Metacognition: Jane Eyre Mash-Up Project

The first day Mr. Allen introduced the idea of having a "mash-up" based assignment to test our understanding of Jane Eyre, I was confused. What's a mash-up? How can that show our understanding of a book? Questions flooded into my head as to how this would actually end up working out, especially since I was quite unfamiliar with the concept of a "mash-up". As Mr. Allen explained it further though, the idea began to grow on me. It seemed kinda cool...and different. The idea of creatively putting together a bunch of seemingly random sources and creating this unique, binding result sounded different from anything I had ever done. And not having to actually write anything of your own seemed like a relief- but also a challenge.

As Nour and I got started on our project [our topic being "Love"], the whole "mash up" concept really became appealing to me. The whole concept of linking together the ideas and insights we gained from Jane Eyre with a plethora of other sources was effective for my understanding of Jane Eyre, and was fun too. Instead of just having to stick inside the text and be trapped in the confines of ONLY Jane Eyre, I was able to broaden my thinking and take it to a whole new level. The linking process forced my brain to constantly search for connections. This enabled me to remember many useful concepts I had learned from previous years in different classes and in everyday life- stuff that was really worth remembering, but was hidden in my brain, waiting to be re-looked at. I was able to connect Jane Eyre to things that I couldn't believe I even remembered...it was just really cool to see how much a theme from a classical book could resonate and mesh with sources from all over.

Additionally, this mash-up project opened the doors for great collaboration. It was really interesting and entertaining working with Nour, thinking out loud together to try to work out possible sources for the mash-up as well as the "line-up" for the project. Putting our background knowledge together, we were really able to come up with great results for the mash-up project!

Though I thought that I would face a fair amount of obstacles with this project- both mentally and time-wise- there were very few. There were, certainly, moments where Nour and I had trouble putting the puzzle pieces together and really figuring out what we wanted the mash-up to signify and how we wanted it to be put together, but the rest came easily. Finding sources was relatively painless- with all of our background knowledge, it wasn't too hard coming up with connections to "love". And overall, I'm very happy with our result and with the whole "mash-up" technique. I found it to be a very unique and effective way to challenge my brain and make meaningful and lasting conclusions about Jane Eyre.

360 Degrees: "The Son of Man"

This painting, "The Son of Man" was painted by Rene Magritte in 1964. At first glance, many would think this painting is purely simplistic- one of those "random" paintings that has unexplainable qualities. Just a painting you look at and then forget about.

But if you take a look at this long enough, there is actually plenty to be examined and thought about. Yes, many of these aspects will most likely be left unanswered, but I definitely would say that this painting should not be overlooked!

Magritte used a very interesting technique behind this, I think. She uses simple concepts and presents them somewhat clearly in the painting itself. Not every aspect will pop out at you, but if you look close enough, they're right there in front of you. The peculiar thing though, is that these concepts don't have a specific meaning or purpose. Many of these aspects will make you think "Why is this here? What is the significance?" That is why I love this painting. It's composed of little details that really make the painting the way it is. It looks simple, but once you examine it, every little aspect of the painting gives it's own, unique insight on the poem.

Right off the bat, I notice several things. Most clearly placed is the apple in the middle of this man's face. This is quite bizarre. Why is that apple there? Why is the apple green [not red]? Is it floating there? Or is the man biting on it? Why is the man's eye peeking out? Why is he staring blankly? Does he not see the apple?

Also, I notice that this man is standing very rigidly. His hands are right at his sides, his hat is perfectly centered, and his tie is centered and tightly tied. But if you look closely at his jacket [unfortunately it is almost impossible to see on this photograph I posted], you will see that only two of his suit jacket buttons have been buttoned. One button is unbuttoned. If he is so rigid and proper, why hasn't he buttoned all of the buttons?

Then, I took a look at the background. I would think that the background would be the most overlooked, since the man is really the most obvious subject. There is a lot to be seen in the background though. For example, we see that he is standing by an ocean. He is separated by a stone threshold. What kind of body of water is it? An ocean? A pond? And look at the sky. Is there a storm brewing? Do these things connect to how this man is feeling?

Those are just some questions/observations that come to mind when I look at this painting. What I love though, is that those are not the only ones. This painting, though seemingly simple, is actually jam-packed with twists, insights, and hidden details!

360 Degrees: Vegetarianism

Should I be eating meat or should I not? That is a question that has been on my mind lately. I've struggled through the guilt of eating meat for several years now, trying to figure out if it's better to just...give it up.

For me personally, meat has never been something I've loved. Sure there are some things that contain meat that I would say I like, but for the most part, I really don't like it that much. I've given up meat several times throughout my life, many of those times being for Lent [or events/reasons like that]. Not eating meat was great in the short run- I never felt guilty about supporting the killing of animals and I actually physically felt better. But I was never really able to stick with it.

On this last Late Arrival Day morning, I turned on the TV and ran into a special Oprah was doing about slaughterhouses and the methods [many labeled by these slaughterhouses as 'humane'] used to kill these animals for consumption. At one point, Oprah's TV crew went into an actual slaughterhouse and filmed parts of process. They were not able to film the actual killing of the animals because that was too graphic but they showed much of the rest of the process: the cows being led through tight, winding conveyor belts, essentially, to their deaths, handling the bloody animals, etc. Additionally, the crew interviewed the workers at the slaughterhouse, who described how the cows were killed: essentially, they shot a metal rod into the cow's head, which dislocated it from the body. Then, the body gets reeled over to be handled by the workers.

Honestly, I don't think anyone who would have watched this episode would leave feeling good about eating meat. For me personally, I started to think about where the meat I was eating came from. Was it from a slaughterhouse like this? Did the animal die unhappy? What were the conditions in which it was raised in? All of these questions started flooding into my mind and I figured that I had most certainly eaten meat [many times, at that] from animals mistreated as badly as I saw in Oprah's show.

So why do people eat meat? We obviously know why vegetarians don't eat meat: no guilt of killing an animal, not enjoying the taste of it, to be pushed to eat healthy fruits and vegetables, etc. But there are so many more meat-eaters than vegetarians out there. So what is it? Well first off- meat is convenient. It's easy protein and it's everywhere. Also, you can do so much with it [cooking-wise, that it]. Even further, though it is not necessarily healthy, meat does possess certain health qualities that you can't obtain through vegetables or meat substitutes. As we can see, there are benefits to eating meat...and that's why so many people eat it!

Do the pros outweigh the cons, though? Should we keep slaughtering animals like this? Is it justifiable? I don't know the answer to those questions. I feel like it depends on the person. Some say that eating meat is natural- that we're just part of the food chain and there's nothing wrong with it. I mean, I know animals die, that's inevitable. But is it necessarily to kill so many animals to eat them? Personally, I don't think so. I'm convinced that if I would give up meat, I could live a healthy life and have a good diet that doesn't lack any important nutrients. I'm just not sure if I can look at a piece of meat the same way again and feel good about eating it.

That said, the question of whether or not it's good to eat meat is rather complex. As we've seen, there are pros and cons to both. And I suppose it's up to the person to decide what is more important to them. I don't think the world will ever become a place where humans don't eat meat- it's too popular and too convenient. But I also think many people don't know the actual horrors of how the meat they eat is produced. I feel like if people had watched what I had watched, they would not be able to eat meat without feeling guilty or disgusted. For me, I'm going to learn how I can live a healthy life without eating meat and hopefully, once I've got a good understanding about it, I will be able to become a vegetarian for good.

Dialectics: Organization and Clutter

I'll admit it. I'm kind of a neat freak-sometimes. But this craving to keep things tidy and organized does not just come from no where. There must be some sort of push, a type of factor, to make me want to be organized. That is why I would say that organization and clutter go hand in hand.

Take my room as an example. Yes, it's not always clean. Honestly, it's usually not clean. Either it's my desk that begins to pile up with books and worksheets or it's my closet where clothes begin to get off the hangers and go into heaps on the ground. Clutter is inevitable. I don't think I've ever met someone or been to anyone's house where their room is always clean. It's just not realistic. Things get put off to the side and many of us decide not to find time in our busy lives to take the time and organize/clean the messes we've created.

So, mess is inevitable. But completely solvable. That is why I see a connection between these two opposites. They depend on each other. Without a mess, there wouldn't be an organization process, and without organization, there wouldn't be messes. For example, if I never witnessed my room going from an organized to a cluttered state, I would never take the time to say "Hey, I think that I should clean my room" or "I think I'm going to go through the things on my desk and organize it". It just wouldn't happen. You need to have a mess to let you realize and push you to cleaning it up. And flipping that the other way, without actually organizing your things and creating a clean environment, 'messes' wouldn't exist. We just wouldn't associate it that way.

Therefore, I'd like to think that people can't just be "neat" all the time or "messy" all the time. Being on either of those spectrums had to result from a push from being on the opposite side of the spectrum. Someone who has an extremely neat room usually entails that they had presided over a messy room, which pushed them to organize and make it neat. Conversely, someone who has a messy room probably had presided over a considerably neat room, and thus managed to fall over to the complete opposite.

All in all, my point is that you can't have organization without having clutter. Neither of those terms would exist if the other did not. We would just have some sort of medium, another term, to describe the level of organization. We would not have extremes, using my thinking, because they depend on each other.

So next time you think of labeling someone as a "neat freak" or a "slob" just remember that they probably became that way from presiding in an atmosphere the complete opposite.

360 Degrees: Fast Food Controversy

Fast food. It's a concept that we all know and are accustomed to. McDonald's, Wendy's, Subway, Taco Bell, Burger King, Pizza Hut, Arby's....the list never ends. It's a global takeover. Everywhere you turn, almost anywhere in the world, you can bet on seeing at least one of these restaurants close by [click HERE to see McDonald's international websites....you'll find that they're all over the world]. But as the popularity of these eateries has grown monumentally, so have the controversies.

Restaurants like McDonald's and Wendy's are institutions reliant on advertisement. I don't know many people who would disagree with that statement. It's the characters, the commercials, the flawless pictures, the cheap deals that appeal to the people and really how they create the "frequent customer". Many of us grew up with the Happy Meals, the prizes/toys, the smiling, trademark characters, and the in-restaurant play areas. Yet as we grew up...so did these chains....and instead of just chains, they became superchains.

But as something gains popularity, it will also inevitably gain a sect of criticism and hate. As fast food became the norm and the "first choice" to most individuals worldwide, bad things started to circulate about these restaurants. What's the quality of this food? Is it as healthy of a choice as it's advertised to be? What are the nutritional facts and why can't I find them? How is this food manufactured to supply such a high demand?

None the less, movies like Super Size Me and Fast Food Nation, books, studies, and lawsuits started popping up regarding the issue. People were starting to get concerned about the credibility of what fast food chains are telling us. And after all these studies, we've learned. Fast food is not good for you. It's not. We can see the nutrition labels, we can see how it's made. It's not a healthy choice. Yes, the companies lied. But how many companies do we know that don't stretch the truth every once in a while? Look at commercials! Everything is unnatural. Snapshots of food, clothing, models....it's fake! Or at least airbrushed. But that's what advertising is, right? It's making things look appealing. If we took a picture of an actual Big Mac and put it on TV, no one would want to eat it. But if we make a beautiful, computer-generated representation of one, with perfectly red tomatoes, crispy lettuce [with water droplets STILL on it] and a perfectly puffy bun, who wouldn't want it? You'd go to McDonald's, get it, realize it looks different, and eat it anyways. And let's face it- most people will like what they're tasting, and the commercialized photo will be non-existant in their brain after that. But that image brought them in- and that's all that matters right?

So anyways, that's great. People learned the truth about fast food. We know it's bad. So why does the fast food chain keep growing? Here's my problem. You read these stories about people suing companies like McDonald's and Burger King and blaming them for making them obese and selling them unhealthy, low quality food. In my opinion, yes, it's terrible that these companies lied and seemed to hide this information from us, but wasn't it your choice to eat there in the first place? Life is like that- people are going to try to lure you into doing things by making whatever it is sound appealing. But they're not forcing you. It's ultimately your decision. I understand that they might say that they thought the food was healthy....but I have a hard time buying that excuse. When has a burger, fries, and soda ever been healthy? Maybe it's just me, but I feel like this is common sense. And when you hear the word "fast food", don't you understand that the food is mass produced and cheaply made? Did you think that Burger King's $1 burger was made with premium, top-notch ingredients? I know they said that's what it's made from, but use common sense people! We eat fast food because we like how it tastes. We know the consequences- so I don't think we should blame others for our own issues of restraint. If you eat at McDonald's every day, you probably will become sick and obese. But that was your choice. There are many other options out there, and if you can't learn to change your diet, that is not the company's problem.

But I understand where some are coming from when they say that fast food chains have lied to them. That is understandable and we should get the facts. But we can't initiate frivolous lawsuits blaming companies for our own misfortunes because it is, in the end, our own fault.

To me, this controversy brings up many questions. Should fast food chains be responsible for the obesity and health conditions of people who eat their food? When is it the company's fault and when is it the consumer's fault? Is common sense a valid excuse against the consumer? Is it a crime for restaurants/food chains to enhance their photos, beef up their advertising, and not publicizing all nutritional information? Is connecting newfound obesity/health conditions to fast food eating a valid connection? Or is that too sketchy? Do people really think fast food is healthy? Is that why people eat it?

Best of Week: The Power of One Word

While talking about the short story "Cathedral" in English class on Friday, we touched on many interesting aspects of short stories. One of the most prominent ones that I felt really made an impact on me was the title. Yes- just the title. It sounds like it's really not a big deal, the title, just something that's there just because every story needs a title. I know that I'm not the only one who typically overlooks the title and sometimes just completely disregards it- so this piece of insight was really beneficial to me.

First off, the word "cathedral" itself has specific connotations. As we discussed in class, it is the principal church of a diocese [very grand, intricate, and large] with which the bishop is officially associated. It has several associations, including religion, grandness, faith, etc. So, we can already get a glimpse at what may literally or figuratively happen in the story, just by looking at the title. Because the title is not just there for no reason, it gives a snapshot into the most significant part of the story.

As we started to look into the ending of the story where the narrator first mentions the cathedrals, we see a lot of parallels between the title and the actual story. For one, they're actually talking about, watching, and drawing cathedrals. That would be the more literal aspect of it and could easily be figured out by the reader without over-thinking it. But, we also starting talking about the more figurative connection between the title and the story. I felt like we started to get into this in English class, which sparked my thinking about it, so I'm sure we're going to discuss this even more tomorrow in class.

Thinking about the connotations about the word "cathedral", in class, we mentioned that it has connotations related to religion, faith, etc. The narrator, in the story, tells Robert that he has a hard time believing in and committing to religion. As they start drawing the cathedrals though, he is instructed by Robert to close his eyes and keep drawing, as if he's "blind". Our narrator had thought that this would be extremely difficult and became frustrated and skeptical, but soon embraced the feeling of having this blindness and remarked that it was "really something" to feel like he "was not inside anything". To that, we can see a parallel between the title "Cathedral" and this experience. We can connect it and say that what the narrator experienced right there was faith and religion. We would say that Robert was the priest and the narrator was the person that is religious. In this moment, the narrator is realizing that though he can see fine, he is blind to faith.

Talking about the power of just one word really sparked this insight for me and made me appreciate the aspects of a story that may seem so simple that I should just skip past them. Just by acknowledging the title and giving it a bit of thought, it spurred all of this insight and thought in my mind. So it was really beneficial for me to see all of these little details in short stories that though seemingly simple, have very profound impacts upon the story. Knowing this will really enrich my experiences of reading any type of story and will help me come to more complex conclusions and parallels.

iMedia: "The Scream"

Yet another painting to blog about...I believe this is my third? I suppose I just enjoy the iMedia prompt.

Anyways, this painting is called "The Scream" and was painted by artist Edvard Munch in 1893. To give a little bit of background, this was painted in Oslo, Norway, and the landscape in the background is actually Oslofjord [a bay in the south-east of Norway] seen from the hill of Ekeberg.

Though very abstract, I find that this painting is thought-provoking, to say the least. We see this person [or creature] who is agonized, worried and fearful of something. The person/creature itself is abstract: we cannot completely tell if it is a human or whether it is a male or female. His/her features are minimal; we only see eyes, a nose, a mouth, hands, and the outline of the rest of the body. Two people are behind him/her, strolling, and are seemingly calm and unaffected by whatever is bothering the main creature.

The sky is painted in fiery reds and oranges which counteracts the cool, deep blues of the water below it. In my opinion, the sky seems to be one of the mist peculiar components in the painting. The color choices are pronounced, no doubt. And the swirls along with these colors are reminiscent of a fire or some sort of explosion [like, a volcanic eruption, perhaps?]. Looking at the sky and its intensity already gives off a frantic and distraught feeling to the observer.

For me personally, I just enjoy looking at this painting. Many paintings I've seen before that I would consider "thought-provoking" were detailed, with many hidden images or messages. But "The Scream" is just so abstract. Looking and thinking about it generates so many questions that I can't answer. For example, what is bothering this creature that is making him/her so incredibly petrified? Why are the two others not affected? Is it in his/her head? Why are the surroundings distorted? Does he/she have a disorder that distorts his/her perception or his/her thinking? Why is the sky red? Why did Munch choose to leave the creature visually genderless? Did Munch find himself as this creature? What was his inspiration?

The list never ends. But that's definitely a cool thing about this painting. Who would think that such an abstract piece of art could provoke this many questions? What I also find extremely interesting is that face- at first glance, the face of that creature is the first thing your eye goes to. And it gets to you. Personally, when I first saw this, looking at that face just brought me to think about what really agonizes me, what truly worries me. That's why I think this painting can really lead to deep connections and unique perceptions by each individual. Each viewer notices something different, and there's always going to be one thing in the painting that gets to you, whether it's the creatures face, the fiery sky, the unaffected pedestrians, or the wavy distortions. And that one thing will bring some sort of deep, personal connection that helps the viewer understand the painting in a unique way.

That is my thinking, at least. I infer that Munch painted "The Scream" after either experiencing something agonizing or just dealing with something that really irritated him. And I feel like each part of the painting [the peculiar color of the sky, the unaffected people in the background, and the expression on the creature's face] has some sort of tie to a widowed image in Munch's brain. Feeling as that is possible, it seems like the whole painting is just a culmination of many widowed images, put together into one. So not only can you look at the painting and find deep meaning and connections for yourself, but also, one can infer and understand the strong emotions and experience of the painter himself.

Metacognition: First Semester English

To start off, I can't even believe that I'm writing about the end of first semester Sophmore English class. It seems like just yesterday that I was walking into Glenbrook South High School for the first time as a freshman. But I digress.....

English this year has really been a great experience for me but also one that has really stood out from all my other English classes in the past, for several reasons. The first one reason is the approach. All my grade school English teachers were basically your average, stereotypically English teachers. They taught strictly though the curriculum. When we had an essay, you got your topic and your requirements, which were solely composed of things like "Size 12 font, spell checked, at least one page, varying verb choice/sentence length", etc. Oh, and when we had a book to read, as long as you read it, it was enough. We never discussed anything worth while [sorry, teachers!]. It was the same old stuff: summary, who did what, the basics. Nothing insightful, nothing I couldn't get from "Spark Notes", lets say. And when we finished a book, I had learned absolutely nothing that I could take with me to learn from. That's probably the reason why I hardly remember any of the books I read in Middle School. Books, projects, and units just came and went.

This year, from the very first day, I knew that English would be different. Mr. Allen just seemed so much more unique than all those other teachers. He really seemed to have a genuine interest in us, our education, the Academy, and the English subject itself. He also seemed intellectual- not that my other or previous teachers weren't, but he seemed to not only have a great deal of education about English and literature, but also a plethora of others subjects, topics, and philosophies. After the first week of class I had already felt that I had learned so much from him, not only things that were English related. I remember the thing that stuck out to me the most, was what he said on the first day. I probably won't get this exactly right, but it was along the lines of "To what degree do I understand that which I am about to reject?". It really made an impression on me because it's such a great question. I seem to now ask myself this every time that I'm faced with a new concept, idea or challenge. It has really, along with all the other insightful stuff Mr. Allen has said, made me think more deeply, openly, and with less of a bias than before. And I can definitely say it has helped me keep an open mind in my educational career and re-evaluate my previous opinions.

Though it may seem that everything is fun and stress-free in English, I should also say that it is a challenge- but not a bad one. I feel like Mr. Allen has challenged me with my thought process and my writing throughout this year. I've been used to easy assignments, 1 dimensional discussions, and easy A papers. But clearly, this is not the case. Yes I'll admit that sometimes it has been a struggle and sometimes I find myself thinking "Why is this just not good enough?", but I always steer back into having a positive attitude and persevering. And most importantly, I know that if I'm truly concerned, stuck, or discouraged in English class, I have absolutely no problem to talking to Mr. Allen. This is because I know that he acts exactly in the same way as he conducts his class: not judgmental, understanding, and accepting of change or other opinions.

I guess I just really feel like this English course is really one that's not typical to the others. Between the interesting books we read, the thought-provoking and meaningful discussions we have, and the useful assignments, I feel like I've really gotten a lot of of just this one semester of English. I feel like I've grown as a thinker, a learner, and just as a student. I feel more capable of thinking deeper, making insightful conclusions, and getting a better understanding of literature just after one semester of this course. It has really made an impact that fast. I find myself utilizing all the concepts and lessons I've learned in English, and know that all this stuff is actually, as opposed to grade school English, something I will remember and use throughout my life. I'm looking forward to another great semester of English and I know that I will be able to learn a great deal of stuff that will further more extend the capabilities of my mind. And lastly, I know that even when the year is over and I've moved on to different things, Mr. Allen will remain as one of those teachers that I'll look back on and think- now that's a teacher that I really learned a lot from. Thanks for a great semester!

Blogging Around: Ben and Chris J.

The two blogs that I decided to comment on were Ben's "iMedia: 1941" and Chris J.'s "iMedia: Haiti." These were two really interesting posts that had great insight.

Ben-

First off, it's great to hear you're still doing IMEA...you have to take advantage of your talent on the clarinet!! Anyways, I thought it was really cool how you found so much insight, understanding and overall interest in a piece of music you happened to be playing. It's great that you were able to take that and generate all these ideas - I'll bet that the rest of the people playing it didn't even think twice about the context of this what-so-ever. Also, I was quite excited to hear what you would say about this because I've actually heard The March From "1941" before at some point. So you, being the Social Studies enthusiast that you are, would of course provide plenty of thoughts about the basis and context of this piece that I have never thought about. Listening to it again, you definitely provided some interesting thoughts and observations about the musicality of this piece. It really brought some flashbacks back to band lessons at Springman and being lectured about WHY musical pieces were the way they were and what every little detail meant [and of course why that was so important!]. I had always disregarded that information, but this post has showed me how much better of an understanding you can have of a piece of music and it's context just by listening and analyzing the music and how the instruments sound themselves. Lastly, I found it really insightful how you connected this to the role of humor today. Though someone might find the connection to "Family Guy" a weak one, I actually think it definitely shows how we we're more open-minded and tolerant of a far range of humor. Today, "Family Guy" is considered a [somewhat] normal, humorous show...but back in the times of The March From "1941", a show of that sort would have been regarded as offensive, inappropriate, and would probably not last for very long at all.

Chris-

For a pretty short post, this could have probably been one of the most effective and thought-provoking thing I've read in a while. That picture is really...something. Just one look at it and you're flooded with all this emotion and questions. I mean, when I looked at that man, I saw all this desperation and confusion and longing in his face. It definitely, like you said, makes you think about the world and what's going on around us. We live in such a good, safe environment that sometimes we don't know the horrors that go on around us. This photo to some could really change someone's perspective of the situation [in Haiti] and could get people to try and make a difference. This picture and the post in general also made me think of the Letters to Haiti campaign we've been doing in French Club. We really wanted to reach out to the people in Haiti and get a primary source perspective of how things are going and how we can help them out. For about a week, we encouraged students to write letters in French [using translators if necessary] so we can send them to Haiti in hopes of getting letters back from Haitian students. We're also planning on doing a school supply drive to go along with it so we can help out the schools and the students. Additionally, we got some help from two GBS students who came from Haiti to escape from the situation. They had to leave their immediate family in Haiti and come here in hopes to get a good education and a better life. They live with some other family members here but keep in contact with their parents...it's a really moving story.

Lastly, I definitely agree with what you said about the photographer and about the mindset of most Americans. We seem to have trouble with looking beyond our problems and our needs to help others. It's a sad thing...

Metacognition [Get Organized]: My Desk.

First off: this blog assignment was a life saver. I've been telling myself to clean my previously cluttered desk for weeks already but have never really gotten around to doing it. And it was about time. To put things simply, it had gotten to the point where I refused to do my homework on my desk because there was no clean space. Sure, cleaning and organizing my desk was no easy [or fun] task, but the results were well worth it.

The first time I read this assignment, I knew exactly what I would have to do. And I'd be lying if I told you that I was excited about it. I was dreading it, actually. Yeah, I needed to do it...but over break? Why?! I couldn't understand. But it was an assignment so I got myself, well, forced myself to start working immediately. I told myself that I could do a little each day if it got too boring or if something came up, but to at least start my work so I got somewhere. Once I stood face to face with the mess, I became discouraged. "This is going to take hours!" I remember thinking. There were so many books, papers, cd's, and items sprawled around my desk, I didn't know where to begin. Once I had returned to a clear mind, I decided to start easy. Instead of focusing on every little detail, I would separate things into two piles: what I would keep, and what I would need to throw away.

This process was quick and in no time, my desk was clear and almost half of the things that were previously on my desk were in the garbage. The rest, what I needed, was in a pile, but a manageable pile none the less, on the floor. I instantly felt lighter and happier. The worst part of something I had been dreading for weeks turned out to be not so bad after all. And in only 10 minutes, I had made such an impact.

Next, I decided to tackle the little things. I looked at what I had collected. To my surprise, I saw some things in the pile that had oddly gone missing for weeks and I had been searching for for the longest time! Missing flash drives, an ID card, even some money, suddenly back in my possession! The excitement of finding these things and the look of such an improved space made me very optimistic and determined to finish my task at hand. Besides, I had planned on working for a maximum on 45 minutes on this today and I was confident that I would be able to finish it all in that time or less!

The next part of my cleaning and organization process was to put all the things I wanted to keep in a sensible fashion that would help keep things organized and clean for a long period of time. I didn't want to just take all the things that had been on my desk and re-position them back on there. Sure, I had thrown out some stuff...but maybe some of the things I was keeping didn't have to be on my desk. I wanted to keep the clutter to a minimum so I could easily fit my laptop, books, and daily homework on my desk when needed. By the end of my organization process, almost 3/4 of my stuff was put in a more appropriate place and the rest, the essentials, were nicely organized on my desk.

Once I had completely finished, I felt great. Such an awful task turned out to be kind of fun...and I had gotten some "lost" items back and of course, peace of mind. I was also surprised at how little I actually had that needed to stay on my desk: 80% of the things that were on there when I started should not have been there. It was funny how when I looked at all the things, I had no idea how I could organize all of that, when in reality, most of it had been misplaced junk. After cleaning and organizing my desk, my mind is clear and ready to take on other, more important tasks. I never realized how much stress and anxiety such a small process could inflict on someone. Even though I didn't really think about it directly, every time I passed my desk at home, it would make me feel more stressed...and I definitely did not need that to worry about during the week with all the homework, tests, and projects to deal with. Now I know that I can't leave unenjoyable things to simmer in my mind, because it only makes it worse by adding more and more stress and worry the more you put it off. I realized that I must get things over with right when I come face to face with them so that I have to peace in my mind that I don't have to deal with it later. And besides, the unenjoyable things usually turn out to be better than you think, just like this organizing exercise. My success with this project definitely leaves me excited and optimistic for the projects I'll be faced with in the future.

iMedia: "The Persistence of Memory"

The Persistence of Memory is a painting done by artist Salvador Dalí that, in my opinion, could be one of the most thought-provoking and interesting painting I've ever seen. This was painted by Dalí in 1931 and is considered one of his most recognizable works. It is currently held at the Museum of Modern Art in New York City and has been there since 1934.

To me, this painting is definitely significant. There are so many little underlying parts and details to be examined in here. For me and probably for most people, the clocks are the most interesting. At first glance, it's like "What?!" I wasn't really sure why they looked so fluid and soft. It also, in a way, plays with your mind, since clocks are so precise and strict. Clocks have fine lines, precise markings, and solid, specific rules. They're mechanical. So when you see something like this painting, it makes no sense. It makes you think "How can the hands of the clock move? Where did the markings go? How can it be bent and tangled like that?" and even deeper things like "If our clocks suddenly became like that, what would constitute time? Is time mechanical or is it fluid?" I soon came to understand that Dalí was getting at something very similar through his painting. The sagging pocket-watches suggest the irrelevance of time during sleep and the being in the middle of the painting resembles, at least to many, a human being asleep. Basically, when we're asleep and unconscious, time doesn't pertain, only memories do. To me, this actually makes sense. It's actually pretty easy to see that distortion of time, especially when you attempt to think about your own dreams; it just doesn't all add up in the confines of time. I think it also could have been a visual depiction of Einstein's theory of relativity. Einstein basically said that time itself is relative and not fixed. I think that could definitely work in the context of the melted clocks and the irrelevance of time.

A couple other interesting things I noticed in the painting is the use of light and the insects on two of the clocks. I thought it was really interesting how Dalí used light to show a contrast between obvious and not-so-obvious things. I think that the parts that are in the light, like the rocks, platform, and ocean are things that are constant, obvious things that are considered set-in-stone. Conversely, I think the shaded parts like the clocks and the being all, in a way, position toward this dark hole in the painting which shows that they're more creative and fluid ideas that are not as constituted as the light objects.Finally, the insects are definitely an interesting and probably disturbing point of the painting. If you look closely, there is a swarm of ants on the orange watch and a single fly on the clock right next to it. I think that signifies that regardless of how time is viewed or constituted, it will eventually lead to death.

I think this painting is really interesting and full of different ideas and details to explore. I think it can give viewers a new, visual way of viewing time and some questions to ponder. I also think that it dates back to some older ideas about the relativity of time and can show the viewers some of the thoughts and ideas that were going on in this time period. I think this is an essential work of art to be seen by anyone who's remotely interested in art because it's so abstract and full of little tiny details to be discovered.

Connection: Edmund and Rod Blagojevich

Edmund, one of the most distinctive characters in King Lear, has a very profound personality. He's cunning, clever, and crafty but also corrupt, manipulative, and deceiving. It's easy to say that whatever he does has only one purpose: to benefit himself, regardless of how it affects others.When I started to think about who I could connect him to as a modern day example, politicians started running through my head. I mean, most politicians are corrupt these days, no? Well, I didn't have to "search" far from home. In fact, I decided on our very own ex-governor, Rod Blagojevich.

Rod Blagojevich..there's so much to him that can be connected to Edmund. They both did things that were intended to benefit their own interests and lied many times to cover their tracks. Edmund had several, major offenses. For one, he created a letter and convinced everyone that Edgar, his innocent brother, had written it. He was successfully able to pull Edgar away from Gloucester, his own father, and make Edgar the town criminal in everyone else's eyes. In turn, it made him look more powerful and make him seem like a hero for trying to capture Edgar. Secondly, when Gloucester so importantly confided in Edmund to keep the secret that he would go help the king, Edmund betrayed him and told Goneril and Regan about it. That, in the end, killed his father, and Edmund seemed to care very little about it.Blagojevich had his own offenses...many, for that matter. Generally, he used his position of power to extort other politicians and businesses for self-gain and profit. When caught, he lied and denied everything even though there was significant proof of what he had done.

But what is the most intriguing similarity is that they both knew how to manipulate the public and remain in good graces to some extent. Edmund, though having done such terrible things, was able to keep everything quite secretive from the masses and even came out being admired and fought for by Goneril and Regan. His cunning and clever personality was the main reason why his twisted plans were able to work. He was able to convince people that he was a do-gooder and would never have any reason to do any wrong. The same idea goes for Rod Blagojevich. Though proven guilty and convicted, he still has a cheerful personality and great charisma. And, it seems like people still kinda like him! He has been on numerous commercials, t.v. shows, talk shows, and radio programs even though he's essentially a criminal.

So, why does this connection matter? Well, it shows us that such profoundly deceiving individuals are not only found in literature; they are among us as well. And this doesn't mean that they're the people who seem the most obviously bad: it could very well be the most outgoing, well-dressed, intellectual person. So, we should take note of the themes and ideas literature gives us, because more times than not, it reflects something in our own, modern society.

360 Degrees: "City Landscape"

Having recently taken a trip down to the Art Institute of Chicago, I was able to view many interesting artistic works, some very, very different from each other. I would go from detailed, intricate Renaissance art to quirky photography and then to simplistic, thought-provoking Modern sculptures. It was definitely an interesting experience for me. For looking at so many paintings, pictures and sculptures, though, I didn't think that any one work of art would stand out to me. But to my surprise, one did. It was the painting posted to the left of this text: City Landscape painted in 1955 by Joan Mitchell, an American artist and member of the first generation of Abstract Expressionists.

I saw this painting in the Contemporary Art gallery and vividly remember my reaction when I first saw it: confusion. Yes, I wish I could tell you that I had some sort of momentous revelation once I laid eyes on this painting, but then I would be lying. I was just confused. I didn't really know what to think of it. Should I be confused? Is that the point? If not, how should I be viewing this? Is there even a specific emotion or thought I should be getting out of this? But the burning thought in my mind, even upon leaving the museum was "I wonder what other people thought or said when they saw this painting." Was I the only one who was confused when I saw this? I mean, in many ways, it's pretty controversial, in the ways it can 'strike' someone. So I figured, this would be a great prompt to explore the many ways this painting could be viewed.

Let's start off at the primary source: the painter, of course! Even when seeing this painting for the first time, I knew Joan Mitchell had to have a purpose in mind for this painting. As abstract as it is, there must have been an idea, a vision, or meaning behind it. Through some research, I learned that Mitchell's general interest [artistically] was to create art about urban areas. The strands of solid, bright colors were painted to evoke memories of the bustling cities that Mitchell herself visited during her travels in the Midwest. In the painting, the feelings of a vibrant city were tangled in a clump of pinks, reds, blues, and mustards and the effect is actually not much different in the city streets and city architecture, where traffic and pedestrians bolt between the structures of the buildings.

Upon learning this, I gained much more appreciation for this painting. There was really some deep thought put into it and I was happy to have not passed up this painting once learning about the meaning behind it. I'm sure there are some people who view this painting who are very educated in this type of contemporary art and can quickly find deep meaning of their own in the painting or make their own connections to it, but I was certainly not one of those people. However, I believe that I would fall under a distinct category of people seeing this painting: a person that, even though they're not educated about these works of art or cannot really find a meaning in the painting, has an open mind about it and accepts that there is definitely value to the painting, to the painter and others. Whether this person leaves it at that or does research afterwards like I did, I think that there were more people than just me who would feel the same way about this painting.

Now, let's move on the the fourth and fifth perspectives that I have thought of. The fourth perspective that I thought of, would be someone who would look at it, see a jumble of colors, and walk away. Not that it's a bad thing, but I'm sure there are plenty of people who had that perspective. They saw colors, thought it was...interesting...and decided not to give it much other thought. No positive or negative reaction. Just a casual "I'm just here to look around one-dimensionally, I'm not planning on exploring the layers of this and I certainly can't see anything right off the bat." Lastly, my fifth perspective is one that's really popular and one that I definitely heard when I was at the museum. That would be the negative, defensive perspective. People who see nothing, assume it's nothing, and are instantly infuriated by the fact that it's in a museum. I heard a couple comments actually, like "What is this?! My four year old could probably do the same thing!" or "If I took a bed sheet and some paint and brushes, I could do the EXACT SAME THING! So why is this in a museum?" I respect everyone's opinions, but at the same time, it kind of makes me sad when I hear these things. People make flat-out assumptions about things they don't fully understand and could end up totally missing out on the purpose or meaning of something. In this case, these people missed out on learning about the meaning behind the painting, the stories and reflection of the painter in each line and stripe. It makes me sad that someone's lack of understanding about something could prevent them from seeing things between the lines, things that are so interesting and things that could definitely make you appreciate the thing ten times more than you initially did. Even more, it's sad that someone's disinterest in a painting could make them voice their negative opinion to influence others or make sweeping generalizations about the painter, even though they don't even mildly know the least bit behind what they've created.

Hence, is there a relationship among these perspectives? Well, I think there is. I think it depends upon your level of tolerance, your education about the subject, and the amount of interest you have in exploring the topic. What I see is that if you're interested, educated, or tolerant about a subject, you will be able to understand abstract things, like City Landscape with little thinking or some research. But if you decide to view things one-dimensionally or decide not to provoke the subject with thought, you will become infuriated with simple things and you won't be able to use your imagination or your thoughts to figure things out or come to interesting conclusions. And what if you did that? What if you always viewed things one-dimensionally? How would your life be then? I presume it would be boring. You wouldn't be able to understand complex ideas or make your own connections to contemporary or modern/abstract things. That's why I decided to take the route for the open-minded. I may not know a whole lot about a subject, but with a little bit of thought and a little bit of research, I was able to educate myself about something new and gain a whole new appreciation for contemporary art. And that, in my opinion, was well worth it.

Metacognition: Kite Runner Essay

As I opened my new Word document page to begin my Kite Runner essay, the first thing that popped into my mind was "How are all my thoughts going to fit into this essay?" I had my thesis statement, my Evidence Plan, everything! And with that, I had a mind full of connections, thoughts, and comments ready to be processed and put into my essay. The most tedious part of the essay was mostly done with, but my challenge at this point was to put it all together, a difficult task indeed.

By exploring the thoughts that came out of writing my essay and the actual essay itself, I definitely learned something about my writing. To start off, I put high priority in crafting an interesting introductory paragraph. In my eyes, if the reader begins any sort of text on a boring note, they won't be as interested in reading the rest as opposed to starting off with a great introduction. With the intro, I let my ideas flow so as to make it creative and interesting, avoiding too much structure and order. When there is too much structure, it makes it hard for you to try to sound like you're using your own voice and make any connection to the reader. I wanted my voice to be present and for it to seem like I'm reciting my own thoughts, not just the book's thoughts or copy/pasted information.

When writing essays, I find that my thoughts are usually scattered all over the place. I have so many ideas: some being great, some not so great, some completely relevant, some not as relevant. And they're all scattered around, waiting to be analyzed and formulated. There are so many thoughts that sometimes it's hard to even think and make the effort to analyze them and figure out what's worth writing..and to put it down on paper. But also, I notice that in the beginning of my writing, I don't have many ideas flowing and often have to sit and think for a period of time until I can actually get going. That said, it usually takes me a long time to start an essay, but the pace picks up after about the first paragraph. Once I get going though, then ideas start flowing. But sometimes, there are too many ideas. Often times I have so many ideas running around my brain I have to just write them down so that I have enough time to process them. As I write, my mind is always coming up with more and more ideas, connections, or comments to add into my writing, which is sometimes a hassle. It's great because I usually never run out of things to say or find that I'm at a lack of words on a certain subject, but at other times, I have so many connections and comments that I don't know when to stop. And then, I have to make sure I'm keeping my focus on the thesis and keeping it all concise at the same time....not getting drowned in my thoughts and going off topic.

I think it's interesting, none the less, of the mind's ability to come up with so many ongoing connections, sometimes without consciously wanting to come up with connections. It surprises me that I can think of so many things in a matter of minutes regarding a thesis or subject. It's really nice to have that ability, to connect and connect and make comments until you run out of room, and it sure makes for a unique, thought-filled essay. But at the same time, it's an area I would like to work on. I'd like to work on keeping my thoughts and connections concise and controlled, so that I can recognize and use my awesome connections, disregard my not-so-great connections, and keep everything relevant and interesting. I don't believe that 'the more you write, the better' but that it's rather how valuable or how powerful the thoughts are. A three-thousand word essay stating boring facts or one-dimentional observations about a book is far less valuable [in my opinion] than a seven hundred word essay with great voice and unique observations or claims. So I'd like to learn how to grasp my thoughts more effectively and put them together in a way that's effective but concise at the same time.

In conclusion, writing the Kite Runner essay and writing this blog post has really helped me in analyzing my writing and understanding what's good and what needs improvement in my thoughts and writing styles. I hope that this can help me retain what I think is good about my thinking and fix what's not so great about my thinking so that I can become an even better thinker and writer!

Blogging Around

Today I was able to read several blog posts by fellow Academy students. There were so many great and insightful posts that it was difficult to pick out the ones I wanted to comment on. But here were a couple of my favorites:

The first one I commented on was Faith's post titled "Metacognition: The Kite Runner."

Faith-

I really liked this blog post because of the way you were able to incorporate all of your factual information and connections you wanted to make but also add in your own voice into it. It made the blog post more interesting to read and it felt like you really took time to think out what you were going to say instead of just listing all of your connections and insights. But as for the actual content in the blog, there were definitely several points you mentioned that were very interesting to me. First off, I can definitely connect to what you said about your reexamination of the book and newfound approach to understanding Hosseini's writing. When I first started reading Kite Runner, I basically just read it to read it, not to examine it. I viewed it one-dimentionally, in a way: not looking out for underlying themes or anything other than the actual text. But as we started discussing it in class, I started realizing new things in the book [like you mentioned: themes with character interaction, specific punctuation to show emotion, etc. And as I continued reading, it started coming more naturally to me.

Another thing I found interesting was your insight about complex relationships and your connection to mind maps. I honestly never thought mind maps would ever come up again, to be honest. It was just such an out-of-the-box concept [but still interesting and a fun project] that I never knew when it could ever be connected again. But clearly, you connected it to this, and effectively! What you said about the 'theoretical' mind map of Amir that discusses his relationships really broadened my view on the book and really helped me bring together all my thoughts on the relationships displayed in Kite Runner. It really makes me value the idea of Mind Maps and makes me wonder if maybe even mentally visualizing a Mind Map to summarize aspects in novels could help gather your thoughts about important ideas in books. This post has brightened my view on Mind Maps and has left me with a new possible technique to understanding big concepts in novels, specifically character interactions/relationships.

The second blog post I commented on was Erika's blog and this one was titled "Captured Thought: Multi-Tasking"

Erika-

I really liked this blog post because of the witty insight and pleasant-to-read style of the post. First off I can say that, though I'm not proud of it, I can definitely be a multi-tasker, and a procrastinator. Though these are bad habits [and trust me, I know they're bad habits], sometimes they're hard things to break- especially on days where you have TOO much homework and not enough time. I think your insight about the fault in multi-tasking is really eye-opening. Now that I think about it, multi-tasking can definitely be much less effective than doing things the right way [in the long run]. I can definitely connect that with my Freshman math class. The class was easy for me- the content was easy because I had retained the information from previous courses, and I found myself being able to figure out problems in class just by 'doing what I remember.' At home, I chose not to do homework in depth, because I figured it was too easy anyways, and that I probably didn't need the practice-besides, I had plenty of other work to do that afternoon anyways. When I finally went to take the test...and when I got it back, I found that I made some stupid mistakes that could have been avoided if I would have just did the homework to reinforce what I already knew. Although it doesn't directly connect to multi-tasking, I think it's a good example for your idea of "Do the job right and do it well the first time, because if you don't it will come back to haunt you in the long run." This really reminds me of my learning experience and definitely makes me less apt to multi-task, procrastinate, or do half-done work. The way you voiced this 'aha' moment was really powerful and really made me want to fix my bad work-related habits.

Connection: Postmodernism on Television

Postmodernism is a concept that has been discussed thoroughly in class this week. Postmodernism is described as a world where space has been corrupted or is ambiguous. It is typically said to tell of the modern world, which is our world post World War II.

Postmodernism came into our class discussions because of a specific part in Kite Runner where Khaled Hosseini described a postmodern world. It was the part where the stoning in the soccer stadium took place. That instance showed how the soccer stadium was being corrupted for other unintended, disconnected actions. The concept of half-time with entertainment in a stadium meant for sports was corrupted and instead the entertainment was substituted with the stoning and the stadiums purpose was also corrupted. It's original purpose was for sports but was converted into a place for things rather thought of as 'politics'.

When I heard about the idea of 'postmodernism' and gave it a bit of thought, I started making several connections to television. There are many shows on television that many of us watch everyday that fit the definition of postmodernism. Two types of shows come to mind: law and court shows [i.e. People's Court, Judge Judy, etc] and police chases/crime shows [i.e. C.O.P.S, Mall Cops, etc]. If you think about it, there are many ways these types of shows can be thought of as 'products' or examples of a postmodern lifestyle.

The connection between Postmodernism and television probably came to me because I am one of those people who watches shows like People's Court or C.O.P.S, so with a little bit of thought, I saw how these things could be thought of as 'something where space has been corrupted' [one of the characteristics of postmodernism].

Let's take People's Court or Judge Judy for example. These types of shows are based on court-room cases that are real lawful ordeals. But when you think about it, we watch it on television for entertainment. Thus, the space where it's taking place, the court-room is being corrupted. When it's normally for serious, lawful affairs, it's instead being used for entertainment for the people. Also, the judge, which is usually a specific and strict job, is not just the only important factor for the television judge. On the show, the judges are also being hired to act as 'actors' and 'entertainers'. So the purpose of the 'judge' is also corrupted in that sense.

Now let's think about the cop shows or criminal chase shows like C.O.P.S. It's about the same deal. Cop chases are very serious, important matters, but once again the idea and action of that is being corrupted for the entertainment of watchers. The cops must have an air for entertainment and 'comedy' almost, and they have to perform their duties with a camera crew. If you think about that, the typical purpose for this is corrupted and wrong in a way.

I think recognizing this and understanding this relationship between Postmodernism and television informs us on the effects and examples of postmodernism in our world today. Many people, I believe, don't exactly understand what Postmodernism is really like and especially how it affects us through our everyday lives and especially in our media. It's important for us to understand it so that when we see shows like People's Court or C.O.P.S, we recognize that it is corrupted [to an extent] and that what we see is not really the true intention or true interpretation of it.

Best of Week: Form is Content

"Form is content:" this is a concept that I've been thinking about throughout this week, not only to Kite Runner but also to other aspects of life where 'form is content' can be applied to. To start off, I have to be honest and say that the idea of 'form is content' has never crossed my mind until Mr. Allen introduced the idea. Well, that is to say, never in an obvious way. I've never read a passage of a book or look at something and say "Oh! That's a good example of 'form is content" until now. But as I reflect back upon it, this idea has been indirectly running through my mind for years.

The idea of 'Form is Content' is EVERYWHERE. I mean it! Think about it: the way people dress or make themselves look is an example of 'form is content.' The way someone communicates to you: phone call, email, written letter, a text, meeting in person, Skyping...those are all examples of 'form is content'. How? Let's take the difference between a written letter and a Skype chat. If someone writes an email to you, that shows that they want to send you something personal [with the logic that a written letter is more personal than something typed on the computer] but they are not interested or willing to talk in person, or they do not find it vital to hear your voice or see you to have this conversation. With the Skype chat, it shows that the person is technologically advanced [to some degree] and wants to converse in a more intimate way by seeing the other person and being almost 'face to face.' Lastly, the person who would prefer to have a Skype chat is probably more outgoing and comfortable with the idea of talking to people in person and having a conversation with them, whether it's a stranger or a peer. The person who writes the letter is probably less outgoing, preferring a more distant way of communication, but still sustaining the personal aspect to it by writing out a letter as opposed to an email. To some this observation may seem like I'm looking way too much into the matter, but I personally find it really interesting to find almost a hidden message in the way people interact.

Let's take the example of the way people dress. Think about it: two women walk in for a job interview. One woman is wearing nice clothes, has her hair done, and walks in with a smile on her face. The other woman is wearing a simple white tee-shirt with ripped jeans and flip flops, has uncombed hair around her face, and looks like she just woke up. These things make impressions on people and shows how this person wants to be perceived. Form is content: the way content is shown! Connecting this to the example, the first woman probably cared about the way people saw her at the interview. It's clear that she woke up in the morning knowing what she was going to wear and that she spent time on her appearance. She probably believed that the way she looked would influence the way people would think about her. Even more, she probably believed that the way she acted in general was a way of her, herself, being shown to others, so the things she did would need to be appropriate or just in her eyes. The second woman probably believed that looks don't matter. She probably thought that as long as they see her personality, the way she would dress was just a superficial aspect that didn't matter for the job interview. Her values were most likely to be herself: that included the way she dresses, acts, etc. Dressing up would be something abnormal for her, thus being a shallow way of expressing herself.

But besides the everyday examples of 'form is content', it can also be seen in the books we read. Kite Runner is a great example of that. The language, punctuation, spacing, capitalizing, lowercasing, bold, italics....EVERYTHING, every aspect of the book is an example of 'form is content.' Every little aspect of the book was thought about and analyzed to really portray the emotion in the book. Since books are written, it's hard to express emotion and feeling since there is nothing but text. So, the author must rely on the little things mentioned above to show the feeling of characters in their book.

Something to note about 'form is content' in literature is that it can often times be perceived as 'incorrect writing' or 'grammatically incorrect.' Unfortunately, in my opinion, many student believe that the only way to write well is to follow the rules. And sadly, they're often taught that. When reading a work of literature by a student, 'form is content' can many times be taught as an error. And yes, sometimes it could just be an error. But I think it's important for us to realize that sometimes the best parts in literature or the best works of writing are achieved only by breaking the 'laws of writing' to achieve those great emotions...to achieve the 'form is content.'

This gets me right to the importance of understanding 'Form is Content': as a reader, a writer, or even just a person. The idea of 'Form is Content' really lets you dig deep into things, and lets you realize things that you may have never realized before. Getting 'Form is Content' can do a lot for you. It can teach you WHY an author writes the way he/she does; why they did what they did in a book. It can help you write a great essay or story that will get your reader saying "Wow, I don't know what they did or how they did it, but I really felt the emotion in her. I can hear their voice!". It can teach you about people: how the different things people do reflect who they are as a person.

So, like I said, the idea of 'Form is Content' is everywhere: in your environment, your friends, books, movies, music, etc. You just have to look for it. So, where can you find it?

iMedia: Lost Generation

"Lost Generation" is a student-made video created for an AARP contest in which it placed second. I first saw this video in Freshman Academy last year, but it has made a lasting impression on me that keeps bringing me back to this video to watch over and over again.

This video, in my opinion, is affective and moving to whoever watches. The first time I saw the video, I was mostly just amazed by the sheer brilliance in the 'reversal' aspect to the story. But the more I watched it, the more I dug deep into it to figure out the meaning in it.

To me, I found complete truth in the simplicity of reversing your world view. That's obviously conveyed in the video by how the narrator reversed her story, still using the same words, just in a reversed structure, and completely changed the meaning of it. But though it seems simple, I found that to society, the first story is easier to follow and live by, because it is broadcasted to us through the media and our "Mother Culture" [Ishmael term!!]. This, in turn, shapes our beliefs and goals, whether we like it or not. You may think: "Oh yeah, what do you mean? I would NEVER live like that...and I know many people who wouldn't! That's absurd.." But come on, look at what our world is coming to.

How many people work solely for money, not the satisfaction? How many people believe that having a high-paying job will make them happy...and that's the first thing they look for when they're trying to find a job [before seeing if they'll actually like doing the job!]? Hmm...liking the job....that matters too, right?

And the divorce rates, according to nationmaster.com, are the highest in the United States compared to any other country in the world.

Oh, and environmental destruction? I don't think there's anyone who wouldn't say that our environmental issues are piling up higher and higher as the years pass by.

That said, I think it's rational to say that the first portion of this video definitely brings up some painful truth, or better yet, painful predictions, to the future's world view. That is, the future world view if we don't do anything about it. But, I think the second portion of the video shows how, if we just reverse what the media and Mother Culture is telling us, live by what we think is justified [which would be categorized as non-conformist, according to the conformist world view (a.k.a first portion of the video)]then we can make a difference.

That's why I think this video is important for the youth and coming generations to see and realize that, although what we're seeing and hearing on TV, on the radio, or from others may make us think "Wow, there's no hope, or at least, I can't do anything about this. I guess I'll just have to live like this for the rest of my life", there is hope. There is hope as long as we believe that each of us can make a difference in our own way and better ourselves through what we believe is right, not what others tell us is right.

This video makes me think that things can change through a chain reaction: as long as one person starts the chain and makes it seen that they started it, others will follow along. In this case, the creator of this video started the chain, and is trying to spread it. And now, even though I'm just one person, one blogger, one little individual on this great big planet, I believe that if I reverse that conformist world view and reverse what is coming at me that seems like doom for my generation, I can make a change and spread the word to others. And if I spread the word to others, the chain reaction will keep going, and we will all be able to come together and change what we're supposedly doomed to live in.

That said, I'm blogging about this story in hopes that you, the reader, will watch this video and get the same view-atering experience as I did, and share it with someone else. To continue the chain reaction and help us not become a lost generation.