She's my bestie and I love her.
She's reading right next to me and has no idea I'm typing this.
Her name doesn't actually have "Harry" in it.
She's the best!
Till w
TGWLAE
TGWLAE
Follow Me! |
|
She's my bestie and I love her.
She's reading right next to me and has no idea I'm typing this. Her name doesn't actually have "Harry" in it. She's the best! Till w TGWLAE
0 Comments
I was looking into the movie Tarzan and Jane and found several historical inaccuracies (mostly plot-driven, like the WWI spy who somehow exists in the late 19th century) which made me curious about other movies that fib their history facts. We generally accept them, when all is said and done. It's a fight not worth fighting. There are so many movies out there that twist the truth, and yet we accept it as "creative license," however, how does this truly affect the viewing public, especially impressionable children? I went ahead and looked up a list of historically inaccurate movies which don't follow the history books:
1. Pocahontas: The real story took place between a little girl and a grown man, probably in his forties. There was no love story, no passionate kiss beneath Mother Willow (no magic really, but it is Disney we're talking about). They did get one thing right--in the sequal, Pocahontas falls in love with John Rolfe, and in real life they got married. 1 point for Disney. 2. Shakespeare in Love: While I haven't seen this movie, I know the general plot (thank you Wikipedia!) and it is apparently strewn with anachronisms. Additionally, there is no proof to the story; it's pure conjecture, and also highly unlikely. There is so little known about Shakespeare's life (aside from the plays and sonnets he wrote) that people feel the need to press modern ideals on him and come up with films like this. 3. Braveheart: Oh, Mel Gibson. What are we going to do with you? Not only does this movie take place during a time of peace between Scotland and England, but it messes up more important facts than that. Don't get me wrong, I hear it's a great movie (again, a movie I haven't seen), but a lot of the traditions of the period are ignored or substituted for things they wouldn't have done (wear kilts), plus the ages of many key characters are misconstrued to fit with the plot (for example, making a character an adult when they were originally a child). 4. Gladiator: The list of historically inaccurate movies I haven't seen is much larger than the ones I have seen. So this movie shouldn't have had any problems; the director hired an academic historian for crying out loud. However, it is often attributed with the problems of changing characters ages, misrepresenting time lapses (for example, the reign on one character seems to be two years when in reality it was about thirteen), and mistranslated Latin (Come on, people! It's a story about gladiators! At least get the Latin right...) However, the funniest mistake would have to be the army leaders which yell out to their archers "fire!" a phrase which didn't exist until the invention of guns in the 18th century. 5. Pearl Harbor: The main issue with this movie was little things like the main characters shooting down more planes together than the real life people did combined. But hey, at least they did a good job on costumes, right? While I don't think it's great that movie makers change the facts, I think it is sometimes necessary because not all events translate well to the screen. And let's be honest--we don't watch movies to be educated, we watch them to be entertained. And that's the main priority of a film-maker, to entertain people. How he or she goes about doing that, is their business. I, for one, am just glad they make historical movies. I love history! TGWLAE Picture: Website: http://history.howstuffworks.com/history-vs-myth/10-historically-inaccurate-movies.htm This picture has nothing to do with the post, aside from me looking happy in it, which does have something to do with the post. And besides, who can resist that grumpy dog face? You're probably thinking "When will they end!" I'm on a bit of a run with my self-discovery themed blog posts--I'm the first to admit it. Cut me some slack, I'm at a cross-road in my life and I'm making the most of it with no shame!
I was listening to Bastille's album Bad Blood and in their song "Weight of Living Part II" there is a line that struck me: "Do you like the person you've become?" Whenever I hear this sentiment, stated with different words and inspiring different feelings in people, it always causes a mental pause within me. Do I like the person I've become? It's a good question. It's a loaded question, that's for sure. To answer this questions, I have to start itemizing my life. Do I like everything I'm doing right now? That's an easy one. NOPE! There are tons of things I do that I hate. The biggest thing? Laziness. It is as if it is written in my DNA. Sometime's I can't bring myself to get up in the morning. I just lay there for half an hour, awake and thinking of nothing. And then there's homework. Sometimes I fudge the work because I'm too lazy to do it. I know this is normal and oh so common, but that doesn't mean I like it. With that said, there are lots of things I'm doing that I love. I'm writing more, and that's always a plus (since I've spent so much money studying and crafting the darn skill). In addition to the creative writing is the blogging, which is proving very therapeutic, I must say. I'm also taking an active role in my future; I'm job searching and writing resumes and applying for internships. I honestly don't think I'm at the point in my life where I can say that I like the person I've become, and that's because I'm still becoming it. I'm still growing and changing and experiencing new things that influence me every day. I'm a drastically different person today in comparison to just one year ago. And the year before that I was even more different. I'm not sure that I'll ever reach the point where I can say "I'm happy with the person I've become." So, I'll settle with acknowledging that I'm doing pretty good, and that's good enough for now. TGWLAE This is going to start out very English-majory. And very, very long. There are lots of books and movies based off of allegories; take, for example, The Truman Show or The Matrix. One allegory that Lit students come across at least once, if not more, is "The Allegory of the Cave," by Plato; I've studied Plato's piece a few times in college. I just reread it for a class today and certain experiences that I've been through since the last reading of this exploded in my mind and I just had to write about it. Before I start into my thoughts, however, I should probably include the story for you to read. Here is the first half: [Socrates] And now, I said, let me show in a figure how far our nature is enlightened or unenlightened: --Behold! human beings living in a underground cave, which has a mouth open towards the light and reaching all along the cave; here they have been from their childhood, and have their legs and necks chained so that they cannot move, and can only see before them, being prevented by the chains from turning round their heads. Above and behind them a fire is blazing at a distance, and between the fire and the prisoners there is a raised way; and you will see, if you look, a low wall built along the way, like the screen which marionette players have in front of them, over which they show the puppets. [Glaucon] I see. [Socrates] And do you see, I said, men passing along the wall carrying all sorts of vessels, and statues and figures of animals made of wood and stone and various materials, which appear over the wall? Some of them are talking, others silent. [Glaucon] You have shown me a strange image, and they are strange prisoners. [Socrates] Like ourselves, I replied; and they see only their own shadows, or the shadows of one another, which the fire throws on the opposite wall of the cave? [Glaucon] True, he said; how could they see anything but the shadows if they were never allowed to move their heads? [Socrates] And of the objects which are being carried in like manner they would only see the shadows? [Glaucon] Yes, he said. [Socrates] And if they were able to converse with one another, would they not suppose that they were naming what was actually before them? [Glaucon] Very true. [Socrates] And suppose further that the prison had an echo which came from the other side, would they not be sure to fancy when one of the passers-by spoke that the voice which they heard came from the passing shadow? [Glaucon] No question, he replied. [Socrates] To them, I said, the truth would be literally nothing but the shadows of the images. [Glaucon] That is certain. [Socrates] And now look again, and see what will naturally follow if the prisoners are released and disabused of their error. At first, when any of them is liberated and compelled suddenly to stand up and turn his neck round and walk and look towards the light, he will suffer sharp pains; the glare will distress him, and he will be unable to see the realities of which in his former state he had seen the shadows; and then conceive some one saying to him, that what he saw before was an illusion, but that now, when he is approaching nearer to being and his eye is turned towards more real existence, he has a clearer vision, -what will be his reply? And you may further imagine that his instructor is pointing to the objects as they pass and requiring him to name them, -will he not be perplexed? Will he not fancy that the shadows which he formerly saw are truer than the objects which are now shown to him? [Glaucon] Far truer. [Socrates] And if he is compelled to look straight at the light, will he not have a pain in his eyes which will make him turn away to take and take in the objects of vision which he can see, and which he will conceive to be in reality clearer than the things which are now being shown to him? [Glaucon] True, he now. [Socrates] And suppose once more, that he is reluctantly dragged up a steep and rugged ascent, and held fast until he 's forced into the presence of the sun himself, is he not likely to be pained and irritated? When he approaches the light his eyes will be dazzled, and he will not be able to see anything at all of what are now called realities. [Glaucon] Not all in a moment, he said. [Socrates] He will require to grow accustomed to the sight of the upper world. And first he will see the shadows best, next the reflections of men and other objects in the water, and then the objects themselves; then he will gaze upon the light of the moon and the stars and the spangled heaven; and he will see the sky and the stars by night better than the sun or the light of the sun by day? [Glaucon] Certainly. [Socrates] Last of he will be able to see the sun, and not mere reflections of him in the water, but he will see him in his own proper place, and not in another; and he will contemplate him as he is. [Glaucon] Certainly. [Socrates] He will then proceed to argue that this is he who gives the season and the years, and is the guardian of all that is in the visible world, and in a certain way the cause of all things which he and his fellows have been accustomed to behold? [Glaucon] Clearly, he said, he would first see the sun and then reason about him. [Socrates] And when he remembered his old habitation, and the wisdom of the cave and his fellow-prisoners, do you not suppose that he would felicitate himself on the change, and pity them? [Glaucon] Certainly, he would. [Socrates] And if they were in the habit of conferring honors among themselves on those who were quickest to observe the passing shadows and to remark which of them went before, and which followed after, and which were together; and who were therefore best able to draw conclusions as to the future, do you think that he would care for such honors and glories, or envy the possessors of them? Would he not say with Homer, Better to be the poor servant of a poor master, and to endure anything, rather than think as they do and live after their manner? [Glaucon] Yes, he said, I think that he would rather suffer anything than entertain these false notions and live in this miserable manner. [Socrates] Imagine once more, I said, such an one coming suddenly out of the sun to be replaced in his old situation; would he not be certain to have his eyes full of darkness? [Glaucon] To be sure, he said. [Socrates] And if there were a contest, and he had to compete in measuring the shadows with the prisoners who had never moved out of the cave, while his sight was still weak, and before his eyes had become steady (and the time which would be needed to acquire this new habit of sight might be very considerable) would he not be ridiculous? Men would say of him that up he went and down he came without his eyes; and that it was better not even to think of ascending; and if any one tried to loose another and lead him up to the light, let them only catch the offender, and they would put him to death. [Glaucon] No question, he said. [Socrates] This entire allegory, I said, you may now append, dear Glaucon, to the previous argument; the prison-house is the world of sight, the light of the fire is the sun, and you will not misapprehend me if you interpret the journey upwards to be the ascent of the soul into the intellectual world according to my poor belief, which, at your desire, I have expressed whether rightly or wrongly God knows. But, whether true or false, my opinion is that in the world of knowledge the idea of good appears last of all, and is seen only with an effort; and, when seen, is also inferred to be the universal author of all things beautiful and right, parent of light and of the lord of light in this visible world, and the immediate source of reason and truth in the intellectual; and that this is the power upon which he who would act rationally, either in public or private life must have his eye fixed. Phew! Sorry that was so extensive, but Socrates knows what he's talking about, right?
There's something comforting in what Socrates is saying, almost a justification of the last four years of my life. When people hear that I'm an English major, they nod blankly and say "How nice. What are you going to do with that?" WHY do people feel the need to ask that question over and over and over? You don't ask an engineering major what he/she plans to do with that. For some reason, the swirly vortex of "useless" majors (insert English, Art History, Art, Humanities--pretty much all the things I'm passionate about) inspires nothing in the minds of the uninformed. They think we're all wasting our time on a degree that will be, in no way, lucrative. I think they've missed the point of education. Education isn't about making money; it's about learning. It's about finding something you're passionate about and studying it. Yes, the end goal is to make a living out of your skills once you've been trained (thank you college), but what about the journey that leads you there? Isn't that the most important part? I think it is. So, writing. My passion. It isn't always something I'm in love with. I suppose it's like an unruly child. It often doesn't do what I want, but when it does, it's magical. I think that the constant struggle to produce something worthwhile is what makes the whole endeavor worthwhile. There are moments when I sit at my computer, my hands poised above the keys, and I will them to move, just to type one word, and they can't. The inspiration isn't there. The motivation isn't there. For some reason, there's a mental block that's keeping all the creative juices out. And it's frustrating, and downright a pain in my backside! I want so badly for it to come easily, but I know it never will. Even once I master the rule of writing for at least a little bit every day, it still won't come easily. I can type up to 80 words a minute, but that skill is wasted on my often-blocked brain. However, with all of its difficulties, it's something I'll never permanently stop doing. Even though I foresee long periods of writer's block that keeps me away from the computer, along with jobs and kids and a spouse and a house that needs cleaning and food that needs cookies and dogs that need walking, I'll never quit. Because writing is fun, and freeing, and because it's something I've labeled myself for so long. It's about time I lived up to that label. TGWLAE "The Allegory of the Cave" and picture: http://www.historyguide.org/intellect/allegory.html This was the first picture I took outside the airport in Dublin. It was probably six in the morning and I was waiting for a bus to a place I couldn't pronounce. Oh, the places you'll go...I promise this picture will make more sense once you read on. I'm actually starting to really love it. Being single. I was so scared all throughout college that I wasn't fitting in because I was a single Mormon woman who was probably going to end up graduating first (which is still true) and I wasn't going to drop out, or get an MRS degree, or have to take my baby to class with me. But the truth is, even when I tried to convince myself that that was what I wanted, it really wasn't. The thought of a husband terrifies me. I'm not at the point in my life where I'm ready to share it, and I don't mean that in a vain way. There is some self-discovery that needs to be done before I can throw myself at another person and say "Love me forever!" I need to get to the point where I love everything about myself--or as much as I can love (unfortunately I will be a judgmental person for the rest of my life. It's practically in my DNA). It's also really nice being single because I only have to worry about myself. Is that selfish? Don't get me wrong, I'm excited for the time in my life where I'll get to take care of a family and protect and provide a warm, happy, stable home for my kids (unless they're anything like my family growing up, in which case it will be a very loud home and the AC will be perpetually set at 72 degrees). But right now, it's so liberating knowing that I have a few months or years just to discover who I am and what I want to do. It will also allow me to travel, which is one of my current passions (I get an adrenaline rush when I plan trips. Is that weird?). I mean--I want to go to Africa, for goodness' sake! I never wanted to go to Africa before, but I want to go now! I know that these are all things I can do with a spouse. It's just that a spouse generally leads to kids, and while that will be a very special experience, I'm not nearly ready for it. I feel like I'm still a kid, and I'm one of the most mature people I know. I look at all these 18-year-old, first semester freshman who are already engaged and not on birth control, and I just can't help but think that it's babies having babies. And I've never wanted that for myself. Some people might be ready for it at that age, but I certainly wasn't, and I'm still not. The longer I write this, the more convinced I am that I'm being selfish. Someone will probably point out "Your poor husband, who you don't deserve, is waiting out there for you and you're going to make him wait even longer. What's wrong with you? How can you do that to him? Don't you care about anyone but yourself?" You know what, if someone said this to me, I would laugh in their face. It's a bad example because it's so high horse-esque. Moving on. What was I talking about again? Being single feels nice, and it's been a while since I've felt comfortable with my situation in life. For so long I've labeled myself "single" and being single was something I was ashamed of. I started to wonder what was wrong with me and why guys didn't see me as a viable dating/marrying option. I don't know where the change came from. I think it started when I lost my passport because I did something stupid (left my wallet on a shoe bench at a store which then got stolen) and was suddenly forced to be a grown adult in a terrifying new way, a way I couldn't even fathom before last September. Let me tell you something--when you get on an international flight after days of crying and no sleep and constant worry and fear, stay awake on all eight hours of said flight, arrive in a city where, THANKFULLY, they speak English (even if it is super difficult to understand), at 4 in the morning, get picked up by an Irish Bishop's son, taken to a dingy hostel, exchange money at a terrible rate, and you both know it, walked the streets of Dublin looking for the right bus stop, get on a bus to a place where you can't even pronounce its name, get to another bus station where you think you're going to have to wait for two hours and think you'll never catch up with your tour group who are currently on the other side of the island trying to make their way to you, then a nice bus station manager takes pity on you and takes you to where you're trying to go (holla at Bruhn a Boine, which I spelled wrong), and you feel bone-crushing anxiety that you'll be stuck in Ireland with no money to buy a plane ticket home if you can't find your group, and then that same bone-crushing feeling comes when you spot Brother Merrill come around the corner trailing students but it's a feeling of relief? When you get through this, you feel like you can do ANYTHING. That is how I feel now. And its an intoxicating feeling. It's something I could've only done as a stupid, single person. TGWLAE P.S. Here's some pictures of my first day in Ireland for you to enjoy :) It seems recently that I'm getting swept into the blogging and vlogging scene. Technically, I've never made a vlog before--but I love to watch them. My current poison is The Autobiography of Jane Eyre (it IS my favorite book, after all, and a fairly well-made fictional vlog).
It isn't the age old question, "Which is better? Blogging or Vlogging?" but it has merit in 2014. An amazing little fact is that blogging has been around for approximately 17 years. 17! (I don't remember being aware of blogs until maybe 2008, probably later.) Vlogging, or "video blog," is a relatively new concept; the first ever vlog was made in 2000 but has only reached popularity in the last eight years. Am I the biggest hypocrite or what? I don't read anyone's blog regularly. Occasionally, if someone posts a blog on facebook I'll take a look at it, but that's as far as it goes. I thought it might be beneficial to list my top three favorite vlogs. These will be an obvious reflection on my preferences (just wait and see) so here goes: 1. The VlogBrothers -- I think I might have mentioned them in a previous post, but they're hilarious and they talk about things that people actually want to hear about (even if those people are generally teenagers and young adults). The video where Hank Green teaches you how to name a baby? DEFINITELY worth a watch by all prospective parents! John and Hank Green (author and scientist respectively) give great advice to young people. They started their youtube channel sending videos to each other, and apparently everyone else liked to watch too. http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCGaVdbSav8xWuFWTadK6loA 2. ItsJudysLife -- This is a vlog about the life of Judy and her husband and daughter (and twins on the way). Judy started her first channel sampling makeup and creating beauty tutorials for makeup, hair, and clothing styling. She now has several channels, like itsJudyTime and itsMommysLife, where she talks about baby stuff and just everyday things. She's so positive and her family seems cute and happy and it's just fun to watch. http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCK2ACorzpH-igxuHZ2ObCEA 3. The Autobiography of Jane Eyre, The Lizzie Bennet Diaries, and Emma Approved -- these are all vlogs where classic literature is acted out and brought to life. LBD wrapped up last year and was wonderful. I'm in the throes of AJE and EA and loving every minute of these interpretations! They're so clever, unique, and creative. I wish I had thought of it first! http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCG1-X6Vhx5Ba84pqBQUDshQ http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXfbQAimgtbk4RAUHtIAUww http://www.youtube.com/user/PemberleyDigital Check these out if you'd like! I highly recommend them all (even if I cheated a bit with the last one. Technically I have five top vlogs). TGWLAE Picture: I've been working with a few other people to edit a student's novel that he wrote during high school and revisited last year. For anonymity, we will call him John.
John was very gracious and constantly tells us that he is grateful for our help. And yet he has self-published his novel as an ebook and now a hard copy book. So here's the question I can't stop asking myself: Why do we even bother? Don't get me wrong, I see myself as an author as well, even if I haven't finished a book (well, I finished one once back in high school but it won't ever be published, believe me!). But I wouldn't send my book to an editor if I had the intention of getting it published regardless. Here's my opinion--editor's are crucial. We're catching things in John's manuscript that need some serious revision. That's how any book is going to look when it is first sent to an editor. It should be a rough rock at first so that the editor can help you polish it into a diamond. So why send the rock to the publisher before it's all sparkly and shiny? I can't answer these questions; only John can. Not that I would ask him (that would be impertinent and rude to boot). But I still can't help but wonder why people don't take advantage of certain services, like those of an editor, but they will take advantage of other things, like an editors time that they are essentially wasting when it's obvious they have no intention of seriously looking at the revisions. If you've sent your book to a publisher, it must be as good as it can get in your eyes, yes? If I knew my manuscript was rough and in need of a good red pen, then I wouldn't send it to the publisher just yet. I hope if John reads this and figures out that it's him I'm referring to that I don't mean him any disrespect or rudeness. But it's an issue I feel passionately about and I think it should be acknowledged. What do you think? TGWLAE Picture: There are certain truths we don't want anyone to get a hold of.
I'm a fairly honest person. Most people know my aspirations, my fears, and my voice when I enter the room. I don't keep a lot of things hidden (I'm the crazy type who likes to make secrets and them immediately share them, which is why it was so hard not to tell Lise that I was flying her fiance up to school to surprise her. But every other person of my acquaintance was aware of the fact!), so when I do, it's a big deal. I just finished watching an episode of Chuck where the main characters get dosed with a truth serum on accident. As they race off to find the bad guy who has the antidote, they begin to share mild secrets like "Wow, you're pretty," and "Casey, your jaw looks like it was chiseled by Michelangelo." At the end of the episode, Chuck tries to take advantage of the situation and asks Sarah if there could ever be anything between them. This got me thinking about the questions I would ask, if given the chance. Another thought would be "Who would I ask?" This would be in a hypothetical situation where my entire acquaintance got dosed along with me. I began to go down the list of people I would question: my family members, my professors, my friends--but what would I ask them? I suppose I could ask my parents who was their favorite child? But I already know that answer: it would be something along the lines of "We don't have favorites. But we do have a child who gives us the least trouble, a child who talks back the least, a child who doesn't annoy us as much as the others," etc. And my teachers? My questions for them would be completely selfish. I would want to know if they saw potential in me, if there was at all a chance in their minds that I was destined for greatness. And if I had to ask my friends a question, it would probably be "Am I annoying?" The scariest notion, however, was the sludgy, dark region of my mind where my answers would surface. I thought, "Are the answers buried so deep that they would surprise me when voiced aloud? Or would they only be in the grouping of truth that I was aware of?" For example, what if somebody asked me what my deepest, darkest secret was? Would I answer with what I perceive to be my deepest, darkest secret? Or would my answer shock not only my questioner, but myself as well? (Not that I'm going to tell any of YOU what I think my deepest, darkest secret is.) It's a fascinating concept, but one that I'm glad resides in the iffy vortex of sci-fi and reality-that-will-never-affect-me (THANK GOODNESS). Let me know the questions you would ask, if given the chance, on my Facebook wall where this will be posted in addition to the blog. TGWLAE -- Oh! And Happy Groundhog Day! :) Picture: mybluepeacock.blogspot.com |