![]() Hemingway has quickly become one of my favorite authors since reading "The Sun Also Rises" and a few of his short stories. This novel supplemented that opinion. I can't quite explain what it's about his writing style that I enjoy so much, but it is simple yet profound that leaves much of the experience up to the reader. I chose this book because of the sudden Italy and I thought I could learn some thing about the country as I am moving there shortly. Taking place during the first world war, there wasn't much I could actually take away regarding modern Italy. The stories of a young American man who fights with Italy during the war. He speaks proper Italian, but obviously the entire book is written in English. The story is tragic regarding the sorrows of war, but the optimism of an end and the romantic distraction of love keeps the story moving in a positive direction. However, just as any other Hemingway book would go, the ending is not a happy one. I find myself enjoying endings that are abruptly sad and disappointing. Perhaps that is why I enjoy Hemingway so much.
0 Comments
![]() Compared to my previous readings that promote an end to animal cruelty, I feel like this one would be less convincing than "A Plea for the Animals," and has a greater chance of resulting in some antagonism from the layman. As a vegan, and self proclaimed animal rights advocist, I did enjoy the book. This is mostly in the sense that it feels very validating to hear your philosophies expressed so passionately. I don't mean to put myself in an echo chamber, but really the only person I ever surround myself with that expresses my same feelings for the subject is Alex. Yes - he is my boyfriend and the individual I spend most of my time with, but it would be hard to disagree with my significant other on such a imperative and obvious moral standard. I appreciate this book to its scientific approach in explaining the rights violations of animals. To avoid biases, Singer utilizes reports from the violators themselves. It is often that the horrid conditions of these animals are mentioned positively for their cost saving benefits - but this does not mean that the average person will read this reports and see them as a good thing. In fact, it is the opposite. Finding out that such cruelty is done on the grounds of profits is heartbreaking. This is why so many meat-eaters like justify eating meat through discussions of human-nature, mutualism, nutrition, etc. None of these are the reasons behind the inhumane treatment of these farm animals. Inhumane. What an ironic word we use to describe ethical behavior, when humans are the most cruel and unnecessarily violent species on the planet. Humans engage in unnecessary cruelty, simple as killing animals for the taste satisfaction, or in slavery, torture, revenge. These are very uncommon in the rest of the animal kingdom. Peter Singer mentions this, how we justify our meat consumption by comparing ourselves to lions and bears, but we only do so when convenient. People don't bring up bulls, rhinos, or elephants though - all very strong and powerful animals that are herbivores. Though, humans like to describe themselves as animalistic when they aim to justify behavior that really has no good defense, behavior that is based on sensory satisfaction and impulse. Just like when justifying sexual harassment, people level themselves with animals to justify themselves. But when it comes to exerting dominance and superiority, humans maintain a superiority over other animals. Humans like to say that animals like cows and pigs don't deserve respect or rights because they are dumb creatures, but they don't want to recognize the moral gap in logic when it comes to pets. If you are not vegetarian and claim to be an animal lover, you are probably just a pet lover. If you want to be morally consistent, please consider the ethical philosophies of veganism, many of which you can learn from this book. ![]() I don't even know where to begin with this book, much like the author. I can't remember who specifically mentioned this book to me, but it was described as very high level. Maybe I had built up such an excitement to read it because I felt it would be a good challenge, or perhaps it was the description as psychedelic and trippy. I won't lie - a big selling point was the very cool cover. Ultimately this book was a major let down, to the point where I did not even finish it. I really did give it a good shot, but I found myself over halfway through the book feeling lost, but not because of the complication of the plot, but the overly dramatic language that aimed to make the most meaningless thoughts come across as profound. Nothing ended up coming across as profound. There was potential in writing a book about a apocalyptic dystopia where humanity went to far with technology. With animalistic and mythological gods, and main characters that were uniquely given different background and powers, you would think that the plot was set up for success. Instead, the book jumped around between settings, emotions, and perspectives that had you not really rooting for anyone or anything. I really did not care for where the story would go, nor was I curious. For this reason, I felt encouraged to abandon it. I found that many people had similar sentiments about this book, but there remains many who admire it. I think I need to read Jeff Vandermeer's previous books to understand him as a writer. Then, maybe I can understand his point a bit more. I can culminate my impression of this book in one hyphenated word: fake-woke. Maybe it was just too high level for me, or maybe it was just boring. Regardless, I would not recommend. ![]() I don't have much to say about this movie because it doesn't deserve much for me to say. The first thirty minutes were promising, and feel good by nature. I want to emphasize that my hopes for this movie were based in it being a feel good movie. It was not. Quickly the plot turned away from an early revealed goofy absurd premise to a struggle between alcoholism, death, and abuse. The character that you are suppose to root for hardly feels like a hero, and the ending left me empty and with my eyes rolling. Not worth nearly two hours of my time. The lesson is that just because a movie has actors you enjoy, doesn't mean the movie will be enjoyable. ![]() I am disappointed to say that I am so relieved to finally be finished with this book. Now, when you get engulfed in a series or a universe, whether it's a book or a movie or a show, you find yourself enjoying to be present in that universe no matter the story. That element still remains, and I really enjoyed learning more about Frank Herbert's universe, but the story aspect of this book was tremendously missing. I was optimistic at the start, as the introduction of new characters had me intrigued to learn more about the different perspectives his this world. Unfortunately, we did not learn much about any new characters, I think Frank was stuck in the stories of those more familiar. Despite this, they familiar characters were not familiar at all. I am not going to give any spoilers that, even for those who haven't read any of the books, but the structure of this story was very different. Upon reading discussions, I was surprised that many actually loved this book. I think this has more to do with the buildup of Heretics of Dune. With that, I feel like we can compare this book to the first third of Dune in that it sets up the story more so than tells one. A lot of this book attempted to explain some philosophical and political messages rather than do so through a plot. It was very direct, but it felt (as Alex and I said at the exact same time) "fake woke." Regardless, I will be sure to read the next book, but I am less eager than I was to read this one after the previous. Hopefully a reading of the next book and potentially a future reread will have me understanding how this book wasn't largely a waste of 500 pages. ![]() I cannot understand why Lili had good things to say about this movie. Based off of her recommendation, Zara and I decided to watch it, for the laughs mostly. I was shocked that the movie is hardly funny, it was very serious in it's nature. The only time I laughed was out of uncomfortable I was when I saw the strippers dancing. I never want to see that much of Matthew McConaughey ever again. I guess the aspect that Lili recommended it one was that it wasn't you would expect, which is true. Although, as I expected - it was bad. ![]() This book was recommended to me by Dr. Carolyn Kissane, the director of the SPS Energy, Climate Justice and Sustainability Lab and the coordinator of the Energy and Environment concentration at NYU's school of professional studies. She was kind enough to meet with me to discuss the program after I was admitted, and during our conversation I asked if she had any book recommendations. She asked if I had already read this book, showing me how popular and recommended it must be. Responding truthfully, she insisted that I add this to my list to read prior to entering graduate school, so I did! The primary argument of this book is that Earth is entering into it's sixth extinction, this one being man-made. That is not though how the book starts out. The book essentially dives into the study of extinction sciences and its first chapter actually dives into a case study of the Golden Toad, outlining how their demise can only be connected to humans because no other species would've been capable of spreading a fungi that was the cause of their extinction. This seems to be the way Kolbert builds her argument. She slowly starts by introducing the reader to these concepts of extinction and how humanity is connected. In the 11th and 12th chapter, she introduces the history of fossil discovery that permitted the understanding of the concept of extinction, and how it points contradicted with previous theories of existence and future theories of evolution. Ocean acidification is a process that this book has enlighten me too, and I'm shocked that it is not as widely known as global warming. In fact, this book even refers to it as global warming equally evil twin, but it is not gonna be nearly as much attention (120). This is a result of the rising CO2 levels that come from human activity. Just to name a few, the burning of fossil fuels has added 365 billion metric tons of carbon to the atmosphere, and deforestation contributing another 180 billion. Where does it all go? Well, thankfully we discovered that it has been creating a hole in the atmosphere (global warming) that causes glaciers to disappear, coastal cities to go underwater, the polar ice caps to melt, but I figure that we all know that by now. We don't realize that the ocean cover 70% of earths surface, and at every point where that water comes into contact with the air there is exchange of carbon dioxide. Perhaps we can do this process with gratitude, thinking the oceans for absorbing much of the carbon dioxide that would otherwise destroy the atmosphere, but we are ignorant to the ocean acidification that it is causing. At this rate, the pH of the ocean will drop to 7.8 by the end of the century (presently being 8.1 but previously being 8.2). In exploring the species that can survive in these low pH zones, scientists explored the waters of Italy where they were vents bubbling out gas out of the seafloor. Tear, some of the most resilient and invasive species were able to survive, but a loss of biodiversity is evident. In a 7.8 pH zone, 1/3 of the species found in the vent free zone were not present. This is what our future could look like in less than 80 years. Imagine the impact of the loss of the oceans biodiversity. Does this not terrify you? Something else I'm coming to realize is the class between my ethics on the treatment of animals and true environmentalismSomething else I'm starting to realize how environmentalist purposes can clash with my personal ethics on the treatment of animals. A lot of compromises have to be made in order to preserve the ecological community as a whole, including sacrificing certain species. This can include invasive species, general population control, habitat restoration, and a lot of other environmentalist efforts. Something is booked out into extensively is how humans play a significant role in the movement of species. Even Darwin himself explain how it is virtually impossible for a species to cross oceans, including those that fly and swim. Humanity, however does not face that same difficulty anymore. Along with the spread of civilization we have seen that most species are no longer confined to the spot where they were introduced, and this happens without being noticed. This was even documented by Native Americans. Certain plants were used as a reliable sign of European presence and movement. Plantains were called the “white man's footsteps.” A lot of extinction is caused by the spreading of fungi from continents, and we have seen that this has been responsible for the death of golden frogs, chestnut trees, and millions of bats in New England. Here's where my ethics become problematic. I'm not exactly against the idea of eradicating a fungi species to protect establish species from novel interactions that are spectacularly deadly. However in Australia, the problem of these aquatic hitchhikers has become so extreme that they have employed kids to conduct regular hunts for cane toads. To dispose of them humanely, they were told to essentially freeze them. Humanely? That doesn't seem humane to me, but is there a more productive and efficient way to sustain the ecological well-being of an environmental community? More complicated is the notion of rights to land. Obviously, humanity has an extremely problematic of way of determining who land belongs to. As for other animals, the spread of species in the past couple of hundred years makes it hard to know who came first. Case is more obvious, like the Australian cane toads being poisonous to an established native specie like the northern quoll, who eat them and die. In other situations, it is less clear, and deciding on solutions that are ethically sound is all the more complex. I don’t even know if the freezing of these toads by children was a remotely ethical tactic for the government to employ, but I hope that they had rightfully determined for this to be the best way. But do I really? I feel wrong hoping that killing these toads this way is “right” but my moral standards. Regardless, this book is open my eyes to a future of moral qualms that I will likely face in environmental policy making. Just like a good fiction novel, this book just kept getting better. In fact, the last three chapters (particularly "The Rhino Gets An Ultrasound" and "The Madness Gene") were by far my favorite, but perhaps the most saddening. My hopes that there remains possibility o harmony between humanity and nature has been tarnished. We know the indirect causes of ecological damage caused by unnecessary human activity - to the point where I don't even need to list off examples - but what about the necessary? So it turns out, simple early humans were the responsible of many extinctions, particularly those similar to the most charismatic and lovable animals today. These large animals, such as giant sloths, mammoths, and rhinos, evolved to prioritize size over reproductive rate. This essentially made them more difficult to prey on, but much slower to repopulate. Once hungry and tool-using humans came along, they did not stand a chance, not even long term. Using simulations, it was found that even "if every band of ten hunters killed off just one diprotodon a year, within about 700 years, every diprotodon within several hundred miles would have been gone." (234). The chapter concluded by supposing that there might have never been a time where man existed harmoniously with nature. I concluded this chapter riddled with questions. There must have been other powerful predators that were capable of causing similar rates of extinction prior to the settlement of man... right? Is it even possible, with our present capacity, to ever live in harmony with nature? Is nature even suppose to be harmonious - as life is inherently competition is it not? Maybe it doesn't have to be, maybe we can make it harmonious but it seems like in its most natural state, planet earth was not in natural harmony, more like a competitive balance. The chapter on the Neanderthals was immensely fascinating. If you are into genetics, this chapter is a must read, but really, so is the whole book. I really expected Elizabeth Kolbert to conclude be really honing in on the human caused state of disaster we are in, but she didn't. Only the last 2 pages or so focused on this fact, the rest of it was done subtly through the anecdotes of diverse circumstances of human caused excitation. It is almost like she compiled a journal of her field notes and accidentally wrote a book persecuting humanity of ecological crimes. By doing so, it is extremely convincing but riddling as to how to make a change. The pessimistic ending even ridicules book readers, and levels them to a logger in the Amazon. Humans can't make a change, but humanity can. Well - isn't that kind of a bummer. Instead of telling us to do our part, we are told that we can't do enough, but that's sort of the point. It's a constant effort with no end, it has to be reframed as a new way of existence. I hope we can make it there. There is nothing more finite than life. Grasping the irreparable nature of species extinction is a hard pill to swallow. ![]() This was my first time watching a Studio Ghibli film. Honestly, what is better to do on a hungover Saturday morning than have breakfast in bed and watch a feel good animated movie? Nothing, I really think that the answer is nothing, especially when you are doing it with great company. You might think that this movie should be taken lightheartedly, and it can be taken as so, but do not discredit how amazing of a film it is. You could throw this on for kids to passively enjoy, or watch it with the most wise and experienced people on this planet and they would be captivated in the art and the story. It was so hard for me to believe that all of the framed were drawn by hand - I am still in awe. The main character was so likable but not too likable, as there were still aspects to him that frustrated the audience but in an endearing way. My only qualm with this movie was the sexism, but I think that you could take the film as a criticism of sexism. Regardless, it still portrayed women in a negative and less capable way for the most part, but it was also set in a different era so it is hard to blame the story writers for that. I think I really want to watch all of the Studio Ghibli movies. This seemed to be one of the less popular ones, but it must be regarded us underrated for a reason. I can't begin to imagine how great the popular ones are! Alex was nervous to watch this one with me, because he hadn't seen it before and was worried that if it wasn't great, it would put me off to Studio Ghibli movies. Well, I can assure him that he will to have to worry about that. ![]() My friends and I decided to start some sort of book club together, and reccomended by Matthew (and voted by the rest of us), we chose to first read Catcher In The Rye by J.D. Salinger. I want to call out and partially shame Matthew, because last I checked he hasn't even started the book, and Brian also bailed, hmph. But the rest of us have been reading on, and to be honest, the premise of a book club is confusing. Are we to read at the same pace, and how often are we suppose to discuss the book? I am not sure, and if anyone has any tips, please let me know. Anyway, the book follows angsty sixteen year old Holden Caulfield, a boy who has just been expelled from his boarding school and adventures New York City before he has to return home to disappoint his parents. The main character is immature even for a teenager, and is quick - almost eager - to admit that about himself. Consequently, the book is written in a voice that is extremely crude and unsophisticated. This is not to say that books written as so are lesser for it, but for some reason, reading it just makes me feel like I am losing braincells. I guess that is sort of the point, hearing the inner thoughts of an immature and sort of crazy 16 year old will do that to you. I have also been listening to it as well, which I prefer over reading, because doing so just intensifies the childlike nature of the book for some reason. Overall, this book kind of felt like a dud. I feel like it had so much potential and build up but did nothing with it, but I guess that is like the main character. Although, his potential was kind of the opposite, the lack of potential gave him the freedom to do anything he wanted, which he almost did. I feel like although he was close, he was never actually going to run away. It took talking to Alex prior to reading the final three chapters to realize how depressed Holden actually was, but the depression felt sort of unexplained and downplayed. I think the saddest part of the book regarded the perverts that he had to deal with throughout his life, but the extent of the effect of this trauma on his 16 year old state was unclear. I think the desire to abandoned structured life is common, but this was enlightening to see the trouble it brings to those who do not fit the demanding structures of society. I, for one, can relate with some of the frustrations of Holden, but I recognize that I remain privileged in that I adhere to the social structure without feeling that it goes against the person I am. I fit the mold quite well, Holden does not. Why should he be doomed to a depression for it? Life is unfair, and sad. ![]() So it seems like Alex and I have started this tradition where we spend Valentine's Day watching a terribly sad movie. When I say terribly sad - I don't mean the movie is terrible, (just like last year, 'Promising Young Woman' was definitely not a terrible movie) just that it is heart breaking and tear jerking throughout. Last year, Alex surprised me by picking that movie because it was recommended by Alamo Draft-house employees. For some reason, he got to pick the movie we watched this year as well. I joke, I gave him the permission because he so kindly watched euphoria the night before with me even though it is not something he has ever watched. Just so you know, mentioning that this movie is sad is not a spoiler at all, if you read the description of the movie it is very clearly going to be something that is not happy in nature. The movie is about a pandemic that essentially functions like Alzheimer's, eating at the memories of those who are infected. Premise of the movie is the struggle of a couple trying to hold onto their love amidst the virus. Okay, I have to admit the is objectively quite good. The acting and directing was surprisingly amazing considering that I had not been been familiar with any of the cast or crew. I didn't feel slow and had my attention fully throughout, but it was just so sad for a Valentine's Day movie. I don't know how to give my final take without spoiling the ending, so I guess I won't, but I definitely recommend this movie for those who are not afraid to shed a tear or two. |
Categories |