The Last Video Embarrassment

Here it is. This is my graduation speech. 

Classmates, teachers, parents, friends, non-friends, and gatecrashers I am Cristina Angel and it is an honor to be speaking in front of all of you. We're all here to celebrate our departure, our release, and our freedom. Today is the day were we'll all say that we are sad, and some can even pull out those eye drops, and pretend we're devastated only to wake up tomorrow with the biggest headache in high school history yet. I say this of course because today we'll eat so much chocolate to fulfill our broken hearts and well, sugar levels, right? I honestly thought of this moment as a very scary situation: me falling up the stairs when walking up to this podium, you laughing and pointing at me, your uncle Juan choking up on his own breathing due to his severe asthma problems, me blushing until my face melts like wax, you making that "oh!" sound of pity and horror. Ah! That's the dream. 

 But I really want to start off by directing all of your focus to a segment of the 2012 piece that pretty much became the anthem for all the stuck up ballers, if that even means anything. I'm talking of course about the song, and I'll be using a euphemism for the first word of the title, called "[Ninjas] in Paris" by Jay Z And Kanye West. It is with a segment of their beautiful song that the graduating class of 2014 must identify with in this specific moment of our lives: "(Ball so hard) This shit weird, we ain't even s'posed to be here (Ball so hard) Since we here, it's only right that we'd be fair" 

 Now, standing here is weird. Graduating is definitely weird. But being part of a class composed of 157 freaks, which you've known the majority for about 80% of your life and having to say goodbye to all of them feels very weird. And, I mean, today is definitely a weird day. As Jay Z said it himself, "we are not supposed to be here". Graduation was something that was going to happen in a million years, but never today. 

 We've been together for about, what? Gosh, like 1,2,3,4,5... fourteen centuries together? Yeah. That's a pretty long time. For fourteen consecutive years I have been seeing all of you every single day. In classes, at lunch, at parties, at standardized testing locations, at the supermarket, at the movies, at concerts, at restaurants, at car washes, etc. It's just - it's been such a long time with all of you, and I say this from the bottom of my heart, with complete sincerity, I think we need to take a break. It's not you, it's me. There is someone else, and he sounds pretty cool, so I think I just need to stop seeing all of you for like 5 minutes. 

 Speaking of time, did you hear about Robert Pattinson's retirement from the Twilight movies? He said he was too old for that. Yeah, cause he wasn't too old already in the first movie! But you know who else is too old? Chico, like our PE teacher. And guess what? He's fitter than all of you, audience/peasants, combined. Not more than me of course, cause I obviously workout on weekends. 

But what I'm trying to say here is that just as Robert Pattinson, just as Chico, just as Amparo Grisales, we all grow too old to do certain things in life. We, the seniors at CNG, have just reached the point of being too old to be high schoolers. We've reached the point where we now have to be parents. OH NO, wait that actually sounds wrong. We've reached the point where we now have to be our own mothers. Dammit, no way! We've just simply reached the point where we gotta be the strong, black, independent woman who don't need no man. Kinda like Miley Cyrus. Yeah, like Miley. We're moving on from that Hannah Montana stage, into the world where we're starting to twerk with our tongues all over our faces and spending lots of money on stuff. Just...stuff. 

 So I simply want to end this by sharing a little bit of what I learned. I have some advice for all of you peasants out there, no matter if you're a CNG student, CNG alumni, a parent, a doctor, a ballerina, an astronaut, a bomb deactivator working for the Tijuana DEA team, I don't care who you are. My advice is, and it's truly what I actually learned here at CNG, that no matter where you are or where you are headed, never, and I repeat never, be late. Why? Well, 99.999% of the times you're late, you will be encountered with the following situation: Mr. Viscardi will shoot a red laser beam coming from his dark shades into your heart that will slowly burn it, and leave you agonizing on the floor while he blurts out an evil, long, monotone laugh. No matter where you are, the man will find you. Trust me, he really is famous for his ubiquity. 

 With that being said, I just want to thank all of you for being a part of my life, because well...no actually, you're welcome everybody. I know meeting me was definitely one of the most amazing things that could've happened to all of you. I hope you all achieve your goals and dreams and hopefully one of you turns out to be the new Oprah or Bill Gates or JK Rowling and when that happens, maybe I'll consider befriending you again. Have a nice life and good luck!

Bow Down to the King

I think it is completely valid to say that Gabriel Garcia Marquez can be considered Colombia's king. Why? Not only did everyone love him for his amazing works in literature, but he was also a nice human being. He gave voice to our country and stood up for all of us. He won the Nobel Prize in 1982, and in his acceptance speech, he managed to amaze more than one in the audience. When I read it I felt proud and nostalgic, for it seems unreal that such a smart Colombian, who I admire a lot, is not in this Earth anymore. His speech touched topics that many Latin American countries identify with. That's what's so amazing about him, he managed to unify the Latin American people in order to speak out and talk about the truth in our history. 

Garcia Marquez was most definitely eloquent when he delivered his speech. Simply by looking at the title of his speech, we already see his great use in rhetoric. The speech's title, The Solitude of Latin America, could be interpreted as an allusion to his work. It connects to the title of his Nobel Prize winning novel, A Hundred Years of Solitude. Throughout the whole text, he plays with the title of his novel and fuses it with the solitude that Latin American countries have experienced in the past. He proved his power to speak out in representation of Latin America, and how our past has been misjudged by external countries. 

It is later on in his speech that he introduces another rhetorical skill. He was able to make a comparison between the countries of Latin America and the countries in Europe. The following words left me honestly amazed: "It is only natural that they insist on measuring us with the yardstick that they use for themselves, forgetting that the ravages of life are not the same for all, and that the quest of our own identity is just as arduous and bloody for us as it was for them. The interpretation of our reality through patterns not our own, serves only to make us ever more unknown, ever less free, ever more solitary" (Marquez, 1982). This is a very effective tool because he is basically telling the audience (and the whole world) to not judge Latin America "the easy way." First, all the other countries need to understand our history by looking at theirs first, and knowing that although each country was formed differently, we still have a thing in common: it wasn't easy. They have to understand that we have had horrible tragedies, just as they did too. It is just that many European countries seem to forget their own dark past (since they are very old lands) and judge us by our own, which has had dark occurrences more recently due to our younger age as a continent. What a great way to call for respect!

Another rhetorical implementation in Garcia Marquez's speech has to do with the ending. He managed to close off with a quote. This has a great effect in his speech, since he is not repeating what he already said in his previous words, but it gives a little insight of something that he heard from his "master" and reflected upon. 

Below, I am attaching a picture of the rhetorical triangle for this particular speech.

Colombia Could Be Caliban

After reading this article from Barnard College, I realized that Shakespeare's last play, The Tempest, connects to the colonization era in Colombia. Basically, in the play, Caliban gets taken his freedom away and is enslaved by Prospero. Throughout history, Caliban has been compared to an aborigine and a savage. The character's name originated from the word "cannibal" and Shakespeare's intentions with that choice are very clear. SInce he was a native from the land, he is seen as an anthropophagus and a savagely wild creature. That's why Prospero decides to enslave him and dominate him towards his own benefit. 

Many Latin American writers feel identified with this character in the sense of their countries' history, for many of the Latin American countries were filled with native people who were later enslaved just like Caliban. When Europeans got to America and interacted with the natives, they felt that these new beings were very hostile and they also decided to enslave them. They positioned themselves at a dominant place, just like Prospero. 

In Colombia's case, the original indian population that inhabited our country could be placed in the same position as Caliban. Our indigenous people were tortured and were taken their freedom away. As the article mentions it, their own culture was eliminated, and the mestizo culture was now created (mixture of native Colombians and Spaniards). There was nothing that either Caliban or Colombia could do in order to defend themselves from the "attacker". However, many famous Latin American figures have expressed their emotions towards this occurrence, such as Che Guevara and Ruben Dario. In Caliban's case, he simply wished the "red plague" upon Prospero and also that he could unlearn everything Prospero forced him to learn (ex: language).  After all, Colombia can really be considered a country of Calibans. 

Those...Three...Dots...

I have never been much of an ellipses exploiter. Whenever my friends overuse those three dots, I get annoyed. Sometimes they just seem so unnecessary and vague. It is because of this article that I realized that ellipses are even more annoying than what I had previously believed. I hadn't realized some of the grammatical sins that people are committing because of these three fools. 

First of all, why are people even using the ellipses more than once in every single text or Tweet they send? They use it in a horrible way. This addresses the way in which people in our century are promulgating a writing revolution. As referred in this article and the previous one we read about commas, people of this time are writing as they would speak. And this has brought a lot of consequences for the writing world. Since we now write as we would communicate through speech, we omit commas and write in a more relaxed way. This brings a huge problem; we are not even completing sentences. Ellipses are just another excuse to be lazy and make our lives easier, making it possible for texters to join dependent clauses without coherence. 

But is it really making our lives easier? Many people are not even getting what everyone has to say because with the three dots, the meaning of a message can be quite confusing if there are no complete sentences involved. The laziness and lack of coherence have made it difficult for message receivers to understand. 

Now that I think about it, I have used ellipses before. However, not as a shortcut or because I'm lazy. I'm actually not lazy at all when it comes to texting and informal writing. I use ellipses only the way that I've learned to use them in school. As the article explained, "in more formal writing, ellipses are often used to show omissions from within a piece of text." That's literally the only way I incorporate the three dots in my writing, and I think that's the way it should be for everyone. 

You Guys Are Commas That Important Anyway Like Seriously?

I find it very sad the way commas are being ignored today. This article from Slate depicts the unfortunate reality that encompasses our world. Twitter and other social networks have been feeding this new rejection of commas. I believe its main cause is the way our generation (the millennials) and even older people who inhabit the social network realm have become lazy. 

Extreme laziness is what leads to the purge of comma use. I attach a screenshot of some example tweets that talk about this problem. I honestly think that writing without commas looks ridiculous, and it's kind of absurd how people will ignore something as simple as a comma. It just makes this users seem very lazy, although it's not their fault completely, it's just the way in which language and writing has evolved. 

It's not only laziness that has been causing this phenomenon, but as Anne Curzan said, it's also because we are now writing more in the same way we speak: "the decreasing use of commas...may be tied to efforts at making communications more stylistically fun and more similar too spoken conversation." This means we're not only skipping commas, but ignoring capitalization and committing other grammatical errors. It's quite funny because we also now suppose that certain grammatical tools are used to emote certain emotions. As Malady mentioned, the period (".") is now used as an emoter of anger, or seriousness. I completely understand this, for I always use periods only when I'm mad or distant.  

However, I definitely haven't banned commas from my texting habits yet. I honestly don't think I will, even though it makes me sound more formal whenever I text or tweet. I don't care, I can't be at peace knowing I'm writing run on sentences in small daily conversations. As Coco Chanel believed, "it's always better to be overdressed than underdressed." I mean, one could say it works the same way here. And although some say it makes life easier to simply write as you would converse, I think it's more important to conserve something as basic and necessary as a comma. Without it, writers can come off as childish, uneducated, or ignorant. 

FYI, I'm still suffering a little with the title of this post. 

Language War Zone

Evolution happens. Like it or not, it just does. Humans evolve, technology evolves, and even language evolves. Just like the picture here to the left. It refers to the type of response we see a lot now days in text messages; the infamous "k." How can we have passed from writing a sentence that emotes our legitimate response, to a simple consonant? While some think that language should stay as conventional and original as possible, others think that language should evolve and we should all adjust to those changes. 

After reading this debate from The New York Times about language, I realized that I'm a "descriptivist". What that means is that I basically accept the fact that language is evolving, and that some rules expire as time goes by. Descriptivist accept and acknowledge the language as it is used in the present. On the other hand, as one of the debaters from the Language Wars, there are "prescriptivists." This is the kind of people who focus more on how the language "should be used", or in other words, they prioritize the correctness of the language. While both types of people are valid, I think that with the speed that the 21st century is evolving, we all have to be descriptivists now days or else we will be wasting our time. 

Something that we learn as human beings, at some point in our lives, is that we all make mistakes. We can't escape from the fact that mistakes are part of our growth and understanding of how life works. I have done many mistakes in my life. Teachers commit a lot of mistakes. Native speakers make mistakes too. Even freaking E.B. White made a mistake in one of his writing pieces. It simply happens. Why should we punish ourselves about the grammatical mistakes that we commit with all of the rules of grammar, and what not? Honestly, many people in our world don't care if we use "which" and "that" incorrectly, or in place of each other. Some even ignore the acknowledgment and distinction of homophones. I'm not saying we should all ignore grammar rules and do whatever we please to do with our writing. My point is that some traditional and conservative rules of grammar (such as the one from the debate - the "which" & "that" dilemma) become less important to people, and eventually they begin to disappear. That's why I don't think we should judge and criticize the 21st century way of communicating: texting. Texting is simply an evolution of a medium of communication that itself brings new ways of saying things in a more grammatically rebellious way. 

I don't know, maybe I "demonize prescriptivists" like Greene (according to Graner). I'm just completely biased and in favor of the evolution of language, and it is really annoying that some people won't accept that and move on. And this doesn't mean that i WriTe l!ke diz nd i dont care 4 grammer rulezz. I actually agree with Greene when he mentions that “there is a set of standard conventions everyone needs for formal writing and speaking," because if there wasn't we wouldn't be able to communicate correctly and understand what each of us has to say. However, this doesn't mean we should follow absolutely every rule that exists in the world of grammar if it isn't absolutely necessary in order to emote our message.

In the end, people are the ones who choose what to do with their writing ability. Maybe for some of us right now it seems like a horrible violation to ignore grammatical rules when we, say, text. However, in 50 years, we'll see that the change we are going through was less intense than the one we'll see then. It's the way it has been and felt in history, and we just gotta learn to accept this change and evolution that is happening right now. 

Listening: Superhero Mode

Super powers. Super heroes. Super crazy. Who, as a child, didn't want to become a superheroe? I mean seriously. Who wouldn't want to be the strongest or the biggest or the fastest creature on earth? How about the power of invisibility or having the power to read minds? Many of us wanted that as kids, but who actually achieved it? In Act II of this podcast, Zora is a very peculiar and dedicated woman who was the closest to becoming a superhero. As Kelly McEvers described her, she is definitely not the typical woman you see on a daily basis. Ever since she was little girl, she was committed to becoming a superhero. Zora created a list in which she explicitly states the steps needed in order for her to achieve her goal. Incredibly enough, she completed almost all of the things that she wrote in her list. Her story is quite interesting and it really captivated me since the beginning. When I was done listening to it, I thought about my dreams as a little girl and realized that I'm not aiming to achieve them maybe because my tastes and preferences have changed. But then I wonder did Zora's preferences and tastes change throughout her growing process? I think it's very brave of her to follow a dream that was cultivated at a very young age. 

I think that what captivated me while listening to this story was the tone and diction of the podcast. When McEvers narrates about Zora's story, she uses a very monotonous tone. However, right when the Zora starts talking, the mood changes; the story begins to have a more sincere, honest and earnest tone. That's what makes it so interesting: she begins to tell her experience in a very careless manner, and even uses humor (which I love). Her diction is very clear and very relaxed which also makes it more interesting to me. The syntax is also very relaxed and her register is informal which also makes it more captivating to the audience because it's more relatable. 

On the other hand, Act IV seemed quite boring to me. It wasn't as enjoyable as Act II simply because of the way that both podcasts are structured. In Act IV the tone used is more serious and informative. It is also structured as an interview and it has a more advanced diction. I simply wasn't as hooked as in the first podcast I heard. The interviewer talks with Jason Bleibtreu and they talk about two twins that are from a rebel army in Burma, who supposedly possess superpowers. I don't know if it has to do with the tone or the diction, but I didn't consider Act IV as credible as Act II. Maybe because in Act II she is narrating the events that happened to her. While in Act IV, the man is talking about a third party, the twins, who seem to possess these powers. In other words, it doesn't affect him directly so it's not something that happened to him. 

There is obviously a huge juxtaposition between the two podcasts. The topic is the same for both stories, however the way that the stories are told are very different and that caused a different effect on me. Things like tone, syntax and diction affect the rhetorical effects of any type of story, and in this case the effect was more positive after I heard Act II. I declare Wonder Woman the winner of this battle!

Olimpic Slavery

After reading this article about the Winter Olympics and it's incredible resemblance to The Hunger Games, I had a chance to reflect about the slave-ish similarities that olympic athletes experience. Written by a luge professional, it's clear in the article that her experience proved how toilsome an athlete's career is. 

I believe it's absurd the way that athletes have to depend on corporate sponsorship because it takes over athletes' lives and limits their freedom to do certain things. I can only imagine how terrible this woman's childhood could have been if she was working as an athlete for the US. Being a little girl, she was just as any other adult worker in America, yet she wasn't getting paid decently - or paid at all for that matter. Corporate sponsorship can really exploit these athletes' capacity to work and train. In her case, Verizon was simply owning her. She was not allowed to go to public events without mentioning the company's name. Basically, she became a Verizon spokesperson. 

I can definitely see the similarity with The Hunger Games. She is just like another Katniss Everdeen. They both left everything behind: childhood, free time, studies. And additionally, they weren't even getting the right compensation for that.  What's really sad is how some athletes don't even receive any corporate sponsorship or even government help, an so their only way to be able to go to the olympics is to work and train at the same time, which is an incredibly horrendous combination considering that training is already an arduous job. I simply feel that olympic athletes are a version of slaves, who are unjustly treated relative to their input of work. As the author would agree, athletes and people aware of the problem are the only ones who can do something to change this. 

A New Graphic Novel

Now that I'm done with Gonzo: A Graphic Biography of Hunter S. Thompson, I began reading Palestine by Joe Sacco. At first, when deciding on what graphic novel to read, I glanced through this book and there was something that stood out. It stood out in a negative way, actually. I'm talking about how visually detailed the art is in this book. I saw pages of crowded and crowded drawings, too many lines and shades, and the shapes of the text boxes were also set up in a very disorganized way. I guess I might have a bit of OCD, but I know for sure that I like things more the minimalist way. I know it as a fact, since I'm taking AP 2D Design, that I work better with minimalist designs. I've proved it to myself that my art works have a better final outcome if I keep it simple. So I just kind of started reading it, trying to ignore the visual overload and it has taken me some time to get used to it. At least for the first 50 pages I've felt that it is too much visual saturation. Here's an example of the type of art that the author uses in this graphic novel:

Another thing that I found in this graphic novel, was the style of portraying thoughts and spoken words. I hadn't seen this before. Sacco utilizes the bubble shape text boxes to represent the words that the characters speak. When the character thinks, he uses a rectangular shape for text. The picture above (at the right) is an example of the way he alters those bubble shaped and rectangular text boxes. 

Additionally, I found something that I remembered from way back when we read Thank You For Arguing. I found a chiasmus that said, "a land without a people for a people without a land!" (pg. 12). This just proves the fact that rhetoric is implemented in pretty much everything we read, hear and see. I was quite impressed that I remembered the term chiasmus, for my memory is pretty bad. 

Here's a vocab word I found: 

Affidavits: (noun) a written statement confirmed by oath for use as evidence in court. 

Living The Comic Life

Having finished Gonzo: A Graphic Biography of Hunter S. Thompson I feel that I'm starting to truly embrace the power of comics. Graphic novels bring two things that I love together: visual art and words. While reading this one, I was on the look out for any patterns or interesting things within the comic itself. The story was good, quite interesting, and quite different. I definitely learned about this guy, whom I had never heard of before, and realized how important he was in the world of journalism. Although I liked the story, I want to dedicate this blog post solely to the pure visual representation aspects that I liked.


First of all, I noticed how important space is in this comic. I know that in general, space in graphic novels is the equivalent to time in film. However, when I went through this graphic biography, at times I felt as if what I was reading and observing was an animation. For example, if you look at this page at the right, you can almost feel and see what is going on in the panels as if it were a screen. I could visualize it right there, and even identified some possible film techniques and all. Close up, zoom out, two shot cut, over the shoulder shot. Even a pan between those two panels at the bottom of the page. I just found it very pleasing to create an animation with my imagination right off from a comic book page. It kind of created a synesthesia sort of magic for me. 

The next thing I noticed was the way that when he talked about delicate subjects or an occurrence that was traumatic to him, there is a specific format in which the information is presented. His method of portraying the importance, or mark that the event left him is by taking the aesthetics of the vignette to a more minimalistic level. As you can see in the example below, the composition of this panel is simple. Black background, white words, text written in small blocks at two corners of the page. This can symbolize how dark the event was, and how shocked it left him. It transmitted chills to me when I read it, and as I stared at the visual elements, I felt as if it was cold and very dark.

Finally, I just want to point out how important juxtapositions are in graphic novels. In the two pages that I am including below, it's evident how there is a comparison between two reactions that Thompson has when Sandy leaves him. Two characteristics of his life put right next to each other: drugs and alcohol. There is a juxtaposition even with the same panels. Like the first one of both pages, it's him sitting in front of the typewriter but there's some difference between the two. The third panel is the most juxtaposed as the cocaine and the booze are put there right next to each other. 

Atavistic: (adj.) related to something
ancient or ancestral.

Shifting Gears

Now that we're going to start looking at graphic novels, I'll have to pause my reading on A Beautiful Life. The new graphic novel biography I chose is Gonzo: A Graphic Biography of Hunter S. Thompson by Will Bingley and Anthony Hope Smith. I have read comic books before, such as Persepolis and V for Vendetta, and I always forget how fun they are. WIth Gonzo, not only did I pass virtual page after page very quickly because of the small amount of text, but also because it got more and more interesting as I kept going. At the beginning I was a little bit confused on what was happening (it starts in the future and then the narrator goes back in time to tell the story). 

So basically Hunter Thompson was a drug addict and alcoholic who was known for being the "King of Gonzo." The term gonzo is used in journalism to describe a "style that is written without claims of objectivity, often including the author as part of the story via a first person narrative" (Wikipedia). In gonzo journalism, the reporter describes his experiences and emotions, and can also make use of satire, humor, and profanity. It is definitely not one of the styles of conventional journalism, which really called my attention. 

I've only read the first 60 pages of the book and I can see that Thompson has a very strong personality. There was something specifically that stayed with me at the beginning of the story and it's when he said: "in a caged society, a man's liberty is the meat of his master's power" (pg. 24). This was Thompson's reaction to when the FBI asked him to confess if he had been involved in an incident when he was a teenager. I think he means that even us, free people, are caged and suppressed because our liberty is controlled by our superiors. Even at this young age it is evident throughout the story that he had a rebellious personality and that he wasn't going to be afraid of what anyone thought. 

Another interesting thing that I found was something that Thompson said: "Our early struggles teach us how to fight" (pg. 38). I connected with that phrase immediately because I know exactly what he means. Not so long ago, I have been having to deal with some issues that although they have given me a hard time, they've taught me how to be stronger and "grow" emotionally. I believe that those struggles can help you be tougher and, as Thompson said, fight. 

Anyway, I am liking this graphic biography. Thompson's story sounds very interesting and up until know I have been enjoying the reading. I can't wait to finish it and then watch the documentary (Johnny Depp's in it, so even better). 

I Heart Sleep

I don't think there's something I enjoy more than sleeping. Seriously. Now that I think about it, why didn't I write my Op-Ed article about the awesomeness of sleep? I think about sleeping while riding the bus, during class, while I change classes, and when I'm doing homework. I've just always had the belief that a good night sleep makes you have the best days. However, for the past year and a half, in other words since junior year, I have had the worst nights ever. And I have been worried about it, cause well I love sleep. Junior year and senior year have been the worst years in high school. There has been so much to do, and no time at all. Before junior year, I went to bed no later than 9:30. After the real workload began, I'm going to bed at around 12, which may seem not too bad for many people but too me it's incredibly late. 

After reading this article from the New York Times, I am more concerned about being sleep deprived. I initially thought to myself, "Well, school is almost over. I'm graduating in 5 months which is not too bad. I'll recover when high school is over." But then I realized that in college my sleeping schedule will still be pretty messed up. Many things from the article surprised me, especially the fact that sleep deprivation is connected to neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer's. In my family, my mom's parents suffer from Alzheimer's disease, so I will most likely develop it if I get to live 60 more years. However, if I keep sleeping so little, then my brain's trash will not be cleaned out and, as the article mentioned it, my brain can develop Alzheimer's at an earlier age due to beta-amyloids that won't be successfully eliminated. I definitely don't want that. If I'm gonna get Alzheimer's I wouldn't want to get it earlier than expected. 

Towards the end of the article, I basically stopped freaking out about it. The fact that there are ways to "clear the brain's waste" for people who have trouble sleeping makes me realize that it's not the end of the world. Plus, now that science has recently learned a lot about sleep, there will probably be more medication for brain metabolism in the near future. Anyways, I love sleep. I'll still do it as much as I can and be happy about it. 

I Present to You My First Vlog

We All Are Ignoramus to Nash

Mull (verb) think about deeply and at length

I am actually LOVING John Nash Jr.'s biography. I just think it is so interesting how he thinks and how he interacts around not-so-relatively stupid people. I mean I think it's so cool that he randomly just told people who didn't reach his superior levels of intelligence that they were stupid. He literally "showed that contempt for all of us: 'You're an ignoramus" (pg. 72). The fact that he could stand up for himself (relatively, only sometimes) with this type of remarks is awesome. Bullies can really make children's lives miserable but he wouldn't let himself bring down. I admire that a lot, especially considering the fact that he had a lot of trouble with social skills. Even people with good social skills can't stand up for themselves now days. It definitely can be an inspiration for people with low self esteem.

Additional to his good self esteem, Nash actually was attracted to other boys. When he discovered that, " he spoke and acted in ways that seemed natural to him only to find himself exposed to his peers' contempt" (pg. 71). However, that wouldn't bring him down. He still acted the way he acted and wasn't going to change just because some ignorant kids would tease him. His classmates would make a lot of pranks on him, but he knew how to give those dumb boys a taste of their own medicine. He also made a lot of pranks on people, accepted he "enjoyed torturing animals" and sometimes involved chemistry in his pranks. Specifically one time, he was involved in a "small explosion in the high school chemistry lab [that] landed him in the principal's office" (pg. 61). 

Smelter (noun) an installation or factory for smelting
a metal from its ore. 

Later on, when the author starts to talk about college, I got to this sentence that brought me hope; I saw the light at the end of the tunnel. It said, "College is a time when many ugly ducklings discover that they are swans, not just intellectually but socially" (pg. 69). Literally what I wrote in my iPad note was: "Praise the lord." I just got so excited after reading that sentence simply because I am bored with school. I don't want to be forced to learn things that simply aren't meant for me. I want to graduate already and go to college. I want to be able to learn about subjects that I'm interested in, meet people that don't care about drama like everyone does in high school, and live in a more mature environment. Lucky me because the following sentence was, "most of the boys in Welch Hall - precocious, but immature - found common interests, kindred spirits, and a measure of acceptance painfully lacking in high school" (pg. 69). It's like Sylvia Nasar knew what I was thinking at that moment. Thanks for that Sylvia, you brightened my day. 

Biography Time

The new book I chose is a biography. I read an autobiography earlier in the year, but I want to read a biography now. I think that with this book I am challenging myself much more than usual because of two main reasons. First, this isn't humorous like Tina Fey's autobiography. Second, it's content is huuuge. The books I've read this year have all been short or medium-length. However, this one is approximately 800 pages long on my iPad. And actually there's another reason. The person that the biography is about is not someone I know. I haven't even heard of him. This, however, makes it more interesting for me to read. The biography is  A Beautiful Mind by Sylvia Nasar, which talks about John Nash Jr., a mathematical genius who suffered from schizophrenia and won a Nobel Prize. 

Having already read 6.65% of the book (54/811), I can assure you that it's something very different to what I've already read. I already identified the tone and can describe it with different tone words: academic, confident, and objective. Simply look at the word choice that the author utilizes:
- respectability
- pious
- pragmatism
- economize
- schizoid

Precincts: (noun) A district of a city
or town as defined for police
purposes.

While It has all been very introductory until now, the author mainly has talked about John Nash's family and details from his infancy. His mom was very smart, for she managed large enterprises. His dad was an engineer and then enlisted in the army for World War I. Something that the author emphasizes a lot is the way that JN Jr. was not seen as a smart kid when in reality he even skipped grade levels due to his mental ability: "At school, Johnny's immaturity and social awkwardness were initially more apparent than any special intellectual gifts" (pg. 51). I just can't wait to get to the part when he begins to shock people with his intelligence.

Learning How to Cheat Intellectualism

So for winter break I chose to read the book How to Talk About Books You Haven't Read by Pierre Bayard. It's a very short one, only 170 pages on the iPad, which was perfect for me to read while on vacation. After reading Fat Land on paper and then this book on my tablet, I confirmed that I do prefer to read books on my iPad. It's just so much easier to take notes and then go back to find them. Plus it's very easy to just enter a key word or key phrase to find whatever you're looking for. Simply facilitates the process of blogging about books.

Ok, so now the book.  I wanted to read this book because of three main reasons. First of all, this friend who read it told me it was good. Secondly, I found out that it was humorous and confirmed it when I read the back cover of the book. And finally, I began reading the first pages and while doing so found out the author's purpose resulted quite appealing to me: "This advice is intended to help anyone who encounters one of these social dilemmas to resolve it as well as possible, and even to benefit from the situation, while also permitting him or her to reflect deeply on the act of reading" (pg. 13). He was referring to social dilemmas which involved you in discussions of famous books you haven't read.

On a scale from 1 to 10 I'd have to say that to me, How to Talk About Books You Haven't Read is a 5. Why? Well,for starters I was expecting the book to be funnier, due to things I heard from a friend who had read the book already. I also expected the book to be more engaging, but after having to "click" the hyperlink of every footnote on each page, it made my reading very long and kind of boring. The hyperlinks took me to another page were the author would make a reference to a specific book and say wether he had skimmed it (SB), heard about it (HB), thought unknown (UB) or forgotten about it (FB). Additionally, I don't think I can successfully talk about books I haven't read. I feel that maybe I didn't quite connect with the book.

The author divides the book in three parts: Ways of Not Reading, Literary Confrontations and Ways of Behaving. I like the organization of his ideas because he first tells you how you can avoid reading, in what types of situations you may find yourself, and how to deal with them. Overall, it's just ironic that his objective and what he actually "preaches" is non-reading, which we the readers aren't doing while reading his book. Even more ironic is the fact that he is a university professor who needs to talk about a wide variety of books: "Because I teach literature at the university level, there is, in fact, no way to avoid commenting on books that most of the time I haven’t even opened” (pg. 10).

Even though his main point is to say that non-reading is actually better than reading, I still feel that reading is best. The satisfaction I get from reading hard books or classics is very big and even more when I get to discuss them or make smart references about them.

Here are some vocab words that were new to me:

Extol : (verb) to praise enthusiastically

                        

        Soliloquy: (noun) the act of speaking   one's thoughts aloud when by oneself           or regardless of any hearers esp. in a play