Thursday, June 24, 2010
Nothing Important To Say
So, I do not currently have time to go on a rant or babble or any such dealing, but I did wish to say that I am going to continue to use this blog for various exploits. School and the assignment that was originally the function of the blog are over but I have enjoyed it enough to continue. Anyone interested may look forward to more posts coming soon. And in the words of some old cartoon character: "T-T-That's all folks!"
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Challenge 2
What will I remember most about my junior year? Mock Trial, for sure. I had a really good year but the Mock Trial bond just clicked. This was my first year as a lawyer and we had a lot of hardships, loosing members left and right, not to mention Mr Cook going to India a month before our season started. The memory I hold strongest in my mind, however, is not quite the happy one I would hope for. It was the first match of the qualifying rounds: New Paltz as the defense, Highland the prosecution. We walked in there completely memorized. Sadie had her opening down smooth and well-delivered. Colleen was all set to give her closing off the bat, working only from notes she took during the trial. All of us had our directs and crosses memorized by points rather than questions. It's fair to say we felt pretty good walking into the court house. Even the daunting metal detector and tiny cramp elevator could not quell our excitement. There was a nervous buzz under the excitement. After all, we had heard that Highland was very dramatic this year- the very quality we were lacking on. So we walked into the court room, took our seats and waited. Highland arrived as well as the audience. Several minutes later the judge entered. The room surged to its feet and he-who-will-not-be-named (mainly because I cannot spell his name) took his seat at head of the court.
"Let us proceed."
The Highland opening lawyer walked up carrying a binder, reading off his -or her? I don't remember- opening in a moderate tone. He -let's just stick with he- was okay, but not the powerhouse of drama we were fearing. As the trial moved on Colleen, Sadie and I discovered that not only were out opponents not the presence we had been worried about, but their questions and knowledge of the rules had us objecting at almost every word. And that is where things started to go down hill. Now, what exactly was going through the judge's mind, I can't say, but he started to get aggravated. Did he think we were being bullies? I'm not sure. But whatever it was, he continued to grow impatient with the objections.
By the second half of the trial, we knew we had won. They had made almost no points, gotten objected to so much what points they did make were entirely muddled, and looked helpless at the onslaught of polite, "objection your honor"s coming at them. We walked up there and directed our witnesses, got objected to a few times, argued eloquently- in my biased opinion- and all-in-all proved out points. I remember being worried because I had signed up to clean up after Foreign Language Night for French Club and the trial was three and a half hours in. I would not be getting back in time. Nor would I be getting my crepe I had been looking forward to all day.
At last the trial was over. Colleen had delivered her close in her usual amazing way and the judge went into his chambers to work out the scores. So there we sat, exchanging polite words with out opponents and speaking among ourselves. In the drawer at our table, we found a rubber band, words written in careful capital letters, green pen on the tan rubber.
"Here students argue their points semi-eloquently."
The judge returned. He gave the typical, "you're all winners" speech before announcing the victory...of the prosecution. Of Highland. There was visceral shock in the room for a moment. Mechanically the New Paltz Mock Trial team stood up and shook hands with the Highland team, congratulating them and wishing them luck in counties. Mentally wishing them horrible pain in regionals. Later we found out that the judge from the other tournament (two were running that night) had come in for the last hour, her own work done. She told Mr Cook that she was certain we had won. As did Mr Simonson, our Lawyer adviser, and another judge who worked in the county court house. It was all we could do to get to the buses. Mute with the sheer weight of what had just happened, the team crowded into the narrow elevator. The Highland team knew better than try to go down with us. They would wait for the next one or just take the stairs.
The rest of the night dissolved into a blur. Between rantings, anger, death threats, more anger and more death threats, we got back to the high school, retreating to the sanctum of our homes. The only silver lining was a sympathy card to get ice cream from my parents, but even that didn't really help. Even now I feel my throat getting tight with anger at that judge and his ridiculous decision. The worst part was that we looked at the scores later and it was a one point difference. He tied everything the exact same except for professionalism.
Professionalism!
The guidelines of professionalism are courtesy, zealous advocacy of the law, and knowledge of the rules. Yet the judge rationalized (while backing to his car trying to escape) that we were too mean. Too mean? In a courtroom? It still just blows me away.
Anyway, that is my strongest memory from junior year. Clearly a biased account, but, for me at least, all too true.
"Let us proceed."
The Highland opening lawyer walked up carrying a binder, reading off his -or her? I don't remember- opening in a moderate tone. He -let's just stick with he- was okay, but not the powerhouse of drama we were fearing. As the trial moved on Colleen, Sadie and I discovered that not only were out opponents not the presence we had been worried about, but their questions and knowledge of the rules had us objecting at almost every word. And that is where things started to go down hill. Now, what exactly was going through the judge's mind, I can't say, but he started to get aggravated. Did he think we were being bullies? I'm not sure. But whatever it was, he continued to grow impatient with the objections.
By the second half of the trial, we knew we had won. They had made almost no points, gotten objected to so much what points they did make were entirely muddled, and looked helpless at the onslaught of polite, "objection your honor"s coming at them. We walked up there and directed our witnesses, got objected to a few times, argued eloquently- in my biased opinion- and all-in-all proved out points. I remember being worried because I had signed up to clean up after Foreign Language Night for French Club and the trial was three and a half hours in. I would not be getting back in time. Nor would I be getting my crepe I had been looking forward to all day.
At last the trial was over. Colleen had delivered her close in her usual amazing way and the judge went into his chambers to work out the scores. So there we sat, exchanging polite words with out opponents and speaking among ourselves. In the drawer at our table, we found a rubber band, words written in careful capital letters, green pen on the tan rubber.
"Here students argue their points semi-eloquently."
The judge returned. He gave the typical, "you're all winners" speech before announcing the victory...of the prosecution. Of Highland. There was visceral shock in the room for a moment. Mechanically the New Paltz Mock Trial team stood up and shook hands with the Highland team, congratulating them and wishing them luck in counties. Mentally wishing them horrible pain in regionals. Later we found out that the judge from the other tournament (two were running that night) had come in for the last hour, her own work done. She told Mr Cook that she was certain we had won. As did Mr Simonson, our Lawyer adviser, and another judge who worked in the county court house. It was all we could do to get to the buses. Mute with the sheer weight of what had just happened, the team crowded into the narrow elevator. The Highland team knew better than try to go down with us. They would wait for the next one or just take the stairs.
The rest of the night dissolved into a blur. Between rantings, anger, death threats, more anger and more death threats, we got back to the high school, retreating to the sanctum of our homes. The only silver lining was a sympathy card to get ice cream from my parents, but even that didn't really help. Even now I feel my throat getting tight with anger at that judge and his ridiculous decision. The worst part was that we looked at the scores later and it was a one point difference. He tied everything the exact same except for professionalism.
Professionalism!
The guidelines of professionalism are courtesy, zealous advocacy of the law, and knowledge of the rules. Yet the judge rationalized (while backing to his car trying to escape) that we were too mean. Too mean? In a courtroom? It still just blows me away.
Anyway, that is my strongest memory from junior year. Clearly a biased account, but, for me at least, all too true.
Challenge 1
So, reading Ms Diana's blog, here is my attempt at her challenge. I warn you ahead, this may not go well.
1. January 4, 2010 issue: Name the top five movies—and TV shows—of 2009:
Avatar (that was December 2009 right?)...that's all I can even remember at all.
2. February 8, 2010 issue: Americans’ most popular medication is antidepressants. According to top researchers, do antidepressants work?
Sometimes. It depends on the dosage of type of medication. People have different levels and forms of depression. Some medications will work with a certain form of depression but make a different form worse.
3. March 22, 2010 issue: Michelle Obama is on a mission to fight the skyrocketing obesity rates in American children (obesity rates have tripled among kids ages 12-19 since 1980)—what is her movement entitled?
"Let's Move"
4. March 29, 2010 issue: How much did the average American salary increase in the last 30 years (and how much was it then vs. now)?
I'm going to guess it has close to tripled.
5. Also in the March 29, 2010 issue, here is a quote (fill in the blank): “Despite earning higher GPAs, one year out of college, young women will already take home just _____ percent of what their male colleagues do.”
76%
6. April 19, 2010 issue: When President Obama was looking for a Supreme Court replacement for the retiring Justice David Souter, what was the main quality he was searching for? (Hint: it wasn’t years on the bench.)
Empathy.
7. April 26, 2010 issue: The first Earth Day was in 1970—has anything improved on our home planet? (Consider acid rain, the ozone layer, endangered species, and energy use.)
Probably something but I would not be able to think of it off the top of my head.
8. Also in the April 26, 2010 issue: The State Board of Education of Texas is rewriting history by changing the history books—what has changed?
I believe they took out Marshall and Chavez(?)(I amnot certain on the second part) and put in something really random that I do not remember.
9. May 10, 2010 issue: Wall Street doesn’t seem to be making any friends, but the Harvard Business School is trying to change the way future businessmen/women view their profession—so they now ask M.B.A. candidates to take the M.B.A. oath. What does it say?
No clue. I will not short sell the derivatives market then crash it on purpose?
10. May 24 and 31, 2010 issue: The health care debate is still raging. True or false: “Although [Americans] pay the most for our health care, the U.S. has higher rates of preventable deaths than almost all other industrialized nations.”
True.
ANSWERS:
1) Avatar was not on the list. Did I get its date wrong? Of the answers I only saw Harry Potter and watched NCIS a little bit.
2) My answer counts-ish.
3) Thank you Nickelodeon commercials. (Just to clarify, I was watching George Lopez on Nick.)
4) It's gone up less than I thought.
5) Close.
6) The E-bomb.
7) Makes sense.
8) Chavez was right. And, the inventor of the Yo-Yo? Why?
9) Same idea in pretties less specific words.
10) I can do naught but sigh.
1. January 4, 2010 issue: Name the top five movies—and TV shows—of 2009:
Avatar (that was December 2009 right?)...that's all I can even remember at all.
2. February 8, 2010 issue: Americans’ most popular medication is antidepressants. According to top researchers, do antidepressants work?
Sometimes. It depends on the dosage of type of medication. People have different levels and forms of depression. Some medications will work with a certain form of depression but make a different form worse.
3. March 22, 2010 issue: Michelle Obama is on a mission to fight the skyrocketing obesity rates in American children (obesity rates have tripled among kids ages 12-19 since 1980)—what is her movement entitled?
"Let's Move"
4. March 29, 2010 issue: How much did the average American salary increase in the last 30 years (and how much was it then vs. now)?
I'm going to guess it has close to tripled.
5. Also in the March 29, 2010 issue, here is a quote (fill in the blank): “Despite earning higher GPAs, one year out of college, young women will already take home just _____ percent of what their male colleagues do.”
76%
6. April 19, 2010 issue: When President Obama was looking for a Supreme Court replacement for the retiring Justice David Souter, what was the main quality he was searching for? (Hint: it wasn’t years on the bench.)
Empathy.
7. April 26, 2010 issue: The first Earth Day was in 1970—has anything improved on our home planet? (Consider acid rain, the ozone layer, endangered species, and energy use.)
Probably something but I would not be able to think of it off the top of my head.
8. Also in the April 26, 2010 issue: The State Board of Education of Texas is rewriting history by changing the history books—what has changed?
I believe they took out Marshall and Chavez(?)(I amnot certain on the second part) and put in something really random that I do not remember.
9. May 10, 2010 issue: Wall Street doesn’t seem to be making any friends, but the Harvard Business School is trying to change the way future businessmen/women view their profession—so they now ask M.B.A. candidates to take the M.B.A. oath. What does it say?
No clue. I will not short sell the derivatives market then crash it on purpose?
10. May 24 and 31, 2010 issue: The health care debate is still raging. True or false: “Although [Americans] pay the most for our health care, the U.S. has higher rates of preventable deaths than almost all other industrialized nations.”
True.
ANSWERS:
1) Avatar was not on the list. Did I get its date wrong? Of the answers I only saw Harry Potter and watched NCIS a little bit.
2) My answer counts-ish.
3) Thank you Nickelodeon commercials. (Just to clarify, I was watching George Lopez on Nick.)
4) It's gone up less than I thought.
5) Close.
6) The E-bomb.
7) Makes sense.
8) Chavez was right. And, the inventor of the Yo-Yo? Why?
9) Same idea in pretties less specific words.
10) I can do naught but sigh.
Monday, June 7, 2010
Strong Language
Here's a question to think about. Is it appropriate to swear in writing?
For anyone who knows me, you will know I am a fairly vanilla person as far as all that goes. So it makes me a little hesitant when I am writing for a much bolder and abrasive character. Of course they are going to swear in certain situations and use degrading words, but it always makes me a little nervous to put them in a situation where their personality would react in that way. It's not fair to them to switch a character's personality for my own comfort, but it does make me think a bit.
What made me think of this question is that I was writing a scene where a character is running from the police. She does not have a high opinion of them, so her dialogue is rather strong there. The outlet for this writing is a mature place, so no one will bat an eye at it, but the medium certainly seems to affect my characters. I feel like I have grown quite a bit in the depth of my writing in this more mature outlet because my peers are intelligent and amazing writers who have taught me a lot. While my opinion of them is very high, many of them do not hesitate to swear in their own works. However, I have never felt that it detracts from the quality of the piece.
It just makes me wonder about the social views on cursing. Adults generally consider it vulgar and offensive. Something that should not be done. But when it is called for in writing, should it not be as necessary as any other development of personality? Honestly, swearing is language like anything else. In fact, citing Lyndon B Johnson's ruling regarding vulgarity, he said it was sanctioned if it held some “redeeming social value.”
That seems like the best way to put it. Redeeming value. Swearing and other heavy language in media should be appropriate when it has a value. At least, that's my opinion. Food for thought I suppose.
For anyone who knows me, you will know I am a fairly vanilla person as far as all that goes. So it makes me a little hesitant when I am writing for a much bolder and abrasive character. Of course they are going to swear in certain situations and use degrading words, but it always makes me a little nervous to put them in a situation where their personality would react in that way. It's not fair to them to switch a character's personality for my own comfort, but it does make me think a bit.
What made me think of this question is that I was writing a scene where a character is running from the police. She does not have a high opinion of them, so her dialogue is rather strong there. The outlet for this writing is a mature place, so no one will bat an eye at it, but the medium certainly seems to affect my characters. I feel like I have grown quite a bit in the depth of my writing in this more mature outlet because my peers are intelligent and amazing writers who have taught me a lot. While my opinion of them is very high, many of them do not hesitate to swear in their own works. However, I have never felt that it detracts from the quality of the piece.
It just makes me wonder about the social views on cursing. Adults generally consider it vulgar and offensive. Something that should not be done. But when it is called for in writing, should it not be as necessary as any other development of personality? Honestly, swearing is language like anything else. In fact, citing Lyndon B Johnson's ruling regarding vulgarity, he said it was sanctioned if it held some “redeeming social value.”
That seems like the best way to put it. Redeeming value. Swearing and other heavy language in media should be appropriate when it has a value. At least, that's my opinion. Food for thought I suppose.
Friday, June 4, 2010
Reality
“There are two worlds: the dream world and the reality. You have to figure out which is which. If you die in the dream you wake up in reality. Now ask me what happens if you die in reality.”-The Dream Lord to Doctor Who
“What happens?”
“You die, stupid. That’s why it’s called reality.”
Reality is an interesting question. How much of what we do is reality. Is what we think reality? Think about it. When you were a little kid and you made up fantasies in your head, you thought they were real. You don't anymore though. You recognize that there is no such thing as unicorns- as far as scientific knowledge is concerned- and dragons. So if those worlds we made in our head were not reality, then what makes our thoughts reality? First off, I guess you have to ask yourself was reality is.
re•al•i•ty
Noun:
Real things, facts, or events taken as a whole; state of affairs: the reality of the business world; vacationing to escape reality.
Philosophy
Something that exists independently of ideas concerning it.
Idiom:
In reality, in fact or truth; actually.
So, our thoughts are real things, aren't they? They exist in our mind. Thee create our actions. However, they are not always a truth, nor do they exist independently of ideas concerning them. Thoughts can be changed, making them dependent on other concepts.
Perhaps reality is not so easy to define after all. Another definition refers to it as "the state of things as they actually exist, rather than as they may appear or may be thought to be." So this implies that thought is something beyond reality. So are thoughts the perception that leads to the clouding of reality? I think I could accept that. Sure our thoughts as individual concepts are real in the barest sense of the word, but their content? Certainly not. For the content of a thought to define reality is a scary thing. Rather, it seems, the content of thought is what makes reality so hard to grasp.
What does this have to do with literacy? Nothing whatsoever. I suppose I could say I'm drawing a line between the world of a book and that of reality but I'm really not. I'm just babbling again. At this rate I'm going to become a philosophy major. Oh dear.
Thursday, June 3, 2010
Valid, if not Sound, Logic Proof
Working with conclusions.
Conclusion: Anger roots from insecurity.
Why? Where does anger come from? Why does it happen?
A contradiction to ideals occurs.
Someone does something you consider out side of what that person ought to do.
Often that person is you.
Ideals- utopia- perfection = fixed flaws.
Flaws are imperfections.
Imperfections make insecurities.
Conclusion: Anger roots from insecurity.
Why? Where does anger come from? Why does it happen?
A contradiction to ideals occurs.
Someone does something you consider out side of what that person ought to do.
Often that person is you.
Ideals- utopia- perfection = fixed flaws.
Flaws are imperfections.
Imperfections make insecurities.
Musings on Morals
I would like the intro with the fact that this is not a post specifically designed for the project this blog goes toward. It is my own musing and meant for nothing more than to let myself babble until I hit a conclusion. So, the point is that I suspect, half of this will only make sense to me.
I have done a lot of writing in my life, some of it better than others. Comparing my own work against itself I have started to find that my best characters have extremely loose morals. Does this mean I am falling into a habit of writing for one kind of character or is it just that amoral characters tend to present the most interesting and engaging flaws? I suspect the answer is that both thoughts are correct. But looking at my more recent characters, I wonder.
1) Angry. Violent. Conflicted. Alone. (Yes, very angst sounding isn't it? But not really, she's happy in a kill-you-as-soon-as-look-at-you kind of way.)
2) Arrogant/Later Developing a God-Complex. Conformist- led to very bad decisions. Wants to be a hero. (One of my weakest character recently but I think once I hit a good subplot with him he'll pick up.)
3) Confused. Out of Place. Gentleman. (This would be the character I referred to in my previous post "A Line and Salt." Currently I am having an amazing amount of fun writing for this guy.)
Those are the three main characters I have been working on. They are not all part of the same story per say, they are just characters with their own plots. Other minor works include another conformist (who is really just a different version of #2 on the list above), a thief and extortionist, and at the moment that may be it.
So I guess only the thief and the list's #1 are amoral (and in her defense, #1 thinks she's doing the right thing. You have to love utilitarianism in a character). The conformists have morals they just have a hard time recognizing them in the midst of trying to fit into a crowd. And Mr. Colonial Times is the most moral of them all I would say. That’s rather interesting seeing as he is having an impossible time with the social changes such as the civil progression regarding race and gender.
So have I mused enough to hit a conclusion? I'm not sure, but my favorite characters right now are #1 and #3 on the list. So the most moral and the utilitarian basically-amoral character. Interesting. Was it just perception that made me feel like I was drifting too much to a 'standard' character? No entirely, but without a conflict in morality how can there be flaw? Greed. Sadism. Bigotry. Anger. They all center from conflicts of some sort in a person's moral core.
Looking at books I read, and the television shows and movies I watch, I would say that I have a tendency to look at morals in more than just my own writing. There is one specific show I have been wanting to watch again which focuses a great deal on the questions around morals. Dollhouse is a Joss Whedon work and I admit to being a whedonite. But the questions it looks at are very interesting and, of course, my favorite character is the amoral- initially- engineer at the center of the house. Dollhouse looks at the freedom of choice and the abuse of technology, two issues that cannot be addressed without doing more than just touching on the question of morals.
People as playthings. The idea of being able to see human-beings as toys is frightening, but at the same time fascinating. It is the moral ambiguity that gives a person the ability to do so and that is what made Topher so interesting, to me. Can a saint really make an interesting character in a story?
I guess maybe I’m just a bit partial to man vs. self conflict even if there are other conflicts around. Even Mr. Colonial-Times has inner-conflict, although it is not with his morals exactly. Perhaps I’m a tad too sadistic about my characters. I like to see them having problems. If everything came easy to their conscience…well where would the fun be in that?
I have done a lot of writing in my life, some of it better than others. Comparing my own work against itself I have started to find that my best characters have extremely loose morals. Does this mean I am falling into a habit of writing for one kind of character or is it just that amoral characters tend to present the most interesting and engaging flaws? I suspect the answer is that both thoughts are correct. But looking at my more recent characters, I wonder.
1) Angry. Violent. Conflicted. Alone. (Yes, very angst sounding isn't it? But not really, she's happy in a kill-you-as-soon-as-look-at-you kind of way.)
2) Arrogant/Later Developing a God-Complex. Conformist- led to very bad decisions. Wants to be a hero. (One of my weakest character recently but I think once I hit a good subplot with him he'll pick up.)
3) Confused. Out of Place. Gentleman. (This would be the character I referred to in my previous post "A Line and Salt." Currently I am having an amazing amount of fun writing for this guy.)
Those are the three main characters I have been working on. They are not all part of the same story per say, they are just characters with their own plots. Other minor works include another conformist (who is really just a different version of #2 on the list above), a thief and extortionist, and at the moment that may be it.
So I guess only the thief and the list's #1 are amoral (and in her defense, #1 thinks she's doing the right thing. You have to love utilitarianism in a character). The conformists have morals they just have a hard time recognizing them in the midst of trying to fit into a crowd. And Mr. Colonial Times is the most moral of them all I would say. That’s rather interesting seeing as he is having an impossible time with the social changes such as the civil progression regarding race and gender.
So have I mused enough to hit a conclusion? I'm not sure, but my favorite characters right now are #1 and #3 on the list. So the most moral and the utilitarian basically-amoral character. Interesting. Was it just perception that made me feel like I was drifting too much to a 'standard' character? No entirely, but without a conflict in morality how can there be flaw? Greed. Sadism. Bigotry. Anger. They all center from conflicts of some sort in a person's moral core.
Looking at books I read, and the television shows and movies I watch, I would say that I have a tendency to look at morals in more than just my own writing. There is one specific show I have been wanting to watch again which focuses a great deal on the questions around morals. Dollhouse is a Joss Whedon work and I admit to being a whedonite. But the questions it looks at are very interesting and, of course, my favorite character is the amoral- initially- engineer at the center of the house. Dollhouse looks at the freedom of choice and the abuse of technology, two issues that cannot be addressed without doing more than just touching on the question of morals.
Everyone in this house has been chosen because their morals have been compromised. Everyone except you. You were chosen because you have no morals. You have always seen people as playthings. This is not a judgment; you take very good care of your toys.-Adele Dewitt addressing Topher (the engineer)
People as playthings. The idea of being able to see human-beings as toys is frightening, but at the same time fascinating. It is the moral ambiguity that gives a person the ability to do so and that is what made Topher so interesting, to me. Can a saint really make an interesting character in a story?
I guess maybe I’m just a bit partial to man vs. self conflict even if there are other conflicts around. Even Mr. Colonial-Times has inner-conflict, although it is not with his morals exactly. Perhaps I’m a tad too sadistic about my characters. I like to see them having problems. If everything came easy to their conscience…well where would the fun be in that?
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
A Line and Salt
In case you haven't noticed yet, a lot of my comments on literacy eventually devolve to talking about writing. So this time I'm just going to say right off the bat, I will end up talking about writing.
What I want to look at today is research and its influence on literacy. The first thing that comes to mind is that reading a variety of books provides for a unique insight to research in actual topics. For example, reading a fictional book set in the medieval period may not show you significant historical events- although it can- but it will show you the background behind them. The society that existed then and the ways people went around their business. They will not always give you a concrete thing to say you learned, but they will provide you with an insight into motive.
That said, take fictional pieces (or self-proclaimed factual ones as well- but that’s a whole different rant) with a grain of salt. Not all authors do their research and even those who do must take liberty at some points. Here is where I digress to writing. There is a line between researching for historical accuracy and sacrificing the character. For example, I am currently writing for a character that has transposed from colonial New York into modern day NYC. I have spent hours reading about values and mindsets of the colonial era and figuring out what words and what inventions were around or not around back then. However, I recognize that checking every word and every small detail is time consuming and to the point that will not be appreciated by a reader.
And in fiction, I think that it is okay to draw that line. When your reader knows what they are reading is not the absolute truth, there is room to take liberties. While I would never have the character naturally using recent slang (although awkward use of recent slang is later going to be extremely fun to write for him) it is acceptable to ignore the fact that maybe he has not seen a doorknob that turns before. Well, I didn’t ignore that one fact but I’m sure there are a hundred like it that I did. It is unrealistic to expect an author to know absolutely every little thing about an era long gone and as long as they do enough research to create a realistic portrayal, that’s enough.
So where did I actually start this from? Right; learning from reading- or writing it seems. In research for this new character I have learned a lot of things about word origins and inventions and in reading a British young adult series I have learned a lot of new vernacular mainly exclusive to the United Kingdoms. The point of this babble? Read and learn. Write and learn. Recognize the line and keep your salt close by.
What I want to look at today is research and its influence on literacy. The first thing that comes to mind is that reading a variety of books provides for a unique insight to research in actual topics. For example, reading a fictional book set in the medieval period may not show you significant historical events- although it can- but it will show you the background behind them. The society that existed then and the ways people went around their business. They will not always give you a concrete thing to say you learned, but they will provide you with an insight into motive.
That said, take fictional pieces (or self-proclaimed factual ones as well- but that’s a whole different rant) with a grain of salt. Not all authors do their research and even those who do must take liberty at some points. Here is where I digress to writing. There is a line between researching for historical accuracy and sacrificing the character. For example, I am currently writing for a character that has transposed from colonial New York into modern day NYC. I have spent hours reading about values and mindsets of the colonial era and figuring out what words and what inventions were around or not around back then. However, I recognize that checking every word and every small detail is time consuming and to the point that will not be appreciated by a reader.
And in fiction, I think that it is okay to draw that line. When your reader knows what they are reading is not the absolute truth, there is room to take liberties. While I would never have the character naturally using recent slang (although awkward use of recent slang is later going to be extremely fun to write for him) it is acceptable to ignore the fact that maybe he has not seen a doorknob that turns before. Well, I didn’t ignore that one fact but I’m sure there are a hundred like it that I did. It is unrealistic to expect an author to know absolutely every little thing about an era long gone and as long as they do enough research to create a realistic portrayal, that’s enough.
So where did I actually start this from? Right; learning from reading- or writing it seems. In research for this new character I have learned a lot of things about word origins and inventions and in reading a British young adult series I have learned a lot of new vernacular mainly exclusive to the United Kingdoms. The point of this babble? Read and learn. Write and learn. Recognize the line and keep your salt close by.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)