Creatures of Want

So this relates back to the previous post about the teacher. He also said we are creatures of want. Well, this is true, not to mention if we always had everything we wanted, life would be rather dull (but hey, we can all dream, right?), but should it be true that we should be happy with what we have?

Is it like accepting the quota you're given. Don't take me wrong - I dont mean you shouldn't fight for anything you want, but saying you're happy with what you have is a little like giving up - depending on the way you look at it. If you're not happy with what you have, you'll keep trying and reach for what you do want, isn't that true?

So even the person who has everything, they would have something they want, for sure. Maybe the person is rich, has a great husband, has great figure, the latest in fashion, so on, but maybe all they really want is, for instance, privacy, something that cannot be bought.

So is having everything the best life? It sounds great. I wouldn't mind it either, but I guess it also has it ups and downs.

So when this teacher talked about us being creatures of want, I decided to reflect on myself. I want to be good at writing, yes, I want to be good at drawing, alright, I want to be better at school (however impossible it seems, sigh), I want to publish a book, I want to work in IT, I want to ... you get the image. There are so many things I want, maybe sometimes it is better to sit back and go, 'yeah, you know what? I am pretty good at this already, and I like the way I am, so I'm going to accept myself'. It cuts down on a lot of stress, to be sure, and sure as heck would dampen down feelings of say... annoyance? Jealousy? We'll always be jealous of those who have what we want and dont have ourselves - oh yes indeed. Life seems so bitterly unfair sometimes, doesn't it, when you see those who seem to have it all, whether it be people like Paris, rich, nice figure, I guess - I personally dont think much of her fashions style. Or it be people like ... well, I dont have a name, but those people who are both extremely smart and pretty.

Oh yes, I'm hooked up on looks. I may sound bold here, but I'm pretty shy in real life, not to mention I dont have that great self esteem. But hey, the internet brings out who you want to be sometimes, doesnt it.

So we are creatures of want. Sometimes it's better to take what we're given and be grateful because 'our lives could be better ... but it could also be worse'. Even so, it doesnt mean we have to stop. We can continue to want, but also appreciate what we have.

Because we'll always be trying to reach for that one thing we want. Nomatter how many wants we fulfill...

Time Passes

Hmm, it's funny that I couldnt quite remember what I wanted to say here, but here goes.

Today was my little brother's 'Year 6 Graduation' and I decided to attend because, well, you know, parents are busy. I had nothing to do - so why not? End of the year anyway. It also means I can stop walking to pick him up everyday - a cause to be happy about? Well, at the least no longer having to lug my bag to his school and back to the station, then hom (also not so much wandering after school. Awh.)

So I went... It was going well, one of the teachers during their speech suddenly reference Twilight. Oh yes, and it was a male teacher too. Here's the anecdote (In third person): He spotted Twilight sitting on one of the girls' desk so he asked the class 'how many of the girls have read this book?'. About half raised their hands. Then he asked, 'how many boys have read this book?'. None. 'How many boys are thinking of reading this book?' None again. Then he thought, 'I have got to read this book and see why the girls all like it so much.' So that was kind of weird, not to mention the fact of my absolute disapproval of barely teens reading a teenage book - these kids are only about 12, you know. Then he also goes and references it, giving a quote from Bella about how you shouldnt mourn (I forgot the exact quote), and at the end, gives a quote from Edward (Earning an eye-roll from me. Sorry, but true.), that nice quote about the twilight and how it's the end. So that was a strange experience for me, not only had this male teacher read it he'd also referenced it in a speech - odd.

Yes, maybe you don't think so. I'm not even sure I thought it was strange, I remember rolling my eyes a lot. Ah well.

Not so deep. Well, they're just opinoins after all, I guess.

More Movie Talk

Yes, this is about the Twilight Movie again. It's finally out now in certain countries and I've just watched it.

It certainly isn't the best movie I've ever seen, and have to say there were certainly things I really didn't like. My friend believes that for a book-to-film adaption, it's pretty good - after all, you just have to look at Harry Potter or Lord of the Rings to see what kind of book-to-film adaptions there have been. My other friend, on the other hand, really didn't like it, although there were sections she liked.

For the book-to-film adaption, I would rate it .. hmm, perhaps 3 stars out of 5. There were quite a few things left out and things swtiched around. I feel that to someone who hasn't read the book, they would not be able to understand much of the story or catch on to many of the references. That's the point with some of these though - and also with books sometimes, without mentioning names (no, not Stephenie Meyer, okay?) - but people think that just because they know all about something, surely everyone else does as well. It's a problem humans seem to have.

The digital effects were quite nice, so I give it at least 4 stars out of 5. The 'Edward sparkling in the sun' part was rather lame in my opinion, but the fangirls cheering (while I rolled my eyes, I must say) seemed to think otherwise. Otherwise, the other effects seemed quite good, though the running at fast speeds seemed a little fake at times - Like when you get the impression the person's just running in mid-air. That. I also done see what's with all the leaping and climbing up trees.

Alright, and now onto acting. Acting is a really bad place to go, I think. Robert Pattinson, stand there, don't glare, don't move, don't act, don't talk. There we go, good Edward. I dont think he's bad as such, but he makes strange faces all the way through whereas he looked perfectly casual in Harry Potter and TGoF. Sure, he maybe restraining himself, but c'mon - to the extent where he seems to be leering occasionally. And his voice seems a little monotonous - the most emotional section was when he shouted out.

Kirsten Stewart is also... well, she makes an alright Bella, but is way too calm - there isnt enough emotion in it. When she returns to the house and 'runs away' from Charlie, she is perfectly calm, slamming some doors, sure, but seems perfectly restrained, whereas the book-Bella is in tears and.. the such.

Jacob ... Sorry, I can't remember his actor's name (Taylor ___?) - Give me scissors, someone, please! I found Charlie to be a breath of fresh air though - Seems rather nice, though definately not who I expected. He's pretty cool.

Alright, all in all, I found the movie to be okay, but certainly dont think it's that great. Fangirls of course disagree with me, not to mention they make me roll my eyes and sigh whenever they cheer when someone comes on the screen. I've never been in a cinema with screaming fangirls - it's a little annoying really.

The added scenes and added laughter are pretty good, still, if you've read the book, I think it really pales in comparison. Give me my mental images anyday.

Beauty is in the Eye of the Beholder

Beauty is relative. Just because you think this person is the most handsome or beautiful, doesnt necessarily mean that everyone else does. For example you only have to look through fan groups of actors to know that. Noone is perfect or fully liked, there will always be someone who doesnt think they are all that beautiful. It is a matter of opinion.

Perfection demands symmetry. Take a ruler and put it over your face. Nobody's face is ever completely symmetrical and therefore they cannot be perfect.

I know this centres around a main topic again, but I was reading through Twilight the other day and came across Bella's interest over the 'beauty' of the vampires. Is it possible for everyone to think they are beautiful? My idea of beauty may be different from your and vice versa, so what do the vampires do? Look different to everyone?

Beauty is a matter of opinion. The majority of people may think you are beautiful, but that doesnt mean everyone does. We all have our own idea of beauty, as I may admire a certain actor, but someone think they arent anything special, or you may swoon over another actor and I remain indifferent. So the quote used on Rosalie about how she was so beautiful it made 'all those around her take a hit on their self esteem' (paraphrased), cannot be fully true. If I dont think she is really that special, then why should I take a hit?

Oh boy will Rosalie be annoyed.

I maintain though, that the idea of beauty is based on opinion. Beauty is only in the eye of the beholder.

----------------

That goes also, for even if you think you are not so pretty yourself, someone else may see the true beauty within you. Beauty is also only skin deep.

Twilight the Movie

With the Twilight Movie released in America and in the process of being released in other countries around the world, one has to wonder if it's only because of the book that it gets an audience of that size.

Who am I kidding? Of course it is.

With the Twilight Empire probably growing and all the Twilight Fans (I refuse to call or to be called a Twi-hard. Really, I feel like strangling someone when I hear it) ecstatic over the film, it really isn't a wonder it managed to make so much money on the first day.

But is the movie actually any good? Of course it's a matter of opinion, after all, I might absolutely hate it and you absolutely love it, but as a movie adaption one can hope that it at least follows more of the storyline of the books than what happened with Harry Potter or Lord of the Rings.

I can't personally say what happened with Lord of the Rings, since I only ever read the Hobbit and found the writing in my copies of the books way too small to read, but I can say that Harry Potter certainly was ruined by the book to screen adaptions, I'm shocked I even bothered to watch it with the way the last few have just made me want to fling the DVD case across the room, but what can you say? You want to have a look and how they adapted it, and so it also follows that my curiosity is peaked at what the Twilight Movie will look like.

But taking out the large fanbase covering the book, who would decide to just go and watch the movie? I'm betting people would at least go and buy the book first, actually, but who knows? Without the fanbase, the book wouldnt have been adapted anyway, after all. (Musing now... Really though, it's only fans that go and watch it isnt it, or those pressed by media and peers, given the news that it is good or some such. With Lord of the Rings, I havent read it, but I would watch it. Can I say the same for Twilight the Movie?)

I was in the shopping centre/mall today when me and my father sat down to eat and I noticed the woman sitting not too far from us had just bought Twilight (with the movie cover, I have to add, go the original cover!), and was reading it. She looked about mid 20s maybe so it was interesting to see what kind of people read these kinds of books.

With that I return to a previous entry/post of mine about the reading age. Enter the Rollercoaster Chat section (you may or may not know what I mean, I'm not going to be saying), and go towards the Book Chat or General Chat and you will see numerous topics on Twilight. Having said that, the forum is for children from about 11-14 years old, so you have to wonder about the ages of people reading these books. Is it suitable for a 11 year old kid to be quoting 'Why am I covered in feathers?' 'I bit a pillow or two.'? Sure they're not fragile, maybe they shouldnt be shielded from the realities of life, but still the questions stands on whether this book is realy suitable for that kind of audience.

And so there you go. The Twilight Movie comes out in certain countries on the 11th of December. It's probably better to preorder your tickets now if you want to watch it on the release date or all the seats might be taken.

Twilight for Tweens?

Is Twilight really for ten year olds? I think not. A tween is classified as a child within about, oh, 10-ish to a teenager, but in this, I’m going to refer to anyone below 20 (not that I am 20) as a child (that would include myself). Twilight is classified for teenagers for a reason and that means that teenagers (or above) should be the age group to read it. What do I mean by teenagers? By teenagers, I would mean the group that actually has the suffix ‘-teen’ at the end of their age, meaning no one younger than thirteen.

Would these ten year olds even understand the issues within the book? Would they be able to appreciate it? If not, I hardly see the point in reading it. Without the proper maturity or knowledge (I don’t care how mature you think you are), it isn’t a book suitable for children not yet a teenager. A book about romance, vampires (and therefore violence) and ... well, sex? Isn’t this the kind of stuff we don’t want to get negatively influenced by? We can say that children in different countries are subjected to different influences, from the media and from school, but are they really ready for these things? They may pick up notions of sex and violence from the mass media, but we don’t need to add to it.

Don’t get me wrong, I rather like the book and the series, but I really don’t find it appropriate for children of such a young age to be reading this sort of books. What prompted this? Well this was prompted by listening to the Hot 30 the other day, which just also happened to have on the American Top 40 (I don’t know why. The radio station does as they like.) I chanced upon an interview of Stephenie Meyer and Robert Pattinson. The radio host (whose name escapes me at the moment, I apologise) mentioned a chat with Barack Obama the other day where Mr Obama mentioned that his ten-year old daughter had just started on the series. At that point, I did actually raise my eyebrows. As a book targeted for an audience of teenagers, would a 10-year old be a suitable age to read this book?

It’s not only the case in America, I know. I know that here (wherever I may be), children who have not passed the grade of 6 are reading these books. This was the final straw prompting this which could be called a rant. Even children of the eighth grade would be justified in reading the series, but children below sixth grade I believe certainly aren’t. Of course in this frame of reference I am using the common ages here where 16/17 years is the average age for ‘Senior Year’ and 17/18 is the average age for Graduating. You can work on the maths yourself if you like.

Is Twilight really suitable for tweens? I still say no. If you don’t mind and are happy to let your kids read it, go ahead, I still believe it is unsuitable and unnecessary. There’s always time to read it later on, it’s not going to go anywhere. It might go out of date, but why should that matter? (Anyway, shouldn’t these sorts of things become timeless? Like the vampires themselves?)

I believe it should be read just as it was released, and certainly those who joined the fan club early on have the right idea (I admit I only got into reading it after Eclipse was released), but time should be taken between books so that even if one started reading it at 10 years old, by the time they are done, they are about 14 and are able to appreciate these books properly.

Cursed Resurrection?

Spoiler Warning for following texts: Vampire Academy (novel series), Hands Off! (manga), Harry Potter (novel series)

Resurrection is hardly new in fiction, there are many cases of it, in one way or another, but it begs the question, is it more of a curse than a gift? Here’s a few examples we can draw upon:

Rose Hathaway from Vampire Academy was ‘resurrected’, or, as the term goes, ‘brought back to life’ by best friend and Moroi vampire Vasalisa Dragomir after her a fatal car accident where Vasalisa’s whole family died. So why resurrect Rose and no one else? Who knows, but that hardly matters in this context. Rose’s being brought back to life is more of a curse than a gift, as Rose is now ‘Shadow-Kissed’. Sure, there are upsides to this, such as a ‘bond’ with Lissa which lets her know if her friend is in trouble, but Rose is also dragged out of her own mind whenever Lissa is feeling stong emotion, leading to a lack of individuality of sorts. Rose also leeches all of Lissa’s bad feelings away, which means her taking of Lissa’s depression, which makes Rose herself moody and angry all the time. In being resurrected, Rose’s life may be able to continue, but it’ll never be the same.

Another example is from Hands Off! where Tatsuki Oohira (Oohira Tatsuki in Japanese) was resurrected by his cousin Kotarou, after an incident where Kotarou was drowning and Tatsuki went to rescue him, drowning in the process. Kotarou brought Tatsuki back to life with his ‘power’ which is ESP of sorts, but the act made Tatsuki take in some of Kotarou’s powers. Tatsuki inherited the ability of post-cognition and this means he only has to go to a place where something which inspired strong negative emotion happened to see it. This makes Tatsuki moody and quite withdrawn as no one would believe him when he mentioned he saw people being strangled or violence from the past. Not to mention seeing these events happening is also traumatising and he often feels his mind being invaded and unable to cope with the violence, but hiding it under a cold facade. All of this also means that Tatsuki, once quite tight with Kotarou, barely acknowledges his prescence, as he’s scared of his power. Sure, this power means he also knows if Kotarou’s in trouble and often acts as ‘Detective Tatsuki’, solving all sorts of petty crime, but his power is still a ‘curse’ as he calls it himself and he suffers because of it.

So is resurrection a bad or good thing? Surely there are positive examples in Popular Fiction, or any other genre. There’s Harry Potter for one, where Harry Potter, is, of course, resurrected by the so-called Resurrection Stone, but there’s also incomplete resurrection, like Dumbledore’s sister, so once again there is a negative aspect of it.

So, once again, is resurrection bad or good? It seems like it edges more towards to negative aspects, but I’ll leave it to you to decide.