: oh you have NO idea
(04:47:09 PM) Henroshi Saitsun: I have somewhat of an idea
(04:47:09 PM) Arahi, Vampaia: she's also scratching me
(04:48:11 PM) Henroshi Saitsun: Look, whoever you are, stop attacking Esther just because I can provide doctrinal principles that conflict with Twilight/Edward fangirlism.
(04:48:44 PM) Henroshi Saitsun: What is this school project anyway?
(04:49:35 PM) Arahi, Vampaia: "I will not stop attacking her until she agree's with me about Edward!!!(who is hot!!!)" Its for U.S history
(04:50:11 PM) Henroshi Saitsun: So, again, you're using violence to force your opinions on others who have substantial reason to disagree.
(04:50:45 PM) Henroshi Saitsun: You'd make a really good terrorist.
(04:50:46 PM) Arahi, Vampaia: "....YES! And I will not stop! I WILL get my point across!!"
(04:51:11 PM) Arahi, Vampaia: Thanks she just kicked me AGAIN
(04:51:22 PM) Arahi, Vampaia: Do you feel the pain?
(04:51:30 PM) Henroshi Saitsun: I feel a little frustration
(04:52:22 PM) Henroshi Saitsun: Sorry, but if you want to get a point across, you need to use methods of communication that people can understand and abide with. Violence is not one of those methods.
(04:54:00 PM) Arahi, Vampaia: "my method works, believe me. Esther might end up in Iraq in my under ground bunker with all the rest who would not agree with me"
(04:54:26 PM) Henroshi Saitsun: I don't believe you, sorry.
(04:54:55 PM) Arahi, Vampaia: Amanda interjects:" Hey Stephen, buddy boy, wouldn't you say this stupid conversation counts as "bantering teenage girls?""
(04:55:05 PM) Arahi, Vampaia: I meant blathering
(04:55:07 PM) Arahi, Vampaia: oops
(04:55:22 PM) Henroshi Saitsun: I didn't say I was enjoying myself
(04:56:03 PM) Arahi, Vampaia: I'm not enjoying myself either (esther again)
(04:56:40 PM) Henroshi Saitsun: But since "blathering" basically means "empty talk", I would say it counts as a blathering teenage girl talk.
(04:57:34 PM) Henroshi Saitsun: And until I hear a valid reason why Esther should agree with you, you're a blatherer.
(04:59:34 PM) Arahi, Vampaia: "I will send to iraq
(05:00:05 PM) Henroshi Saitsun: Okay, apparently there's some confusion.
(05:00:10 PM) Arahi, Vampaia: Her I ment Here
(05:00:17 PM) Arahi, Vampaia: -+
(05:00:26 PM) Arahi, Vampaia: OW
(05:00:51 PM) Arahi, Vampaia: "I will send her to Iraq, where do you think my third cousin went?"
(05:00:58 PM) Henroshi Saitsun: Because when I said valid reason, I thought it was common knowledge that threats are not regarded as valid reason, let alone empty untrue threats.
(05:01:26 PM) Arahi, Vampaia: Actually with her, they are NOT empty threats
(05:01:47 PM) Henroshi Saitsun: Because she totally has the power to send people to Iraq against their will
(05:02:04 PM) Arahi, Vampaia: heh heh heh
(05:02:08 PM) Arahi, Vampaia: SHE DOES!!!
(05:02:24 PM) Henroshi Saitsun: May I ask who's typing now?
(05:02:32 PM) Arahi, Vampaia: Esther
(05:02:42 PM) Arahi, Vampaia: with a very sore leg
(05:02:43 PM) Arahi, Vampaia: and ears
(05:03:23 PM) Arahi, Vampaia: she's smacking me to hurt you
(05:03:33 PM) Arahi, Vampaia: how does that make you feel??
(05:03:57 PM) Henroshi Saitsun: This takes sticks and stones to a new level of absurdity.
(05:04:40 PM) Arahi, Vampaia: sticks and stones may break your bones but words will never hurt YOU just your girlfriend
(05:05:36 PM) Henroshi Saitsun: I fail to see the point of this barbaric method.
(05:06:18 PM) Arahi, Vampaia: "you wouldn't"
(05:06:33 PM) Arahi, Vampaia: Don't worry, we will now work on the project
(05:06:40 PM) Arahi, Vampaia: *walks away in pain*
(05:07:07 PM) Henroshi Saitsun: Please stop hurting Esther.
(05:07:24 PM) Arahi, Vampaia: ''No!!!!
(05:08:07 PM) Henroshi Saitsun: And why are you hurting her again?
(05:08:39 PM) Arahi, Vampaia: ''Because I can.
(05:09:33 PM) Henroshi Saitsun: That's not an explanation, that's an affirmation.
(05:11:08 PM) Arahi, Vampaia: "I don't know what that means"
(05:12:30 PM) Henroshi Saitsun: An affirmation is a statement or proposition that is declared to be true.
(05:13:48 PM) Henroshi Saitsun: For instance, I can punch a hole in my drywall. Is that a reason for me to punch it? No.
(05:14:10 PM) Arahi, Vampaia: ''Yes!!!"
(05:15:11 PM) Henroshi Saitsun: Say you're standing on the edge of a cliff. You have the ability to jump off. Does that mean you should?
(05:15:38 PM) Arahi, Vampaia: "YES!! if I'm atatched to a bunjee cord!!"
(05:15:51 PM) Henroshi Saitsun: And if you aren't?
(05:16:07 PM) Arahi, Vampaia: "push Esther!!"
(05:16:25 PM) Arahi, Vampaia: "And you!!"
(05:16:26 PM) Henroshi Saitsun: And what is your stance on abortion, exactly?
(05:16:50 PM) Arahi, Vampaia: "its bad!! no good!"
(05:17:49 PM) Henroshi Saitsun: So you think that just because a mother can kill an unborn child, doesn't mean they should.
(05:18:14 PM) Arahi, Vampaia: ''Yes!!!!"
(05:18:43 PM) Henroshi Saitsun: Then I'll repeat the question: Why are you hurting Esther?
(05:19:24 PM) Arahi, Vampaia: "She is not a unborn child!!!!"
(05:19:49 PM) Henroshi Saitsun: That's not an answer.
(05:20:58 PM) Arahi, Vampaia: "Yes it is I dont care what you say!!!!"
(05:21:36 PM) Henroshi Saitsun: Do you approve of murder?
(05:22:16 PM) Arahi, Vampaia: "YES if it is Esther!!!!!"
(05:22:33 PM) Arahi, Vampaia: (Esther) D=
(05:23:02 PM) Henroshi Saitsun: So you approve the murder of a daughter of our Heavenly Father.
(05:24:54 PM) Arahi, Vampaia: "She is not is not a daughter, she is a pet + I'm not mormon"
(05:26:16 PM) Henroshi Saitsun: So basically, you believe human life can be forfeit if a person disagrees with you.
(05:27:13 PM) Arahi, Vampaia: "YES!!"
(05:27:22 PM) Henroshi Saitsun: You know what, so did Joseph Stalin.
(05:27:33 PM) Arahi, Vampaia: "You said it yourself, I would make a great terrorist"
(05:27:42 PM) Arahi, Vampaia: "WHO IS DAT??"
(05:28:28 PM) Henroshi Saitsun: Stalin is thought to be the most psychologically unsound murderous iron fist dictator in history.
(05:28:50 PM) Arahi, Vampaia: Esther: TT.TT when will this end??
(05:30:38 PM) Henroshi Saitsun: And yes, you would make a good terrorist, with such a mentality. You have just the right irrational tendencies and failure to submit to empirical logic that is fit for mindless animals.
(05:31:40 PM) Arahi, Vampaia: -_- Stephen! that was mean!
(05:34:13 PM) Henroshi Saitsun: I do not know where in your mind you see it fit to dispose of this great gift we as humans have all been given - intellect - and choose to live a life of blind idolatry, rejecting all forms of ethics and logic.
(05:35:28 PM) Arahi, Vampaia: Stephen...are you mad...? I'm ok! besides the unneeded slaping
(05:35:37 PM) Arahi, Vampaia: D:D
(05:37:33 PM) Arahi, Vampaia: So
(05:37:45 PM) Arahi, Vampaia: what kind of homework are YOU doing
(05:39:07 PM) Henroshi Saitsun: We as humans have the unique privilege of using an exalted form of enlightened reasoning based on morals and logic. And yet, you toss it aside - this thing that no other animal has the mental capacity to even fathom - as if it were a cheap novelty.
(05:41:06 PM) Henroshi Saitsun: Laws, morals, civilization, literature, philosophy, technology - these things are meaningless to you?
(05:41:35 PM) Arahi, Vampaia: "no, Please I love technology I use my computer every day"
(05:41:53 PM) Henroshi Saitsun: How do you think technology came about?
(05:42:17 PM) Arahi, Vampaia: o o O uh...
(05:42:32 PM) Henroshi Saitsun: Did it fall from the sky?
(05:43:44 PM) Arahi, Vampaia: '"She is making me sond Stupids.
(05:43:53 PM) Arahi, Vampaia: Written by her
(05:43:54 PM) Arahi, Vampaia: not me
(05:44:24 PM) Arahi, Vampaia: crud I keep being beaten
(05:44:55 PM) Henroshi Saitsun: Technology originates from ideas, born from this same higher thinking that tell us how to speak, how to read and write, how to love, how to express ourselves, how to reason, and how to treat other people.
(05:47:22 PM) Henroshi Saitsun: By rejecting the most basic moral and logical principles, you are effectively dismissing every single advancement in human technology as a phenomenal heap of garbage.
(05:48:11 PM) Henroshi Saitsun: And yet, you love it--you use it most every day.
(05:48:32 PM) Arahi, Vampaia: "so?"
(05:49:03 PM) Henroshi Saitsun: So how are following the basic principles of morals and logic any different?
(05:49:12 PM) Arahi, Vampaia: "computers don't make one love"
(05:50:13 PM) Henroshi Saitsun: If humans didn't have the capacity to think, all your precious technology would not exist.
(05:50:37 PM) Arahi, Vampaia: Stephen?
(05:51:28 PM) Henroshi Saitsun: You cannot love technology and reject what it entails.
(05:52:59 PM) Arahi, Vampaia: ''YES I can!!!!
(05:53:51 PM) Henroshi Saitsun: So you can like apples, but not fruit?
(05:54:03 PM) Arahi, Vampaia: '
(05:54:17 PM) Arahi, Vampaia: ''Yes!!!
(05:54:23 PM) Henroshi Saitsun: But an apple is a fruit.
(05:55:23 PM) Arahi, Vampaia: "Yes it is But I like fruit!!!!"
(05:56:30 PM) Henroshi Saitsun: I didn't ask if you liked fruit or apples; I asked if it was possible to like apples and not fruit.
(05:57:20 PM) Henroshi Saitsun: Or, let me put it this way. Is it possible to like eating, but not food?
(05:57:28 PM) Arahi, Vampaia: "I hat you!!!
(05:57:47 PM) Arahi, Vampaia: I'm officially ending this squable
(05:57:56 PM) Arahi, Vampaia: *Esther puts her foot down*
(05:59:17 PM) Arahi, Vampaia: "I still hate you, Good bye I hope I never hear of you again. But Esther will probably still talk about you so I will never get away from you in a sense Grrrr"
(05:59:26 PM) Arahi, Vampaia: "I am now leaving"
(05:59:34 PM) Henroshi Saitsun: Why do you hate me?
(05:59:58 PM) Arahi, Vampaia: "because you don't agree with me, remember I AM a future terrorist"
(06:01:01 PM) Henroshi Saitsun: You don't agree with sense or logic.
(06:01:21 PM) Arahi, Vampaia: She slapped me as she left...
(06:01:44 PM) Henroshi Saitsun: All I was trying to do was illustrate a concept using pure reasoning and the Socratic method.
(06:01:52 PM) Arahi, Vampaia: yeah... well
(06:02:01 PM) Arahi, Vampaia: I don't think your point got through
(06:02:10 PM) Arahi, Vampaia: I have to say goodbye to her at the door
(06:02:13 PM) Arahi, Vampaia: so I'll brb
(06:03:09 PM) Arahi, Vampaia: k i is back
(06:03:13 PM) Arahi, Vampaia: but not for long
(06:03:35 PM) Arahi, Vampaia: I have to get off very soon because we are about to eat dinner
(06:03:36 PM) Henroshi Saitsun: Is she going to be coming back at all?
(06:03:41 PM) Arahi, Vampaia: Um....
(06:03:45 PM) Arahi, Vampaia: I dunno actually
(06:03:56 PM) Arahi, Vampaia: That was the OTHER Ashley in the anime club
(06:04:02 PM) Arahi, Vampaia: she is very violent
(06:04:04 PM) Henroshi Saitsun: Well, if she needed to come back tomorrow
(06:04:27 PM) Arahi, Vampaia: you sound like you are starting a threat
(06:04:35 PM) Henroshi Saitsun: No, that's not it
(06:04:58 PM) Henroshi Saitsun: I just think it would probably be better for your personal health if I was there to stop her from hurting you.
(06:05:05 PM) Arahi, Vampaia: heh
(06:05:19 PM) Arahi, Vampaia: yeah...cause my legs REALLY hurt right now
(06:05:33 PM) Arahi, Vampaia: TT.TT
(06:05:46 PM) Henroshi Saitsun: You make it sound like my fault
(06:09:10 PM) Henroshi Saitsun: OK, duly noted: Not submitting to fallacy makes me a bad boyfriend.
(06:10:38 PM) Arahi, Vampaia: Its not your fault!!!
(06:10:52 PM) Arahi, Vampaia: I don't blame you!!
(06:11:02 PM) Arahi, Vampaia: D=
(06:11:12 PM) Henroshi Saitsun: What would you have wanted me to say?
(06:11:16 PM) Arahi, Vampaia: eh?
(06:11:58 PM) Henroshi Saitsun: Because obviously, what I was trying wasn't working
(06:12:03 PM) Arahi, Vampaia: Naw its ok
(06:12:09 PM) Arahi, Vampaia: she would have beaten me anyway
(06:12:13 PM) Arahi, Vampaia: thats just the way she is
(06:12:50 PM) Arahi, Vampaia: I mean
(06:13:14 PM) Arahi, Vampaia: we walk through the hallways of school, I open my mouth *smack smack* its just what she does
(06:13:20 PM) Arahi, Vampaia: but I got to get off now
(06:13:24 PM) Henroshi Saitsun: I did what I thought would be best, honestly...the way I usually try to solve those sorts of problems
(06:13:34 PM) Arahi, Vampaia: *hugz* I know, and its ok
(06:13:42 PM) Arahi, Vampaia: I was worried you were getting mad
(06:13:49 PM) Henroshi Saitsun: I was getting a little frustrated
(06:13:51 PM) Arahi, Vampaia: I was more worried about you then me
(06:13:57 PM) Henroshi Saitsun: Upset is the word I would use
(06:14:02 PM) Arahi, Vampaia: ^_^
(06:14:09 PM) Arahi, Vampaia: But yeah I gotta go
(06:14:11 PM) Henroshi Saitsun: I'll see you tomorrow, yeah?
(06:14:19 PM) Arahi, Vampaia: sure
(06:14:21 PM) Arahi, Vampaia: ^_^
(06:14:22 PM) Henroshi Saitsun: I love you
(06:14:25 PM) Arahi, Vampaia: I loves you too!!

Can I get an "OWNED!"? Anyone? Also, notice how I didn't actually argue about Twilight or Edward. All I did was criticize her mentality. That is a definite "pure ownage" moment right there. And believe me, I've had my share.
So it turns out that today, she didn't actually have to come back to Esther's house. But she will tomorrow, and if I even see a limb fly in Esther's general direction, peace is forfeit. Do understand that up until action must be taken, I will conduct myself in a civil manner.

TO BE CONTINUED...

Twilight 3b

The internet debates continued. Again and again, the fangirls presented fallible "arguments", and were shot down by myself and some compatriots I had eventually gained throughout the first couple months. It was a time of both great disappointment and great entertainment.
And the same went on, going into 2008, through Spring, storming through Summer, and finally into its almost-1st anniversary. The topic (which I posted on Ask a Ninja Fans, go figure) was immensely popular. For a long time it was leading in highest post count, almost 2000 more than the second-most active topic. It has since been surpassed, being knocked into 3rd by topics of no contingent value.
I was quite impressed by the range of feedback. Apparently I impressed over 100 members to join the site, just to take a swing at my opinion. Outside the site, I was becoming somewhat of a celebrity--slanderous attacks on Twilight fansites, salutations on Anti-Twilight community boards, and even being credited as a source of the most reliable arguments against the series, its characters, and its fans.
My overall impact on the internet was amazing. I feel like I am one of the fathers of Anti-Twilight-ism. More recently however, my battle has become more personal/upfront.
Just last week, my sweetheart told me of her ongoing annoyance with fangirls confronting her on a regular basis about why she's not in love Edward Cullen. Every time, she attempted to explain her reasons: 1) He does not exemplify the standards of a marriage-worthy gentleman, 2) he is both one-dimensional and unrealistic, and 3) she's already in love with someone else. Each time she tried to explain that to them, they would attack her, sometimes verbally, other times physically.
As soon as I knew her health was in danger, I immediately took a stand. Just last Saturday, I wrote a letter that I hoped would put an end to this madness once and for all.
TO BE CONTINUED...

Twilight Part 3a

So I've already blogged more than enough on why Twilight should not be considered good literature, why it is immoral, and why Edward Cullen is not the ideal gentleman. Now I'm going to delve just a bit into my personal experiences on fighting against Meyer's literary atrocity.
Almost a whole year ago, back when the Twilight craze was still getting into its full swing, I posted many discussions on community networking sites, trying to clear up what the craze was exactly and why every woman seemed to be a part of it. After a few pages of posts, I judged that what was happening was not good. I began to speak out against Stephenie Meyer, her book, and her characters, saying they were actively twisting minds of young females into believing that all men unlike Edward cannot be considered gentlemen, therefore neither date- nor marriage-worthy. That's when the word jealousy started to be used to attack my position (and to this day still is, by George). While my arguments against such a claim were substantial, I decided that I needed to withdraw and establish a firmer argument before retouching the still larval subject.
This is when I decided I should read the darn book already. Seeing as I was a very *ahem* busy person, I never had the time. Fangirls continued to criticize my dissent. Luckily enough, they all used basically the same argument over and over, worded slightly differently, with more or less spelling errors. It was always quite weak, fallible, and managed to only challenge established principle and empirical fact. But for all my debate prowess, I still did not have an intricate knowledge of the published works I had so readily put on trial. So one day, when I was sick from school and could barely move around, I spotted a paperback copy of Twilight at the end of my couch. I reluctantly reached over and began to read it.
The text was simple, to say the least. In my honest opinion, it lacked sense of scene, continuity, a well-structured plot, and complex characters. The narration really ticked me off. I myself have no interest in the abject tangents of some teenage girl's convoluted mind. I often asked myself, "Why am I reading this?" only to get the reply, "So you know it's as stupid as you thought." As I came to realize, I was wrong. It was even more stupid than I had imagined. In fact, while I was reading it, I felt an ache slowly rising from my tract.
Suffice to say, I never finished it. I had gotten to chapter 13 before my body decided "That's it, I am emptying the taint for my own good." I staggered hastily to the bathroom and vomited a horrible mess. I washed up and returned to the couch to find the book with its covers sprawled out, saving the place I was forced to stop. I gave it a hellish glare and cast it back to the dusty corner I pulled it out of. And there it will stay.

Twilight (cont.)

Before I begin, I would like to proclaim myself as an expert on romantic love. My qualifications are: 1) I have been in a bad relationship; 2) I am currently in a good & healthy relationship; 3) I have a concise sense of morals; and 4) I have pondered and still ponder this issue deeply, thoroughly, carefully, considerately, and frequently. The reason I am claiming such is because in this blog, I will talk a lot about the ideals of romantic love, and I just want to make sure that it is trusted to be valid in its content.
Now that that's out of the way, let's bash some more Twilight.
I've seen worse, but this one's pretty bad. Anyone read the "Be Creative!" section of the school newspaper today? I turned to that section thinking, "Oh cool, I get to read short stories or poems by other students. That's a neat idea." I flipped and scanned the pages. I saw something that prompted me to skip lunch: A 10-item list titled "Why EVERY Girl is in love with Edward Cullen." Subtitled "By: A girl. Obviously. (for your own good guys)". As if the lack of proper capitalization and punctuation wasn't enough.
First of all, not EVERY girl is in love with Edward. I personally know several dozen that are not. As a member of the same species as the sex that is undermined by this general statement, I am greatly offended.
So let's get on to this list.

1. We want a drop dead gorgeous man
Who is "we"? EVERY girl? Man, it would suck if EVERY girl only went for drop-dead gorgeous men. There are only so many of those around, and the world's male population is already the minority. Also, I fail to see how this one is "for our own good". What about all the guys who aren't drop-dead gorgeous--who never will be? Is it their fault? What are they doing wrong? How is this first item supposed to help them?

2. We want someone who loves us and ONLY us
Wait. So you won't let me love my family? Or my friends? Or God, perhaps?

3. Rich doesn't hurt either...
...Or does it?

4. Someone who isn't afraid to show or say that he's with us to everyone
I have to admit, they're onto something here. You should never be ashamed to be in love. But as I have come to discover, most people really aren't interested. In fact, most people will be annoyed or upset if you jaunt about your lover. It's not the best thing for a girl's self-esteem when you tell them about how much you love another girl and how she's more beautiful than anyone you've seen. That's actually a really important rule in love: other people still have feelings. Caring more about a special someone does not mean you should stop caring about everyone else.

5. Willing to do anything for us. including dying.
Sorry, but a man such as I has rules to follow. I won't do everything you ask me to do. If you ask me to throw myself off a cliff, I won't do it. If you ask me to steal something for you, I won't do it. If you ask me to go against what I know is right and true, I won't do it. If you wanted a companion that obeys your every will, you should've bought a puppy. Or a robot. Unlike them, I am a person with my own beliefs, values, morals, and boundaries. I should be entitled to them. And if you want me to go against them, then you have no respect for me. Oh, and Edward is immortal. So he can't die.

6. Defends our Honor at any cost
Honor? Honor doesn't need as much defending in our modern society. Honor in today's world has strictly to do with self-conduct, not what others say or think about you. In fact, it is more honorable to do what you know is right than worry about what others will think of you. Being able to let go of grudges rather than hate with passion. Turning the other cheek instead of returning the blow. Not reacting harshly to insults. Showing kindness. I can't really defend a girl's honor if she doesn't do those things. There would be nothing to defend.

7. Very High morals AND a Super Gentleman. Opening doors, paying for dinner. The whole nine yards.
Hold on. Edward Cullen has morals?! That statement is preposterous and dangerously ignorant. The few things he does that are right, he does because of an excusatory plot device. Other than that; he is a killer, a stalker, impolite; and he lacks the ability to foresee all but the short-term consequences of his rash actions. That aside, being a gentleman is good, but I was always one to believe that a romantic relationship should be mutual (where on Earth would I get a CRAZY idea like that?!). Love is not a pulpit that one person stands on while the other bows down to them. It is a journey, as gratifying as it is terrifying; one that lovers take together, neither one above the other. You do not worship each other, you care for and respect each other. That's what love is about.

8. Would do anything to see us Smile
...Anything?! Let's hope it never comes to that. Besides, there are more important things than trying to make 17 muscles tighten.

9. Did I mention totally gorgeous? And he LOVES listening to us. And our random Rants about nothing in particular.
Need I repeat myself? Requiring men to be gorgeous is rather shallow. I don't care what attitudes other guys have. On the Love Boat, physical attraction is an anchor made of salt with a six-foot-long chain (whoever interprets this analogy correctly will win a 2-liter of their favorite soda, paid for by me). Past that, more selfishness. I reiterate: Love is not a pulpit.

10. Loves cute cheesy stuff. And does it on a constant basis
Wait a second. You're allowing them to love something else? I thought you said that they should love you and only you! That aside, I don't care who you are or what you think: Most of the "cute cheesy stuff" people do when they're in love is some of the most disgusting behaviors human beings are capable of. A minuscule amount of it once in a while is fine, but it becomes very tiresome and almost nauseating to see or do any more than that. Again, other people still exist, and they will be disgusted by most of the "cute cheesy" conduct. Furthermore, Edward Cullen does not do "cute cheesy stuff". He says things that are meaningless save for an attempt at elaborate flattery. Not the same thing.

I haven't been more offended by something in a newsletter in my life. Not only was it grammatically incorrect/inconsistent, it said things that are neither true nor good. Now, let's do something fun and rewrite it to convey more honestly! Ready? Here we go!

Why EVERY Oblivious, Self-centered, Romantically Inexperienced Girl is in love with a Sociopath.

By: A very shallow, selfish, and obsessed girl. Obviously. (for your own pain & frustration, guys)

1. We are shallow and go for looks.
2. We are selfish, possessive, and choose not to recognize outsiders as human beings.
3. We are shallow freeloaders.
4. We want someone who isn't afraid to show a lack of consideration for the comfort of those uninvolved.
5. We want to make men our slaves and show no respect to them or their beliefs.
6. We think our shallow stupidity is worth defending.
7. We are selfish parasites.
8. We like being difficult and playing games, just to toy with men.
9. We are redundantly shallow. Oh, and we like hearing ourselves talk excessively.
10. We don't think dignity is important.

There we go. That's much better.
Maybe for next month's newsletter, I'll submit a list of reasons why NO girl should be in love with Edward Cullen. And I really feel like chastising whoever wrote this list for presenting themself as a spokesperson for ~2.25 billion other individuals.

Twilight.

I don't know if any of you have noticed, but almost every time we have an extensive discussion in class, I and a few others somehow find a way to relate it to Twilight. Moreover, Twilight is always used as the supremely bad example of whatever it is we're discussing. Morals: Twilight is immoral. Literature: Twilight is not well-written. Dating & Courtship: Twilight twists male expectations.
You can call this consistency either a lame life goal to bash Twilight whenever opportunity presents itself, or simply a note-taking of how many wholesome things this series defies. I personally think it's both. For one, there's something ineffably fun about bashing the worst best-selling book of our time. And two; yes, Twilight does break just about every real-life moral concept.
The first I heard of Twilight was when the name Edward Cullen was conspicuously dropped into every teenage girl's vocabulary within a week. All I could think was, great Almighty, it's a vampire romance intended for young adults. Did the legions of Heaven suddenly fall to ruin? Or is there something about this particular vampire romance that justifies its audience? Turns out, I was totally wrong. The book somehow managed to be borderline mature content. Did that make it okay then, that young teenage girls were finding nothing wrong with a 110 year-old 17 year-old (wtf?) watching a high school girl while she slept? I don't know about you, but I find something seriously wrong with the way young teenage girls are throwing around the name Edward Cullen as if it's the best thing ever. How has it come to this, that girls should ever grow up thinking that a sociopath is the epitome of love? I remember a brief time when I was a bit younger when I thought being mysterious was a positive trait too. After a week I gave it up, because it just isn't my nature to be mysterious. Then a year or so later I found out that it's actually a good thing to not appear mysterious, no matter how attractive it seems. The ones that appear mysterious usually have no depth to their personality and end up trapping girls in abusive relationships. Which is odd...why do they appear to have depth when in fact they do not? And inversely, we the open and unreserved have great depth to our personalities, even if we don't show it all for whatever reason. I like the expressive strategy better. Sure it's not as exciting, but when exciting involves a risk of physical health, if I were a girl I would pass on it.
Obviously this isn't all I have to say about Twilight, and I may continue to rant on it in later entries.

Wu-Wei and Taoism

In class we had an interesting lesson about Taoism and Wu-Wei. We were also asked to write a blog on it, or any of the other stuff we learned today. So this is me posting my thoughts on it.
As I mentioned, the ancient arts of Kung Fu center greatly around Taoism. The basic teachings of Kung Fu state things that are basically Taoist beliefs.
From what I've studied personally, the most basic teaching of Kung Fu is that one does not learn Kung Fu. It is awakened from within them. Take a look at animals. How do they know how to defend themselves? Even from birth, a kitten claws with the exact same motion as a fully-grown tiger. Obviously animals don't learn how to fight. How are humans different? Well, first of all, we don't rely on natural instincts as much as animals do. From a young age we're taught to use reason instead of instinct, so we've never developed our instincts. So you can clearly see a connection to Taoism already. It applies perfectly to Wu-Wei. If we had just submit ourselves to the natural order, there would be no need to study martial arts. We would naturally know how to use our bodies to defend ourselves.
Of course I'm considering the ups and downs of that way of thinking. The only advantage seems to be that instinct is directly tied to having a substantial knowledge of survival. However, the way we as humans have formed our society, those who do not learn reason and use what we glorify as "higher thinking" will not succeed, and cannot survive in a civil environment. Instead of starting what we're born with, all we can do is learn what we have to in order to follow a system put here by the fools before us. Our society restricts us from following natural order, ergo it restricts us from finding harmony with the world. It seems the only times we can feel true peace is when we remove ourselves from the bonds of everyday drudgeries. I may not look or act it, but I enjoy the great outdoors, probably a lot more than the next person. There is nowhere I can find more happiness than on riverpaths, in quiet meadows, or among the mountains and canyons. My most cherished memory was spent on a rock jutting out the side of a mountain, looking down at the valleys, letting the nature lift away the burdens of my mind, if just for an hour or two.
But I guess this is a principle of Taoism too. The Universe contains complementary opposites, Yin and Yang. This is also a principle taught in the LDS doctrine. Opposition in all things, right?. For how could we know true happiness if we have never experienced the deepest of sorrows? What is good without evil also? Where would we find peace if there was no strife?
I guess ultimately, that's what modern society is good for: So that people can remove themselves from it to find peace. Heheh.

What if violence/murder was not considered immoral?

Often I've pondered that question. How would our society as well as our government be formed differently if murder and other acts of violence were not considered so incredibly immoral? How would the average person's mind differ in its priorities if it was a regular thing to learn how to defend yourself? How much more of an impact would the philosophies taught by martial arts have on our way of thinking as a whole? Well, let's take a step back with this question: Why does our government hold murder as the highest offense against the law?
Well, the answer is pretty basic--the taking of another person's life is the most effective way to involuntarily restrict their freedom--which is why I'd like to analyze it. It's a primitive answer to a stupid question. It's a lot more fun to get something meaningful out of it.
What is so intriguing about such a simple answer is that it's based on our most basic cultural thinking. It is not uncertain to the average American that killing someone will do little more than end their life permanently. We are so bound by this cause & effect belief that we never consider other cultural points of view to have any truth in them. And because of such a belief, we also believe therefore that murder is the most terrible crime; so terrible in fact that we sometimes find the most justice in taking the life of the murderer as well.
How does this compare to the Japanese way of thinking? Well first of all, in Japan, Shinto-do caused its disciples (all people of Japan at one point) to look at violence and murder very differently. The Japanese believe as part of common sense that humans are not physical beings, but spiritual inhabitants. One's own spirit is not fully bound to the body they are given. It could be drawn out, dispersed, concentrated, or even bound to another spirit/object/animal/person. From this basic belief branches all the things about Okami and Oni, spirits unbound by physical substance, but often taking the form of animals or objects. For instance: Amaterasu, the Okami of Life, is often portrayed as a dog. On the other hand, many Oni are portrayed as dolls or flying swords.
Even if many Japanese are/claim to be Buddhist or even Christian these days, this way of thinking brought on by Shinto-do is still present insomuch that even today their everyday speech resembles it. In Japanese one does not say "My hair is brown", they say "The hair is brown". Or, more accurately, "Hair-[on top of head] [subject marker] tea-colored [positive statement marker]". Your body and its faculties are not your possessions. That's not to say there's no such thing as personal property. Japanese does in fact have possessive speech: a donut can and often will belong to someone (so be warned). People still say "She is my mother", "I am your* servant", "Get your* hands off my donut!", and "This is my table and if you don't move now I'll cut you to pieces!". (*There are two different words for "you": Anata and Kimi, which mean "you" and "this/these/those not of 1st person addressing nearest 3rd person", respectively.)
So you can hopefully now see why, at least in ancient Japan, the ideas of murder and violence weren't considered so morally wrong. To remove someone from their body usually didn't mean much more than that. There were of course laws against killing someone against their will, that is, unless the Emperor willed it so. Then in the later centuries there was a time when unsanctioned duels between Samurai were strongly discouraged. Eventually it became a law for all Samurai that they could not challenge or accept challenges. This wasn't because killing was considered wrong, mind you. It was simply because as the Samurai went, they were very hard to replace, and they were only useful to their lords when they were alive and in good health.
It was a large part of Bushido that a Samurai should always be prepared to die. That is ultimately what carrying a sword meant: death, either on your account or the account of your enemies. So really there was no way to unlawfully kill a Samurai. The only problem one may have faced is being able to kill them. Understand though that, as highly trained as any Samurai was, they were careful to not become so prideful that they may have thought themselves invincible. No, an honorable Samurai was one who, upon brandishing his sword, knew that his life was at just as much mercy as his enemy's. Not that he doubted his own abilities, but he was at least wise enough to know that no amount of skill could ever temper someone's skin against the cutting edge, should their own skill fail them.
In modern society we fall very short of that way of thinking, because killing to us is so wrong that we think nothing of it. Civilized people don't kill each other anymore (I myself beg to differ, but that will be a different blog, possibly). When it comes to violence and combat, people are so shallow these days that they seriously believe a gun is more effective than a sword in every conceivable situation, and that pointing one at someone and pulling the trigger will somehow magically kill them. Does this not also effect the way we think in other situations? Take guns to be the easier path. We often take the easier path, thinking it will always be sufficient and just as if not more efficient than the harder path. How would being trained with firearms, blades, other weapons, and martial arts effect our way of thinking?
Perhaps then there would be a higher standard for "common sense".

Please do not take this as me supporting or glorifying violence. To me it deserves less of a place in our society than sports and entertainment. That doesn't mean that what can be learned from insights of combat cannot be applied to everyday life, and that is why I think we all should study combat seriously and sensitively, no matter how much our society condemns it.

Upon reading an excerpt from the Koran

This is me trying to squeeze one more task into an already busy and stressful day. I could barely get anything done; in fact, I'm still supposed to read two short stories and finish my math homework by Thursday. Right now however I should probably be catching up on sleep so I can stop being late to first period. I'm sick of coming in to a quiet room catching the attention of everyone as they try to finish up their bell writes. Just know that most of the time it isn't my fault. Usually it's siblings or the traffic that's to blame. It's not easy knowing when the best time to leave is when you live two cities away from the school and have to commute across a street that's infamous for being very busy and occasionally chaotic. Any number of obstacles could come up, and they have. Moreover I haven't even talked to my friends back at my old school this week, which just makes the stress worse. Every spare moment I have I waste by trying to contact them and failing.
So anyway, to the topic. We were all assigned to write a blog about the excerpt from the Koran we read as homework. I noticed almost immediately that it was a retelling of the story of Joseph, son of Jacob. Or did the title indicate that? I'm not going to bother checking.
What made it so different from the way the old testament tells it is that it was written with more detail. Really, it could be compared alongside the version in the Bible and except for some details which on a grand scale don't really matter it wouldn't disagree with it at all. It seemed as if it was meant to be written that way. Now, I myself had neither the time, energy, nor motivation to actually open my King James Version and see how the accounts compare, but from what I remember it isn't too different. And I guess if there are certain ways the King James Version is worded that disallow certain interpretations, it may just as well be possible that this account could be compared alongside another more popular version of the Bible, such as the one the old-world Hebrews used. This is just lazy speculation so I'm not sure.
I apologize for not being so quick to factualize and muse in this blog. I really need to be getting to bed earlier and I simply don't have enough time or energy to pour all my philosophical soul into a required class assignment.

Pending Blog Prompts

Here's a place for me to record anything that comes to my mind that I may want to write a blog about. Feel free to take any of these ideas and blog about them yourself.

• The human mind's shortcomings in striving to simplify and classify the world around us
• Mainstream and the contradictory ways in which youth deal with it
• The negative ways in which people respond to challenges against their opinions, beliefs, ideas, etc.
• How religion effects our government's definition of morality (Particularly speculation on how the usual way of thinking would differ if we didn't think of violence and killing as pure evils)
• How to use a tabletop RPG as a fun innovative medium for field-testing original characters, why it's so cool, and what the limitations are
  

THIS JUST IN...

Please take note: the following video has been carefully censored of violent or suggestive themes so as to not offend the nuns down the street.



THIS IS BEOWULF.

. . .


BEWOWEWOWEWOWEWOWEWOWEH

How does the main character make a story interesting?

Esteemed friends interested and bored enough to read my published rants, we stand on the brink of finishing our Beowulf unit. I, having read the whole thing, have a few afterthoughts upon Beowulf as a main character.
Beowulf almost immediately struck me as a legendary unstoppable kinda guy from as soon as he wandered into the story. He's a warrior with bear-like strength who in his senior years is still able to break a dyed-iron viker sword against any surface that dare test its sharpness. With his bare hands he was able to wrestle with the cursed monster Grendel, whose skin was like iron to the blade, and tear his arm off no less. And he has no doubt of his abilities, shows no sign of fear to his enemies: his mind is unbreakable. So here's a guy with basically no weaknesses, except that he's so strong he can accidentally break his own armaments. Invincible, unbreakable, god-like: perfect. (I just know I've seen those words somewhere else...can't quite put my finger on it...some book about vampires....)
So overall I was actually disappointed in the story and in Beowulf as a character. While I was reading along I kept praying for some amount of actual struggle in the conflicts that took place. But time after time my prayers went unanswered. Beowulf seamlessly overcame every single obstacle he came across (except of course the dragon, because hey, it's a freaking dragon). Seamlessly, I say! because despite the fact he's everything but immortal, he defeats his enemies without so much as a possibility of failure present. In fact he isn't so much as scratched when facing Grendel and Grendel's mom. And yes, I know he gave a speech before he went off to kill her that was basically him stating that he might die, to me it sounded more like "Oh yeah man, sounds radical. I can probably do it without even breaking a sweat, but to be fair, if I really do die through some really stupid series of misfortunes, that's totally cool with me. Now let's blow this popsicle stand!"
I understand that Beowulf is not modern literature and to compare it with our modern expectations would be unfair. But to me it seems like one of those classics you study in high school and never speak of again until all of the sudden there's a movie about it that barely resembles the text. And in the interest of good literature I still choose to pick at its unfathomably invincible main character.
Beowulf is not charming in a way a main character should be. He's actually rather full of himself. And it's not that he couldn't compile a list of good reasons for his self-absorbedness, it just makes him a lot less interesting and memorable than a main character should be. He has the personality and description that would better fit him in the role of a minor character. Compare him to minor characters such as Emmett Cullen, that one master fencer from Seven Samurai whom I can't remember the name of, or Auron from Final Fantasy X. People like those characters and some who can't look two moves ahead demand that they be the main characters of the story, but they really work better and can get that reputation because they're not the main character. In fiction, the main character is the one who must struggle with conflict both plot-related and psychological. Pre-composed invincible characters like Beowulf and Emmett wouldn't make for interesting main characters because there is no struggle anymore, they are completely developed and would therefore make for a very boring and uneventful story (poor Stephenie Meyer managed to weave past that literary safety pylon by making her centralized character stale in those ways). If the main character is designed such that they can overcome any obstacle with minimal effort and their mind is already composed beyond breaking point without the risk of losing a shred of confidence, the story overall will struggle to be interesting. Suspense must take place. Simple rule of fiction.
Often I fight for the idea of the main character still having at least some skill or talent. If there's anything I hate, it's an unbelievably skilless main character utterly lacking in confidence and knowledge of ability to the point of contemptibility. Invincibility may kill suspense, but total powerlessness is simply absurd. As Brandon Sanderson so wittingly wrote in his review for Henroshi's Bane (a short story of mine), "I am relieved to not find myself reading the story of yet another ordinary peasant boy somehow destined to save humanity. [Henroshi] has skill, and there's no shame in it."
I designed Henroshi to be a man with a mind as sharp and ready as the blade he so masterfully wielded. This is how I see it: I give a character a sword, they must know how to use it. It is utility. The best way to challenge a character thus is to either take away their choice weapon or put them against a foe with equal or greater skill. This seems difficult at first, but hey, so is writing a novel. Also, Henroshi had to deal with a serious psychological obstacle which he had difficulty overcoming throughout the entire story. And that is how you create a main character who is unique and charismatic enough to be remembered; not for his place in the plot, but for his own skills and attributes along with the way he is developed.

What is Immorality?

Now I can finally get around to the prompt I had more interest in, and had a lot more to say about. Last week in class we were discussing immorality. I don't recall how we branched off to that as many of us have ADD and it takes worthless effort to try to stay on one subject. In his own blog, Mr. Dye briefly touched on the controversy of the Holy Bible. Most of what I'm about to say I've already covered in my comment on that blog.
As Mr. Dye stated, the Bible contains several scenes portraying immorality--violence, sex, gore, incest, inhuman cruelty, even foul language if you choose to interpret it that way--the Bible has it all. So what makes the Bible so special that morally-minded Christian parents don't look at it and say "I would never read that to my children!"? There's certainly enough questionable content to make that outlook suitable. Think about it, if there was a movie that followed the entire Bible word for word, there's nothing they could do to get any less than an R rating.
Now there are two sensible ways to think past this. We can either accept the fact that the Bible along with other R-rated materials contain enough praiseworthy content to justify their very existence, or we can shun the Bible along with any material that shares its distasteful traits. I choose the former. Yes, I confess: I watch lots of R-rated movies. Just as I believe the Bible to be a collaboration of holy works by inspired men of God, so do I find good report in such movies. Sometimes the R rating on some of the R-rated movies I watch could easily be removed had they gone without one wretched scene. In rare cases there's no reason for it to be rated R and it just seems the MPAA took one look at it and said "Behold, it's a movie based off an anime intended for mature audiences; it must be rated R". But in most cases the R is there for good reasons. And I can see why people of my faith wouldn't subject themselves to such material (to those people I can only say "the Bible is such an awful book!" and hope they get the hint). Some people aren't headstrong or mature enough to take all the blood, the flashing weapons, and the occasional scantily-clad heroine. And some who subject themselves to such material are hardly deserving of it. Too many people watch R movies simply for the blood and the violence and the sexual themes; in other words, they watch R movies because they're rated R. This I find deplorable. Not only does it show that these people have no sense of morals, it also dampens their ability to appreciate the higher meaning that is present in most R-rated movies. There are too many examples to list I'm afraid, but let me tell you, several times have I walked away from an R-rated movie having been taught an important principle of humanity. Sometimes it's a lot harder to find for a couple reasons: first and foremost there would often be heavy amounts of violence that would distract the average audience to any higher meaning, or simply the higher meaning would be too subtle to be offright. Other times it's not necessarily a philosophy or a principle, but simply an interesting concept.
Anyway, I'm gonna end that branch and get back to the topic at hand. In class we helped Mr. Dye classify that in order to be considered moral, the book/movie must have the following traits: It must show that actions have consequences, it must show that liberty is linked to responsibility, and most important it must portray humans as complex individuals.
I feel that after that we haven't necessarily defined morals per se, but that we've essentially defined something entirely different. That's not to say that the list is bad, but who are we to decide what morals are? Everyone has their own definition and drawn lines not to cross. Sure there's a common ground for all moralists, but I don't see that list as the Venn of all perspectives. Regardless, I like that list; not because it shows what morals are, but because it basically defines good literature. That being said, let me address a certain series of books that doesn't quite make the cut. I guess if the list really does show what morals are, you can consider the series to be immoral. And that being said, I'll give a warning: If you react aggressively to someone questioning the moral value or quality of something you like (in other words if you're a close-minded individual that does not subject themselves to critical thinking and questions the validity of that which you follow), do not read on.
I'm gonna name it right off for ya: the Twilight Series. Never in all my life have I read fiction that has fallen so short of the standard of good literature it has literally driven me to violent psychosis and chronic nausea. I understand I'm not the target audience. That still does not excuse Stephenie Meyer from portraying a sociopathic overaged vampire as the ideal boyfriend/husband. The books struggle to even amount to our list, and they fall very short of it. Let's take a look at it:

• It must show that actions have consequences - Beyond common sense it fails. Sure, Bella gets pregnant after she and Edward procreate. But does it show the consequences that often follow for a teenage girl after having a boy in her room alone with her? That's not to say it would lead to unchaste activities; I'm addressing the issue of the apparent lack of parental impact upon Bella's tolerance for such an unspeakable action. In real life, parents would charge on to battle at the first sign of such. Let's hope at least, because in a society of morals, parents are the law and a responsible parent recognizes that.
• It must show that liberty is linked to responsibility - In no way does it show this. Bella is given an unrealistic amount of liberty and she has no sense of responsibility. This is either because she is stupid or because Meyer failed to make a believable main character. Take for instance the fact that absolutely everyone in her new school loves her to death for no good reason. This I would classify as a liberty. At this she fails to take responsibility, recognizing the way people treat her unconditionally, but not showing that same love in return. Or what about her responsibility as a daughter, being given the liberty that Charlie has granted her? She should be thankful to have such unquestioned freedom (were I her father I would not abide her talking to me as if I were a stranger that never tells me where she's going).
• It must portray humans [(AND vampires...AND werewolves)] as complex individuals - Let me think, what's the best way to say this? If this requirement was the essential factor in determining whether a book was moral or not, Twilight and its sequels would be banned, burned, and exorcised. The characters are far from complex. Some are cliches, others are archetypes, but most are simply poorly constructed. Bella is your typical helpless female, stripped of any sense of heroism or the slightest ounce of self-respect. She sets the worst example possible for female teenagers. The text basically screams to the young female population: "Dislike yourself no matter how beautiful you are, kill yourself before living down a bad break-up, and let a hot guy who struggles to control himself take control of you. Oh, and only marry guys whose last name sounds like the word for the rear-end of your digestive system. By the way, nerds are gross!" And don't get me started on Edward. I cannot begin to describe how one-dimensional, conceited, sociopathic, and unrealistic he is. That's mostly because I've done it so much I'm rather sick of it. He is clearly the reason the book was made and I believe it is because of that centralization in creating a novel that ultimately made the premise and plot fail. I have never enjoyed romance novels for that reason: often the only reason the book was made was to describe the author's idea of the perfect mate. You can clearly see how this would make a book automatically detestable. Not only does the idea of the perfect mate differ from person to person (meanwhile Stephenie Meyer was wrong to use a bloodthirsty sociopath as her prime example), but writing an entire novel while trying to focus on that aspect (I would say six paragraphs devoted to describing how oh-so perfect Edward's body is would be classified as focusing on that aspect, wouldn't you?) would deprive the text of the more essential attributes that would qualify it to be considered good literature. It becomes even more of a problem when the centralized character is also void of personality and strikes you as the kind of guy that would trap a girl with no self-respect in an abusive relationship. And frighteningly enough, the dialog reflects that (note: this is a summary of the selected dialog, not exact quotes. Thus, the incessant cheesiness of the original lines has been discarded): "Face it, you're lost without me." "No other man can make you feel the way I can make you feel." This, children, is what we call signs of an abusive relationship. An abusive relationship does not necessarily consist of physical abuse, mind you. It can also be called such if there is emotional abuse or even if inhibition of freedom is enforced. Often the abusive mate will not force their partner to stay, but they will say certain things that they will be enticed to believe so strongly, they eventually submit to it.

Anyway, aren't we glad THAT's over. But there you have it, the ultimate example of what is immoral according to the way we classified morals. I'm aware I probably stepped over several lines of provocation, but please understand that I am only criticizing the books in order to open your mind to what we've all agreed is moral and inversely what is immoral.

Now following the first prompt...

When all you lucky people were told en masse how to create your blogs, you were left with a question to ponder: Why study history? I guess I'm not exempt, and I'll answer that now.

First of all, it's really hard to say something that hasn't already been said by several of you. I find that there are only a limited number of sensible answers to that question, and it's been answered by many, many people, philosophers and students alike. So after presenting a few of my favorites I'll conclude.

The best reason I can think of right away is the fact that history tells us of what's been done in the past. We can learn from these things in order to move our civilization forward, as well as our individual way of thinking. Learning from mistakes is important, but too few people have addressed the opposite of that way of thinking: We can learn from the achievements of historical figures as well. It was the achievements of Gandhi that inspired Martin Luther King, Jr. to start a revolution free from the necessity of bloodshed. Can we not learn from these men a glorious way to change the world, one without war?
And so touching on that I can make a connection to another reason: History allows us to look at the past in order to build a greater future. What more can be said about that? I'll move on.
History allows people the opportunity to not be stupid. If video gamers never read a history book and only relied on "historical" games (point of interest: Age of Empires II is NOT historically accurate in the least*) as a reliable source of knowledge, where would we be? Honestly, this thing called "strategic balance" is tarnishing the proud covers of history. No, a single-shot rifle was not more powerful than a heavy repeating automatic. No, knights were not combat-devout brutes with little but common sense; on the contrary, knights were revered for their educated minds. And no, for the last time, the Spanish did not win the Mexican Revolution!

Those are definitely enough reasons for you to chew on. That's all for now, folks. And now, an hilarious image:

Aye, me be a pirate! Savvy?

*If it were historically accurate in the least, the Japanese would be an unstoppable force. Check the dates, people: The Samurai had already forged the perfect hand-to-hand weapon and developed several deadly martial arts before the armies of Europe had even gotten the brilliant idea to wear armor, and by then the Samurai had that covered too and were even able to refine it minimally. Take that, western culture.

This is my 1st blog post.

Yup.
I'll add more elements to this page once I'm on a familiar computer. Once I'm through it'll blow you all away. For now, enjoy the drab default template. For sooth!