Blog Conclusion

I don't know. I kind of have mixed feelings about this "genre" of writing. On one level, I dislike the idea of sharing things with everyone who has access to the internet. On another, I kind of enjoy the idea of keeping a journal online, since it is much easier to access, store, and add personal design. Honestly, I don't think that I would ever keep a blog where people I knew had access to it. I'm a little weird: I wouldn't really care if a bunch of strangers were reading what I wrote, but I don't want anyone close to me to do it.

I don't know if I really learned anything specific from doing this blog, but it was an interesting experience. I don't exactly hate blogging, as I stated in a previous post, but I don't love it, either.

Peer Revision

One of the most frustrating parts about writing class is peer revision. Not that I don't appreciate criticism. In fact, I love having people tell me what I need to fix in my papers, especially when I think that there is something that I need to fix. No, what I dislike about peer revision is that there is so rarely any real "revising" occurring.

So often during peer revisions - both in high school and in college - I finish looking over my partner's paper with a long list of suggestions to give to them, where some things don't seem to fit, where something could be added, grammar mistakes, etc. But then they turn to me and say "Oh, your paper looks good." That's it. No suggestions, no comments on how or why it was good or where I could possibly make it better. It's just... "good."

Now, first off, this doesn't help me at all. For all I know, they didn't even read my paper. They could have simply been staring at the sheets for ten minutes thinking about their next class, the television show that's coming on tonight, or their date that night. Without some sort of feedback, I don't know how my paper actually holds up. Second, they tell me that my paper is good, and now I have to rattle off this long list of why their paper isn't? I never actually phrase it that way, and I rarely think it, but that is how it sounds coming right after they complement mine. In fact, in situations like this, it is actually worse if they tell me why my paper is good.

Anyways, I don't really care if you thought my paper was absolutely amazing, it is far more helpful to me (and it makes me much less concerned) if peer reviewers actually tell me something that wasn't "good" about my paper. Tell me something that I need to fix, even if the rest of the paper is perfect. Even if it is minor, I would rather hear about it than about how my paper has absolutely no issues whatsoever. That actually makes me freak out a little (unless the teacher says it) thinking that there is something major that we are both missing.

It really is a lot more comforting and satisfying when peer reviewers really try to find something that needs to be fixed in a paper. That is what I always try to do when I am reviewing others, even if it makes me feel a little harsh sometimes.

Authors, Part 2

So, having read some of Brandon Sanderson's novels, I assumed that I had a good take on his writing and authoring abilities. I was wrong. Horribly, horribly wrong.

Sanderson is also finishing my all-time favorite series, "The Wheel of Time," after the original author died a few years ago. Sadly, he has not done as well in this series as he has in his own books. Now, I do not know for sure whether or not what I am complaining about was done by Sanderson or by the original author, but it just feels like Sanderson's work. The series is extremely long - fourteen books total - and Sanderson began working on it in the twelfth book. The entire series is about the struggles of humanity against an encroaching evil that is threatening to break loose and destroy the world. A prophesied hero has been born in the form of a simple farmer who finds himself running for his life from the forces of said evil, ignorant of why. He and several of his village friends find themselves caught up in something huge, struggling to reconcile themselves with the duties and responsibilities that have been placed upon them. They fight, they love, and they do their best to put aside their own desires in order to do what must be done. They struggle and sacrifice so much - both externally and internally, fighting tyrants, monsters, fear, and madness - and it fosters a deep connection with the characters. Even more than in Sanderson's novels, these characters are real. They have given up so much to save the world, everything has to end well. And you know that through all the struggle and heartache, the story will end well. Good will prevail and evil will be vanquished. Humanity will be saved.

But then, Sanderson comes in and tells you that you were wrong. He slaps the readers in the face with a horrifying scene looking into the future. Did good ultimately prevail? Sort of. The force of evil was defeated and the very fabric of the universe was saved, but nothing else is right. Brutal invaders have conquered the entire world, enslaving thousands with horrible devices that give their slaves less freedom than a dog. And they might as well be dogs, pets to be rewarded or punished with impunity. The great nomad civilization - fiercely loyal to the main character and the main reason for his success, who style their lives on honor and duty to their people - have been reduced to scavengers, rummaging through the discards of passing travelers or murdering them for their food. In effect, Sanderson is telling his readers that the entire story was pointless. Humanity survives, but only to be enslaved by merciless tyrants.

This one scene, only ten pages long in a series of over ten thousand pages, nearly convinced me to just stop. What was the point? The ending wasn't even remotely happy. No matter how the series itself ends, I will never be able to forget that scene. There is not "if" about the future, no chance that it can change. It is inevitable, and so the books were pointless. Why read them if they are going to end so horribly, especially after they developed such a strong emotional bond between the readers and the characters? That one scene was, in my opinion, the biggest literary blunder of all time.There is nothing that I can think of that can possible repair this mistake.

The most important part of a book is the author. He or she will make or break the story, and can take the worst idea in the world and make it into something amazing. Unfortunately, an author can also do the exact opposite.

Authors, Part 1

One of the greatest joys in life, in my own personal opinion, is reading. I love to sit down and read a good book for hours on end. I enjoy reading so much, that I have actually lightly considered becoming a librarian just so I could spend my entire day with books. I probably wouldn't make a very good librarian, though - I would spend too much of my time reading the books and not enough time librarianing.

The two most important factors of a good novel are the author and the subject, and let's be honest - the second one is kind of optional. I have read so many books whose plot lines sound absolutely ridiculous. The "Furies of Calderon" series, for instance, was allegedly a combination of the Roman legions and Pokemon, which doesn't sound like it would make for a very good story. But good authors can turn even the most unusual ideas into amazing, enthralling tales. The author is truly what makes or breaks a book.

Unfortunately, even good authors can make mistakes in their writing. One author that I really like is Brandon Sanderson, a creative writing professor here at BYU. He is an amazing author: he comes up with amazing stories and wonderful characters, but his greatest skill (in my opinion) is his ability to create entirely new worlds in amazing detail. All of his books take place in entirely foreign settings, with strange plants and animals and even stranger cultures. Of his books that I have read, all are based in some horribly devastated land where life has had to adapt to harsh conditions in order to survive. His "world-building," as it is called, is a large part of what draws me into his books.

Another major aspect of Sanderson's writing is the fact that the stories are far more realistic than many. Yes, the protagonists win, the forces of evil are defeated and humanity survives, but there is a cost. Central characters do die, there are casualties, and the books don't lead directly into a "happily-ever-after" ending. In his "Mistborn" series, for instance, one of the two main characters dies in the very first book - martyrs himself, in fact. And, by the end of the series the majority of the main and central characters have died and an entire species has committed mass suicide. Sounds depressing, right? It is. But it makes it that much more interesting, because it is more real.

Brandon Sanderson is able to turn a set of depressing events into an interesting and engaging story that leaves you satisfied and happy at the end. That is a mark of a good author. Not everyone can do this - some depressing stories are just that: depressing. It doesn't matter what the author does, they just can't make the story good. This is why I kept reading Sanderson's other books.

To be continued...

Lucid Dreams

So, I had an interesting discussion with my roommates a few weeks ago about lucid dreams. I had heard about them before - dreams where you are aware that you are dreaming, so you are able to control them - but I had never had one before. My roommates talked about a few that they had, and, I have to tell you, they sound pretty cool.

Ever since then, I have really wanted to have one. Unfortunately, they aren't something that you can just will to happen. But then, one night I was dreaming and I started thinking about lucid dreams... while I was dreaming. It was a little weird, especially when I realized that I was actually dreaming! I realized that I was actually having a lucid dream right then, and I was able to control it to an extent. I made a steering wheel fly out of a passing car and float over to me. Then I did some other weird stuff, and I think I eventually settled back into a normal dream.

This was a really cool experience, and I wish that I could repeat it.

Blogging

I have come to a conclusion. I hate blogging.

This comes from a number of reasons, and not just because I procrastinated doing the mandatory blog posts until the last minute, leaving me with an impossible amount to do in a very short time. The very idea of a blog just seems... bland... to me.

Generally, I have nothing of interest that I would share on a blog, and anything that would be of interest is usually of a personally nature, which I do not feel comfortable putting online for just anyone to read. I honestly do not find this kind of thing enjoyable. It is like a facebook where all your statuses have to be ridiculously long and anyone can come along and read it.

I don't find this enjoyable, and I don't see a point to it. I don't mean to sound angry or anything, but that is how it is.

Sustaining

Today in church (along with the usual Easter topics) we had a lesson on sustaining our leaders. It was a very good lesson, and a little enlightening. So often, during our weekly meetings, we are asked to sustain our leaders or our fellow members in their callings, but it seems that we very rarely think about what we are actually doing. When we raise our hands to sustain them, we are showing that we will be willing to support them in their callings and do whatever we can to help them fulfill their responsibilities.

Do we realize this? Do we know what we are committing ourselves to when we raise our hands? We are committing to always support them and go along with their decisions in their callings, even if we dislike them. I have heard so many people complain about leaders and teachers in the church who they don't agree with or don't think well of, and yet they agreed to sustain them along with the rest of the ward. We need to be aware of what we are committing to, and we need to live up to that commitment.

I know that I have had problems with this, and I am trying to fix that and truly sustain my leaders and teachers.