*dusts the dust of the blog*
You can find my hew blog over here.
Readers, whether or not you are still there (or ever were), I hope that you have enough interest to take a look at a second blog by me.
The quote in the subject line seems to be depicting the fact that the past is never forgotten and thus, is never actually *dead*. People are discussing history all the time, discovering it, learning about it and learning from it. Nothing about the past is dead (except maybe the people who were killed in the course of time, but that’s rather irrelevant at the moment), and nothing about the ideas and information that it holds is not important.
And in a way, I begin to wonder . . . this quote could refer to the fact that the past does not define your future. Anything you did in the past could be cancelled out by actions in the future. This is a comforting thought to most, to know that the past and the future are not one and, in that series, completely set in stone. Actions can be wrong, so correcting them requires the flexibity of something that is not dead and that has not past.
The Wave seems to give both impressions of this quote that can be interpreted: that the past influences our future directly and that everything that happens has a habit of happening again, and that the future can be changed by the present and not just set in stone by the past. This is shown through the actuality that the school is going through almost the same thing — minus the cullings — that Nazi-occupied Germany went through. The book is actually quite close with this quote, since they seem to be trying to say the same thing: be aware of now, be aware of before, and be aware of soon. Because you may think that you have a good idea about what’s happening, but everyone has a blind spot.
The quote relates to American History not only in a direct, event-by-event way, but also in a broader concept. I personally feel that connecting to a certain event in history is easier than thinking about the subject as a whole, but this quote really screams out to be the reason that we study the past in schools and in careers. History is constantly being talked about, debated and argued over, thought about, and learned about — and we learn from that. We learn how to protect ourselves.
And that’s what everyone needs. Something to protect themselves with so that they don’t have to rely on others because they can easily be sucked into something as malicious and wide-spread as The Wave.
. . . or the Nazis.
All righty, this was planned to be a lot longer and a lot more in-depth, but I’ve seemed to have run out of time (oh, I should learn to put down the original fiction even if I know I’ll never write as much at any other time of the day when I have homework to do) so please forgive the question-and-answer format and please come back to read the edited and revised and added-onto version of this post in a couple of days.
Have you ever been forced to join something against your will?
Of course — everyone has, though what I am referring to is the fact that when you are in school, most of the time groups and teams are picked for you and you have absolutely no say in the matter and of course, you are forced to be in those groups. Most of the time you can pick out your perfect group where you would know that you could get everything done well and in good humor (even though these people would be your friends, since sometimes — contrary to the popular belief — being friends with your partner or group does not always equal less work and less effort, and it can produce work that is of a high standard and being in a group where you or one other person will do all the work and the rest will do nothing is more harmful than helpful . . . and I can speak from experience from when I was paired up and I had to do all the work . . . nothing I could do would make my partner lift a finger).
But when it comes to voluntary groups and organizations that you join for belief in an issue or support of a cause, no I’ve never been forced into anything that I didn’t want to do. I can stand up for myself and say no and if people keep pressuring me to join something, ignoring them is both the easiest and most effective way of making them leave me alone. Sometimes I bite of more than I can chew, but that’s not really anyone’s fault but mine.
I have my own mind and I stand by what I think is right.
How should we behave if we see someone being taunted or bullied by a group of people?
We should react the way that we believe that we should. Sometimes something looks like bullying or taunting, but it’s actually either a joke or something that the receiver is handling in their own way — sometimes sticking your nose in somewhere where it doesn’t belong is worse than not reacting at all.
However, if the bullying/taunting is physical then someone should do something though sometimes you are not the correct person to intervene. The importance in these situations is knowing when you should intervene and who is the correct person to intervene. These decisions are important and the outcome of what was meant to be your help rides on these decisions.
Should we try and get involved or should we intervene?
I think that I answered this question in part in the previous section, though I also think that you have to take into account the fact if someone is asking for help, obviously needs it, or if it’s just a suspicion. Sometimes embarrasment is worse than the bullying.
So . . . bascially, everything depends on circumstance.
(Woah, that was one terrible post. T_T Gosh, I wish I could do more, but I have so many other things to deal with and from a lack of sleep over the past few weeks, I am uber-tired and really need to catch up on my sleep. I’ll update this in the next couple of days and hopefully lengthen it, take it from question and answer and turn it into just a straight writing piece and elaborate and plan it properly.)
All right, I admit it, I am a little bit behind on what I said that I would do.
I have barely got my nose stuck into Animal Farm. But don’t blame me! Blame the friend who let me borrow Stephanie Meyer’s Eclipse since its a book that I’ve been trying to get my hands on and I really wanted to read just after finishing New Moon.
And, as another plus, I have recently discovered my new favorite song of all songs, of all time. It’s “Hysteria” by Muse. And trust me, they really are a muse — I’ve written over 6,000 more words on my story while listening to it, and it’s almost at the top of my “Most Listened To” playlists on iTunes after only 24 hours.
So, just an update — I’ll get stuck into Animal Farm as soon as I finish Eclipse. Just give me another day or two — oh, and that review may not be written up for a while since I have decided to expand it into a research paper involving both novels (1984 and Animal Farm) and one or two books of George Orwell’s essays (neither of which I have got my hands on yet).
Oh well . . . sometimes, I’m far too ambitious for my own good.
Note to self (and public):
March 8th, 2008 — Started reading George Orwell’s Animal Farm.
After finishing and loving one of the authors other novels, 1984, and miraculously finding the binding of the book in a way that I found appealing (I now have two copies of the book, one is a small, short paperback with minimalist cover printed by Signet Classics, and matches the design from my copy of 1984 — which, incedentally, I also have two copies of — the other is a hardback book, much larger than it needs to be, and rather unappealing), I have decided to read Animal Farm in conjunction with our unit on power.
I should finish it in the next day or two (or maybe even tonight . . . ) and when I do, I’ll be writing something up on the book and it’s themes and what it relates to.
I’m really looking forward to reading it since 1984 was such an amazing and haunting book and this one has been recomended to me many times. I’m off to read now! =D
(Since the previous post has drained my posting ability, please excuse the fact that I’ve used a question-and-answer format for this week’s post.)
We talked about power and all that it signifies and what it means to the world. We also began to read and think about the new book that we are just starting to read — The Wave by Todd Strasser and what sort of corruption will accompany any sort of power given to anybody. If you have a lot of time on your hands and fancy a read of someone having an (unfinished) mini-rant about things that she has been bugged about for a long time, please read this post.
We were also told to draw a “power triangle” and fill it in with all the things that we feel have control and power over us and what we feel that we have power over. I’ll try and scan mine into the computer when I have the scanner reconnected to the proper computer again. Geez, having more than one computer in the house with one scanner is a bit confusing . . . especially when only one is a Mac, the other a Vista which is very picky about what it wants to do. Gaaaah.
I learned that . . . well, actually, I realized that the corruption that accompanies power penetrates more than their initial surroundings. Again, read this post for more explanation in this aspect of this week in class.
I daydreamed ideas for my novel. Yeeeah, nothing too interesting though I really want to have a go at sketching the main character again though I think that that will fail miserably. If it doesn’t fail, then I’ll post the image on here. That reminds me, I have to sketch her apartment as well . . .
I wanted to say . . . almost everything that was in this post?
Other comments: Overall, it was an interesting class but there is so much more that could be identified with, researched, and debated. There’s just an awful lot of information and we are barely even tapping the surface of it. I also enjoyed the free writing, but hey, who does that surprise?
(I am trying to take a neutral stance on any politics mentioned in this post, since I feel that I’d need to do hours and hours of more research before I can say that I support any leader or any party.)
Absolute power translates almost directly to dictatorship. And, of course, who pops into mind as soon as someone starts mentioning dictators and dictatorship? Leaders and governments led by men such as Adolf Hitler and Fidel Castro. One of the aforementioned leaders led communist parties (the other led the National Socialist German Workers Party, also known as the Nazi Party) which begs the question: is absolute power always a dictatorship, and are dictatorships always communist or in some way unlimited in their power?
Communism is a social structure that is classless and stateless and based on the ideas of common ownership (such as a buisness with no identifiable owner but is instead left to the trustees to be run by each generation) of a country’s means of production — their labour. Many communist parties have names such as ’the Socialist Party’ or ’Socialist Worker’s Party’, which is rather intresting because even though the party that Hitler led was named “the National Socialist German Workers Party”, he openly opposed communist parties in his speeches and eventually banned the communist party in Germany.
There is a ongoing debate about whether or not Hitler was born evil. I am not going to go into details about what I believe, but the question that can people be born evil . . . and if they can, is corruption always to blame for a leader’s or a country’s mistakes?
Fidel Castro, the Prime Minister of Cuba until Feburary 2008, led a communist party. Since 1965 when he became the First Secretary of the Communist Party of Cuba, he led the country into becoming a “one-party socialist republic”. However, when you read through his time as Prime Minister of Cuba, through the Bay of Pigs, the Cuban Missile Crisis, the falling of their economy, and the US Embargo on the country, you get to see what he has done for his country in medical care, in infant mortality rates, in literacy rates. The country even developed a vaccine for the deadly Meningitis virus (as recorded in the BBC World News 1998).
In those two examples, which Party did more good for their country? I’ll leave that for you to decide, though I’m sure that we all know the answer well enough. In fact . . . I’m inclined to say that we know the answer altogether too well. Which leads me to my next point — when people and teachers mention “corruption” the first thing that comes to mind is often governmental and economical corruption. But what about the thought that the corruption has spread far past those borders?
Schools now teach a corrupt version of history. When learning about the Civil War, do we ever get to see the reasons that the South had to fight for slavery, or are we just programmed to see them as monsters that wanted to sacrifice other humans for their own personal gain? Other controversial subjects are just shied away from — some schools have told a group of high school students that they are not allowed to present the subject of the Iraq War because they were far too young to either understand or present a subject of that magnitude.
Censorship, in my mind, is a type of corruption. Has the true horror of the Holocaust ever really been shown, or did the educational board decide that it was far too graphic for today’s youth to see? There are graphic things that happen daily, all of which everyone will have to face at one time or another. Have you ever been behind a car that has run over a lost dog, close enough to hear the bones crack and crush and hear the dog’s cries and convulses? Have you ever seen a skinned and headless sheep falling from the back of a transportation truck? I have, and I would say that these incidences, although not anywhere near the horror of the Holocaust, really represent something. In my mind, the values and idea behind the act of the Holocaust and the way the people were taken is what was horrifiying, not the way they were kept, housed, fed, and their conditioned when they were sent to their deaths. Emaciation is not an uncommon sight, neither is depression or abuse. But, somehow, because it is the Holocaust, it’s a sensitive matter and cannot be shown in full.
Why? Why not let us see what you think will scar us for life? Why not let us understand something which cannot be grasped through textbooks, the history channel, Anne Frank’s Diary, or interviews with our relatives? Why tell us that we are not old enough to understand? Wisdom and maturity does not always come with age, and if we are babied and wrapped in bubblewrap how are we ever going to be able to become mature and break into the world knowing what’s out there when you seem to deem us “old enough” to be able to face it?
Why is is so bad to see something that can scare you, that can shake some sense into the unruly students? As Laurie reacts to the video in the new book that we are reading in class, The Wave by Todd Strasser, she keeps acting concerned and worried by the film. However, if you watch the reaction of her boyfriend, David, says that they cannot change what happened then. The latter holds what would be half of the perfect reaction to a video of the camps in Nazi Germany, but without the emotional pull of what Laurie feels. If they can handle it, then why can’t the “real world” deal with it?
And as the teacher in the story, Ben Ross, says: “Why was the behavior of the Germans during the Nazi regime really so inexplicable? (…) Now, several hours later, after reading through a number of books, Ben suspected that he would not find the real answer written anywhere. It made him wonder. Was this something that historians knew words could not explain? Was it something one could only understand from being there?” (”The Wave” by Todd Strasser // Chapter Four // Page 25)
I completely agree with the character’s sentiments on the meaning and the horror of the Holocaust. Nothing can ever replace being there, but the next best thing is kept from the most promising group of young people because a board of educators believes that it would scar us for life. Pffffft.
To begin ending this post, I’d like to say that I’m rather dissapointed with what I’ve seen people be interested in as far as history goes. More than half of my classes didn’t know what Hitler was trying to acheive (apart from eradicating all the Jewish people from Germany) or what genocide was. I begin to wonder whether this is true not understanding or just people not being interested in their work? Is the system expecting too much from them as the rest of the students raise their grades to replace the people sitting in their chairs, at their desks and out on the fields now?
But who am I to criticize? If no one wants to tell or show us what really happened in the events of the Holocaust with no one-sidedness or censorship, who can expect us to understand why the situation in Darfur is so eerie and horrifying?
Oh, and a good song to hear when you are thinking about this sort of thing is “Perhaps Vampires Is A Bit Strong But . . . ” by the Arctic Monkeys — I would have posted the actual video in this post, but it’s just *not* a good video but has amazing audio quality so I’ll just link to it. You can find the lyrics here. 
To finish this in a few mere sentences: I agree with this quote whole-heartedly and more. The second half of the quote has much more meaning that what is obvious: if one person runs one area of a government or a business, then their dictatorship will seep into much more than just the business.
Much, much, much more.
After another fruitless hour trying to allow a YouTube video to load and only getting around two minutes and ten seconds of nine and a half minutes, I’ve given up. And I hopped over here because listening to an hour of Within Temptation really gave me inspiration for the novel that I am working on at the moment and I’ve decided to post a little about the plot/characters and the origin of the idea. And it’s taken a lot of overcoming the large paranoia I have about people stealing my work. Even fanfiction is beginning to become popular targets for plagerism on the internet — imagine what that means for original fiction that is posted! /paranoia
*cough* But I’ve managed to put that behind me. Hopefully I won’t chicken out and delete this post later. Also, I am sorry if this is far too vague for your liking, but . . . this is all you’ll get! =P
The idea first appeared when we were covering a mental health chapter in health class, specifically on mental disorders such as schizophrenia and when I listened to Evanescence’s song “Lacrymosa” (please do not click the link if you are either not interested in hearing the song or are not in a position to listen to music, especially load music) and was interested in what the name of the song meant. It turns out that it’s a star near the Dog Star “Sirius”, I believe, though I failed to note the site which I found this information from and cannot recover it. Never fear, though, I’m trying to get my hands on it again. If only I could filter the bands and songs out of the search results . . .
Anyway, and then the perfect name for the main character popped up in Seventh Sanctum’s (Breeding plot bunnies since 1997) Angel/Demon name generator and voila! The plot, title, character and everything was in place. All that was left was . . . NaNoWriMo 2007.
NaNoWriMo, or National Novel Writing Month, is when people from all over the world take the month of November to do all of the following: loose sleep, drink far too many cups of coffee, and write 50,000 words in thirty days. Essentially, write a novel in a month. I attempted the feat with my little idea for my debut novel (aka the only one in a line of many that I feel can even be considered for an attempt at publishing) and didn’t get to 50,000 words, but didn’t fail miserably either. I was planning to go through with NaNoPubYe (National Novel Publishing Year) if I finished, but alas, I had other obligations and didn’t reach the 50k target.
However, I have decided to rewrite the entire amount that I have already written. Don’t ask why, because I don’t even know — I just think that it’s the right thing to do at the moment. But a vague outline is called for, I believe: the main character has recurring dreams which cause her to believe that she is the star Lacrymosa and has to go “home” to the star. She slowly becomes more and more schizophrenic.
Okay, it sounds weird when you put it like that. >.>
Okay, well, I’m off to go and fight the urge to write NuWho (BBC Doctor Who 2005) fanfiction and get to work!
*has stopped procrastinating about getting this completely finished and posted*
Now, after a couple of hours of listening to various styles of metal songs in a new light with my new headpuffs (yes, there is a reason for ‘headpuffs’ and not ‘headphones’ . . .) which have the proper bass levels for me to listen to songs that have killed both my iPod earphones and several other brands that I have tried, I have completed my anaylsis of “Thoughts From Within” by Woody Harrelson.
Some of you may remember Woody Harrelson from the TV show ‘Cheers‘ (I know the show since I watched Ted Danson’s later show, ‘Becker’, until it slowly dwindled from two episodes every weekday, to one, then to no episodes ever) and he now has the website VoiceYourself and has written the poem in response to the global crisis.
However, I would like to begin the actual analysis instead of rambling on about things that aren’t really all that neccesary to the main point of this post. Just as a note, I prefer poetry with symbolism and words and phrases that make you think and contemplate what the author could be saying and this poem was just to a little bit realistic and saying what they wanted to state quite obviously with a bit of imagery/metaphors/similies thrown in there for the sake of it — but that’s just my opinion.
Beginning with the first stanza, the first thing that I notice is the fact that the lines “I sometimes feel like an alien creature/for which there is no earthly explanation” seem quite . . . undeveloped and rather bland as a way of setting out an opening idea. There could be so much more done with those two lines that could make it a more gripping and inspiring start rather than one that makes you think that someone had just written what first came to mind and then refused to change it. To accompany these lines, the opening lines of the second stanza, “I feel like a run-on sentence/in a punctuation crazy world” are also able to be made much more inspiring with more editing and the creative use of both the english language and a thesaurus.
In the third stanza, the first thing that jumps out at me is — rather ironically — at the end of the stanza: “like a genetically modified irradited Big Mac/is somehow symbolic of food”. One thing that has always been annoying to me is the fact that ALL food is genetically modified but not in the labatory, yet only food whose DNA has been changed in a labatory is regarded as “genetically modified” and *evil*. Ever since the breakthrough which led humans to begin using farms to create their own food instead of hunting and gathering and migrating, the human race has decided where to grow its food and most of the time they choose the richest and most fertile spot. Doesn’t that change that plant’s genetics from one that has grown naturally where it was supposed to?
Similarly, as farming progressed and crop rotation was introduced, doesn’t that change the DNA from the crops that were just grown repeatedly in the same area? And the introduction of both fertilizers and pestdicides — that changes the DNA so that the plants both flourish in their growth and loose the abiltity to resist the insects that the pestdicides kill. After all that, over a long period of time, editing crops in a labatory is just doing what we have been doing all this time but sped up. And even organic plants, that are grown without fertilizer and pesticides, are still growing in the most fertile and promising land areas to make them the best on the market.
Doubling backwards to have a look at the rest of the stanza, I must stop to ask whether “pc’s” should be written that way instead of “PCs”. Somehow, that just really annoys me — it must be the punctuation/formatting obsession coming out. The line “‘In Money We Trust‘” in the next line brings me to my next point in the next stanza, which needs to be posted in it’s entirety for the analysis to be easiest to understand (I apologize for using the lyrics form of formatting for posting the poetry, but the double-spaced spacing between every hit of the enter key really annoys me): “Morality is legislated/prisons over-populated [is that dash supposed to be there? /supresses inner editor]/religion is incorporated/the profit-motive has permeated all activity/we pay our government to let us park on the street.“
At this point, my thoughts are all directed to the idea that this poem is pointing the finger at the government for all our mistakes and problems, and somehow suggesting that religion has managed to seep into supposedly secular leadership. And I begin to wonder, if morality is legislated, does it exist at all, or is it just a governmental policy that we all seem to be obsessed with following? And if that is true, if the prisons are overpopulated, then are they victims of justice, injustice, corruption, ethics, or their own mistakes?
Continuing on, in the next stanza the line that pops out immediately is “we all know missile envy only comes from being small”. I personally think that Harrelson, in this line, is attempting to imply that the larger countries with enough power and money to be able to use weapons such as missiles (and what they represent, such as the power and the resources to wage war when the government decides that it is the only way forward, though they are not always right) in some distant way provoke the smaller countries into their anger and resent for the larger countries and create more violence in the world.
And (I have a feeling that I may be going too fast through the poem) moving on to the next stanza, the last four lines seem the most important. “And blaming the President for the country’s woes/is like yelling at a puppet/for the way it sings/who’s the man behind the curtain pulling the strings?” really seem to speak two messages both contradicting and in accordance with the previous stanza. The entire previous stanza was basically bringing all the faults of the government to the forefront and now he is defending the president, comparing him to a puppet in the government’s hands. Though really, is anything in the government really ever just one person’s fault (due to the system of checks and balances)? It’s something to think about, at least . . .
And just as a little point that annoyed me a little was that the fact at the beginning of the next stanza the line is “a billion people sitting watching their TV”. The author himself was on televison and starred in a show. He cannot be that bothered about people watching television when he relies on viewers to make his money (or did, anyway, I’m not sure whether he has done any recent work or not). And they may be watching DVDs of the series — it all puts money in his pocket. It just seems fairly hypocritical to me.
The lines “dreaming of the way things used to be/Pre-Industrial revolution” just seem to be both irrelevant and vaguely idiotic. First of all, we cannot go back to before the Industrial Revolution, not only because the economy would probably collapse and how hard it would be to completely elimininate anything that occured as a byproduct of the revolution, but life during that time wasn’t all happy and go lucky either. There were still problems, there was still death, there was still murder, there was still war, there were still terrible things happening. Nothing in that time was remarkably better than what it is today — if anything, it was worse.
One of the last things that I’ll be touching on are the lines ”like Monsanto and Dupont had their way/as they continue to today“. If the companies were just shut down one day, and nothing was produced from them and there were no food in the stores, what would you do? Not everyone has access to either the land to sit down and farm or the resources to do so or buy other people’s surplus of their harvest. These companies cannot just vanish. There has to be planning, and change, but if they just shut down one day, then we would just not be able to function for at least a fortnight. Probably even longer, actually.
Finally, I’m just going to look at two last lines in the last stanza of the poem: “are you going to make the rich man richer/or are you going to stand your ground” Again, this annoys me because the poem is basically, in one simple sentence, blaming the rich for the global issues at hand when everyone is to blame, not just the rich.
Overall, it’s a well-written poem (most of the time) and it’s quite nice when it’s read, but it’s message jumps around too much for me to really appreciate the writing and overlook the patchy meaning. In class, we brought up the question asking whether this poem was hopeful or hopeless, and I choose to believe that it is neither: the poem is, in short, quite noncommital.
. . . and I’m going to leave it at that. =D
I suppose a good place to begin this post is what we discussed throughout the course of the class earlier today. We began by discussing why we spend time in school devoted to writing when so many people never really apply the tools used to write thesis statements and essays after they graduate. Of course, I personally will find that I will be writing all my life — I expect and I hope — but probably not as much as an essay but fiction, or maybe even novel-lengh publishing-ready work. However, in class we brought up the ideas about how writing is a reflecting exercise that makes you think and as an essential part of communication and expressing oneself.
I’m going to be truthful and say that I’m not a fan of “reflecting” on any experiences through writing, but only when we write about what happened, what we thought about it, what it could mean and how we feel about it now. I suppose that reflection could be a large amount more than that — “reflection” could mean identifying what the event means to you, what it makes you think about, and how it makes you feel and channeling that into another writing piece, and the final edition of what you were doing would, instead of being a scribbled journal post, would be either poem or prose. That seems much more appetizing as an assignment than the normal “write about your experience” reflection.
And of course, how writing makes you think. The fact that I have to think about my plots, characters, settings and everything I write is a large part of the reason that I write. I love the challenge of creating a character that isn’t flat or the perfect human (known collectively as “Mary-Sues” and “Gary-Stus”) and creating a plot that is enthralling but also something that I enjoy writing and look forward to writing as much as I would hope that people would enjoy reading it. Though it’s not just that part of how it makes you think that I really enjoy — it’s planning how I should write to make sure that I don’t lose interest in the story. I could write the parts that I want to write all at once and then filled in the gaps, but then it might become a chore to do instead of something that I enjoy or I could write from the beginning to end and risk getting so many bouts of writers block that I just give up on the story for months. It’s one of my favorite parts of writing.
Writing is a form of communication, yes, and it is one of the best. The problem is that so many of today’s teens and children are losing interest in both writing and reading — so much so that they may not even bother to read anything that doesn’t involve some sort of netspeak or it would be too “advanced” for them. All right, maybe that is a bit over the top, but it’s true. Something written doesn’t seem to have quite the same amount of *oomph* to people now that it used to. There are a few influential books over the years, such as Life of Pi* which inspired the style of poetry that I used to write my Labour Art project and Dracula** (however anti-climatic it was) that are just wonderful, but few ever reach the hands of the people that would probably be affected by them the most. Nowadays, I think that speech has overtaken writing as the main form of communication simply because listening to a speech is just . . . easier, I suppose, then reading something and analysing and taking what you think of it to form your own opinion from.
Finally, to express oneself in writing is much more free than to express yourself in speech. I suppose that speaks for itself in my case, but it just seems like no one really opposes you while you are writing, although in reality there will always be people that oppose you.
Moving off from the discussion about writing during class, we moved on to how to analyse poetry, but I’m currently halfway through a written anaylsis of the poem we read, Thoughts from Within***, so I think that I will leave that until I post the analysis as to not make the subject overkill.
The thing that stands out most about the class was learning exactly how to prepare to do a “dramatic reading” of the poems that we are working on for our Labour Art Project, and I really think that after I finish brushing up and revamping the poem that I’m working on I can really work on how I want to present it properly so that I can really let the meaning of my poem out fairly obviously (although it’s not supposed to just be blatant).
And since one of the prompts is about daydreaming in class, I must say that I don’t normally daydream — I don’t see a point to it, personally. What’s the point of drifting away and being bored when you could be doing *something*, even if it’s not what you want to do. Although I sometimes get ideas for plot points and write them down and explore the possiblities for them . . . though not just in English.
. . . somehow I think that the ‘what did you want to say’ prompt is kind of answered by the rest of this post.
To round this off, I think that I’ll just slot in a little update about Joe, the dog that my family and I rescued. He is being dropped off in the boarding section of the shelter tommorow after he got his vaccinations today so he can be assessed by the management and trainer at the shelter. He should be fine.
*Written by Yann Martel
**Written by Abraham Stoker
***Written by Woody Harrelson
