Regarding the state of the union…

Because… why not?
I was having an email conversation with my dad about his home-building business. As we chatted, I felt that his thoughts on the subject were something that others should hear, so I took it upon myself to (with permission) use his words to write the following blog post on the state of small-business owners (because it’s not just the builders who are struggling) and the state of our world in general. So, without further ado:

Almost All Builders are struggling.

Very Few Homeowners are buying.

When the Banks qualify the few Homeowners who are willing to proceed, to help the Builders stop struggling, the Banks then scrutinize the struggling Builders and tell them that their Homeowners can help them stop struggling when the builders stop struggling on their own.  Once the Builders have stopped struggling due to the lack of customers, then the banks will allow those people who want to build homes to become customers.

However, the Builders must first build financial strength without building for customers.  Once the Builders can demonstrate that they no longer need customers, then the banks will allow them to work with the customers they no longer need.

As Jack Sparrow would say, “You’re not making any sense at all, man.”
However, that is the Building Market in a “nutshell.”

And, actually, the economy as a whole. And possibly, our President’s agenda.

I think I could become a spokesman for the Obama Administration, convincing the American People that all of the absurd and purposefully damaging policies to the United States that are in the process of being implemented are indeed meant to be damaging as this is the only way to help the American People become damaged. If the American People are damaged thoroughly enough then they will no longer be vulnerable to damaging policies.  Once the American People have become fully damaged and in fact not the American People any longer, then the President can come in and “rescue” the people that he has destroyed by creating an Un-American Country and then claim all credit for rescuing the World from the American People that he despises.

 At least something to think about… no?

~ jenelle

School Reading

I was just perusing facebook and a status update caught my eye. It concerned “Summer Reading” for high schoolers and the change from 10-15 years ago. Summer reading when I was in high school consisted of such books as:

Dracula – Bram Stoker
Frankenstein – Mary Shelley
The Hobbit – J.R.R. Tolkien
Farenheit 451 – Ray Bradbury
Tom Sawyer – Mark Twain
Wuthering Heights – Emily Bronte

And so on and so forth.

Today, apparently, we have authors such as Nicholas Sparks (gag me), Tom Clancy, Jodi Picoult, and John Grisham on the summer reading list.

Now, I’m not saying that one is better than the other (although I am a tad bit biased against Nick… sorry. Romance just isn’t my preferred reading genre… and I really hated The Notebook (movie version)).

The question that all this raises, however, is not the one you may think it is. The question is: who makes the decision that certain books are “better” than others for academic reading? Why do we place such importance on a book like The Scarlet Letter or The Hobbit or even Romeo and Juliet?

Having been an English teacher, where I had the ability to write my own curriculum a few times, I know what the criteria was for the books I picked for my students to read. They had to be well-written. They had to be age-level appropriate. They had to have good themes to discuss. They had to be good examples of literature. They had to be books I enjoyed reading (because I wasn’t about to ask my students to read and discuss a book I found boring or obscene). But what is the criteria that makes something a school “Standard”? Why are some books just taken for granted to be on the reading list and others not? Especially in public high schools? I can understand a Christian school choosing books that have themes of morality and ethics, but in a society where we want to kick God out of the schools, we can’t have it both ways. We can’t say, “No pledge of allegiance or prayer in schools” and then choose a book like “The Scarlet Letter” because it addresses the sin of adultery (well, without God, what makes adultery a sin?) that’s a double standard. That’s saying that we want God gone, but we want to keep some of His rules.

Er. Ahem. Tangent.

So, back to my question: what makes some books acceptable and not others? Because if Nick Sparks is allowable, then that means Stephanie Meyers is not far behind… and while I liked the Twilight books,  I don’t think they’re academically viable options. The big problem that I face with this whole question is… I’d LOVE to teach a course on Fantasy fiction. I think there are books out there that are academically sound.

Ender’s Game – Orson Scott Card
The Lord of the Rings – Tolkien
The Death Gate Cycle – Weis and Hickman
Perelandra – C.S. Lewis
The Icarus Hunt – Timothy Zahn
The Giver – Lois Lowry
Harry Potter – J.K. Rowling
The King Raven Trilogy – Stephen R. Lawhead
Inkheart – Cornelia Funke
The Princess Bride – William Goldman
Jurassic Park - Michael Crichton (more sci-fi than fantasy, I’ll grant you)

and of course, those are just a few. But even when we add “popular fiction” to the list of school reading material, these books are not considered. These books are what my jr. English teacher would have referred to as “high class trash.” Why? Because they’re “genre fiction.” Genre fiction is getting a bad rap and has gotten a bad rap for years. Why? Because it’s actually something people enjoy reading? Because it deals with fictional settings and creatures? If that were the case then we wouldn’t teach mythology in English classes either. Only a few authors (Lewis and Tolkien) have managed to break through the hoity-toity English teachers’ association and onto the school reading lists. While I knee jerk away from anything on the NY Times best seller list, I also don’t think popularity is a good reason not to read a book.

So, if the standard for high school reading is that they only read the classics, and “classics” are defined as being popular only after the author is long dead then Shakespeare and Dickens definitely shouldn’t be allowed in the classroom. If having literary merit is the definition, then I don’t believe Jodi Picoult should be on the list (her being the only author on the previous list that I’ve read, I can’t speak to the other three). And if telling a good story in a new and different way is the only standard then why do we revolve around the 10 books or so that seem to be the only books that are ever on the list (Dickens, Bronte, Austen, Shakespeare, Tolkien, and Twain)? Are they really the only authors who have managed to tell a compelling story in a new and different way while intertwining literary genius into their stories? Dickens (and for that matter, Shakespeare) weren’t even really novelists – how does that affect the standard? Especially when we start teaching their writings as “books” in the classroom? What is the criteria? What should the criteria be? Should we even consider *gasp* whether or not a student may want to read the book? Should promoting a love of reading be on the list of criteria? I think it should. I don’t think it should be the only criteria though. And I don’t think that, plus being on the NY Times bestseller list should bump a book to the reading list either. But what should the criteria be? English, being a subjective subject already, is hard to pin down, hard to define. What makes something a good book and therefore worth reading, especially for academic reading, may be even harder to define…

Questions? Comments? Smart Remarks?

Anybody have an opinion?

~ jenelle

Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time

Having read reviews from places like pluggedinonline and screenit (two very valuable resources if you have no interest in being surprised by anything offensive in your movies) I knew that there would be zero foul language and no offensive scenes. They told me that the movie was based off of a video game (which never bodes well), and they told me that there would be a lot of violence. What both sites failed to tell me, however, was that this was going to be a movie that I would absolutely love.

The movie opens with an Aladdin-esque chase through the streets of Persia (they may have given a town name, but I don’t remember it). As the child who becomes the hero of the movie races through the streets eluding the king’s guards, you may feel a strange compulsion to press ‘A’ ‘circle’ ‘square’ ‘square’ ‘X’ on your game controller… only to realize that you don’t have one. However, this does not mean that the movie is not well done, it simply means that some of the action and stunts are the sort of things you would see in a video game. The further into the movie you get, the more you begin to forget that this was based on a video game, because the story draws you in and sets you on the edge of your seat hoping that everything will work out in the end.

As the story unfolds, you grow to love the main characters. Dastan: an orphan who was adopted by a king, is utterly heroic and full of life, humor, and nobility. Tamina: a princess with a sacred duty, is completely dedicated to her responsibility, capable, and still perfectly feminine without having any need to prove herself (as so many modern female characters are unfortunately written). In a fight, she’s not really much help, which makes her believable, but neither is she brainless, helpless, hopeless, or unemployed in Greenland… (to paraphrase slightly and take a bit of a tangent).

The movie is obviously the work of the same people who created Pirates of the Caribbean, and there were several places where I felt that one of the lines said about Jack Sparrow would have been appropriate for Dastan as well, “Do you think he plans it all out, or just makes it up as he goes along?” Although there is no rigging to swing from nor masts to run across while being sucked into a whirlpool – the streets and walls of  Persia are every bit as precarious and the main characters traverse them with thrillingly light-footed ease. And while Dastan is not as charismatic as Capt. Sparrow, he is every bit as likeable, every bit as compelling, and every bit as fun.

What I’m trying to say, is that if you want to see a movie that contains characters who are compelling and heroic, is good swashbuckling fun that hearkens back to past movies like Indiana Jones and Pirates of the Caribbean, and contains a well-written, fun, witty script – then I would highly recommend you go see Prince of Persia. You will not be disappointed. Also, although I believed that Jake Gyllenhall (no idea how to spell his last name) had played his “perfect” role already (October Sky), I realized watching this movie that he has been missing his calling these past 10-15 years. He was born to play this part :)

However… if you’re deathly afraid of snakes… well, there are some parts that you might want to close your eyes for. ;)

~ jenelle

Vacation Hold

I know I never posted anything new this week. I apologize. However, I don’t think many people read this… :)

I am currently working on a plan to get my books into the public library system here in Raleigh. I am also currently working on the idea of a book signing at the library. (John Flannigan, author of the Ranger’s Apprentice series just recently did a Q&A/book signing at the public library here and that got me thinking about it)

Anyway, that’s what’s in the works… we’ll see what happens!

I will be on vacation and so may or may not post a blog entry next week. Have a lovely first week of June.

~ jenelle