Blogging About Blogs

          Should Mr. Kain's English classes blog again this year? I think the answer to that question is obvious: yes, they should.
          "But Morgan, you're the only one who cared about blogging when you were in the class," you say. "Why should we listen to your opinion on the subject? You're an outlier!" Good point, imaginary interrogator. It is true that I was one of a few people that actually did all the blogging assignments, and one of an even smaller number that did anything beyond what was asked. I definitely interacted with the blogs in a different manner than most, but I think that's why I am a good example of how good this blogging idea can be.
          When the class first got the blogging assignment, I was skeptical. To me, blogs were unknown territory. The whole idea seemed dumb to me: instead of talking about something you've done, why don't you go do something else? Who would want to read about your dumb experiences when they have the ability to have their own dumb experiences? It seemed conceited to me that someone could think their actions so important that they would keep a record of it for others to bear witness to.
          Nonetheless, I created my blog for English. I had planned to, at first, do no more than what was required of me. However, after I had done the initial setup, I started customizing the interface, tailoring it to me and my interests. "Why let something that I've already put work into go to waste?" I thought to myself. So I decided to start blogging about stuff that was going on in my life (doing exactly what I had earlier called conceited). I ended up blogging eight times about stuff before we even got a blogging assignment.
          While doing this, I discovered how fun it can be to share your experiences can be. I realized that people who blog (generalization to follow) aren't conceited, they just want others to share in their experiences. I found that sharing what I did with whoever was watching was a lot of fun, and it's something I likely never would have discovered if Mr. Kain hadn't made us blog.
          As I said earlier, I took classroom blogging more seriously than most others did. This brings me to another point: the blog will be what you make of it. If you grudgingly pump out some garbage post at the last minute for every assignment, blogging is going to suck for you. It's going to be a hassle, and inconvenience, and a generally negative experience for you. On the other hand, it you decide to grab the bull by the horns and make the most of your blog, you might surprise yourself by how much fun it can be.
          Yes, blogging can be fun. Instead of just using your blog to post your English assignments (see Brittany's Blog), which will be boring, post about other stuff sometimes (see Matt's Blog). You'll find that the more you post, the more interested in the blog you become. That's something that surprised me as well: the more I posted, the more interested I became in blogging. It sounds weird, but when planning events like Halo Nights, I would take note of how many of those we had had in order to title my blog post accordingly.
          How can you make your blog fun? Post about stuff you're doing or stuff you like. Put yourself out there! If there's something you like or do that people don't know about, this could be your opportunity to let them know. Maybe you're a musician: post a recording of you playing a song or something. Maybe you are an amateur speed eating competitor: post a video of you scarfing down some hot dogs. Me, I posted about video game nights and books that I read, along with pictures of the poker table that me and my brothers (and a friend) built. This blog could be the way that people in your class find out more about you and your interests.
          Last point: you can achieve internet fame on your blog. Notice, if you look at Matt's blog (linked above), you'll see his pageviews are a scant third of my own. Notice also that my post count more than doubles his. Correlation does not mean causation (just ask your psych teacher), but I think their might be a connection. In case my sarcasm wasn't apparent in the topic sentence, you won't actually be famous (probably). However, it feels cool to know that there are people out there who are taking an interest in what you're doing.
          Also, blogging will definitely get you into West Point and make you a super hooah Ranger Apache pilot like me.*

          In summation; you should blog, you should blog hard, you should share your experiences with others, blogging can help your classmates get to know you better, it will make you famous, it'll get you into the college of your dreams.**

          West Point is awesome, Matt Difabio is a loser, Beat Navy!


*Nothing in that sentence is true.
**Still not true.

Mass Effect Again

          Last week, I blogged about playing the Mass Effect series on the Xbox 360. I said that it's a game about choice and that your decisions have a lot of repercussions. As a result of that, by the time you reach the end of the series your story can be drastically different from someone else's. I knew this going in, so I decided that I would play through the games a few times to experience everything the trilogy has to offer.

          The first time I played through, I rolled Paragon. Most actions in the game are classified as Paragon (which is good) and Renegade (which is evil). These choices can be in conversation, where you can intimidate or threaten people to achieve your ends (if you want to be Renegade), or you can be nice and appeal to their better nature, convincing them to do the right thing. These choices can also occur through your actions. You can, for example, push an enemy out of a skyscraper window to kill him in the second game. many of these choices don't make a huge difference in the way the game turns out, but it affects your character and the way other people interact with you.

          During my second run through the games, I decided to be Renegade. That means that I choose the evil options whenever possible. I threaten, lie, cheat, and kill whenever I feel like it, especially when I feel as though someone doesn't deserve it (the more good the person is, the more Renegade your actions will be if you choose them). I thought that it would be easy.

          Turns out, being evil is incredibly difficult. Even in a video game, which is obviously not real, I felt genuinely bad whenever I would be mean to one of my squadmates. Their reactions to my hurtful words or actions really put a bad taste in my mouth. I don;t know what is is about this series, but I couldn't separate it enough from reality to the point that I could be a terrible person in the game and not feel bad about it in real life.

          For example, in the beginning of the first game you run into a character named Ashley Williams. She is an Alliance soldier like you who has been recently besieged by the enemy. When you meet her, she is the last of her squad, the rest of which had been wiped out. When she apologized to me, I told her that it was her fault and that she was a bad soldier. She was devastated by my words.

          I can't describe how bad I felt after I said that. It was like a slap in the face. For some reason, being mean to a virtual character, one that I never really cared for in the first place, made me feel rotten. The worst part was, that was the very beginning of the first game. I had promised myself that I would roll evil for the entirety of the series, but I was second-guessing my decision from the moment I started playing. I eventually gave up, realizing that I couldn't possibly enjoy playing the game in such a way that my virtual counterparts would despise me for my actions.

          Long story short, I am not evil. 

Mass Effect

          This week, instead of reading a book, I played the Mass Effect trilogy on the Xbox 360. I first heard of this series because I was a fan of Bioware, the company that developed the games. I had played some of their previous games, namely Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic (or KOTOR) and the Dragon Age games. I had played a bit of the first Mass Effect about six months ago, but I didn't really care for it. However, I decided to give it another try after I heard such great things about the games from Steve Livoti. So I played the entire trilogy last week. I was glad that I decided to give the games another shot.
          I decided that I could blog about these games the same way I blog about books because of the scale of the story in these games. The story changes with each decision you make, and the alterations cascade though the next games. Because of that, you can play these games several times and have a completely different experience each time. That's one of the reasons why I loved these games so much: you get to make your own story.
          The Mass Effect series takes place in the distant future. The first game starts out in 2183, and the human race has advanced significantly in the past centuries. In 2148, after discovering artifacts on Mars that came from an extinct alien race known as the Protheans, humans are able to make huge technological advances using information from the find. This allows humanity to explore the galaxy outside of our solar system. Contact with other alien races follow shortly, and humanity finds itself quickly becoming a major player in the galaxy.
          In these games, you play as Shepard, a commander in the Alliance Navy. During your career, you discover the existence of an alien race known as the Reapers, who come out of hiding every 50,000 years to destroy all the powerful species in the galaxy. Your goal across the games is to stop them from achieving that goal. As Shepard, your choices drastically affect the outcome. Your choices affect who lives and who dies, and they ultimately decide the fate of the reapers and the galaxy.
          The story in these games is incredible. Even though you're surrounded by tons of alien species you know nothing about, and you're dealing with a previously unknown enemy, it never feels overwhelming. The game helps you to understand things by providing you with a codex filled with info an a large variety of topics. This allows you to choose your level or immersion: you can have the world be as rich as you like by reading all of the entries, or you can simply play the game and accept things at face value with out trying to decipher them.
          The third game in the series reminded me a bit or Mockingjay by Suzanne Collins. Mockingjay follows Katniss Everdeen as she leads the resistance movement against the Capitol, and deals with the psychological strain she deals with. In Mass Effect 3, Shepard is doing a similar thing. As Shepard, you lead the races of the galaxy against the reapers, and, after two other games, the stress is starting to get to your character. Shepard feels stressed, he (or she) isn't sleeping well, and the fate of Earth and the entire galaxy is resting upon his/her shoulders. Both stories focus on the emotional impact of the experiences of the protagonists more than the previous iterations.
          Mass Effect is also similar to Ender's Game. Ender fights an alien enemy, the "Buggers," who are hell-bent on destroying humanity in Ender's Game, and Shepard faces a similar situation with the Reapers. For both, the destruction of the enemy is necessary, as the opponents are an obvious evil. But, when all is said and done, both find out that the enemy they loathe is not exactly what they had previously been believed to be.
          The Mass Effect franchise is an excellent bunch of games. Anyone interested in a fun role-playing third-person-shooter, a good story, or hours of entertainment should definitely give these games a try.

Game of Thrones

          Last week, I read Game of Thrones, the first book in the "Song of Ice and Fire" series by George R. R. Martin. I first heard of Game of Thrones because of its popularity on HBO after the book was adapted for TV. Many of my friends saw it, and they said it was awesome. Mitchell, who also heard great things, procured this book the same day I got Ender's Game. After reading it, he recommended it to me, so I read it.
          My expectations of the book were high, perhaps too high. They were all of them exceeded. The novel, already rather long at 674 pages, seems to contain ten books' worth of narrative. This could be because there is a purpose for every chapter: every section of the book has something important going on in it. Contrast this with The Fellowship of the Ring, where two chapters that span fifty-nine pages, Many Meetings and The Council of Elrond, could be shortened to a matter of sentences, and entire sections, like the Tom Bombadil and Barrow-Downs sequences, could be removed from the book entirely and no difference would come of it. You can understand why a more purposeful book could be appealing.
          The story of Game of Thrones centers around the Starks, a family of nobles living in the northern part of the Seven Kingdoms. Lord Eddard (called Ned) is the head of the family. When his king and long-time friend Robert Baratheon tells him that his assistant, the Hand to the King, is dead, Ned is devastated, and surprised to hear that Robert wants him as the replacement. Ned travels to King's Landing, leaving his home of Winterfell and his family behind, in order to serve and protect his friend and King. The plot thickens as the king's enemies attempt to secretly dethrone him.
          The perspective, once again, is a huge aid to the storytelling. In The Hunger Games, the first-person point-of-view allows you to feel Katniss's pain more clearly. In Ender's Game, the third-person perspective told you how lonely Ender was. In Game of Thrones, each chapter is written from another character's perspective. Each of the characters has their own plan and motivation, and seeing things from their perspective helps you understand the complexities of the story. Because of this, you get the feeling that there are a lot of different things going on.
          One of the nice things about this is that you don't read about a certain character unless they've got something going on. Contrast this, again, with The Fellowship, where there's a lot of sitting around and waiting. For example, if Martin wrote the book instead of Tolkien, instead of Frodo sitting around in the Shire wondering why Gandalf wasn't there, the perspective would change to Gandalf's, where you would see Saruman's treachery from the grey wizard's point-of-view. I think that this would be much more interesting, and it could be why I like Game of Thrones so much.
          One other thing that this book has over Lord of the Rings in my opinion is that it doesn't beat you over the head with ancient lore. There is history in the book, but the characters don't waste their times singing songs about it. The author lets you know what you need to know to understand the world that he creates, which is exactly how much I want to know about it. When I read a book, I want a story about what's happening as the characters experience it, not some tale from long ago.
          Game of Thrones was an excellent read. I've started reading the sequel, A Clash of Kings, and so far it's as good as the first book. I look forward to reading the rest of the books as well as watching the HBO series based on them.

Epic Rap Battles of Middle Earth

          Eric, Joey and I made a rap battle featuring Gandalf and a black rider for our project. Its format was inspired by nicepeter's Epic Rap Battles of History, which can be found on Youtube. The beat for the video was made by Jeremy Purce.

          Here it is.

Ender's Game

          I recently read Ender's Game, a science fiction book by Orson Scott Card published in 1985. I first heard of this book after watching the Futurama movie titled Bender's Game, which I found out was a reference to this novel. I then heard its sequel, Speaker for the Dead, discussed on the Roosterteeth Podcast. The discussion interested me, so, when I saw them in a bookstore, I got them both.
          In Ender's Game, Andrew "Ender" Wiggin lives in the distant future on Earth. After being closely monitored for six years, the International Fleet (IF) has determined that he is qualified to train at Battle School in order to become an officer in the fleet. Ender accepts the offer and, with eighteen other candidates, blasts off from Earth to begin his training, where Ender copes with loneliness and his own brilliance in his journey towards greatness. Ender and the other candidates attempt to prove themselves as the best hope for humanity  against the third invasion of the alien race dubbed the "buggers."
          In Speaker of the Dead, Ender has traveled three thousand years into the future using relativistic space travel (when traveling at the speed of light, time could act differently for those inside the vessel, so traveling twenty life years might only take days for those traveling), where he has taken the title of Speaker for the Dead. As a Speaker, he travels to wherever he is called in order to speak of the life of someone who has died. Ender travels to Lusitania, a colony where contact has been made with an alien species called the Pequeninos (or "piggies"). he is called there to speak for one who has died in his quest to understand the alien species.
          As was the case in The Hunger Games, I believe the perspective helped to make you understand the character. In The Hunger Games the perspective is first-person, which lets you know what Katniss is thinking the whole time. In Ender's Game and Speaker, the perspective is third person. Even though this is a common style of writing, I felt that in this book it helped to emphasize Ender's loneliness. In Ender's Game, he was alone for a few reasons. On his way up to Battle School, the head of the school, Graff, singles him out, saying that he is by far the smartest kid on the craft, which makes the other kids hate him. Graff does this to isolate Ender so he is not hindered by the others. He is later made alone because of his intelligence. His understanding of the Battle Room, a zero-gravity battle simulator in Battle School, removes him from his cohorts almost immediately. Finally, he is alone because of his separation from his sister, Valentine. The perspective helps to emphasize his loneliness because the reader can't even see inside him that well.
          The same is true in Speaker. Ender leaves his new home in order to speak for a death on another planet, leaving his sister behind once more, this time with the expectation of never seeing her again. His loneliness is added to when he reaches the planet, as he is unwanted by the community as a whole. Lusitania is a very religious colony, and as a Speaker renounces religion, the colonists find it an affront to their faith that he should be present. This makes it difficult for Ender to find a friend amongst the colonists.
          While reading Ender's Game, I couldn't help to compare it to my all-time favorite novel, Starship Troopers by Robert A. Heinlein. Both stories are about a boy from Earth who chooses to fight a bug-like alien. They also both address not only the combat but the political and social ramifications of war. I think that these books, especially Starship Troopers, are thought of unfairly. Since they're both science fiction novels, I think most people won't try them because they think that they're just stories about guys with lasers shooting at aliens. I feel as though these books go a lot deeper than any other work of fiction I've ever read, regardless of genre. I'm not usually one to take anything but a story away from a novel, but for some reason these books affected me a bit more.
          I would recommend Ender's Game and Speaker for the Dead for anyone who like science, military, or philosophy, or are just looking for a good story. I hope you enjoy it.

The Hunger Games Follow-Up

          Spoilers follow.
          Tonight, I saw The Hunger Games, the movie based on the novel by Suzanne Collins. I had heard praise for the film from many people, especially those who saw the midnight premiere. Even people I spoke to who went in skeptical came out happily corrected. Hearing all the praise, I went into the theater tonight a very hopeful man. And I came out satisfied. Mostly.
          I don't mean to say that I didn't enjoy the movie, because I did. I just felt that the movie moved unnecessarily away from the book. I equated this film to the fourth Harry Potter movie, Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire. The plot remained mostly unchanged as it went from book to film, but there were some changes made to the details that felt wrong to me. For example, why didn't they mention that the winner of the Triwizard Tournament would receive a prize of 1000 galleons? It would have taken five seconds, and it would have explained how, in a subsequent movie, the Weasley twins manage to run a gigantic store on Diagon Alley. It's a small detail, but it's so small that I can't think of why they omitted it.
          There were a few things that made me feel this way in The Hunger Games. Some of them were like the prize in Harry Potter, and those really aren't that important, just annoying. The biggest thing I noticed was the alteration of the characters. Most of the characters seemed to have different traits in the film.
          Peeta, I felt, was changed to a criminal degree. I felt as though the character in the movie lacked the spirit that he had in the book. I first felt that way when I saw the train scene. In the book, as the two tributes journey by train from District 12 to the Capitol, Peeta smashes Haymitch's glass after the mentor makes a distasteful joke about their odds of success in the games. This is when Haymitch determines that these two tributes were fighters, that they had the will to win. In the movie, Peeta just tries to take Haymitch's glass, saying that enough drinking had already tanspired, but he is easily overcome by Haymitch's bare foot. In the book, this scene served to show that Peeta had strength and vigor and that he was ready to fight. In the movie, it just made him seem weak and mild-mannered.
          Later on, still on the train, Peeta looks out the window to see crowds of people in the Capitol. They all smile, wave and cheer, and he responds in kind. He does this in both the book and the movie, but it felt wrong in the film. In the book, he looks at Katniss and says, "Who knows? One of them might be rich." This shows that he's clever, trying to manipulate the odds in his favor. He realizes that since he's from a backwater district he's at a disadvantage sponsor-wise, so he needs to try and win the favor of the rich by using his knack for charm. However, in the movie, he just looks like a dope smiling for the crowds. It makes him look immature and dumb, not realizing the gravity of his situation.
          Most importantly, I don't think they conveyed enough how much Peeta cared for Katniss. In fact, in the movie, it was hard to tell if he really did at all. In the book, they hammer the fact that Peeta is in love with Kat from the moment they introduce him. You know for certain that he's not faking all the romance in order to win sponsors. However, in the movie, they only bring up his feelings during the interview with Flickerman, and afterwards Haymitch says that the star-crossed lovers thing will get them sponsors, so you can't tell if he's telling the truth or not. Maybe it's just me, but that seemed really important in the book.
          Haymitch was also different in the film. In the book, he seems useless at first, but you soon discover that he's crafty, he's got connections, and he knows how to give you a chance in the Games. However, in the movie, you don't get that feeling as much. He also sends notes with the care packages in the movie, which means that Katniss doesn't have to figure out how to operate to get more. Lastly, the movie shows Haymitch bargaining with Crane for the rule alteration which would allow both tributes to win. That doesn't make sense to me. I figured it was the Capitol's plan all along to push the two together only to rip them apart so cruelly at the end.
          The last character whose change that I thought was noteworthy was Rue. It wasn't really that Rue was different, rather that Kat's relationship with her was not explained well enough. In the book, you find that Katniss bonds with this girl not only for the assistance that Rue offers, but because she reminds Katniss so much of Prim. That's one of the reasons why Katniss was so devastated to see her die.
          Aside from character alterations, there were a few other things that felt wrong to me. The main one is that the book follows only Katniss. All is seen from her eyes, and her perspective is the only one you see. This makes you identify with the character more because she's the only one you know to the core. However, in the movie, you see things from all sorts of perspectives. You view the games through the Gamemakers' headquarters, you saw Gale's reaction to Katniss and Peeta becoming close, you see Rue die through her own eyes, and you see the ensuing riot in District 11. These, I felt, took away from a viewer's closeness to Katniss.
          My last big complaint is that the Games seemed too easy in the film. Katniss's experience in the movie was no walk in the park, but compared to the book it nearly was. Her agony and anguish in the book seemed to be much more real. They took away the part where she's dying of dehydration for the first few days of the Games, which was important because it was her first real struggle in the arena. The movie also didn't really convey the torturous experience she had with the tracker jacker venom. Nursing Peeta back to health seemed like a piece of cake in the movie since all he had was a limp, whereas in the book he had lost a lot of blood, was feverish, and had a gash the size of a car in his leg. Finally, she didn't have to interpret the meaning of her care packages in the movie as they came with notes. She didn't even follow up on the message in the movie. In the book, she has to pretend to love Peeta in order to get another care package, whereas in the movie she doesn't get another one and she doesn't need it.
          I know I've done nothing but complain in this post, but I don't want to come across as bitter. I felt that the book was better than the movie, but I always feel this way, and I like to compare adaptations. I just wanted to note the differences in the two because, without the things I mentioned above, the movie would have been perfect.
          But I think it was close enough.

Destiny?

            In The Fellowship of the Ring, Aragorn says that his heart is in Rivendell, but he knows that he cannot stay there. Is he destined to be far away from where he believes he belongs? In my opinion, he isn't. Aragorn is physically capable of remaining in one place, especially if that place is Rivendell. However, I think that he would have a hard time justifying this to himself. He won't linger in Elrond's hall because he has a sense of duty. He has sworn to protect Frodo, so he leaves Rivendell as soon as Frodo does. I don't think any greater force is making him do this, I think he's making himself do this. He has free will just like everyone else, he just chooses to take action against the Enemy rather than relax with the elves.
          Aragorn is not the only character whom destiny holds no grasp over. Frodo is capable of doing whatever he feels like as well. I don't think that the undoing of the ring by Frodo's hand was ordained by God. I believe that the opportunity to destroy the ring has been presented to him, and he has decided to give it a shot. To say at the end of his quest that he was fated to destroy it, that it couldn't have gone the other way, is an insult to his daring and courage.
          How does this apply to real life? I believe the same thing about the world we live in. I don't think we have destinies any more than I believe that the characters in the book have one. To me, it seems like a cop-out to blame Fate if something goes wrong. You tried and failed? It must have been an angry god interfering with your plans because there's no way that you were inadequate. The previous two sentences are a joke to me. Blaming destiny means that you're not taking responsibility. People credit themselves for their successes, but blame a vengeful spirit for their failures. I never hear people crediting destiny when things go right for them, so why should the blame go there when it all goes to pieces?

The Hunger Games

       
            I first heard of The Hunger Games when I was a freshman. Mrs. Sheffield was suggesting books to us or something, possibly for our monthly reading list, and this book came up. It was a new release at the time, and she was recommending it as a good read for our age group. She gave a quick overview of the plot, which sounded appealing to me, but I quickly forgot about it.
            I heard about it a few times over the next few years as more of my friends picked it up and recommended it. I knew that it must be good because most people my age don't read that much recreationally, and it was rare that a book would be recommended to me. Finally, when I heard that a movie was coming out soon, I decided that it was about time to read the series. So I did.
            Last week, I read The Hunger Games, Catching Fire, and Mockingjay, the three books that comprise the Hunger Games Trilogy by Suzanne Collins. I enjoyed them immensely. They were all fast-paced, which was a sweet escape from The Fellowship of the Ring. I like Tolkien's works, but the story sometimes comes to a fifty page standstill, which can become unbearable. The Hunger Games lacks that sort of lethargy, as you follow the non-stop action that Katniss experiences as she is thrown from one deadly situation into another, barely able to catch her breath.
            For those who haven't read these books, The Hunger Games is about Katniss Everdeen, a sixteen-year-old girl from District 12. District 12 is a portion of the country called Panem, located where America used to be. The districts, of which there are twelve (there used to be thirteen, but in a past rebellion attempt the thirteenth was obliterated), are ruled by a central governing body called the Capitol, which, to remind the districts of a past failed rebellion, forces the districts to give up their young to a competition called the Hunger Games.
            Each district must provide two children between the ages of twelve and eighteen, one male and one female, to compete in the Games. These children are called "tributes," and they are chosen by lot, usually because no one wants to volunteer. The twenty-four tributes are then sent to the Capitol, where, after a short time of introductions and interviews, they are pitted against each other in mortal combat until only one child is left standing. The victor then lives a life of fame, never wanting for anything, and their district is provided with food for the next year, making them the envy of the other starving districts. Then, a year later, the Hunger Games begin again.
            Katniss, the aforementioned protagonist, has been entered into the Hunger Games lottery for a few years now, and more than her fair share of times. Each year, she has entered her name additional times, not because  of a desire to compete, but to earn the tesserae. Taking the tesserae allows the potential tribute to earn some extra food and oil, but at the cost of a higher chance of being drawn to compete.
            Primrose, Katniss's sister, is now twelve, and will be entered into the drawing this year. However, Katniss has taken out enough tesserae in order to guarantee that her sister would never have to, minimizing her chance of becoming a tribute. However, on Reaping Day, the day when tributes are chosen, Prim is selected. In order to protect her family, Katniss steps forward to volunteer in her sister's place. So begins Katniss's journey as a tribute in the seventy-fourth annual Hunger Games.
            I felt that these books were more emotionally compelling than most other books I've read in a while, which may have stemmed partially from the first person perspective. Nearly all of the fiction books that I've read recently have been third person, which doesn't convey the same personal sense that the first person captures. When you read the Hunger Games, you know exactly what Katniss feels the entire time, and you begin to feel the same way. When she's afraid, you begin to feel that same terror for her.
            Another way this book grabs you is that it's written in the present tense. This allows you to feel as though you're in the moment, experiencing the events as they happen. It lets you be surprised along with Katniss, which adds to the fear that you're already experiencing. Also, since the story is written in the moment and the perspective is not omniscient, you only know what Katniss knows. This takes away all the security that you have because you have no evidence to suggest that Katniss will survive until the end. You know about the sequels, sure, but you tend to forget that when you're in the thick of the action during your reading. Also, who's to say whether the next books are written from the same character's perspective?
            I have the feeling that the movie will be a good representation of the book. Unlike Lord of the Rings or similar works that have been adapted for the silver screen, I don't feel as though making a literal translation from story to script to scene would be cumbersome. I feel as though everything in the book can be accurately conveyed in a movie. I'm sure not everything will make it, because that's the way things go, but I can still hope.
           It dismayed me, then, to hear a rumor that the scenes with the Avox girl from Katniss's past will not be in the movie. If this is true, then I disagree with their decision. I understand that sometimes unimportant details need to get cut to make a film the right length, but I think that the Avox stuff is pretty important, and for two whole reasons. First, it reveals a bit about Katniss's character. She wasn't always brave, and does have a sense of self-preservation. It's the flip side of her saving Prim from the Games: she'll do anything she has to to protect those dearest to her, but otherwise she knows to look out for herself. I think that they might have cut this scene from the final cut of the movie in order to establish Katniss as a more likeable character. Seeing the hero forsake a terrified girl to an unknown, probably painful and terrifying fate leaves a sour taste in a filmgoer's mouth.
           The other reason that they shouldn't leave this scene out (if indeed they do at all) is because it's an important step for Katniss in her journey towards hating the Capitol. It's not her first step, or her biggest, but it's significant all the same. She experiences secondhand another injustice enacted by the Capitol, which leans her towards a more rebellious inclination. It's not as important in this book, but it establishes a better base for her feelings in the sequels.
           Additionally, this scene would really only require about a minute of added length to the movie: ten seconds for the introduction of the character and an explanation as to what an Avox is, twenty to thirty seconds for a flashback where you discover Katniss's connection with the stranger, ten more seconds for coming back to reality and the exit of the Avox. Then later on, you would see the Avox again for about five seconds. That's not so hard, is it? Of course, it's easy to criticize from the comfort of my couch. I'm sure that, if indeed that scene is absent from the movie, the director (or whoever) had a perfectly good reason for removing it. Of course, the scene probably is in the movie and I've just wasted a few minutes of my time complaining about it.
          Anyway, The Hunger Games by Suzanne Collins, along with its sequels, were excellent reads. I highly recommend these to anyone who likes a gripping novel about survival, and how we sometimes have to do something ugly just to make sure we see another sunrise.

Minecraft Night

            Last Saturday (March 10), Mitchell and I had a few friends over for the most recent installment of Halo Night. Unfortunately, in the merriment of the occasion I neglected to take any photos. So, in lieu of that, I present you with Minecraft Night.

            The following Monday, which was a day off from school, Mason, who was back for the week of his spring break, joined me in purchasing Minecraft. Minecraft is an open word sandbox game developed by Mojang. This game is made for creative people, so the only limiting agent in this game is your imagination. Theoretically, anyway. Mason and I died a dozen times trying to build a safe fort. Nevertheless, we had a good time playing.

Flaps

            Over the break, I flew down to Louisiana. I got a few photos of the wings during takeoff and flight to look at the slats, which I learned about in Airframe. Unfortunately, all I got were pictures of flaps, but as they perform a similar function I decided to put the pictures up.

            It's kind of hard to see, but the trailing edge of the wing is curved down. That part of the wing is the flap. It's curved down during takeoff so that the air will move faster over the top of the wing.

            During the middle of the flight, the wing is flat. The flaps are up.

            These were taken on an A319.

            How educational!

Back at Last

            I'm back!

            Over the break, my nuclear family went down south to visit my extended family. Since we hadn't seen most of them in over two years, it was exciting to see them again. Also exciting was Mardi Gras.

            On Monday, we got a behind-the-scenes look at the floats that would be in the parade on Mardi Gras.

            This is the float that my uncle rode on. Later we went to the Monday parade (Lundi Gras?). I think that the entire city was out to see it.

              The floats are better there than they are here. Or anywhere. We managed to get a bead or two...

              I won. On the other hand, I also lost because I ate my own weight in seafood and poboys in the span of three days.

            Those were the most delicious crawfish ever eaten.

            That was my vacation.

Airframe Video

            The video is up. Check it out, give me feedback.

            Here it is.

            It may not seem like hours of work, but it totally was.

Airframe Again (Again)

            Airframe, while a fictional story, is one of the most educational books I have ever read. Since the book was written by Michael Crichton, I'm not that surprised. Most of the things I learned from the book dealt with aviation. I found out a lot about how planes operate, how they fly, and how the airplane industry works. Here's just a sample of what this book taught me.
           Planes can lift off of the ground because of the shape of their wings. The top of the wing during takeoff is curved and the bottom is flat. This means that as the pane cuts through the air, the air must move faster over the top than it moves under the bottom, which creates a low pressure zone above the wing (according to Bernoulli's principle, an increase in a fluid's speed decreases its pressure). The low pressure above the wing gives the plane lift and allows it to leave the ground.
           Lift is all well and good during takeoff, but do you really want to ascend forever? No. When a plane reaches its desired altitude, you want the wing to be almost completely flat on the top. So how do you start with a curved wing and end with a flat wing? Slats. Slats are pieces of the leading edge of a wing that can be deployed to increase the curvature of the wing. During takeoff, they would be in the "deployed" position to increase the pressure differential, and during the flight they would be retracted. These are typically only necessary for large commercial planes or jets that go really fast.
           So what would happen if the slats were deployed mid flight? Ordinarily, they wouldn't. Suppose, however, that the plane underwent "uncommanded slats deployment." In this case, the slats would extend without warning, independent of the pilot's actions. If this were to occur, the plane's nose would tilt upwards and the plane would begin to ascend. An experienced pilot would either let the autopilot take over, which would allow the plane's computer to right the plane. If, for whatever reason, the autopilot wasn't working, the seasoned pilot would gently pull the joystick back until the plane was lever again, and would then begin the process of figuring out why the slats were deployed. The passengers might never realize that anything happened other than ten seconds of mild vibration.
           If, however, and inexperienced captain was at the helm when the slats deployed, there could be disastrous consequences. The pilot would probably overcorrect after the initial rise, which would send the plane into a rapid descent. The pilot might then overcorrect again, sending the plane into another ascent. Until the green aviator realized he or she needed to throttle it back slowly, the plane would "porpoise," or follow a sine wave pattern of ascent and descent. At point eight Mach (a little over 600 miles per hour, a common cruising speed), these oscillations could throw people, baggage, and any unfixed objects all over the plane, which could result in injury or death.
           That is but a portion of the knowledge I have gained during the reading of Airframe. What have you learned from your book?

Airframe

           Airframe, the book I chose for my independent reading assignment, shares a common theme with The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time: both are mystery novels. In both stories, the protagonist is trying to uncover some truth that is known to others. Both characters also encounter roadblocks aalong the way, though the reasons behind them are different in each book.
           In Airframe, Transpacific flight 545 goes horribly wrong, leaving two dead and fifty-six injured. The protagonist, Casey Singleton, is tasked with finding out why this happened. The plane involved was made by the company that Casey works for, Norton Aircraft, and she needs to find out if there's something wrong with the plane before the company's new deal with China falls through. This is similar to Christopher's mission in Curious Incident, where he solves the murder of his neighbor's dog Wellington. Both characters are trying to solve mysteries involving a death, and both have people they know conspiring against them, trying to stop them from discovering the truth.
           However, despite their many similarities, there are some major differences between the books as well. In Airframe, Casey is told to find the answer to the mystery. In Curious Incident, Christopher decides to solve the case on his own: no one is telling him to do so. Another difference is that Christopher's journey is not over when he solves the murder, as its solution is only a piece of a larger plot. When Casey solves her mystery, her story is finished. The importance of the mystery is different in both, as is the character's motivation to solve it.
           While there are a few differences between the stories, they are more like than unlike. As they are both stories about solving a mystery, they share a similar story arc. They both have clues, red herrings, villains, and all the other things that make a mystery novel exciting. Airframe and Curious Incident are both thrilling detective stories.