1/30/12

"How to Read a Book" (supposedly)

So my second semester of school involves the course Critical Thinking, in which I'm required to read a book called How to Read a Book. I'm just going to quote it here.

There are four main questions you must ask about any book. 
 1. What is the book about as a whole? You must try to discover the leading theme of the book, and how the author develops this theme in an orderly way by subdividing it into its essential subordinate themes or topics. 
 2. What is being said in detail, and how? You must try to discover the main ideas, assertions, and arguments that constitute the author's particular message. 
 3. Is the book true, in whole or part? You cannot answer this question until you have answered the first two. You have to know what is being said before you can decide whether it is true or not. When you understand a book, however, you are obligated, if you are reading seriously, to make up your own mind. Knowing the author's mind is not enough.
 4. What of it? If the book has given you information, you must ask about its significance. Why does the author think it is important to know these things? Is it important to you to know them? And if the book has not only informed you, but also enlightened you, it is necessary to seek further enlightenment by asking what else follows, what is further implied or suggested.
[lala insert paragraph you don't need]
The four questions stated above summarize the whole obligation of a reader.  

 Well then. Evidently this book is trying to tell me what my purpose in reading is. ._. I do not exactly appreciate having any purpose of mine defined for me, so: No thank you.

That aside, though, this book has promise. XD I think. In all honesty, I'm intrigued by this course because I'm hoping it'll help me better analyze the things I read and from there give more in-depth opinions about them. That, honestly, is why I pay attention to themes and the like when I read: because I want to tell people my observations. I don't know whether that comes from the urge to show others how observant I can (sometimes) be or the urge to have intelligent discussions or something else or all of that, but eh. I can figure out the reasons later. My point is that I'm not taking kindly to this book's attempt to compromise my motivations, regardless of whether the motivations are similar enough or whether the book is right. It's got my skepticism now, so if I end up agreeing it'll be of my own free will, thank you very much.

(Also, I'm really tempted to go into detail about the punctuation errors in the above passage. Now I just wonder whether they're there due to the author's inexperience or due to being written decades ago. Situations like this frustrate me. I don't like when I can't figure out whether the author had an excuse for these errors. >.<)

ANYWAY. Books are cool. I'm reading Eldest right now, or rather, reading the whole of the Inheritance series; I've already read Eragon, Eldest, and Brisingr, but that was years ago, and I wasn't making any analyses about their content, so I decided to reread them before continuing on to Inheritance. On top of that, the fact that it's been years since I read them means that I'll be missing out on a lot of tiny details, and I've realized after lots of time in discussion forums that a lot of the supposedly irrelevant details in these books may actually be brilliant examples of foreshadowing. I'd hate for the effect to be lost on me, so there's another good reason for me to go back and reread them.

I haven't regretted it so far; I've already noticed several little things that I wouldn't have even thought about previously. XD For example, in the end of one of Eldest's chapters, I observed that Eragon and Arya have some really distinct personality differences. When I was reading Eragon, I did my best to make guesses at the major characters' Myers-Jung personality types and decided that Eragon was an extrovert and Arya was an introvert, primarily due to how they express themselves: Eragon is heavily talkative while Arya only speaks occasionally. Even though extroversion doesn't necessarily mean a person is talkative, and introversion doesn't mean a person rarely speaks, those traits often are marks of their respective personality elements, so I based it off of that without too much further thought. So at the end of that chapter in Eldest, I noticed something interesting: When Arya seemed upset, Eragon's first thought was that she might find company comforting, but he was shocked to find that she seemed to not mind solitude. I was amazed by that; I was intrigued to find their previously theoretical extroversion and introversion being expressed so obviously. I promptly became convinced that Christopher Paolini is very good at giving his characters concrete personalities. XD

On the other hand, I had a problem with their manners of speech. Maybe there were mild differences that I didn't notice, but for the most part it seemed like everyone spoke exactly the same way: with Christopher Paolini's expansive vocabulary and directness of speech.

I pin the vocabulary and to-the-point nature of speaking on Christopher because that's basically the way the entirety of the books are narrated. On every page there's at least one or two words that I'm unfamiliar with or can't use myself, and he doesn't really bandy about; it's extremely impressive. However, I really don't like that all the characters talk with the same style. XD Eragon and Roran grew up in a small village, living on and maintaining their uncle's farm; they received no pompous education and didn't even know how to read. It's beyond me how they could reasonably be expected to have the level of vocabulary that Christopher gave them. If it were only the more noble and wise characters like Arya and Saphira who had this vocabulary, it wouldn't have been as much of a problem to me, but I felt like the story could've been enhanced if Christopher had kept this in mind. To be fair, though, I have no clue how difficult such a thing would be and have never attempted it before, so maybe he had an excuse, but, to quote the movies: "I expected more . . . well, more."

That's really only one small complaint of mine out of numerous things I love about the books. I love how much detail there is; some might find it tedious, but I just find it another impressive indication of Christopher's intelligence and the amount of effort he put into making these books realistic. :3 I love the fact that there's dragons. I love that so much thought is put into the different languages the characters speak (and sort of aspire to make my own language now); I've become fascinated with language in general as of late, so it was so interesting to experience the difference between the "normal language" and that of the elves. I love the cultural differences, too, and how obvious it becomes that Eragon and Saphira and Arya are all different species. The elves' culture also really reminded me of Japan because they attach honorifics to names (like, they have elda in place of sama and ebrithil instead of sensei and I so love it <3), and the elves attach a lot of weight to diplomacy and gestures of courtesy as methods of holding peace.

Plus, elves sorta look like Asians, right? :D Riiiiiight?
Well. Okay. Maybe not. But I still really enjoy noticing these little similarities.

Anyway though, I really need to keep reading How to Read a Book. They're about to tell me about the various ways to "mark books" to "make them my own"—in other words, they're about to tell me to do that which I've never dared to do and actually highlight and underline and scribble in the margins and asdfghjkl. o.o To be honest, I have wondered what it would be like to try this, but at the same time, it seems like it'd ruin the experience for me to write in these books. What if I want to read it later with a fresh mind and not have to worry about the notes I made previously? Or what if I want to sell it or pass it on to somebody? I couldn't do that in good conscience knowing how irritated I am to find that used books I purchase contain past readers' annotations. Maybe it could be a good experience, though—in all fairness, I guess I should try it at least once before dismissing it. But when I attempt it, it's sure not going to be in one of my favorite books unless I have a spare copy. XD

And until I do attempt it, I think I'll be quite fine with keeping my thoughts on the internet or inserting them into conversations or writing them down in journals.

Lol I write long blogs.

Onward to reading! :3

1/25/12

they say your head can be a prison~

When I first decided to use this as a blog title, I think I intended to ramble about how lovely lucid dreams are. Hah. Luckily enough though, I can use it for other related (yet not quite similar) purposes. Primarily, how hard it's been for me to fall asleep quickly.

For the last few nights, my mind ended up so occupied by thoughts about the state of life and theories about the world that it took me quite a while to sleep. It was actually quite frustrating, especially when I realized the problem and had the urge to blog about it, yet I knew if I did that, it'd only take longer for me to sleep, and it was likely one in the morning as it was. Instead I patiently waited until my mind decided to let me sleep.

Every time I board this train of thought, it's always the same questions about love and apologetics and the morality of sex. The answers should be obvious, and they were three years ago before I got closer to asdfghjkl people. I don't regret developing friendships with people and being able to really get to know them; I don't think I was ever this close to anybody a few years ago, so I look at certain moments in my life as turning points for the better. (For example, the moment where I realized to myself that I didn't simply get along with my best friend—that, rather, I absolutely adored her and thought everything about her was beautiful and wanted everyone

I also became open-minded and realized that I could understand the moral viewpoints of essentially everyone, even when those viewpoints conflicted with the ones that I as a Catholic was supposed to be following.

Over time, this brought me here: stuck between two opposite answers to the same question, knowing which one seems more reasonable but unable to determine properly if one is really better than the other.

For the sake of my own sanity, I'm going to have to assume that these questions even have answers. If they don't . . . I'm screwed, I suppose.

Anyway, there is one point which I'm firm on believing, not because the Catechism says I should or because the rest of the world insists upon it, but because I believe it: Love is perfectly okay, and likewise, so is having affection for everyone.

But then the question gets complicated when I have to define just what love is. Personally, I look at it as the choice to show absolute selflessness for a person. I believe in most cases that this selflessness, ideally, should be accompanied by knowing a person well and having some level of adoration for them. Love isn't necessarily a feeling, but there's certain feelings that it inspires.

Infatuation isn't love, though—as in, being infatuated with some pretty boy at school that you barely know. There you have the adoration, but everything else is incomplete. You don't know him all that well, and you usually can't do anything selfless for him, but to begin with the infatuation was probably accompanied by the purely self-motivated wish to be more than friends with this boy, so it was really all about you and a daydream in the first place. I think infatuation is okay in ways because I'd expect every human being to be infatuated with some(one/thing) at some point, but I find it foolish when all people do is look at their personal butterflies and say "Oooooh, I'm in love~" The answer is no. D:

Lust is not love either. There is a very distinct difference between the two. Lust is based on hormones and your own sexual gratification, and love, well. I haven't even figured out what place sex should have in a relationship based upon true love; all I know is that sex exists for a purpose and that people like to have sex once they're married.

See, just look at how my morals have changed. Whatever happened to "People shouldn't have sex with people they're not married to"?

I'm just questioning everything. But I'm hoping that isn't a bad thing. I feel like I do need to define these things for myself, because if I can't, then I'm sure as hell going to be a pretty half-hearted sponsor of these causes. ._. Nobody needs a heartless member on their team.

But to get back to what I was talking about, eh. I think lust really makes life confusing. People run amuck having sex with each other all over the place, and this part of me is still convinced that marriage is the ideal environment for it, but I don't want to entirely fault people for not knowing/believing that. On top of that though, from the Catholic church's standpoint, you're not supposed to have sex until you're properly marred to somebody, but once you're married, the whole point is to have children—guess what—by having sex.

I don't really like that. Personally I feel that sex shouldn't have anything to do with love at all, but—hormones just really don't make any sense to me. I guess it all just comes down to the natural desire to reproduce because our race would go extinct if we didn't, but at the same time, I don't like that lust plays such a pivotal role everywhere. People end up in relationships purely based upon pleasuring each other and call it love, but I don't like it. I don't approve. ._. It comes down to selflessness again, I think. If you're only having sex because you like the way it feels, then it doesn't matter how you feel towards the other person on top of it—it's just sex, and you're not doing a very good job at "loving" this person.

I don't know how to answer anything though.

And with the Catholic church, I understand that marriage should involve sex because having children brings new souls to God, but what if bad things happen to kids while they're being raised? And wouldn't it be better for that married couple to help bring each other to God and the people around them rather than bring the responsibility of extra souls along the world? I haven't found the logic yet. I don't know I don't know I don't. x.x

World, you should make more sense than this.

I wish I knew how to answer these questions but yee. ._. Until I do answer them, and probably even after that, I'm sure my mind will just continue to occupy itself pondering them and thinking of new points and trying to make rational sense out of stuff that was hardly ever based upon reason in the first place. Cus feelings and lust, even if they can be explained scientifically, eh. Reason hardly has any control over them.

Except if you're L.

There was this beautiful fanfiction I read where he was becoming riddled with emotion, so he squelched the emotions by first acknowledging them, then letting them play out, and lastly letting go of them.
Although he didn't actually succeed in letting go of them.
Poor L.

But anyway, yep, my opinions may make no sense, and there may be obvious answers that I haven't yet figured out how to reach, but I'm sure I'll get there someday. Maybe.

Lol life what are you you're funny.
I'm going to close this with an inspirational picture.


Ohhhhh yesssssss. Look at that hair. Those eyes. That nose. That mouth. That expression. :'D 
I'm going to pretend now that I don't care whether life makes sense so I can just be happy examining this lovely picture.