We The Living: A book to be read with an open mind

I was told I have to read her works chronologically (as in from which book she wrote first) to see how her philosophical and political views developed throughout her writing career so I read this book first. While this is not as popular as Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged (which I haven't read as of this post), I think this explains a lot about the author.

I wrote a paper about We The Living (A Deconstruction of -the character- Kira Argounova which maybe I should post on this blog but after I edit it again) for a graduate school application but, to be honest, I still can't figure it out. I mean, I'm not sure if I like the book or not. Or more specifically, if I like the main character or not (and, admit it, liking the main character has a lot to do when deciding whether you like a book or not). I decided it best to stay in the middle. Thus the three stars.

It's not the book, per se, that I'm trying to rate here because this is already a controversial piece. It's a very good historical fiction especially since the author actually lived through the Russian Civil War. If it's just the story, the genre and the writing style then this is an easy 5. There are lines from the main character that I can imagine being said with passion. As tragic as the ending is, I actually liked it too. It's realistic. Period. But I guess I should say I don't completely agree with Ayn Rand's philosophies in life which is explicitly written in this book through Kira Argounova. And she did say this is the closest to an autobiography she has ever written. Now when I say I don't completely agree, I meant I DO like some of her ideas and ideals. Like her view on God and heaven :

"God -- whatever anyone chooses to call God, is one's highest conception of the highest possible. And whoever places his highest conception above his own possibly thinks very little of himself and his life. It's rare, you know, to feel the reverence for your own life and to want the best, the greatest, the highest possible, here, now, for your very own. To imagine a heaven and then not to dream of it, but to demand it.

And her individualism:

Don’t you know, don’t you know that there are things, in the best of us which no outside hand should dare to touch? Things sacred because, and only because, one can say: ‘This is mine’? Don’t you know that we live only for ourselves, the best of us do, those who are worthy of it? Don’t you know that there is something in us which should not be touched by any state, by any collective, by any number of millions?”

Now, there are decisions, the protagonist made, that I didn't agree to. The way she handled her family situation is a bit of a let down. Or her not telling Andre things she should have especially about her relationship with Leo. I understand a girl does what a girl has to in tight situations but I think she could've handled it better, this is one of those scenes where her individualist and objectivist philosophies come out as selfish. It's hard to explain and I might have to read the book again to look for those specific things. Lol.

If anything, Kira's/Rand's opinions told through carefully chosen words can be very inspiring so I would suggest for people to read this … but to do so with an open mind.

The Giver ... Bit disturbing for a children's book

Normally, I only write about books I actually like but The Giver leaves this reader confused that I can't move on. I'm not particularly excited about this book and I thought maybe I need to read the sequels to appreciate it fully.

The main thing that pushed me to read The Giver is the fact that it won a Newberry medal so I thought it must be something. I also read good reviews about it (some even raving of the books ingenuity to teach children). There is a fourth book coming out too so I was fairly convinced I'd at least enjoy reading this even if it doesn't make it on top of my list. I mean, if there is a fourth book surely that means the first three that came out are good enough? As you can see, I gave it only a single star ... for good organization of a concept. I know for a fact it's not easy to write. But in general, this short book is a big let down for me.

The story is kind of disturbing for a children's book. I'm not sure I want my nephews reading this until they're at least 16 or already understand what the holocaust was. By coincidence, I have been reading books that has a connection to the holocaust so maybe it's hard for me to process this without comparing. Granted, there is no mention of the event in the book but a reader is led into that conclusion. There is much discrimination in this book. The parents in this book are not actually biological parents, they are people who are chosen and expected to be able to raise children well. Actual birth mothers only give birth and after 3 or 4 times of doing so are sent to perform hard labor because they are not perceived to be able to raise children well or do "more important jobs". These women are looked down on by the community in general. There is also genocide in a way because they kill and dispose of babies that do not reach the community standards and they do the same process for adults too old to work or live on their own. So that is the conflict. But what about the resolution?

I think the author used the part when the helpless newborn is disposed off for being the weaker version of the twins as the big turning point of the story. It is what made the protagonist decide to fight against the system but the presentation is actually weak. The main character's attempts and reasoning appear so half-hearted.  I think that's one of the things that killed it for me. For such a simple story it failed to explain how things became the way it is.

Even the ending is weak. It closes to the protagonist catching (dying of) hypothermia and that might be a good ending for a book that has a sequel but the thing is, the second and third books were written so many years after the first one (it's like she wasn't sure she wanted to do so) and from what I gather, even though the books are related and grouped into a quartet (previously a trilogy), the sequels does not present a conclusion to the first one. 

Again, I would have to read the newer books to know but it may take a while before I find the interest to after this.

The Book Thief: The book that taught me how to properly swear ... in German

A lot of books, whether it be fiction or a documentary, were written about the holocaust. This is one of them, although that wasn't the reason why I picked it up. There are three reasons.

One is the Book Thief herself. I thought at first this is a story of an exceptionally gifted and intelligent girl who would somehow save her neighborhood if not the world. This is usually the case in young adult books, isn't it? Markus Zusak, however, made an even more interesting protagonist. A very plain girl whose love for books (and stealing books) was actually quite accidental. What was more interesting for me was that, at the age of 10, she didn't even know how to read. Clearly this wasn't a book about some sort of prodigy but an ordinary girl raised in an era of fascISM and antisemitISM. She's not without flaws (she's a thief, after all), she is impulsive and proud but she does have qualities that makes her worthy of a reader's respect.

The second thing that made me seal my decision on reading the book is the last sentence of the book description on Audible (I have both audio and eBook). The description read: "This is an unforgettable story about the ability of books to feed the soul." I fell in love with that. I think anyone who loves books and reading books will be able to relate to that phrase. Books are a way to forget about reality and experience a totally different world. Words, when written a certain way can work it's magic on anyone.

Last? The story was narrated by DEATH himself. That kinda reminded me of Terry Pratchett's Discworld Series, although, of course The Book Thief is a lot more serious than Discworld. Death in both books have a sarcastic humor, though. It's as if it comes with the job but that makes it fun to read too.

Some things to watch out for in the book?

1) The childlike sketches of Max Vanderburg and the stories accompanying it.

2) Death's small notes. They are everywhere in the book. I love that in a way, it gives a fresh look to the pages. Yes, I meant "look". It makes a page more alive, somehow. Not monotonous and ordinary to the eyes.

3) German terms and their English equivalent. This is most important for non German speakers, as myself. I would actually suggest to read the book/eBook while listening to the audiobook to learn how to pronounce the words and sentences too. Hey, I learned how to swear properly in German. Kee-hee.

One of the best things about the book (in my opinion) is how Markus Zusak presented the characters. In most books there are good character and bad characters. All of the main characters here are merely victims of the situation. The setting is Nazi Germany and although the people who lived in this small town are "law abiding citizens" of the Nazi ruler, each and everyone of the characters have their own sob stories that pushed them to be where they are.

To summarize, I felt amusement from Death's way of looking at things (when he's not feeling sentimental), love for characters like Rosa who has a bad mouth but a good heart, anger towards Nazi Germany for reasons I don't have to spell out and sadness for the children who are the most helpless and suffered so much during the war. This book is a sad story all in all. But it stirs so many feelings in a person.

And yes. I cried too.

Thoughts on: The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time

I've read a few books (fiction) about autism and this is one of those that I liked most. Yes, I would recommend this for everyone, parents especially (even those whose kids do not have autism). No, I won't go as far as saying it's an awesome book. For one, this is not a happy book, the main reason being ... it's too real. But that is also what makes it so good.

There should be a few different ways to rate this book instead of just an overall pick-a-number-of-stars-to-go-with-it. Here's an attempt (feeble, maybe) to explain my point. There may be a few spoilers although I'll try not to give away too much. 

1) Concept/Awareness/Cause/Subject: Five stars. I don't think I have to spell it out. This is one of those books that aim to raise awareness about autism in kids. What they are going through and why adults should rally alongside them and their ... let's call it "rights" for now because I can't seem to find a fitting word. 

2) Story telling: It's pretty generic. There's chronology, words are clear, pace is just right, I won't say it's dragging too as it's not a long book. Pretty straight forward so ... For that I'd give it a fair 3 stars.

3) Conflict. It's all over the place. The two main conflicts being: It's a story of a kid with autism whose parents are divorced and are both having some sort of affair. And as you can imagine, in a story like this, every other conflict has their own ... sub-conflicts. And since I'm a person who hates reality and its conflicts (heh) ... Four stars.

4) Twist and Conclusion/Ending: When I finished the book I thought ... "Oooookaaaaayyy ... That's it?" Then I thought, "Well, how do you expect it to end?" The too real story's ending is abrupt but the author actually made us a favor of giving us a realistic, but at least not tragic and traumatic, ending for the kid. Four stars.

Over all, it's far from Kite Runner or Orphan Master's son but they share something in common ... It kinda makes you wish you live in a better world.

People, Please Don't Get Delusional

Another Senator Tito Sotto blog, I know. I just need to get this out once and for all. Before that, let me make it clear (and yes this is me being defensive) that, politically, I'm not a fan of this guy. I grew up watching his movies (dahil yun lagi ang palabas sa sinehan sa Tagaytay) but I never voted for him, he never gave me a reason to. This blog is not on his defense either but I know some fanatics (of stuff they don't understand) might look at it that way because ... well, they don't understand. So let me begin discussing the topic by telling you that yes, like many haters and (feeling) patriotic people on the web, right now, I think this guy does not deserve a seat in the senate and that I do not think he knows what he's doing.

Now, most of the people online bash these politicians for the things they say but they may be doing it for the wrong reasons. The main thing that pushed me to write this blog, though, is not what the senator above said, but something I heard from a grown person somewhere ... that it's shocking and sad to know that this country's rulers, the upholders of the law, do not write their own speeches and their own papers (for whatever cause). So ... as the title of the post says ... People, please don't get delusional. 

If you do not know yet, politicians and our country's leaders very rarely (or do not at all) write their speeches. They have a personnel(s) for that, and they have a team who does the research. Why? Because they have other things to do than spend the day in front of a desk writing a speech or going out to do research from scratch. Writing a speech, ladies and gentlemen, is not their job. It's not what they're getting paid for. And it's not the reason why people should vote for them ... although, of course, in this country, mamatay lang kamag-anak qualified na maging presidente.

Granted, the speeches should get their approval first and the content should be what they believe in (or what they got paid for, kee-hee), but that was not my point. The upholders of the law's real job is to, UPHOLD THE LAW. They are the "face" of what people (and again those who paid for it) believes in and fights for. 

Here's an example, the president. This guy's job is not to make laws (yes he can lean and put pressure on some people because he has that power to, and that ladies and gentlemen is the biggest form of corruption, duh!!!), he does not write the law and does not approve it (supposedly). Other parts of the government writes and the other approves. He should also not be wasting his time blaming the past administrations for his failures but that's another story, eh? THE PRESIDENT IS AN ADMINISTRATOR. He administrates, overlooks, leads, inspires etc. Yes he should make sure whoever stole money should pay for it but he is ruling a country with actual people in it and a lot of problems to face. SO he can't just concentrate on that one thing. What does a manager in a company do? DELEGATE. That is what secretaries of departments are for and that is what his allies are for. Get the gist?

So if I am a senator, for example, that gets invited to hold a speech for whatever function or for the RH Bill (there, I said it!), and I have a ton of appointments to go to like a closed meeting with the party to discuss our official stand on an issue, meeting other people who wants me to lobby for their cause, publicity stunts, functions I'm invited too, personal stuff (and TV shows ngehe) I can't slave the day away writing speeches for 8 other functions I'm supposed to give a pep talk at for the month. At best, I should be sitting with the team making sure things are in order. That they know what I want to say, and that we get the facts straight so I don't look stupid in front of people.

So you see, what's really scary here is that the people who works for him (Sen. Sotto) gets away with it because he himself is unaware of what the real issue is about. Also, the people he hired are competent but only up to a point. They do not know how to address an issue, they just deflect it. Maybe it's ego but clearly, they do not want to accept the fact that they made a mistake by not doing their job properly. If our leaders' staff can do that, can the rest of us act the same way? And if we do, could we get away by being arrogant too (like that lawyer who couldn't keep his mouth shut about bloggers being just bloggers).

If anything, this senator should fire his staff and get a new one.

Random ramblings ... and Why You Shouldn't Mess with Michael D. Higgins

DISCLAIMER: I am somewhat drunk so bear with me.

Apparently, this debate between Michael D. Higgins and Michael Graham that had recently gone viral  is old news (it was from 2010) but I have to join in virtually shaking the hands of the Irish President because he really killed it. Lol. I'm not going to pretend I completely understand what's going on, as far as I know (and by know I meant read-from-the-internet-which-sometimes-doesn't-really-amount-to-anything-because-people-copy-paste-and-react-about-shit-they-don't-know-anything -about-all-the-fucking-time), the tea party movement is a bunch of whiny people who oppose government tax spending and tax increase (but which citizen in what country doesn't have an opinion on this? ... oh wait ... N.Korea),hates Obama and sometimes support the war and may have racist members. And if that is truly the case ... I don't think I like them much.

Actually, I'm not going to discuss the tea party movement here. Hey, I'm not from their parts of the world so don't expect me to be able to relate to the tea party hoopla much more pretend to make a solid opinion on it. No,  this is about some of the things that the Irish president said that may be related to local events. I liked Higgins in this debate because of the bit about his Sarah Palin depiction. It's very true in a lot of ways but I can say that because it can be attributed (if that is the right word) to other conditions and circumstances.

The more popular line was, "You're about as late an arrival in Irish politics as Sarah Palin is in American politics, and both of you have the same tactic. The tactic is, to get a large crowd, whip them up, try and discover what is that creates fear, work on that and feed it right back and you get a frenzy." He said this while Graham tries to interject but to no avail *sniggers*.

For the most part, I can understand where the Irish President was coming from. Aside from the loud cheers when Higgins said "... be proud to be a decent American rather just a wanker whipping up fear" (I mean, seriously, who didn't like that :p), it's his description of the alleged Sarah Palin “tactic” that people should ponder about. Face it, it happens … all the time.

A lot of people talk of things they barely know anything of (like me right now?lol). It has happened to everyone at one point or another. You read something online, watch something on the prime time news and suddenly you feel very passionate about it or against it. That is what the media feeds on right now, people’s thirst for sensationalism. And of course they have the gall to deny it and call what they do responsible journalism.

Locally, on the death of the DILG Secretary Robredo … while  in a cab going home, there was a DZMM radio broadcaster who was answering a listener’s tweet. The listener said something about the media (particularly ABS CBN lol) sensationalizing and milking Robredo’s death too much. To this, the broadcaster answered something like it’s hard for us to report anything else as journalists, but he did not elaborate on that. He also said, they respect the former secretary and honor him so they feature him a lot. First off … journalism is not an easy field … so don’t say it’s hard for you to talk of anything else because if that is the case, what the hell are you doing working in there??? There is no easy line of work. And if you respect the guy so much go ahead and report the facts, give him a bit of a tribute but stop planting conspiracy theories in the heads of your audience. You’re reporting these things because that’s what a common person wants. Drama. The frenzy. Conspiracies. Get your facts and work on them, why doncha?!

Seriously, Higgins said it all in his debate (the long part) if you paid attention: “You're not dealing with facts … you're talking about ships that you don't know the name of, you don't know the number of. You're really a good student of that kind of journalism that says: well look, if i could get away with it it's good; if i can work people up it's even better, but the fact of the matter is this is just, this is just very, very dangerous stuff …”

***

RANDOM RAMBLINGS: (If only for the fact that I'm too lazy to create a separate post)

• The guy who slapped the MMDA employee on the road ... Yes, he was an arse and yes he shouldn’t have slapped the MMDA guy and yes he probably deserved to be crucified for the world wide web to see but a FB page that had his (alleged) home address in it??! Goes to show how powerful, so out of control and so scary the social media can be. How would you like that to happen to you just because someone didn’t like something you did? No matter what size of the action is.

• The RH Bill and that plagiarism issue … I’m pro, btw. And I don’t think the people associated in making the bill approved or not should appeal to people’s emotions when debating their point (because being too emotional is the second biggest problem of the Philippines -- first being the increasing population, hah!).  But anyway, the plagiarism issue … people got so worked up on that and I too was upset when the Senator said (or was it his chief of staff) that Ms. Pope was “just” a blogger. Well, you know what? I’ll say this again, people copy and paste on the Internet ALL THE FUCKING TIME! The biggest mistake of the senator’s staff is that this is a very controversial issue and that the whole country and even people out of the country is actually paying attention! Of course, there is this thing called spinning articles and the senator’s staff should’ve at least done that. But what about the other bloggers who not only posts but does actual research before writing something up (but before you say you can't write without researching, please read the paragraph again, wise-ass)? Their articles get copied too and then get spun using a bot and presented as a brand new article under a different writer’s name, all for the sake of traffic. And we all wonder why writers don’t get paid much? Lol. Okay, okay, that’s for a different topic. Moving on …

El Nido: This is ... Philippines ???

The travel bug hit me kinda late this year ... partly because of the new job, partly because I'm broke (heh), and partly because I wanted to sulk and feel bad because of some bad decisions but that's for another story.

Anyhoo, El Nido - what a transition, eh?

The name itself sounded exotic and beautiful so I had a lot of expectations about the place and this trip. For one, the gang was in Coron  last year and it was A BEAUTY! El Nido and Coron are in the same province and since El Nido became popular internationally before Coron did, I thought it would surpass last year's adventures. Well, it did. And in extremes.

I was hoping for a relaxing vacation but the weather didn't permit it. We wanted to go away and we did but oh! the price we paid! It rained everyday during the scheduled tours so we were wet even before we got to hit the beach shores; couple times during the island hopping tours our boat nearly tipped over; we got stuck at the sandbar they call "Snake Island" for 3 friggin' hours I was so sure I'd catch hypothermia! Going there (yes there were misadventures even before we reached the island), we experienced extreme turbulence. Aside from the heavy shaking, the plane dipped a few feet down that my ass actually left the seat, the last 10 years of my life flashed back, and the pilot said: "Ladies and gentlemen, we will now be experiencing ... self-reflection." ... OK, you caught me ... that was one of my friends exaggerating.

Regardless, it was the company and the "going away" part that I actually enjoyed and was looking forward to so it wasn't all bad. And hey, we got "rescued" by an official looking rescue team in their official looking rescue jackets (or raincoats) and despite the huge waves I would admit it was pretty awesome.

The destination itself, however, was a disappointment. Don't get me wrong, they have some of the most amazing bitc-- oh wait that's me, I meant-- beaches in El Nido and a 3-day tour is not enough to get tired of. I even went inside the musty, disgusting smelling cave (but really what would you expect in a cave ... Eau de Parfum?) and had fun doing that. I don't think it's fair to compare it with Coron as well at this point since, again, it was rainy during this trip whereas I burned in the other. In both trips, though, we stayed in the town proper. I'm not a full fledged backpacker (although I dream to become one) but staying in town is the best way to "experience" what the place has to offer. So anyhoo, what am I ranting about? The culture ... or the lack of it.

When I say lack, I'd like to make it clear that they are not devoid of it so don't get smart with me. It's just that ... I barely felt it.

FOOD. When I go to a new place for the first time, I like to eat what the locals eat, where the locals eat. Apparently in El Nido, they eat pizza and pasta. I'm not picky, I would eat what's available as long as I'm not craving for anything specific but this is a vacation and I like to pig out on good food when on vacation. Given, a lot of foreigners stay at the town proper so they would want to offer what the foreigners are used to and in different varieties. And yes, the locals have the right to eat pizza anytime they want to. But what about local tourists? If there are families or groups visiting who want to eat local dishes then there is very limited choice, sad to say. The price of the food is also very standard. This might be good for local businessmen, though, so people don't just go to the one who offers the lowest price. There are some good places but it's not something I'm going to crave for.

PEOPLE. Oh they are sincerely nice and accommodating. And we are paying guests, after all. Lol. I asked the tour guide on day one.
Me: Kuya, ano'ng dialect nyo dito?
Kuya: Madami na. Iba-iba. Kasi madami nang dayuhan.
Me: Ah. Anu-ano yon?
Kuya: May German, Italian, French.
Me: (Errr... ok) Yung local dialect? Tagalog lang?
Kuya: Oo, Tagalog dito.

I rest my case.

Well, this is a tourist town with immigrants from European countries and I can't really blame the food and that dialect conversation on them. It wasn't their fault they saw the potential of this country waaaay before we did.

I guess what I'm getting at is that ... places like Vigan boasts of a Spanish town but, hey, the Philippines got owned (in more ways than one) by the Spanish so when I went there I knew, "This is Philippines." Baguio might be overrated for some but I never get tired of walking on their highly populated streets even on my own because and when I do I can say, "This is Philippines." Manila is a place vacationing locals want to get away from but when I'm here I can feel, "This is Philippines." So why can't I feel the same for El Nido when I know that it's in the same province (and also has immigrants from Europe) as Coron, a place where I felt I was in the Philippines?

Then again maybe I wouldn't have noticed if it wasn't raining so hard.