Good Times... Noodle Salad....

Charlie

noreply@blogspirit.com (Ian MORRISON) — Sun, 09 Apr 2006 19:15:00 +0200

Here's a cool LINK to a website that has a bunch of folks writing little blurbs about "Perks."

I'm curious as to what Charlie will be like in 6 years. I say 6 because it's far enough away where I can make statements like this. I think that he's going to be a frat-boy womanizer. Here is my rationale....

I knew this kid in highschool who was named Tim. He wasn't quite as bad as Charlie. But I swear he didn't have any but like 2 friends. I never heard the kid talk. He was kind of a loner. He was kinda nerdy. He just seemed to observe. The only reason I noticed him was simply because of the fact that I was an observer and a deep thinker (though I was not shy). He blended in to the atmosphere like Charlie Watts from the Rolling Stones (well, he kinda stands out when he's with Wood, Jagger, and Richards).

I seriously saw the kid a couple years out of highschool. He hangs out with a couple of my friends now. Tim has become Pimp of the Nation. He dresses and acts like a totally different person. He gets so many girls, I should call him Grand Master Woo. (I seriously just made that up!)

I think that Charlie will open up in college and get in with a Frat or something. It just seems like something that he will do. People seem to come out of college the opposite of how they go in. People like Charlie and Tim open up and become something you may not like so much (though, I could be wrong because Charlie is very deep and caring, I'm pretty much going on outward appearance here). Jerks like me (how I used to be) come out of college Born-Again Christians (True story, I used to be a real depressed jerk before I got saved).

Charlie could turn out the opposite I suppose. Perhaps he will change the world or something. Perhaps he (if he were real) would have done something really productive and would live a pretty successful life. Obviously he'll have to iron out a few things first.

speaking of Charlie, I was reading Libby's post on "Perks." She has a neat little quiz on there that will tell you which "perks" character you are. Swiggity.

Thinking about Charlie's first relationship reminds me of my first. When you are that young, you are stupid and you can weigh nothing in perspective. Highschool relationships are a joke anyways. Charlie goes out with Mary-Elizabeth to fill the void. I suppose most highschoolers do this. My first relationship (and most of my relationships) were simply just void-fillers. In the rare instance that you meet someone that you play all your cards right with, you just might marry that person (in west michigan, where if you're not married by 12 you are not cool.. Yes, I said 12...). I would argue that this is a complete fluke. It's a harmony birthed from chaos... Only forseen by God. In the end it turns out to be some rediculous, stomach-twisting, vomit-inducing, and cute love story... "Your father was my first and he'll be my last!" If people don't get this, you start getting antsy and start dating people (then you fall easy prey to those who seek to rip out hearts "unintentionally"... those romantic vampires).

similarities

noreply@blogspirit.com (Ian MORRISON) — Tue, 04 Apr 2006 18:50:00 +0200

I could compare Chbosky's "Charilie" with the main character from "Go Ask Alice" who is (nameless). I suppose there are certain scenarios that accompany a certain mindset.

Kristen had implied that "Go Ask Alice" wasn't as real as "Perks." I would agree, however I think there are similarities. Both stories seem a bit unrealistic due to the fact that there's so many things that happen to the both of them.

However, in a way the characters are very similiar. They are both friendless and will easily go with people who accept them. Charlie ends up with some not as crazy friends however. Well, her friends really aren't friends. Though he does do drugs a little, he doesn't go nuts like "Alice." She really doesn't have a role-model until she meets that one guy (his name escapes me) who meet at the library. Charlie has his teacher, who encourages him along.

"Alice" ends up in many different fixes because of her issues. Charlie ends up spending some time away for his breakdown. Charlie has more going for him than "Alice." While "Alice" does talk about some things, she does not seem to be in as deep of thought about certain things as Charlie. Charlie thinks way too much.

I think that I identify with Charlie more so than "Alice." "Alice" to me (compared to Charlie) just seems really lifeless and "not all there." Whereas Charlie seems like a real human being, with feelings.

Both of the characters have the happiness that just evades them. Everytime "Alice" tries to quit she goes back, and she ends up dead. Charlie loves Sam, and in the end its too late for him.

So, they have their similarities. I'm wondering if they are more different than similiar. I'm going to go with "different." Because they have similiar scenarios in a way, but their characters are different... Charlie is way too deep to be the same as "Alice."

Charlie's character

noreply@blogspirit.com (Ian MORRISON) — Fri, 31 Mar 2006 10:10:00 +0200

I know I said I couldn't relate to Charlie, but I think I can on some level.

Charlie obviously feels like he's on the outside looking in. (hence the title).

Kristen said in her journal, "Movies, songs, and books play a huge role on Charlie and how e identifies himself." I know it's painfully obvious, but I just wanted to quote someone in my journal because now I have become cool.

But really, I don't use movies and books to describe myself as much as I do music. Music is my life (I am a musician). So I really can put myself in a certain songs... it's like my whole life is music video (One's like Guns N' Roses... they tell stories).

Sometimes, I feel this is how I am with life. I have never fit in life. The friends that I do have, they are in the same position as me. But this has been a good thing for me. I am glad that I haven't been sucked in to the world too much. I do not know how good of a Christian I am, but it at least helps me to stay a little objective and at least seek Christ and read my Bible and go to church and go to bible study and wow this is a long run on sentence that I am writing. Being an outsider has also helped me to do things I wouldn't have done if I was an insider, like play music and actually get good at it (I think I'm good! I dont know!)

Even as outgoing as I am... I'm still left on the outside a lot. It gives me lots of time to think and get the stuff in my head straight. I'm sure that Charlie had a lot of time to do that considering that he said some pretty thoughtful quotes: "I walk around the school hallways and look at the people. I look at the teachers and wonder why they're here. If they like their jobs. Or us. And I wonder how smart they were when they were fifteen. Not in a mean way. In a curious way. It's like looking at all the students and wondering who's had their heart broken that day, and how they are able to cope with having three quizzes and a book report due on top of that. Or wondering who did the heart breaking. And wondering why."

I don't look at the things like that as much as I think about the metaphysical however. I'd much rather spend my time debating universal abstract entities and other thieistic proofs.

I suppose those are the perks of being a wallflower. Just being able to sit back with a coke and a smile and enjoy the magic of the moment... Feeling like "infinite" or something. Just watching life go by but you're still getting more out of it than most people. How many people just pass on through as if there is nothing to it? I don't know about you, but I think that it's important to get something out of life... Even if it's just figuring things out and getting things straight in your head.

The perks of reading "The Perks of being a wallflower"

noreply@blogspirit.com (Ian MORRISON) — Tue, 28 Mar 2006 09:25:00 +0200

Go buy this book on Amazon you can get it pretty cheap, yo.

I have to admit that the whole "MTV" thing really threw me off. Growing up watching MTV was one of the most painful things of my life. VH1 was a whole lot better. All MTV was (and I don't know if it still is; I don't have a TV) was just about 5 to 10 really boring music videos (played over and over again) and Real World re-runs and stupid little shows like Beavis and Butthead. I even got the pleasure of watching an MTV movie two years ago about some bizarre closet musician. I do not like MTV.

However, I was really surprised with this book. It seems MTVish in a way. I cannot imagine going through so much as Charlie. I mean, this book has it all... Homosexuality, woman-beaters, "love," sex, and suicide. It's almost like watching an episode of ER (the most hectic television show of all time... everything is always going on at once).

A few people from my class did podcasts on this book. Check them out right HERE.

To tell you the truth, I cannot really relate to Charlie. However, he is caring. I would like to think I'm pretty caring. Everyone has a selfish streak to them. Perhaps the true struggle between the id and the ego is not so much as keeping on the selfless side of things rather than the selfish. I will say that one should aim to be perfectly selfish and perfectly selfless. For one who is completely selfless does so because they are selfishly thinking of the right motives. The "self" is a good thing.

I have never had a gay best friend. Although I have met many gay people, and I have a few aquaintences who live alternative lifestyles. Myself, I'm a conservative Christian. Usually, the most liberal folks avoid people like me before they ask me my opinion on anything or not.

I have had a few run-ins with the homosexual community at GVSU. I made a post on my livejournal at the end of last summer explaining my views on homosexuality. I opened up my post with, "I do not hate homosexuals anymore than I hate myself." I then went on to explain that I cannot possibly condemn homosexuals as people, for I would be a hypocrite because of my own sins. However, I can state the morality from a Christian standpoint. I simply said, "homosexual sex is immoral in a Christian worldview. Just as immoral as when I swear profusely or when someone lies... no better or not worse."

I recieved 100 replies in one night. 4 of them actually read the whole post. They were quite respectful and wanted to discuss things. The rest of the people did not read it. They saw that I was a Christian who said homosexual sex is a sin. They proceeded to leave me some of the nastiest and most hateful things I have ever read. I did not even say anything bad. These people did not even read what I said at all... And because of that I was discriminated against. I really appreciated the few that read it and wanted to discuss it though. Unfortunately, I was too tired to discuss it so I had to leave them in peace.

Therefore, I suppose that I can relate to Patrick and anyone else who has been discriminated against. I find that some of the most hateful people appear to come from the "anti-hate" and "anti-intolerance" folks... Thus hating the "hater" (as they say I am) and being incredibly intolerant of the intolerant (as they also say I am). I am not just speaking of militant homsexuals, nor are all homosexuals this way. But a few bad apples will spoil the whole darn bunch for any group I guess.

Yet, you know... I think that I love people. Since when is pointing out the morality of a scenario being hateful? And since when is love for your neighbor just accepting everything people do as being, "ok cuz Jesus loves 'em." I mean, Paul the Apostle surely didn't just say everything was ok. Truth is absolute. It's unfortunate that people think that truth is relative. People percieve it that way. They paint their arguments with these beautiful little philosophies, "let's be openminded." Yet, folks like these do not intend on being open-minded. They want me to accept their views, not be open-minded about them.

Jesus was closed-minded to what is bad. I see no problem in being the same. Yet this is on an individual basis, I'm not trying to throw blanket statements over any group of people or any one action.

I would have no problem having a gay friend. I just have never been put in a position to have one I guess. Maybe some of my friends are gay. I just don't go out so much. I sit in my room and play guitar. I have 3 friends that I go to Bible study with. Other than that, I just stay in and keep to myself.

I also never had a friend who committed suicide. I know of people who have, but I do not know anyone close to me that did. I would probably be hit with a tremendous amount of who knows what. I would be devastated.

I think I can empathize with Charlie on a few different levels. But I think that is the best I can do. I have a good imagination, but I have not really experienced many of the substantial things that he has.

As a matter of fact, the book is pretty unrealistic I think. NOW, when I say unrealistic, I do not mean that Charlie and the other characters seem fake. Don't get me wrong, they do seem very real... very much so. But this is a lot of stuff to deal with for one character. How could all of that be experienced by one person? Perhaps it's not too rare, but maybe I'm just really stupid or something.

However, I know people who have had a lot of bizarre stuff happen to them that is book worthy, but usually this is a cumulation over a lifetime or something.

Perhaps the book was written that way so people from all different aspects of life could get a little something out of it. Books like this can be likened to a Chinese Buffet. If you run out of combinations, you can always just mix something together and give it a strange name and no one knows the difference... it just makes sense and tastes good.

How Will I Run My Literature Classroom

noreply@blogspirit.com (Ian MORRISON) — Mon, 27 Mar 2006 21:35:00 +0200

I will run my Literature classroom as a least restrictive enviornment possible. I don't want to strangle kids and make them choke on things they dont' want to read. I think that freedom is the key. If the students cannot handle picking books on their own, I say give them a list to choose from. Tell the kids what all the books on the list are about and let them choose.

It will be a looser classroom. I would want to teach the class in such a way that the class teachers theirselves. I think that discussion is important.

If I have the kids read "Go Ask Alice," I do not just want to say, "ok, now what's climax of the story, blah, blah, blah." But I want the kids to interact with it and give them the chance to write and state their opinion about it. Perhaps have an open discussion about it. Talk about morality. Have the students talk about its material. Don't focus on the literature aspect of it so much. Just give the students a chance to take as much as they can away from the book. I don't understand why teachers are so opposed to this sort of thing sometimes.

I want it to be a fun class. I can guarantee that if you have fun in a class and give less information, you will get more out of students than if you just lecture for hours upon end and give them tons of information.

I want it to be an interactive class with freedom. Yet, I will total sovereignty when I choose to express it.

What Literature Should Adolescence Read?

noreply@blogspirit.com (Ian MORRISON) — Wed, 08 Feb 2006 21:20:00 +0100

I say, let the kids read what they want as much as possible. While you have to assign books to read, they will get more out of the book if they are actually interested in reading the book they have. Perhaps this is too much to ask for younger kids, so I would give them a list to choose from.

I think it's important to teach kids how to look for books to see if they are interested in them. Teach them about genres and how to read summaries and such.

I said all this in my last entry. It is important that the kids are motivated to read the books. In essence, you have to trick them into doing it themselves. Kids are rebellious, therefore, we have to give them as much rope as they can. Teachers like to follow the students with a stick and smack them if they get out of line. I think it would be better if we gave them boundaries... with room to move from side to side. Perhaps different corridors and doors to go through. This would give the student options. As the student gets older, we can make the boundaries wider, give more doors and more corridors.... Until they are old enough to just let them run free.

However, it is wise to assign at least some readings. I think that these readings should have variety. I see no problem in letting students read banned books. You have all of that garbage on TV, naked girls on magazine covers. There are sex, drugs, and hate everywhere. Why do we try and pretend it doesn't exist in the classroom? Letting the students read these books will also spark their attention more. I do not want to read about "1984." I want to read about sex and drugs. So I think we should allow these questionable books to be read in school. It will spark students interest, as well as educate them on how bad and unwise things are ("Go Ask Alice").

So I think freedom and variety are important when giving adolescents reading assignments.

random stuff about Go ask Alice

noreply@blogspirit.com (Ian MORRISON) — Wed, 01 Feb 2006 20:10:00 +0100

This is a good review of the book Go Ask Alice

http://www.sparknotes.com/lit/goaskalice/themes.html

It is strange how different people act in similiar situations.

Myself, I never really had any constant friends growing up. I had a few buddies here and there. But I wanted to fit in with other kids. I sought for a person to would understand me. Granted, I had some loving parents who were my only friends at times. But, as a whole... I always tried to fit in. In the end, I just kinda accepted the fact that I was different than others and lived my life that way I guess.

The author has a similiar problem... but she was willing to do what it took to fit in. Though at first it was an accident, it ended up working. I will not sacrifice my morals in order to fit in. But I guess the author was really that in need of a person to depend on. Yet, in the end she confides in Joel... but by then she's too deep in the pit to really get out. Because it ends up killing her.

Her pit was more of an outward cry for help. But my thing was depression. I was depressed for a long time (ever since I was in gradeschool)... but lucky for me I made things right with Jesus and it's been different ever since.

I guess it serves as an example, if you depend on the wrong things... even when you try and escape them, they will not let you leave. I wonder how come I never did drugs? How come I didn't do the same things that the Author did?

I think perhaps, it is because my parents were so involved... the Author's parents didn't appear to be to involved with her life... but they show up from time to time. They just seem to be pre-occupied.

I am sad that she didn't get to spend a long life with Joel.

I suppose it is like a yo-yo effect... or a rubber band effect... Drugs is like holding on to a rubber band hooked on a wall. You do them and you smack into the wall. Yet, everytime you try and run away from them... you smack into the wall again. And everytime you get further and further away because you run faster and harder.. the tension becomes to intense and you go smacking into the wall again even harder and harder everytime. Because she really does it herself all the time. Saying, "ok I'm going to run as fast and as hard as I can on my own... that way I will get away from the wall this time." But she doesn't, instead it keeps bashing her back into the wall even harder.......... until it finally kills her.

I guess what we all need, is someone to pry your damn hands off the rubber band. And then get rid of the rubber band altogether. God is really the only one who can do that in its entirety. Perhaps He made it that way. so people would depend on Him.

I was reading Abby's Journal and I made a comment on how kids try to be rebellious.

If we took the rebellion aspect out of things.. perhaps it would cut down on the kids who do it for that reason. Or if we turned it around to a "You'll never be clean" or "you won't be successful" sort of thing. That reverse psychology could really work... but only on rebellious kids.. because that would really give them a sense of rebellion. Rebellious kids will rebel against anything.