Because I loved the original School Of Fear so very much, I was eager to get my hands on the sequel. I was delighted to find a copy in the children's section of my local bookstore. (My funds, however, weren't so happy, given that it was hardback and I already had four other books in my arms.)
I finished it much quicker than I expected, but it took me a long time to write a review, because I was stuck trying to convince myself that I enjoyed it more than I really did. Before I explain my feelings on the book, I suppose I should give a summary.
It's everyone's second summer at the School Of Fear, and Madeleine, Garrison, Lulu, and Theo are excited to be back. Well...sort of, anyway. But problems have been plaguing the residents of Summerstone - numerous break-ins and thefts have left everyone paranoid. On top of that, a new student joins the four. Hyacinth (or Hyhy, as she prefers) is an awkward ferret-loving girl with a crippling fear of being alone.
Frankly, I was disappointed by this book. Badly disappointed.
It had it's good points. Abernathy's backstory was excellent, and the reveal of Mrs.Wellington's motives for opening the school added an important depth to her character that was desperately needed.
However, it seemed like Daneshvari got tired of the story halfway through. There's no satisfying climax. The reveal of the "villains" is weak and somewhat forced. The fact that the author kept pushing the characters out of Summerstone whenever possible didn't help - as a result there's none of the wacky fear-solving techniques that were a treasure of the first book.
Basically, the book seemed like one long trailer - just a way to get to the third book.
Speaking of the next book, I know that you need to have a mild sequel hook, but the ending here was simply pathetic. Practically nothing got resolved. I felt cheated.
So yes, I was incredibly sad that such a fantastic book had such a weak follow-up. I'd say that if you want to get the best School Of Fear experience so far, just read the first book, maybe find some spoilers for this one, then go to the third.*
*Which I will be reading once I go through the crapload of books that are piling up on my bed because my bookcase in overflowing. Never let me loose on used book sales, people.
Saturday, September 24, 2011
Thursday, September 1, 2011
Student Calls Out Rick Santorum's Bible Bullshit
I SO want to be this girl when I get to college.
There are a couple of things to notice in this video:
1.More of the "Religion = Always right but science = just silly" argument that Christian bigots just love to make. Gawker said it best: "Yea, a bunch of centuries-old bullshit from withered old men in robes and a magic book...is unassailable fact about the evils of homosexuality, but scientific findings about it are just so much silliness." I made the title about this line of argument because it pops up so frequently, that it just needs to be KILLED WITH FIRE whenever possible.
2.Notice that Santorum does exactly what a lot of adults do - it's one of the things that annoys me the most about them: He consistently interrupts the younger woman, but then, when she tries to speak again, starts whining about being interrupted. Then he gets even more hypocritical by saying "I've given you a chance, now give me mine." (Uh, no dude. You didn't. You interrupted her, basically saying "She's using actual reason to discredit my see-through arguments! This must be stopped at once!" Not to mention his completely patronizing use of "Time out!"
But what I am really wondering is...why the fuck was this man invited to speak at a college? How is a heterosexist religious fanatic EVER a choice for appropriate guests? If my school suddenly brought in a hate speech politician to present to us the reasons he is such a bigot, I would have protested the hell out of it. I'm imagining LGBTQ students in this class, closeted, and having the reasons for that being all wrapped up in this jackass that their school brought in.
Someone PLEASE tell me that I'm missing some context here, and this isn't a case of a school bringing in a hateful person to be hateful...please.
There are a couple of things to notice in this video:
1.More of the "Religion = Always right but science = just silly" argument that Christian bigots just love to make. Gawker said it best: "Yea, a bunch of centuries-old bullshit from withered old men in robes and a magic book...is unassailable fact about the evils of homosexuality, but scientific findings about it are just so much silliness." I made the title about this line of argument because it pops up so frequently, that it just needs to be KILLED WITH FIRE whenever possible.
2.Notice that Santorum does exactly what a lot of adults do - it's one of the things that annoys me the most about them: He consistently interrupts the younger woman, but then, when she tries to speak again, starts whining about being interrupted. Then he gets even more hypocritical by saying "I've given you a chance, now give me mine." (Uh, no dude. You didn't. You interrupted her, basically saying "She's using actual reason to discredit my see-through arguments! This must be stopped at once!" Not to mention his completely patronizing use of "Time out!"
But what I am really wondering is...why the fuck was this man invited to speak at a college? How is a heterosexist religious fanatic EVER a choice for appropriate guests? If my school suddenly brought in a hate speech politician to present to us the reasons he is such a bigot, I would have protested the hell out of it. I'm imagining LGBTQ students in this class, closeted, and having the reasons for that being all wrapped up in this jackass that their school brought in.
Someone PLEASE tell me that I'm missing some context here, and this isn't a case of a school bringing in a hateful person to be hateful...please.
Sunday, August 14, 2011
Study Finally Tells Adults The Damage Schools Have Been Doing To Creativity
(First things first, sorry for the long title. I try to be concise, I really do. Whether I succeed in that respect is another, less likely, matter entirely.)
Well, this new study has been getting some attention in the blogging field. Findings suggest that modern society has been reducing children's creativity, with schools as the primary suspect.
My response when I read that?
What, now you realize that?
How can people be surprised by this?
With preschools and earlier grades cutting recess and free time, how can this come as a surprise?
With music and art programs being cut and removed entirely from schools, how can this come as a surprise?
With focus being directed more and more only at math and science - where there is no room for actual thought and individuality, there is only one correct answer - how can this come as a surprise?
With school boards deeming drama and theatre classes "unnecessary", how can this come as a surprise?
With growing class sizes and crowded schools, where no attention can be paid to a child as an individual, and they are seen simply as a monolith to be lectured, and punished for failing, not helped, how can this come as a surprise?
And, most of all, with the focus of everything being on testing - making your school the top in standardized tests, and judging a students intelligence by how well they do on tests - how the bloody hell can this surprise people?!
Students, in the past decade, have been feeling the effects of these awful changes every single day. The testing approach, especially, is one of the worst culprits for limiting our thinking. For example, in Algebra class at the school I attended last year, every single day, the routine was the same: We would be ushered into our seats and do practice on whatever subject we learned yesterday. As soon as all the answers for that were correct, we would immediately switch to a completely new subject and furiously take notes on that. It was just a lecture, there was no proper interaction with the students. How could there be, when schools are cramming people into classes of 40?
If you had a question, there was no time for it to be properly addressed. Because that would take too long - the teacher had to cram in one new concept every day of the week, to lead up to the test on Friday. The lecture would take up the whole class - and as the bell rung, we were assigned about two hours worth of homework from our textbook.
This is a good model of what a high school class in a public school looks like today, in America. My contact with other public high school students across the states gives me pretty much the same results - there's no room to be creative when it's all about grades.
So, school leaders cry, what the heck are we supposed to do?
It's not that complicated. Perhaps it may be difficult in your eyes, but it is really quite simple. Look, I can even give a few helpful suggestions:
*Treat art, music, drama, and other creative classes like they should be - just as important as math, science, and other "important" classes. There are so many students, me being one of them, who don't have natural talents for things like math and science, but have an aptitude - and more importantly, a passion - for creative subjects. What do you think you're doing when you cut out all opportunities for us to improve on our skills? You're lowering our chances of getting a career in out desired field. Adults complain about how "kids these days" are lazy, with no motivation to do anything. But here's the thing - we are motivated. But not to the subjects you want us to be. Having skills in a particular area =/= laziness.
*Stop treating all students like they're the same. We are not a monolith. Everyone has their own strengths and weaknesses. Schools, right now, are focused on punishing a student if they get a bad grade, instead of actually helping them when they clearly don't understand something. More individualized attention would not only be better for students' mental health, but guess what - those stupid test scores you care so much about? It would raise those up. I know, shocking, right?
*Cut it out with the "Shut up and listen to the teacher, now here's your homework" model of teaching classes. It is helping absolutely no one.
*Reduce class sizes. This is attached to the individualization thing - how on earth do you expect us to learn when we're invisible in a sea of other people? Where we know we're worth nothing in the long run?
And those are only a few.
And another thing about this study: Creativity isn't the only thing that the modern public school system has been crushing. Let me go back to that "motivation" point for a minute. I certainly had no desire to go out and do things when I got home from a schoolday. What, with hours of homework and a day that exhausted me, mentally and physically? Hell no. And when schools cut the only classes we like or are talented at - the ones we have motivation to do - what does that tell us? It tells us that motivation doesn't matter in the long run.
So how in the hell do schools expect to help a generation of young people go out and live productive lives, when all they teach us is that test scores are the only things that matter, our individual talents mean nothing, and that we're worthless in the long run?
Well, this new study has been getting some attention in the blogging field. Findings suggest that modern society has been reducing children's creativity, with schools as the primary suspect.
My response when I read that?
What, now you realize that?
How can people be surprised by this?
With preschools and earlier grades cutting recess and free time, how can this come as a surprise?
With music and art programs being cut and removed entirely from schools, how can this come as a surprise?
With focus being directed more and more only at math and science - where there is no room for actual thought and individuality, there is only one correct answer - how can this come as a surprise?
With school boards deeming drama and theatre classes "unnecessary", how can this come as a surprise?
With growing class sizes and crowded schools, where no attention can be paid to a child as an individual, and they are seen simply as a monolith to be lectured, and punished for failing, not helped, how can this come as a surprise?
And, most of all, with the focus of everything being on testing - making your school the top in standardized tests, and judging a students intelligence by how well they do on tests - how the bloody hell can this surprise people?!
Students, in the past decade, have been feeling the effects of these awful changes every single day. The testing approach, especially, is one of the worst culprits for limiting our thinking. For example, in Algebra class at the school I attended last year, every single day, the routine was the same: We would be ushered into our seats and do practice on whatever subject we learned yesterday. As soon as all the answers for that were correct, we would immediately switch to a completely new subject and furiously take notes on that. It was just a lecture, there was no proper interaction with the students. How could there be, when schools are cramming people into classes of 40?
If you had a question, there was no time for it to be properly addressed. Because that would take too long - the teacher had to cram in one new concept every day of the week, to lead up to the test on Friday. The lecture would take up the whole class - and as the bell rung, we were assigned about two hours worth of homework from our textbook.
This is a good model of what a high school class in a public school looks like today, in America. My contact with other public high school students across the states gives me pretty much the same results - there's no room to be creative when it's all about grades.
So, school leaders cry, what the heck are we supposed to do?
It's not that complicated. Perhaps it may be difficult in your eyes, but it is really quite simple. Look, I can even give a few helpful suggestions:
*Treat art, music, drama, and other creative classes like they should be - just as important as math, science, and other "important" classes. There are so many students, me being one of them, who don't have natural talents for things like math and science, but have an aptitude - and more importantly, a passion - for creative subjects. What do you think you're doing when you cut out all opportunities for us to improve on our skills? You're lowering our chances of getting a career in out desired field. Adults complain about how "kids these days" are lazy, with no motivation to do anything. But here's the thing - we are motivated. But not to the subjects you want us to be. Having skills in a particular area =/= laziness.
*Stop treating all students like they're the same. We are not a monolith. Everyone has their own strengths and weaknesses. Schools, right now, are focused on punishing a student if they get a bad grade, instead of actually helping them when they clearly don't understand something. More individualized attention would not only be better for students' mental health, but guess what - those stupid test scores you care so much about? It would raise those up. I know, shocking, right?
*Cut it out with the "Shut up and listen to the teacher, now here's your homework" model of teaching classes. It is helping absolutely no one.
*Reduce class sizes. This is attached to the individualization thing - how on earth do you expect us to learn when we're invisible in a sea of other people? Where we know we're worth nothing in the long run?
And those are only a few.
And another thing about this study: Creativity isn't the only thing that the modern public school system has been crushing. Let me go back to that "motivation" point for a minute. I certainly had no desire to go out and do things when I got home from a schoolday. What, with hours of homework and a day that exhausted me, mentally and physically? Hell no. And when schools cut the only classes we like or are talented at - the ones we have motivation to do - what does that tell us? It tells us that motivation doesn't matter in the long run.
So how in the hell do schools expect to help a generation of young people go out and live productive lives, when all they teach us is that test scores are the only things that matter, our individual talents mean nothing, and that we're worthless in the long run?
Thursday, August 4, 2011
Secret: Vegetarianism Really Isn't A Big Deal. At All.
No, seriously, it isn't.
Why such a simple statement from me? Well, it seems every time I talk to someone about being vegetarian, if they're not being assholes about it, then I usually get a response similar to "I would go vegetarian, but it's so hard. I mean, NO meat? No way, I love hamburgers/chicken/steak/etc. And how do you get protein and blah blah etc."
Now I seem like I'm making fun of people who say these things, and I'll admit that I pretty much am. Because now I find that ridiculous. And I'll talk more about that later. But now, I feel like I need to confess: I used to think that way too.
There seems to be this perception that simply stopping eating meat is this monumental hurdle to scale - some massive life event where it's survival of the fittest...or something. In general, going vegetarian is seen as both difficult and a BIG DEAL.
But really...it's not. At all. Oh sure, it'll seem like it the first few months. You're so used to eating meat that all you think about when eating is trying to avoid meat. I was a little paranoid - I started to fear eating out, because a little nagging voice at the back of my head was saying "But what if they used chicken stock in the sauce?!?" for pretty much everything I ate. At that point, vegetarianism seems like it's about what you can't eat.
But the truth is, vegetarianism quickly becomes about what you can eat. The amount of diversity in my diet multiplied exponentially when I stopped looking at meat and seafood as default meals. I gained appreciations for unique and interesting foods. I tried things that, before, I wouldn't have even looked at, because then I would have simply eaten a simple meat/fish dish.
And here's the thing: Eventually, you easily forget that you're a vegetarian. I have gone through weeks where I don't even think about what I'm eating, and the only time that my mind registers the fact that "Oh yeah, I don't eat meat or fish" was when I started absentmindedly skimming the steak section of a menu.
And you don't worry about what you're eating. What people just need to recognize is that there's nothing difficult intrinsically about going vegetarian - the difficulty comes from other people. People thinking they can insult you for your choice, "helpful" people insisting that "you'll never get enough protein blah blah", school cafeterias that seem to think meat, not grain, is at the bottom of the food pyramid. And if, like me, you're a child who decides to be the only vegetarian in a meat-eating family, you'll most likely have to deal with some initially unsupportive parents. (Don't worry, they get better. Because soon they, too, realize that your diet is not a BIG DEAL.)
But really, there is the simple truth: Unless you have economic circumstances which inhibit access to good foods (and I know that many people do), vegetarianism is really a very simple, and small, deal.
Why such a simple statement from me? Well, it seems every time I talk to someone about being vegetarian, if they're not being assholes about it, then I usually get a response similar to "I would go vegetarian, but it's so hard. I mean, NO meat? No way, I love hamburgers/chicken/steak/etc. And how do you get protein and blah blah etc."
Now I seem like I'm making fun of people who say these things, and I'll admit that I pretty much am. Because now I find that ridiculous. And I'll talk more about that later. But now, I feel like I need to confess: I used to think that way too.
There seems to be this perception that simply stopping eating meat is this monumental hurdle to scale - some massive life event where it's survival of the fittest...or something. In general, going vegetarian is seen as both difficult and a BIG DEAL.
But really...it's not. At all. Oh sure, it'll seem like it the first few months. You're so used to eating meat that all you think about when eating is trying to avoid meat. I was a little paranoid - I started to fear eating out, because a little nagging voice at the back of my head was saying "But what if they used chicken stock in the sauce?!?" for pretty much everything I ate. At that point, vegetarianism seems like it's about what you can't eat.
But the truth is, vegetarianism quickly becomes about what you can eat. The amount of diversity in my diet multiplied exponentially when I stopped looking at meat and seafood as default meals. I gained appreciations for unique and interesting foods. I tried things that, before, I wouldn't have even looked at, because then I would have simply eaten a simple meat/fish dish.
And here's the thing: Eventually, you easily forget that you're a vegetarian. I have gone through weeks where I don't even think about what I'm eating, and the only time that my mind registers the fact that "Oh yeah, I don't eat meat or fish" was when I started absentmindedly skimming the steak section of a menu.
And you don't worry about what you're eating. What people just need to recognize is that there's nothing difficult intrinsically about going vegetarian - the difficulty comes from other people. People thinking they can insult you for your choice, "helpful" people insisting that "you'll never get enough protein blah blah", school cafeterias that seem to think meat, not grain, is at the bottom of the food pyramid. And if, like me, you're a child who decides to be the only vegetarian in a meat-eating family, you'll most likely have to deal with some initially unsupportive parents. (Don't worry, they get better. Because soon they, too, realize that your diet is not a BIG DEAL.)
But really, there is the simple truth: Unless you have economic circumstances which inhibit access to good foods (and I know that many people do), vegetarianism is really a very simple, and small, deal.
Sunday, July 24, 2011
But Do Your 'Friends" Know About It? (The Social Model Of Success And Worth)
If anyone has not yet heard of the incredible website Freerice, go there now. Really, just do it. It's a website which, through sponsors, donates rice to the World Food Program. And all you have to do is have a little knowledge.
When I was first introduced to this website three years ago, it was an incredibly fun experience for me. Since then, I've been going on daily, though recently time constraints have stopped me from keeping up my former quota of 500 grains (50 questions) per day.
And there was a feature I really liked about it: It was something you could do on your own. Even back then, before social networking was as far through the roof as it is now, so many websites relied on forcing a user to interact with others (which means having others to interact with) to actually have an effect/get the full experience of the website. But Freerice, you could go in and do by yourself. You didn't even have to make an account and log in. It was a measure of your knowledge. The little bit you were trying to help.
However, that changed months ago when "Freerice 2.0" came and completely redesigned the website. It is now no longer really a charity website - it's a social network with a theme of helping donate food.
Sounds like I'm exaggerating? Well, let's take a look through Freerice 2.0.
You now have to create an account to save your totals. (Not to mention that the total I had accumulated before was erased. Damn.) So, I go ahead and create an account. Now, there is a graph across from my avatar showing the ups and downs of how much rice I donated that month. I wonder what juicy secrets led to someone missing a day of rice, hmmmm? It's odd, even though I know that no one really looks through these profiles, to see things visualized like that. Why?
Now, below that, there's a list of my "Friends". Um, I thought I was on Freerice, not Facebook? But the similarities don't end there: After the list of "my friends' latest activity", there's a list of the groups I've joined. Yes, groups. When you join a group, the rice you earn is 'pooled' with the other members of the group to represent the group. The groups are things such as "Finnish Free Ricers" and "Muslims Fighting World Hunger".
But the changes extend beyond the user profiles into the actual 'play' for the rice itself. Now, in the original version, after you would reach a certain total (for example, 1,000 grains or 100,000 grains), there would be a cute little message thanking you for donating, and it would change based on the number of grains. That is no more. Instead, after every 10 or 15 questions, a message appears that says "You've just answered 20 questions in a row", then invites you to "Share" this on Facebook and Twitter.
I've probably made it clear that I don't like the redesign of the website. It's because it enforces what I've taken to calling the Social Model Of Success - achievements don't matter unless a bunch of people know about them. Instead of letting you be content with knowing that you're helping just a little tiny bit in the world, it says "Make sure you join a bunch of groups, so your successes can look even more insignificant!" (Okay, so, they don't say that last part. But you probably guessed that.) I liked getting that little message that admitted that you were doing something. Now, it's "Show it to your friends!" And of course, the concept of "friends" online has been long discussed by many others, so I won't go into it now, but it's another use of language to be pointed out.
And on the other end of this model, there's the narcissism that this social model encourages. Noticed that I mentioned that you're only helping a tiny little bit when you're using this website. But every few questions, the "Share this with your friends!" message encourages you to think that everyone else must be made aware of things that, really, aren't too big. Especially because so many other people are doing them. Think about it: If you 'share' the fact that you've answered 20 questions right on Facebook, you're essentially saying "GUISE! HEY LOOK GUISE! I KNEW THE DEFINITIONS OF 20 WORDS U GUISE!"
So there are many things wrong with the social model of the new Freerice, two of the main ones being almost opposites: 1.You should be able to fully experience a success without its worth being defined by how many others know it, and 2.You should be able to realize when things aren't significant enough to "share" them.
I hope I'm not discouraging anyone from using the website. Despite the design, it is doing great things, and deserves everyone who knows about it using it. But that doesn't change the fact that it has fallen into the trap of reinforcing the social model of success.
When I was first introduced to this website three years ago, it was an incredibly fun experience for me. Since then, I've been going on daily, though recently time constraints have stopped me from keeping up my former quota of 500 grains (50 questions) per day.
And there was a feature I really liked about it: It was something you could do on your own. Even back then, before social networking was as far through the roof as it is now, so many websites relied on forcing a user to interact with others (which means having others to interact with) to actually have an effect/get the full experience of the website. But Freerice, you could go in and do by yourself. You didn't even have to make an account and log in. It was a measure of your knowledge. The little bit you were trying to help.
However, that changed months ago when "Freerice 2.0" came and completely redesigned the website. It is now no longer really a charity website - it's a social network with a theme of helping donate food.
Sounds like I'm exaggerating? Well, let's take a look through Freerice 2.0.
You now have to create an account to save your totals. (Not to mention that the total I had accumulated before was erased. Damn.) So, I go ahead and create an account. Now, there is a graph across from my avatar showing the ups and downs of how much rice I donated that month. I wonder what juicy secrets led to someone missing a day of rice, hmmmm? It's odd, even though I know that no one really looks through these profiles, to see things visualized like that. Why?
Now, below that, there's a list of my "Friends". Um, I thought I was on Freerice, not Facebook? But the similarities don't end there: After the list of "my friends' latest activity", there's a list of the groups I've joined. Yes, groups. When you join a group, the rice you earn is 'pooled' with the other members of the group to represent the group. The groups are things such as "Finnish Free Ricers" and "Muslims Fighting World Hunger".
But the changes extend beyond the user profiles into the actual 'play' for the rice itself. Now, in the original version, after you would reach a certain total (for example, 1,000 grains or 100,000 grains), there would be a cute little message thanking you for donating, and it would change based on the number of grains. That is no more. Instead, after every 10 or 15 questions, a message appears that says "You've just answered 20 questions in a row", then invites you to "Share" this on Facebook and Twitter.
I've probably made it clear that I don't like the redesign of the website. It's because it enforces what I've taken to calling the Social Model Of Success - achievements don't matter unless a bunch of people know about them. Instead of letting you be content with knowing that you're helping just a little tiny bit in the world, it says "Make sure you join a bunch of groups, so your successes can look even more insignificant!" (Okay, so, they don't say that last part. But you probably guessed that.) I liked getting that little message that admitted that you were doing something. Now, it's "Show it to your friends!" And of course, the concept of "friends" online has been long discussed by many others, so I won't go into it now, but it's another use of language to be pointed out.
And on the other end of this model, there's the narcissism that this social model encourages. Noticed that I mentioned that you're only helping a tiny little bit when you're using this website. But every few questions, the "Share this with your friends!" message encourages you to think that everyone else must be made aware of things that, really, aren't too big. Especially because so many other people are doing them. Think about it: If you 'share' the fact that you've answered 20 questions right on Facebook, you're essentially saying "GUISE! HEY LOOK GUISE! I KNEW THE DEFINITIONS OF 20 WORDS U GUISE!"
So there are many things wrong with the social model of the new Freerice, two of the main ones being almost opposites: 1.You should be able to fully experience a success without its worth being defined by how many others know it, and 2.You should be able to realize when things aren't significant enough to "share" them.
I hope I'm not discouraging anyone from using the website. Despite the design, it is doing great things, and deserves everyone who knows about it using it. But that doesn't change the fact that it has fallen into the trap of reinforcing the social model of success.
Sunday, June 19, 2011
Shocking News: I Am Not PETA
I have an earth-shattering secret to tell some people. It might just disrupt their perception of the world forever: Just because I am a vegetarian, does not mean I'm a member of/support PETA.
This seems to be an incredibly difficult concept for many meat-eaters to grasp. Apparently, in their minds, one radically offensive organization represents the whole of an enormously diverse group of people. Maybe this is because their only experience with vegetarians and vegans is news about PETA's latest screw-up. Maybe they're just jerks.
Whatever the reason, it seems to be a widespread opinion that, when someone tells you they're vegetarian, you are absolutely obligated to reference PETA in some way. I have been told the "People Eating Tasty Animals" joke more times than I can count (and often two or more times from the same person). I have been asked "Oh, so you call fish 'sea kittens' and all that crap?" (Oh boy did my lunch table love to bring that one up.) On the rare occasion that I meet with someone who shares a feminist outlook, I can expect to immediately be called a hypocrite because of PETA's overwhelmingly sexist ways.
Only, of course, I hate PETA. As does, oh I don't know, every single other vegetarian I've met. And I think I can accurately say, most of the ones I haven't met. And I don't know why this is so difficult for so many meat-eaters to understand.
This also happens in a sense even outside of just PETA: People will often feel the need to tell me about other ways that not-so-positive vegetarian groups or people have been offensive/violent/what have you.
Here's the thing: I don't give every Christian I meet a history lesson on the Crusades.
I don't tell every white person I meet "Oh, you're white? You know, I heard a lot of white people did this horrible thing called 'slavery'..."
I don't inform every male person I meet about the shitload of sexism that is the world.
And why? Because not all vegetarians are the same, just as not all men are the same, not all white people are the same, and not all Christians are the same.
And let me repeat for the record: Just about everybody hates PETA. We clear? Good.
This seems to be an incredibly difficult concept for many meat-eaters to grasp. Apparently, in their minds, one radically offensive organization represents the whole of an enormously diverse group of people. Maybe this is because their only experience with vegetarians and vegans is news about PETA's latest screw-up. Maybe they're just jerks.
Whatever the reason, it seems to be a widespread opinion that, when someone tells you they're vegetarian, you are absolutely obligated to reference PETA in some way. I have been told the "People Eating Tasty Animals" joke more times than I can count (and often two or more times from the same person). I have been asked "Oh, so you call fish 'sea kittens' and all that crap?" (Oh boy did my lunch table love to bring that one up.) On the rare occasion that I meet with someone who shares a feminist outlook, I can expect to immediately be called a hypocrite because of PETA's overwhelmingly sexist ways.
Only, of course, I hate PETA. As does, oh I don't know, every single other vegetarian I've met. And I think I can accurately say, most of the ones I haven't met. And I don't know why this is so difficult for so many meat-eaters to understand.
This also happens in a sense even outside of just PETA: People will often feel the need to tell me about other ways that not-so-positive vegetarian groups or people have been offensive/violent/what have you.
Here's the thing: I don't give every Christian I meet a history lesson on the Crusades.
I don't tell every white person I meet "Oh, you're white? You know, I heard a lot of white people did this horrible thing called 'slavery'..."
I don't inform every male person I meet about the shitload of sexism that is the world.
And why? Because not all vegetarians are the same, just as not all men are the same, not all white people are the same, and not all Christians are the same.
And let me repeat for the record: Just about everybody hates PETA. We clear? Good.
Wednesday, June 15, 2011
Review Of The 2009 Roméo Et Juliette Cast CD - Part 2
And now we move on to Act 2! Or, well, the first 10 songs of act 2. I have to warn you: Though I've listened to/watched act 1 more times than I can count, as well as On Dit Dans La Rue, C'est Le Jour, and Le Duel, I have a very bad habit of stopping after La Mort De Mercutio. (After all, my two favorite characters in the show are dead!) So, the reviews might not be as detailed after that point. That doesn't mean they won't be reliable, just not as thorough as the ones before them. Anyway, here we go!
1. Le Pouvoir - And we start off immediately with a completely new song. This song is a solo for Escalus, and it really does grow on you after a couple of listens. The melody isn't all too impressive - it seems like they took the main melodies of Et Voilà Qu'elle Aime, Mort De Mercutio, and C'est Le Jour and threw them in a blender, then slightly tweaked what came out. But the instruments are fantastic - the ways the chord progressions were arranged made up for the mediocre melody, and again there's a perfect balance of electric and symphonic instruments. (If you like militaristic drums as much as I do, this song is a gold mine of them.) And Stéphane Métro - while the way he uses his voice here (very growly) is not necessarily "pleasant", it really suits the character, so it's nice.
I think the main problem I had with this song is that I have absolutely no fucking idea what its purpose is. What is he so angry about? No one's died yet... See, I suppose this is one time where I wish I could understand French. Overall, very good. I have no idea why this song is here, but it's good so I don't care.
2. On Dit Dans La Rue - One of my favorite songs from the musical. And with John, Cyril, and Damien singing together again, you'd think I would love it. Except...the arrangement was pretty disappointing. The Montagues' voices during the chorus are incredibly weak, and their part is just about what makes the song for me. And the instruments just don't pop out at you like they do in so many other versions. Overall, the individual singers are great, but the arrangement really made this song a let down for me.
3. C'est Le Jour - Another favorite. Let me say that I know every version is going to be slightly disappointing when I'm used to the awesomeness of Ez A Kéz Utoler. However, this is probably the best non-Hungarian arrangement I've heard. Tom Ross really has improved, and this song really shows it. Overall, great!
4. La Folie - I jumped with joy clapping my hands when I first realized that this song had come back. Literally. So, it's not like the original - it's much shorter, only a small part is actually sung (most of the lyrics are spoken), and it's a Mercutio solo without Romeo and Benvolio. But guess what? It's STILL AWESOME. Again I have to praise John's skills at being endearingly annoying that can come through from his voice alone. Overall, simply amazing, and incredibly catchy.
5. Le Duel - Heeere we go. This song is, without a doubt, the song I have listened to most from this show. I've listened dozens of times to every version I could find, and it is not exaggeration at all to say that I've heard it at least 150 times. So I knew I was going to be especially critical of any arrangement. And I was right. Let me state that this is not a bad arrangement, per se, but like On Dit Dans La Rue, it's a let down. A song this strong needs a powerful arrangement, and this version just turned out weak.
First no-no: In the chorus, the choir was pushed to the background, and John and Tom's voices pushed to the front. No! It weakens the strength and emotion of the song.
Second no-no: Also in the chorus, I could not hear any of the beautiful harmonies.
Third no-no: Oh gosh, this is hard to say. I mentioned that I'm not a big fan of Tom's Tybalt before, and this song just strengthens that. His voice simply does not work with this music, and he doesn't sound really emotional at all. Annoyed, yes, but I don't hear any of that deep hate that should really be expressed. And he sounds very nasal. Sorry Tom, but...no.
Overall, such an amazing song, it just needs an equally great arrangement to do it justice, and this one fell short. (I should emphasize that if you actually watch live videos of this cast, it's much better. It's breathtaking live.)
6. Mort De Mercutio - I'm not going to lie: I cried the first time I heard this song. Just wept. If done right, this song is a gorgeous tearjerker. And I teared up again listening to this version. This is the best, most emotional version I've heard of it. (Yup, right on the heels of my least-favorite arrangement is my favorite.)
John really shines in this, again. Perhaps because you can hear that Mercutio is trying to sound like the carefree person he'd always shown to others, but can't quite do it. And the choir comes in lightly behind Damien near the end - it really is heartbreaking. Overall, wonderful, and tugs at your heartstrings like no other version I've heard.
7. Quel Est Le Prix - I haven't heard a particularly "bad" arrangement of this song, and this one doesn't change that. Great, but there's nothing really special about this version compared to any others. Although, you can hear the drums a little more. Overall, great but not remarkable.
8. Duo Du Désespoir - I had forgotten how nice this song could be. Frédéric Charter doesn't have an amazing voice, but it gets the job done. Here is where Ida Gordon really shines, oddly enough. Overall, very good!
9. Le Chant De L'alouette - This is one of those songs I don't normally listen to, because, to be honest, I think it's pretty tedious. So I don't have much to say about it, other than that Damien and Joy are great as usual. Overall, meh.
10. Demain - This song I have listened to a lot, and this is probably my favorite non-Hungarian arrangement. The instruments, singers, and arrangement are great. My only complaint is that Joy doesn't sound too emotional, either with her singing or her "No!" But I understand that this is a recording and not a show, so acting wasn't really the point. Overall, wonderful!
And I'll be posting part 3, with the second half of act 2, soon.
1. Le Pouvoir - And we start off immediately with a completely new song. This song is a solo for Escalus, and it really does grow on you after a couple of listens. The melody isn't all too impressive - it seems like they took the main melodies of Et Voilà Qu'elle Aime, Mort De Mercutio, and C'est Le Jour and threw them in a blender, then slightly tweaked what came out. But the instruments are fantastic - the ways the chord progressions were arranged made up for the mediocre melody, and again there's a perfect balance of electric and symphonic instruments. (If you like militaristic drums as much as I do, this song is a gold mine of them.) And Stéphane Métro - while the way he uses his voice here (very growly) is not necessarily "pleasant", it really suits the character, so it's nice.
I think the main problem I had with this song is that I have absolutely no fucking idea what its purpose is. What is he so angry about? No one's died yet... See, I suppose this is one time where I wish I could understand French. Overall, very good. I have no idea why this song is here, but it's good so I don't care.
2. On Dit Dans La Rue - One of my favorite songs from the musical. And with John, Cyril, and Damien singing together again, you'd think I would love it. Except...the arrangement was pretty disappointing. The Montagues' voices during the chorus are incredibly weak, and their part is just about what makes the song for me. And the instruments just don't pop out at you like they do in so many other versions. Overall, the individual singers are great, but the arrangement really made this song a let down for me.
3. C'est Le Jour - Another favorite. Let me say that I know every version is going to be slightly disappointing when I'm used to the awesomeness of Ez A Kéz Utoler. However, this is probably the best non-Hungarian arrangement I've heard. Tom Ross really has improved, and this song really shows it. Overall, great!
4. La Folie - I jumped with joy clapping my hands when I first realized that this song had come back. Literally. So, it's not like the original - it's much shorter, only a small part is actually sung (most of the lyrics are spoken), and it's a Mercutio solo without Romeo and Benvolio. But guess what? It's STILL AWESOME. Again I have to praise John's skills at being endearingly annoying that can come through from his voice alone. Overall, simply amazing, and incredibly catchy.
5. Le Duel - Heeere we go. This song is, without a doubt, the song I have listened to most from this show. I've listened dozens of times to every version I could find, and it is not exaggeration at all to say that I've heard it at least 150 times. So I knew I was going to be especially critical of any arrangement. And I was right. Let me state that this is not a bad arrangement, per se, but like On Dit Dans La Rue, it's a let down. A song this strong needs a powerful arrangement, and this version just turned out weak.
First no-no: In the chorus, the choir was pushed to the background, and John and Tom's voices pushed to the front. No! It weakens the strength and emotion of the song.
Second no-no: Also in the chorus, I could not hear any of the beautiful harmonies.
Third no-no: Oh gosh, this is hard to say. I mentioned that I'm not a big fan of Tom's Tybalt before, and this song just strengthens that. His voice simply does not work with this music, and he doesn't sound really emotional at all. Annoyed, yes, but I don't hear any of that deep hate that should really be expressed. And he sounds very nasal. Sorry Tom, but...no.
Overall, such an amazing song, it just needs an equally great arrangement to do it justice, and this one fell short. (I should emphasize that if you actually watch live videos of this cast, it's much better. It's breathtaking live.)
6. Mort De Mercutio - I'm not going to lie: I cried the first time I heard this song. Just wept. If done right, this song is a gorgeous tearjerker. And I teared up again listening to this version. This is the best, most emotional version I've heard of it. (Yup, right on the heels of my least-favorite arrangement is my favorite.)
John really shines in this, again. Perhaps because you can hear that Mercutio is trying to sound like the carefree person he'd always shown to others, but can't quite do it. And the choir comes in lightly behind Damien near the end - it really is heartbreaking. Overall, wonderful, and tugs at your heartstrings like no other version I've heard.
7. Quel Est Le Prix - I haven't heard a particularly "bad" arrangement of this song, and this one doesn't change that. Great, but there's nothing really special about this version compared to any others. Although, you can hear the drums a little more. Overall, great but not remarkable.
8. Duo Du Désespoir - I had forgotten how nice this song could be. Frédéric Charter doesn't have an amazing voice, but it gets the job done. Here is where Ida Gordon really shines, oddly enough. Overall, very good!
9. Le Chant De L'alouette - This is one of those songs I don't normally listen to, because, to be honest, I think it's pretty tedious. So I don't have much to say about it, other than that Damien and Joy are great as usual. Overall, meh.
10. Demain - This song I have listened to a lot, and this is probably my favorite non-Hungarian arrangement. The instruments, singers, and arrangement are great. My only complaint is that Joy doesn't sound too emotional, either with her singing or her "No!" But I understand that this is a recording and not a show, so acting wasn't really the point. Overall, wonderful!
And I'll be posting part 3, with the second half of act 2, soon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)