One can lie to the entire world but even then, a mirror won't lie.
Right now I am still reading The Lovely Bones by Alice Sebold. I have just read to the part where Mr. Harvey, the murderer of Susie and many other women, is starting to have his memories of past murders catch up to him. Previously seen, Mr. Harvey seemed to be able to keep these memories at bay but now, he is no longer able to. This idea that the memories of things that he did that were buried for so long could still resurface, intrigued me and that is what I will be blogging about today. How, even if the entire world sees a lie, the hardest one to fool is one's own self.
Mr. Harvey did actually quite a good job with keeping memories of his murders away. Killing so many women yet still being able to continue living normally (or normal for him) for so long is rather "amazing" (in a bad way that is). Still though, after so many years of not minding the horrible things he did, those things have come back to haunt him. It is his own fault really, killing people and then also thinking that he could get away with it. In fact he did technically, but the truth was that his mind, did not. Now though, there's no turning back from this rewind of episodes in his mind that he most definitely deserves to watch.
I am always amazed at those who believe that they can lie to themselves. Or perhaps not amazed but amused. Of course, there are people who can accomplish this but a very large portion of the world cannot. I do not understand though the point of why one would lie to themselves. Just because one denies doing something or even successfully forgets it, that doesn't mean they didn't do it. Even if no one remembered an event, the mark it leaves will still be there. An action done cannot be erased for someone or "something" will always know of it no matter how well it is hidden.
It is actually very scary that some people have gotten to the point where they themselves cannot stand what they did. How strong a rage or hate must be to cause one to commit something so horrible that it is worth forgetting to the person them self. That it is so morally wrong that even their own mind would not approve of such actions. How is it possible that one can choose to do something that even they them self is disgusted with and wants to forget? And the worst part is that perhaps it isn't "how is it possible", but "why must it be".
I suppose that no one wants to live a life in the horrors of one's own actions so why some people still do or choose to will always be a mystery to me. What I do know though is that I will not be one of those people.
Wednesday, May 8, 2013
Tuesday, April 30, 2013
The Train of Grief
Grief is like a train that runs on and on. There are many stops where people can board, but none where they can step off.
I am reading a book called The Lovely Bones by Alice Sebold. It is a very emotional book that talks about the effect of the death of a 14 year old girl on the people around her. The book is narrated by the girl as she watches from heaven as the years pass by. A main point of the book focuses on the grief of her family and how, even after much time has passed, the impact of her death is still there. This idea of grief, on how it is actually never ending, is what I will be blogging about today.
The book started with the year of 1973 when the 14 year old girl, Susie Salmon, was murdered. Up to where I have read, the story has now moved to the year 1981 (or perhaps 1982). Through the narration of 8 years the people around Susie change drastically but through it all, grief still hangs over them. Susie's father who was perhaps affected the most, remains in a sensitive state where the slightest trigger can send him into misery. Susie's sister and brother who although seems better off than their father, still has to cope with the "aftermath" of her death and Susie's friends, can still be reminded of what had happened to her. Susie's mother also left the family to live by herself after her daughter's death. Though the characters act like they have moved on slightly, it is still very obvious in the book that the family has not moved on, and nor has Susie. She (though she was the one who died) is stuck "grieving" her own death. What I mean by this is that she too dwells in the past of being able to know what happens on earth even though it has already been 8 years since she arrived in heaven. She is obsessed with the events on earth and is therefore just as stuck as the rest of her family.
It amazed me how this was true, that even in 8 years, Susie and the people around her are still grieving. Some of the family members such as Susie's sister and brother, and Susie's friends, seem to have learned to enjoy the "ride" but they too, have not, and will not, be able to get off this "train". This though, is the same with anyone who's loved one dies. It is a one way ticket since the journey grief takes, is everlasting and though the pain may lessen, it never fully unlatches itself. The train only stops for the passenger, when they too "receive their own train".
For me, I'm not sure that I will ever be able to enjoy a ride on this train. To be able to take in the view of life rolling on out the windows and smile. Perhaps I would need to lighten my luggage but wouldn't be able to, being unable to throw away the self accusations of blame and the feelings of anger on why a person had to die, that were in my bag. Perhaps I would also never be able to accept that there is, for some reason, no service on this train, when I tried to dial the people that I missed the most. But most of all, I think what I would have the hardest time accepting, is knowing that I will have to board multiple trains while never leaving the ones I already rode.
Everyone has a reserved ticket since everyone must board one of these trains at some point in their life. It is an inevitable ride that depending on one's coping skills, can either be a prison or enjoyable. In fact, these trains are so "magnificent" that they can turn into an enjoyable ride even if it started out as a prison. It is the person's own choice though, for how they would like to ride this train.
Everything depends on the passenger for this train that is only, "all aboard".
Please feel free to comment.
I am reading a book called The Lovely Bones by Alice Sebold. It is a very emotional book that talks about the effect of the death of a 14 year old girl on the people around her. The book is narrated by the girl as she watches from heaven as the years pass by. A main point of the book focuses on the grief of her family and how, even after much time has passed, the impact of her death is still there. This idea of grief, on how it is actually never ending, is what I will be blogging about today.
The book started with the year of 1973 when the 14 year old girl, Susie Salmon, was murdered. Up to where I have read, the story has now moved to the year 1981 (or perhaps 1982). Through the narration of 8 years the people around Susie change drastically but through it all, grief still hangs over them. Susie's father who was perhaps affected the most, remains in a sensitive state where the slightest trigger can send him into misery. Susie's sister and brother who although seems better off than their father, still has to cope with the "aftermath" of her death and Susie's friends, can still be reminded of what had happened to her. Susie's mother also left the family to live by herself after her daughter's death. Though the characters act like they have moved on slightly, it is still very obvious in the book that the family has not moved on, and nor has Susie. She (though she was the one who died) is stuck "grieving" her own death. What I mean by this is that she too dwells in the past of being able to know what happens on earth even though it has already been 8 years since she arrived in heaven. She is obsessed with the events on earth and is therefore just as stuck as the rest of her family.
It amazed me how this was true, that even in 8 years, Susie and the people around her are still grieving. Some of the family members such as Susie's sister and brother, and Susie's friends, seem to have learned to enjoy the "ride" but they too, have not, and will not, be able to get off this "train". This though, is the same with anyone who's loved one dies. It is a one way ticket since the journey grief takes, is everlasting and though the pain may lessen, it never fully unlatches itself. The train only stops for the passenger, when they too "receive their own train".
For me, I'm not sure that I will ever be able to enjoy a ride on this train. To be able to take in the view of life rolling on out the windows and smile. Perhaps I would need to lighten my luggage but wouldn't be able to, being unable to throw away the self accusations of blame and the feelings of anger on why a person had to die, that were in my bag. Perhaps I would also never be able to accept that there is, for some reason, no service on this train, when I tried to dial the people that I missed the most. But most of all, I think what I would have the hardest time accepting, is knowing that I will have to board multiple trains while never leaving the ones I already rode.
Everyone has a reserved ticket since everyone must board one of these trains at some point in their life. It is an inevitable ride that depending on one's coping skills, can either be a prison or enjoyable. In fact, these trains are so "magnificent" that they can turn into an enjoyable ride even if it started out as a prison. It is the person's own choice though, for how they would like to ride this train.
Everything depends on the passenger for this train that is only, "all aboard".
Please feel free to comment.
Wednesday, March 13, 2013
Deceiving Hallucinations
Is the love that Romeo feels true, or merely a deceiving hallucination?
Reading the story of the famous lovers Romeo and Juliet, a large topic has come up over the depth of Romeo's feelings. In fact this debate has lead me to think that he is the most "intriguing" character in the book so far. Right now Romeo seems to me as either very love-struck or very desperate and impulsive and there is evidence on both of these sides of him. It is strange that one would be able to fall in love so quickly but even stranger is that I do believe that what he feels is true. Because of this, today I will be showing my point of view as to how it is not his eyes, his desperateness, or even completely the stars, that has brought him and Juliet together.
First of all, on the very first page of the play, there is already an important piece of evidence that he is truly (or has truly become) in love with Juliet. What I am referring to is the extremely straightforward line of the prologue, line 6: "A pair of star-crossed lovers take their life". Right there Shakespeare has already stated clearly that they are lovers. Not only that but if Romeo weren't truly in love with Juliet, why would he take his life? Even a lover isn't worth that price. If you agreed with the sentence before that I wrote in bold then you would be agreeing that even lovers aren't worth one's own life which would prove that Romeo loves Juliet so much that she isn't even the common lover, since he is so in love with her that her "death" is worth his suicide. If you disagreed then you would be agreeing that lovers are worth one's own life which would also mean that he died for her because of his love which would prove his sincerity. Either way, it would still show that his love is true.
Although many people would consider Romeo rash for his actions, there are times when things cannot be judged. An example would be line 100 of act 2, scene 4: "O, let us hence. I stand on sudden haste." This happens when the friar (Friar Lawrence) agrees to marry Romeo and Juliet and Romeo wants to hurry to get married. To many people it would make sense that Romeo would seem impulsive but being impulsive doesn't mean that his love isn't true. I'm not saying that he absolutely couldn't be loving Juliet because of her looks or the fact that he seems to think that he needs to love someone but then again, if that could be true, can't his love for Juliet be as well? Love is nothing but a word, a noun that has four letters, but the actions done because of it show the meaning of this emotion. I don't see how one can judge the actions of a person and say that their love isn't true if there is no such thing as a standard for love.
In conclusion, Romeo has a split personality. Not the type in the mind but as viewed in the book. I do not honestly find a big deal out of this "controversy" for I believe that if I read this story without judgemental views, I would be able to see the bigger picture of the play. The morals about hate and violence and things that could but weren't prevented. Why does it matter whether or not Romeo's love is true? People would still die, grief would still come and his love wouldn't have changed anything. Although I believe that he did love Juliet, if I found out that he didn't, it wouldn't matter much since the hate between the Capulets and Montagues would still be there whether love was present or not and the truth is that it is easier to ignore love than hate. It is the hate of these two families, the misunderstandings and unwillingness to forgive, that killed these two "lovers". And perhaps in the end, the reason why Romeo is to me, the most interesting character is because his "not-so-important" actions have made such an impact that people have forgotten the rest of the play.
So is it really him that has been deceived, or us?
Reading the story of the famous lovers Romeo and Juliet, a large topic has come up over the depth of Romeo's feelings. In fact this debate has lead me to think that he is the most "intriguing" character in the book so far. Right now Romeo seems to me as either very love-struck or very desperate and impulsive and there is evidence on both of these sides of him. It is strange that one would be able to fall in love so quickly but even stranger is that I do believe that what he feels is true. Because of this, today I will be showing my point of view as to how it is not his eyes, his desperateness, or even completely the stars, that has brought him and Juliet together.
First of all, on the very first page of the play, there is already an important piece of evidence that he is truly (or has truly become) in love with Juliet. What I am referring to is the extremely straightforward line of the prologue, line 6: "A pair of star-crossed lovers take their life". Right there Shakespeare has already stated clearly that they are lovers. Not only that but if Romeo weren't truly in love with Juliet, why would he take his life? Even a lover isn't worth that price. If you agreed with the sentence before that I wrote in bold then you would be agreeing that even lovers aren't worth one's own life which would prove that Romeo loves Juliet so much that she isn't even the common lover, since he is so in love with her that her "death" is worth his suicide. If you disagreed then you would be agreeing that lovers are worth one's own life which would also mean that he died for her because of his love which would prove his sincerity. Either way, it would still show that his love is true.
Although many people would consider Romeo rash for his actions, there are times when things cannot be judged. An example would be line 100 of act 2, scene 4: "O, let us hence. I stand on sudden haste." This happens when the friar (Friar Lawrence) agrees to marry Romeo and Juliet and Romeo wants to hurry to get married. To many people it would make sense that Romeo would seem impulsive but being impulsive doesn't mean that his love isn't true. I'm not saying that he absolutely couldn't be loving Juliet because of her looks or the fact that he seems to think that he needs to love someone but then again, if that could be true, can't his love for Juliet be as well? Love is nothing but a word, a noun that has four letters, but the actions done because of it show the meaning of this emotion. I don't see how one can judge the actions of a person and say that their love isn't true if there is no such thing as a standard for love.
In conclusion, Romeo has a split personality. Not the type in the mind but as viewed in the book. I do not honestly find a big deal out of this "controversy" for I believe that if I read this story without judgemental views, I would be able to see the bigger picture of the play. The morals about hate and violence and things that could but weren't prevented. Why does it matter whether or not Romeo's love is true? People would still die, grief would still come and his love wouldn't have changed anything. Although I believe that he did love Juliet, if I found out that he didn't, it wouldn't matter much since the hate between the Capulets and Montagues would still be there whether love was present or not and the truth is that it is easier to ignore love than hate. It is the hate of these two families, the misunderstandings and unwillingness to forgive, that killed these two "lovers". And perhaps in the end, the reason why Romeo is to me, the most interesting character is because his "not-so-important" actions have made such an impact that people have forgotten the rest of the play.
So is it really him that has been deceived, or us?
Thursday, March 7, 2013
The Truth About Roses
With petals so fair and a fragrance so sweet, still has its danger where its many thorns meet.
That is my interpretation of the theme "love", especially young love, in The Tragedy of Romeo and Juliet by William Shakespeare. Like the flower most commonly related to romance, "love" is very similar to the rose. Not only are they alike in their beauty, but their hidden dangers as well. As can be seen from different characters, love has many sides; it is deep and entrancing for Romeo, wild and free for Mercutio, and perhaps light and innocent for young Juliet. All these views reflect the attractive area of love but as the name of the play suggests, this story won't dwell long on love's petals. My blog post today will be about the many sides of love and its many, many, thorns.
Like the rose, love is very captivating and to many, may be the most beautiful thing in the world, but is it really? Of course, one side of love is very beautiful. With books, songs, poems, and even entire landmarks (ex. The Eiffel Tower) dedicated and centering around love, there is no doubt that this emotion has quite an impact on the world. And perhaps, when something becomes so powerful, it can become dangerous. It isn't a secret to readers that both Romeo and Juliet die in the story, and neither is the fact that love drove them to their graves, but unfortunately, to these two star-crossed lovers, it was. Indeed there are many sides of love in the story and they all show up and make a difference in the story line. Mercutio's wild freedom perspective is shown in the impulsive actions of Romeo and Juliet; Juliet's innocent view of love takes part to draw these two teenagers together, and finally, the depth of Romeo's opinion reveals itself in the desperate misery that took their lives.
In a way, like the petals of a rose, this choice of death over being separated is beautiful. On the other hand though, like the small pricks of thorns when being too close to the beauty of the rose, being too close to the enticing flower of love has made it so that it wasn't just the petals that were red, but the dagger of Romeo as well. Perhaps it was blind love that drove them together, charm and good looks, but would a pretty visage lead to suicide? Living a life with the direct of Cupid seems fun, until one realizes that the Cupid's arrow, is still an arrow.
It is sad to read the story of Romeo and Juliet and not feel helpless as their lives tick away without their knowledge. It is like watching a horror movie and seeing the monster behind the protagonist and not being able to warn him. Ironically, the silent killer in the story of Romeo and Juliet, is not a monster at all, but technically, an angel. Knowing that what these lovers cherished most, is what will lead them to their deaths is indeed, like the title, a tragedy.
Though the smell of roses is mesmerizing, if one leans in too far, they will indeed find its thorns and then, if still captured by the beauty of the flower and missing the proximity of the danger, one will most certainly get pricked.
Please feel free to comment.
That is my interpretation of the theme "love", especially young love, in The Tragedy of Romeo and Juliet by William Shakespeare. Like the flower most commonly related to romance, "love" is very similar to the rose. Not only are they alike in their beauty, but their hidden dangers as well. As can be seen from different characters, love has many sides; it is deep and entrancing for Romeo, wild and free for Mercutio, and perhaps light and innocent for young Juliet. All these views reflect the attractive area of love but as the name of the play suggests, this story won't dwell long on love's petals. My blog post today will be about the many sides of love and its many, many, thorns.
Like the rose, love is very captivating and to many, may be the most beautiful thing in the world, but is it really? Of course, one side of love is very beautiful. With books, songs, poems, and even entire landmarks (ex. The Eiffel Tower) dedicated and centering around love, there is no doubt that this emotion has quite an impact on the world. And perhaps, when something becomes so powerful, it can become dangerous. It isn't a secret to readers that both Romeo and Juliet die in the story, and neither is the fact that love drove them to their graves, but unfortunately, to these two star-crossed lovers, it was. Indeed there are many sides of love in the story and they all show up and make a difference in the story line. Mercutio's wild freedom perspective is shown in the impulsive actions of Romeo and Juliet; Juliet's innocent view of love takes part to draw these two teenagers together, and finally, the depth of Romeo's opinion reveals itself in the desperate misery that took their lives.
In a way, like the petals of a rose, this choice of death over being separated is beautiful. On the other hand though, like the small pricks of thorns when being too close to the beauty of the rose, being too close to the enticing flower of love has made it so that it wasn't just the petals that were red, but the dagger of Romeo as well. Perhaps it was blind love that drove them together, charm and good looks, but would a pretty visage lead to suicide? Living a life with the direct of Cupid seems fun, until one realizes that the Cupid's arrow, is still an arrow.
It is sad to read the story of Romeo and Juliet and not feel helpless as their lives tick away without their knowledge. It is like watching a horror movie and seeing the monster behind the protagonist and not being able to warn him. Ironically, the silent killer in the story of Romeo and Juliet, is not a monster at all, but technically, an angel. Knowing that what these lovers cherished most, is what will lead them to their deaths is indeed, like the title, a tragedy.
Though the smell of roses is mesmerizing, if one leans in too far, they will indeed find its thorns and then, if still captured by the beauty of the flower and missing the proximity of the danger, one will most certainly get pricked.
Please feel free to comment.
Tuesday, February 26, 2013
Where Love Cannot Tread
The article I read today called Gay Couples Face a Mixed Geography of Marriage by Kirk Johnson, was about the challenges same-sex couples faced in order to get married. With some states having same-sex marriages legal and others not, problems were seen in regards to the rights of same-sex couples. A gay couple in the article, Henry D. Johnston and Alex Irwin, talked about them living in a state where their marriage was not allowed, and said "How are things going to change if people aren’t there to help make them change?" They also talked about how they rejected marrying as a statement as well as "The minute we drive across the border it [the marriage if chosen to marry in another state] would become invalid and we’d be back to just being two guys who own a house together," indicating how a marriage wouldn't matter if it wasn't going to be recognized. In the article, it also talked about the issues gay/lesbian/transgender people faced in general with the phrase "To many younger people, though, what matters is down the block or in the school cafeteria, not across the border," which showed that the problems that these people faced were also in their everyday life and not just in political matters. Although some states have begun to allow same-sex marriages, there are still many (especially strongly conservative) states in the country that still deny these couples the right to marry.
With Johnson's choice of words being so depressing (such as "...where same-sex marriage remains, for now, an unlikely dream,") it was evident that the author was trying to get people to feel sympathy for these couples as well as perhaps disapproval or disagreement with the government. Although there was a slight bias with the perspectives of those who were against same-sex marriages missing, Johnson clearly showed his opinion by presenting a large amount of information about the unfairness (and probably disrespect as well) towards gay/lesbian/transgender people. The author also made this issue more relatable by adding in "The portrait, or caricature, of the American West in films like “Brokeback Mountain” has not entirely faded." Overall, it could be seen that Johnson was trying to get the readers to think about the unjust acts towards these same-sex couples. He tried to show how these couples struggled for their right to be together.
If "Romeo and Juliet" were not about two star crossed lovers consisting of a young girl and boy, but instead of a pair of star crossed gay/lesbian/transgender people, would there have been a difference? Would the tragic deaths of Juliet and Romeo remain the tragedy that they are? They should be, seeing that love has no restrictions and that all love is beautiful, but sadly, I'm not sure whether or not their deaths would have been seen in the same way. Perhaps people would have stopped reading on the prologue because of their disgust. I do not understand why it is that way, for it definitely shouldn't be, but even today, in modern time, people are being denied their right to one of the greatest gifts in life. If love were horrible, twisted, and dangerous, it would be a crime, but the love I've felt, or the love I feel right now for others, or the love that each and every one of us have embraced, it is not a crime. So why are people saying that this love that another person may feel, even through this wall of barriers, a world of disdain and challenges, words and looks of disgust, isn't right? People have no place to say that this love that has tried so hard to be treated equal, is not as important as the love people feel themselves.
Perhaps, until these couples who are truly no different than anyone else, get the respect that they deserve, they may truly be made "star crossed", not by the stars, but by the people who live around them.
Please feel free to comment.
Johnson, Kirk. "Gay Couples Face a Mixed Geography of Marriage." The New York Times 26 Feb. 2013. . 26 Feb. 2013 <http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/27/us/state-laws-on-gay-marriage-lead-to-disparities.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&hp>
With Johnson's choice of words being so depressing (such as "...where same-sex marriage remains, for now, an unlikely dream,") it was evident that the author was trying to get people to feel sympathy for these couples as well as perhaps disapproval or disagreement with the government. Although there was a slight bias with the perspectives of those who were against same-sex marriages missing, Johnson clearly showed his opinion by presenting a large amount of information about the unfairness (and probably disrespect as well) towards gay/lesbian/transgender people. The author also made this issue more relatable by adding in "The portrait, or caricature, of the American West in films like “Brokeback Mountain” has not entirely faded." Overall, it could be seen that Johnson was trying to get the readers to think about the unjust acts towards these same-sex couples. He tried to show how these couples struggled for their right to be together.
If "Romeo and Juliet" were not about two star crossed lovers consisting of a young girl and boy, but instead of a pair of star crossed gay/lesbian/transgender people, would there have been a difference? Would the tragic deaths of Juliet and Romeo remain the tragedy that they are? They should be, seeing that love has no restrictions and that all love is beautiful, but sadly, I'm not sure whether or not their deaths would have been seen in the same way. Perhaps people would have stopped reading on the prologue because of their disgust. I do not understand why it is that way, for it definitely shouldn't be, but even today, in modern time, people are being denied their right to one of the greatest gifts in life. If love were horrible, twisted, and dangerous, it would be a crime, but the love I've felt, or the love I feel right now for others, or the love that each and every one of us have embraced, it is not a crime. So why are people saying that this love that another person may feel, even through this wall of barriers, a world of disdain and challenges, words and looks of disgust, isn't right? People have no place to say that this love that has tried so hard to be treated equal, is not as important as the love people feel themselves.
Perhaps, until these couples who are truly no different than anyone else, get the respect that they deserve, they may truly be made "star crossed", not by the stars, but by the people who live around them.
Please feel free to comment.
Johnson, Kirk. "Gay Couples Face a Mixed Geography of Marriage." The New York Times 26 Feb. 2013. . 26 Feb. 2013 <http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/27/us/state-laws-on-gay-marriage-lead-to-disparities.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&hp>
Monday, February 18, 2013
A Ticket to Your Dreams (SPOILERS)
If you had a ticket to your dreams, would you follow it?
After finishing the book A Northern Light by Jennifer Donnelly, I was left with a debated thought in my mind. The book, based on a murder in 1906, ended with the main character Mattie, leaving her home to go to college in New York City. This left me confused or perhaps saddened by the fact that she left all her family behind without a true goodbye. Going to college was Mattie's dream throughout the book and was partially what the story revolved around but the ending seemed a bit depressing even though she achieved what she wanted all along. Thinking about whether or not I would do the same if I were her, this is what today's blog will be about.
Choosing between a future wanted for so long and leaving the only familiar past is a choice that seems impossible. Mattie did just that though, leaving behind her sisters, father, past fiance, childhood friend, home, and practically everything, to pursue a dream with no guarantees. For me, I would probably spend my entire life debating the two choices and at the end, would still have no idea what I should have chosen. That is because of the deadly word "if". If this...If that..., If people keep saying "if" to every choice, no answer would ever be come up with. Risk is everywhere, but to do something, it has to be taken. If a choice has no risk, it isn't worth choosing because the only reason there would be no risk, no "ifs", would be because the outcome of the choice would be as stagnant as if a choice was never given.
There is nothing wrong with thinking about "ifs" as long as those two letters don't stop someone from doing what they need to do. But what if those horrible "ifs" came true? Well, the truth is there isn't anything that can be done if something ends bad. It wouldn't be any one's fault and there would be no reason as to why it happened other than it just did. Of course, people could just forget about their dreams so there would be no "if" but what is life without overcoming "if"? People should stop thinking about "ifs" in a negative perspective and use them to help accomplish goals instead. There are always two sides, good and bad, but it is the person's choice of which way to think in and that strongly impacts the outcome of whichever choice they make.
No future is obvious (in general) but what is, is that if someone got stuck with ifs for every choice or challenge that met them in life, one sure thing will result: failure, and if one really wishes to meet no risks, failure certainly has none.
Please feel free to comment.
After finishing the book A Northern Light by Jennifer Donnelly, I was left with a debated thought in my mind. The book, based on a murder in 1906, ended with the main character Mattie, leaving her home to go to college in New York City. This left me confused or perhaps saddened by the fact that she left all her family behind without a true goodbye. Going to college was Mattie's dream throughout the book and was partially what the story revolved around but the ending seemed a bit depressing even though she achieved what she wanted all along. Thinking about whether or not I would do the same if I were her, this is what today's blog will be about.
Choosing between a future wanted for so long and leaving the only familiar past is a choice that seems impossible. Mattie did just that though, leaving behind her sisters, father, past fiance, childhood friend, home, and practically everything, to pursue a dream with no guarantees. For me, I would probably spend my entire life debating the two choices and at the end, would still have no idea what I should have chosen. That is because of the deadly word "if". If this...If that..., If people keep saying "if" to every choice, no answer would ever be come up with. Risk is everywhere, but to do something, it has to be taken. If a choice has no risk, it isn't worth choosing because the only reason there would be no risk, no "ifs", would be because the outcome of the choice would be as stagnant as if a choice was never given.
There is nothing wrong with thinking about "ifs" as long as those two letters don't stop someone from doing what they need to do. But what if those horrible "ifs" came true? Well, the truth is there isn't anything that can be done if something ends bad. It wouldn't be any one's fault and there would be no reason as to why it happened other than it just did. Of course, people could just forget about their dreams so there would be no "if" but what is life without overcoming "if"? People should stop thinking about "ifs" in a negative perspective and use them to help accomplish goals instead. There are always two sides, good and bad, but it is the person's choice of which way to think in and that strongly impacts the outcome of whichever choice they make.
No future is obvious (in general) but what is, is that if someone got stuck with ifs for every choice or challenge that met them in life, one sure thing will result: failure, and if one really wishes to meet no risks, failure certainly has none.
Please feel free to comment.
Tuesday, January 29, 2013
Yesterday Once More performed by the Carpenters
Yesterday Once More (lyric video but spelling in the video is not completely correct)
The song I wanted to share is called Yesterday Once More sung by the Carpenters and written by Richard Carpenter and John Bettis. The song mainly has the singer, Karen Carpenter, reminiscing about the songs that she used to listen to in the past and thinking about how her past compared to her present. It is quite an old song (I would think) but is still one of my favourites because of how beautifully written the lyrics and melody is/are. It is somewhat poetic in ways such as rhythm and rhyme (like the majority of songs) and perhaps has some onomatopoeia. Overall this song is just telling the listeners that some things never change and that moments should be cherished since times cannot be relived.
In the chorus, when the words "just like before, it's yesterday once more" are sung, it shows that some things, like how she feels about the songs that were her favourite songs in the past, do not change no matter how much time separates the moments. At the same time though, when Karen Carpenter sings " lookin' back on how it was in years gone by, and the good times that I had, makes today seem rather sad, so much has changed" the listener can hear the sadness in not only her voice, but in the lyrics as well. As the listener, I could understand that though some things don't change, time still moves on and no matter how similar, even the best moments cannot be revived from the past. The whole song is very smooth and the rhythm and words fit perfectly making the song poetic in ways that other ones may not be able to achieve. The song, like the name, is somewhat happy yet stained with sorrow just like how "Once More" is on a joyful note while "Yesterday" literally is the past and when a yesterday comes once more it is obvious that the person reliving that yesterday is either unhappy with or missing the past which in this case, is missing. Throughout the chorus that talks about the songs she listened to in the past, there is also a carefree feel to it, just like how when one is younger, there are usually less worries. This feeling can be heard from the words she uses which are more of sounds (onomatopoeia) (ex. "Every sha-la-la-la, every wo-o-wo-o still shines. Every shing-a-ling-a-ling that they're startin' to sing, so fine"). This too is a loss because the days of little worries, can no longer be retrieved.
This message is something that many people forget about in their lives. Though not all moments are worth reliving or cherishing, people should still keep in mind that the minute that just passed, or the day one just spent, won't reappear and will never be a "today" or "tomorrow" but instead, a "yesterday". In Yesterday Once More, though the songs Karen listened to may be found again, can the moments spent next to the radio and singing along be as well? (You have to hear the song to understand what I'm talking about). The pain that one may go through at times of hardship or the bitterness in times of emotional struggle, many may want to wipe those moments off completely but though the times won't come back, nor will the support from loved ones or the joy of overcoming those battles. The past doesn't come back and the future doesn't wait which leaves only the present to cherish as it slowly becomes the past as well.
Time doesn't stop for anyone so instead of frowning and hating life, why don't we smile and embrace the seconds that pass making every one worth living.
The song I wanted to share is called Yesterday Once More sung by the Carpenters and written by Richard Carpenter and John Bettis. The song mainly has the singer, Karen Carpenter, reminiscing about the songs that she used to listen to in the past and thinking about how her past compared to her present. It is quite an old song (I would think) but is still one of my favourites because of how beautifully written the lyrics and melody is/are. It is somewhat poetic in ways such as rhythm and rhyme (like the majority of songs) and perhaps has some onomatopoeia. Overall this song is just telling the listeners that some things never change and that moments should be cherished since times cannot be relived.
In the chorus, when the words "just like before, it's yesterday once more" are sung, it shows that some things, like how she feels about the songs that were her favourite songs in the past, do not change no matter how much time separates the moments. At the same time though, when Karen Carpenter sings " lookin' back on how it was in years gone by, and the good times that I had, makes today seem rather sad, so much has changed" the listener can hear the sadness in not only her voice, but in the lyrics as well. As the listener, I could understand that though some things don't change, time still moves on and no matter how similar, even the best moments cannot be revived from the past. The whole song is very smooth and the rhythm and words fit perfectly making the song poetic in ways that other ones may not be able to achieve. The song, like the name, is somewhat happy yet stained with sorrow just like how "Once More" is on a joyful note while "Yesterday" literally is the past and when a yesterday comes once more it is obvious that the person reliving that yesterday is either unhappy with or missing the past which in this case, is missing. Throughout the chorus that talks about the songs she listened to in the past, there is also a carefree feel to it, just like how when one is younger, there are usually less worries. This feeling can be heard from the words she uses which are more of sounds (onomatopoeia) (ex. "Every sha-la-la-la, every wo-o-wo-o still shines. Every shing-a-ling-a-ling that they're startin' to sing, so fine"). This too is a loss because the days of little worries, can no longer be retrieved.
This message is something that many people forget about in their lives. Though not all moments are worth reliving or cherishing, people should still keep in mind that the minute that just passed, or the day one just spent, won't reappear and will never be a "today" or "tomorrow" but instead, a "yesterday". In Yesterday Once More, though the songs Karen listened to may be found again, can the moments spent next to the radio and singing along be as well? (You have to hear the song to understand what I'm talking about). The pain that one may go through at times of hardship or the bitterness in times of emotional struggle, many may want to wipe those moments off completely but though the times won't come back, nor will the support from loved ones or the joy of overcoming those battles. The past doesn't come back and the future doesn't wait which leaves only the present to cherish as it slowly becomes the past as well.
Time doesn't stop for anyone so instead of frowning and hating life, why don't we smile and embrace the seconds that pass making every one worth living.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)