Right vs. Wrong and The Value Criterion

"You're right, it doesn't really matter. It's best to live life as yourself. If you start to care too much about results, then you see the box that you're kind of in and then you start acting like your box is supposed to act. Then you're not acting like yourself." - my best friend in response to my last post

So I was sitting here procrastinating from figuring out a plot dilemma, and I started thinking about the concept of right and wrong (which sounds odd when I put it like that).

I firmly believe that there are many situations in which I am right, while the people with opposing ideas can also be right. That sounds awfully counter-intuitive (because it is), so I then proceeded to try and justify that belief.

In Lincoln-Douglas debate (one-on-one with a specific format), there is the resolution (the thing being debated), the value premise (the goal), and the value criterion (how progress towards the goal is measured).

Here's the resolution from the 2010-2011 Nationals: "When forced to choose, a just government ought to prioritize universal human rights over its national interest."

The value premise is "just government." The value criterion, however, changes between the affirmative and negative sides of the resolution. 

If I'm arguing affirmative, my value criterion would be something like "'Just,' as defined by the World English Dictionary, means fair or impartial in action or judgement; therefore, a just government is one that favors no group of people over another for arbitrary reasons such as national boundaries."

If I'm arguing negative, however, my value criterion would be something like "The purpose of a just government is to provide for its citizens a fair, well-functioning society with legal allowance for equal opportunities for all citizens; therefore, a just government is one that acts with its national interest in mind." (Bear in mind this is my first time writing value criterions-- the purpose here isn't to actually have a solid argument.)

So with one set of values, universal human rights should have the priority, and with the other set of values, the primary drive should be national interest. The affirmative is correct according to the things valued by the affirmative, and the negative is correct according to the things valued by the negative. They're both right, despite having opposing opinions regarding how to reach the goal of "just government."

The debate, then, falls to well-argued points concerning values rather than methods by which to attain the goal. It's not "same-sex marriage should be legal" vs, "same-sex marriage should not be legal." It's "we value marriage equality" vs. "we believe marriage should only take place between a man and a woman." A small difference, but an important one. In both cases the goal is corruption-free marriage laws; both sides just have differing opinions as to what that means-- based on their values.

That particular example is one in which I think the side opposite mine is dead wrong and nothing they say can change my mind, so perhaps I should not have used it here, but there are plenty of other situations in which I respect the difference in values and am fine with acknowledging the subjective "rightness" of the other person, even if I will gladly debate it with them anyway (acknowledging the validity of an opposing opinion does not mean agreeing with it, after all).

Review: XVI by Julia Karr

In case any of you are following the discussion around yesterday's post but aren't subscribed to The Liberal Rocker, here's the link to the follow-up to the post to which I linked yesterday.


And here is something to brighten your day.


Clearly I have some sort of condition that prevents me from reviewing any books other than YA dystopian novels.


I almost read XVI by Julia Karr in 24 hours-- partially because I wanted to have it done in time for book club, and partially because it was just that good. I somehow managed to forget all of the things I meant to say about it at said book club, though, so I figured I'd talk about it here.


Description from Shelfari: "Nina Oberon's life is pretty normal: she hangs out with her best friend Sandy and their crew, goes to school, plays with her little sister, Dee. But Nina is 15. And like all girls she'll receive a Governing Council ordered tattoo on her 16th birthday. XVI. Those three letters will be branded on her wrist, announcing to all the world, even to the most predatory of men, that she is ready for sex. Some girls can't wait to be sixteen, to be legal. Nina is not one of them. Considered easy prey by some, portrayed by the Media as sluts who ask for attacks, becoming a "sex-teen" is Nina's worst fear. Even though she has no choice in the matter, she knows that so long as her life continues as normal, everthing will be okay. That is, until right before her birthday, when Nina's mom is brutally attacked. With her dying breaths, she reveals to Nina a shocking truth about her past that destroys everything Nina thought she knew. Now, alone but for her sister, Nina must try to discover who she really is, all the while staying one step ahead of her mother's killer. But there's one boy who can help- and he just may hold the key to her past. But with the line between attraction and danger as thin as a whisper, one thing is for sure...for Nina, turning sixteen promises to be anything but sweet."

First, to address something I failed at explaining last night: The media itself is not evil. It's the government-owned Media (capital M) that is bad (which, fair enough, is the only media except for some underground bloggers mentioned occasionally who usually mysteriously disappear). (Also, every now and then all of the talking advertisements that line the street go silent. Then a voice comes on and says "This moment of silence was brought to you by the Resistance, for with silence comes independent thought." Isn't that clever? Shorting out the ads in favor of a sponsored moment of silence.)

XVI is everything I wanted Delirium to be. In Delirium, the characters were often just talking meat-sacks that filled roles (I mean, there's a reason I call Alex "Awesome Chest Guy"). The romance in XVI, on the other hand, was realistic-yet-sweet, and all of the characters (except maybe Sandy, but that could just be my prejudice) felt like real people. Even the dead ones (Nina's mom is particularly awesome, despite being such a tragic character). Nina herself is a relatable and likable heroine.

And then there is Ed, her mom's evil boyfriend. Oh my god. (If you are one of the few people to have read my book...think Roger. Except worse.) He's not really a fleshed-out character, but Julia Karr makes sure you hate him with a burning passion by the end of the book. And then...well, I don't want to spoil it for you.

I've read a lot of fantastic books this year (Little Brother, several things by David Levithan, etc.), so I don't want to say that this is one of my "favorites," but I'm definitely giving it 5 stars. 

The only bad thing I can think of (okay, maybe it's not the most plot-twistingly original Hunger Games-esque dystopian book, but let us forgive that) is the occasional inconsistency- it mentions how her teacher's glasses must just be for show because everyone gets corrective surgery now, but then in the next chapter her grandpa is wearing some- but hey. A book doesn't need to be perfect to get 5 stars.


So to tie it back in with my other reviews of recently-published dystopian novels, XVI is definitely better than Delirium, and I think I'll go ahead and say it was better than Matched as well, even though Matched gave me more joy in the act of reading.

Bubble Wrap Is Fun...Except When You're Trapped In It

I'm fairly sure rock4ever95 expected me to be somewhat offended by his most recent post, especially given that I'm mentioned in the first paragraph.

If that was the case, I broke expectations. Granted, I have one or two problems with certain specific things, but he makes a very good point nonetheless. 

So you should go read that post before coming back here, because I am going to talk about why I think it's important that you read it. I'm not even going to talk about said specific things. This is a positive post (what? A positive reaction to a post the guy with which you had that not-so-infamous Will Grayson debate? WHAT? Yes. I know. Haha.)

People, especially those in or near their teenage years, tend to have a need to fit in, to feel like they belong. They will often fulfill this need by joining groups: school clubs, fandoms, sports teams, Nerdfighteria, etc. These groups are comprised of people with similar interests coming together to share in those interests. This will ideally result in fun, friends, and fulfillment. None of which are bad things.

The thing with Nerdfighteria, as described in his post, is that it's like the corporate conglomerate of fandoms and school clubs. It's the school club for all of the people who are also already in clubs D, F, T, B, and A. This results in creating what he often refers to as the "John Green cult." While the term makes me slightly uncomfortable since I associate with said group, I can't exactly argue with it. Pizza John shirts, anyone? ;)

The vlogbrothers themselves wouldn't want it to be referred to like that, since to them it's about the community and not the self-glorification, but what they want isn't the point. It's how the people involved respond to them, and to each other. And that is the issue.

Some people fall into the, for want of a better word, "cult mentality" of the thing because they love the feeling of belonging. They devote themselves whole-heartedly to the phenomenon, sometimes to slightly-disturbing extremes. It's one thing to do this for a time. It is another to never come back out. This is unhealthy. Which is why it is important that posts like the one about which I am writing (and hopefully this one as well) are not only written, but also read and thought about.

Moderation, people. It's important. Be in the community and love/enjoy the community, but the purpose of finding a place in which to belong isn't to stay there and never leave for the rest of your life. It's to use it as a launch-pad for yourself as a person (as well as to enjoy it for what it is).To build yourself a base of operations, and to become a better/stronger person because of it. To live, to love, to learn, and to move on. (Not saying to abandon it entirely-- just to allow yourself to spread out a bit more.)

Don't be "a nerdfighter." Be "a person who happens to be a nerdfighter."

So I leave you with my favorite part of his post: "I am a firm believer in being a cultural omnivore. When you devote yourself entirely to one thing or one style or one genre you miss out on all this awesome stuff in different styles and genres."

I am definitely not as successful as I'd like to be in that goal, but it's something I'm working on (expect a post on that soon. I find it interesting). And regardless of whether or not I'm good at it, I think it's a good thing to keep in mind when making cultural choices. **raises shields against hypocrisy accusations**

An Abundance of Quotes Part 15

"You can love someone so much, but you can never love people as much as you can miss them." - some John Green book


"It's simple to love someone, but it's hard to know when you need to say it out loud." - Rebecca Stead, When You Reach Me


"There is nothing to fear but fears themselves, such as monsters, rejection, food poisoning, redundancy, monsters, and Oxford commas." - Craig Benzine


"If you want to spit out brilliance, try spitting things out." - rock4ever95


“WORTH IT and perfect are different things. No one’s perfect, yet in romance, everyone becomes WORTH IT. And that’s the trick.” - Maureen Johnson


"Water, taken in moderation, cannot hurt anybody." - Mark Twain (Yes it can *cough* Doctor Who *cough*)


"We are often told that we are what we eat. In our world since the printing press it might be more accurate to say we are what we read. How each of us digests what we read is a mystery. And what people read is sometimes as puzzling as what they really think." - Daniel J. Boorstin, 1989


"Let others be ashamed who have buried themselves in books that they can offer nothing for the common enjoyment." - Cicero, 62 B.C.


I know there's a fair amount of love-related quotes in there. It wasn't intentional. I just stock up on them for awhile in order to make an AoQ post.

Fear Part 4: Hate

This post comes to you courtesy of a variety of things/events/people, but the only one I can link to is this, which is very good, and while it's related, it's about something else, so go read it.


Now that you have read it (and if you haven't, go do so right now), I would like to begin by saying that I find it very difficult to comprehend the concept of having such a high level of hate (as some do) based on such a thing.
And comprehending it is something I've had to do recently, since I'm currently writing from the perspective of one such person. It hasn't been easy to write it well, but it has been fascinating to try.
So there's two of the things.


The third is that when my grandma and I were leaving to go see my sister's track meet this afternoon, I opened her car door to find a wasp.


Now, I am terrified of bees and all of their relatives. I don't know why, but I am.


However, my immediate vocal reaction was not one of fear. It was "I HATE BEES. I HATE THEM I HATE THEM I HATE THEM."


How did I make the jump from fear to hate? It doesn't make much sense. But it happened, and it happens to other people as well in worse contexts than insects.


So we profess to hate what we fear, and quite often (although not the case with my example) we fear what we do not understand. That's the basis for the writing project mentioned above: growing to understand. 


It's ironic, too. Because while my narrator is growing to understand that homosexuality isn't the most Evil Thing Ever, as I'm writing it, I'm growing to understand her (despite not actually agreeing, of course.)

Review: Matched, by Ally Condie

"A dream you dream alone is only a dream. A dream you dream together is reality."
---John Lennon, via rock4ever95's Facebook

I think it's beautiful. And yes, I did just go stalk through weeks of posts to find it.

For the past two weeks, I've been reading Matched, by Ally Condie. My copy is an ARC, so I don't get the awesome cover that originally caught my eye in the store, but I finally got my hands on it, so I don't really mind.

On the cover of this ARC are a bunch of quotes from different people in the publishing house. One of them says something like "Readers who love The Giver and The Hunger Games will not be disappointed." This is true.

A summary before I get into my review:

A long time ago when Cassia Reyes' great-grandmother was young, the Society decided that humanity was over-cultured, so they began sorting through everything, to discard the things that were not "needed." Now there is only the Hundred Poems, the Hundred Songs, the Hundred Paintings, and the Hundred History Lessons. Data is gathered about everyone constantly, so their every action is predicted. Dreams are monitored. Food is assigned based on individual needs. Everyone owns only Plainclothes, Workclothes, Swimclothes, and Sleepclothes. 

Except for your Matching Banquet, when guys get to wear suits, and girls choose from the Hundred Dresses.

Sometime in the year after your seventeenth birthday, all of your data is analyzed to Match you with the person you are most likely to have the happiest life with. You receive a microcard containing a picture, a brief description, and courtship guidelines. The Society arranges supervised (at first) conversations-- and later meetings-- between you and your Match, until the Marriage Contract is signed at twenty one.

Cassia's Match is a rare occurrence. She's been Matched with someone she knows-- her best friend, as a matter of fact. But when she opens the microcard, a different boy's face appears. A face she also knows.

The thing I initially loved about this book is that the Society isn't obviously evil. The Matches really are happy. People really are healthier than ever before. The principles behind the Society are bad, of course, but the system actually seems to be working well.

Then Condie starts to reveal little problems here and there. There's the pills everyone is required to carry: one green for calming, one blue for emergency sustenance, and one mysterious red pill that can only be taken if an Official demands it. (The red pill is brilliant.)

The reader doesn't start out seeing all of the flaws in the system. We know they're there, because that's what books like this do, but we discover them along with Cassia.

Dystopia/negative-utopia is not necessarily my favorite genre (although it's definitely up there), but it is the genre that I've enjoyed the most consistently so far. And I think the world-building in Matched is very, very well-done. In fact, I just pretty much adored this book overall.

(And for those who know what I'm talking about, Cassia's grandfather gives Lester Trapp a run for his money in Most Awesome Old Person. I'm glad Trapp won, but...)

In a lot of books of this genre, the flaws of the system are discovered by stumbling upon a secret, or by finding a covert organization working on a rebellion. Or perhaps they're just obvious and the citizens are too powerless to do anything about them until the start of the novel.

But in Matched, Cassia comes to realize the problems of the Society just by experiencing and thinking. She comes to realize the problems through love, both romantic and otherwise.

The question is raised: If you've been set up with a person against your will but end up loving him/her anyway, is that love genuine? Does it still mean as much?

I enjoyed this book very, very much, and am eagerly anticipating the sequel. 

I'm a bit annoyed with the ending, though. Not because it was bad, but because a certain plot element is rather similar to something at the end of my own novel. And I thought I was being clever.

Actually, Matched reminded me of my own writing from early on. Cassia is similar to the main character of my own attempt at a post-apocalyptic story (although Matched is far better-written than mine), and there were several plot-things that were things I definitely would have done, or at least would have done if I'd thought of them in time (which is partially why I began this post with that quote--because he's the one that helped salvage the dregs of my own initial plot-- thankyouthankyouthankyouthankyou).

But yes: Matched had lots of things that made me go "Ooh, that's brilliant!"

I definitely recommend it. Hopefully this review wasn't too all-over-the-place.

In Which I Listen Selectively

I'm reading a blog post on Figment. An author is giving writing advice. 


Tip #4 goes out on here to rock4ever95, since the subtitle of his blog is "A place for me to stroke my inflated ego."


"4. Be true to your vision and voice. I believe that being a successful artist in any medium requires a massive ego. If you don’t have one, I have to question the unique or lasting value of your art."


Tip #5, however, I choose to ignore. Clockwork would remain a non-sensical half-formed piece of crap if not for the very specific feedback of my writing group. I am not giving them up without a very big, very bloody fight, and probably not even then. They're incredibly helpful. Plus, I like them.






"I'm not dead yet!"


Then again, I do try to keep them away from first drafts. Even they still have yet to see what NaNoWriMo 2010 spawned.


I would also like to draw attention to #10: "10. Ignore all lists of rules or how to’s for writing fiction."


So there you have it. The rules will help, but you should definitely ignore them. What a worthwhile thing to read.

Re-Segregation in Schools

"Wherever you are - be all there." - Jim Elliot


"Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested." - Francis Bacon, 1625 


Children, I want you all to put on your clean dresses and freshly-pressed suits, because we're going to have a very important visitor arriving here on this blog rather soon. I will be going away for a little bit so that I won't be cluttering up the house while she is here. I want you all to be on your very best behavior. If you do as I ask, I will bake you a special treat.


Who is this visitor, you ask? She is an agent who has expressed interest in The Clockwork Experiment. I may or may not actually stop posting (most likely not-- I could never leave you dear ones for very long, could I? I mean, take a look at the archives on the right). However, the special treat is not a lie, unlike the cake. (Portal reference, anyone?) At least, it's solid truth for those of you in my writing group-- assuming I remember to bake it, that is.


Now, I could write a post in all capital letters about how exciting that is (and believe me, it's easily exciting enough to write one in THE LARGEST FONT SIZE), but I have more interesting things to be discussing, so let us move on to those.


Wow, this is coming out really formal other than the parenthesized parts, isn't it? I'll have to make up for it some other time.


As some of you may or may not know, my county's school system was mocked on the Colbert Report last night.  
I was not offended.
On the contrary, I was thoroughly amused, in a "Oh God, that's so true. Our school board sucks" kind of way.
As a friend of mine posted on Facebook, "When your county is the on the Colbert Report, you feel a mixture of pride and deep, deep shame."


It's heart-breaking to know that the school board is essentially re-segregating our schools with full knowledge of their actions. Worse yet is to see the parents, teachers, students, and even non-parent people who care pleading with them to keep the current policies at the open hearings. 
They claim that they're doing it to make it easier on parents-- so they don't have to drive their kids as far in the mornings-- and so that certain students won't have to sit on the bus for close to an hour twice a day.
However, many students with long transportation times clearly stated that they didn't mind. They understood the importance of socio-economic (and for the most part, therefore racial) diversity, and they were willing to give up a few hours of sleep each week in favor of that.


Let's see... "democracy." Literal definition: ruled by the people.
We elect those we wish to make the decisions for us, because we believe them to represent our values. They're supposed to do what we want, even if it's only so we'll elect them for another term.
I don't see the school board representing our values. I'm sure there are those who agree with them, but where are they? Not at that hearing. If they aren't making themselves heard, why should the school board do what they might want?


Hey...wasn't there that thing back when hippies were around called the Civil Rights Something-or-other? What was that thing about, again? I don't seem to recall.

Will Grayson: The Counter x5 Post

And so it continues here. I'm out of quotes at the moment.

"I also think that David Levithan should be the super famous one and not, as he told me when I ambushed him in a hallway at ALA, "The half of Will Grayson who isn't on TV all the time.""


David Levithan may correct me if he wishes, but I think he was just making a joke.


She then wrote "I never said that all of his characters and all of his plots are really alike"

Um, actually you did, "The summary of a John Green book: Somewhat nerdy teen with a specific quirk and lovable friends confronts an issue that is easily related to by teen readers through humor and character-recognized metaphor.
Either you like that plot line, or you don't. I do, and therefore I don't mind that the books are the same." and "Yes, Pudge, Colin, Quentin, and Will all share traits. They all sound somewhat the same within their minds."


"Really alike" is different from "can be generalized so that they can be summed up as one." 


Harry Potter books: Harry returns to Hogwarts after another summer at Privet Drive. He continues to thwart Voldemort's rise to power, while also trying to grow up as a normal kid.
Hunger Games: The Capital throws obstacle after obstacle at Katniss Everdeen, and she attempts to overcome them with the help of friends both from her District and others.
Tamora Pierce: Strong female character fights male-created stereotypes and kicks major butt in combat and intelligence.
Sure, those are series (with the exception of Ms. Pierce), but I haven't read a lot of authors who write only stand-alone books, so I can't really use them as back-up, can I?
Both of these quotes of mine--especially the second-- were in reference to voice/writing-style alone, and therefore do not apply.


I did not mean to diss Tiny Cooper and I also did not mean anything by saying that he was created by John Green. I was attempting to be snarky and funny and obviously my point was lost. I apologize.


I don't think you had much to apologize for there, so apology...understood. I can't "accept" it because I don't feel that you did anything to me that you need to apologize for.


If the main character is not likable and he was supposed to be then that is a sign of a bad author. I am not saying that Will was supposed to be likable, I was just making the point. And he was somewhat likable I just didn't like the way he treated Tiny.


Yes, if he was supposed to be. I'm just not sure that Uppercase Will was supposed to be likable at the onset of the book. Lowercase Will certainly wasn't. Perhaps UW just started out more likable to carry people through to the parts where LW becomes easier to sympathize with. 
To make a reference to Catcher in the Rye again, I found Holden to be incredibly unlikable throughout the course of the book, and Salinger is generally acknowledged to be a literary genius. Or at least, Catcher is well-liked across the board.
I haven't read it in a couple years, though. Maybe my opinion would change upon re-reading now.


""You keep blaming flaws within the book on John. David Levithan worked on this book as well, and you can't attribute only the good parts of it to him." I didn't/don't. I enjoyed the play stuff and John Green can be both laugh out loud funny and touchingly romantic but I believe that he is overrated."


He's a video blogger with hundreds of thousands of subscribers. Of course those people are going to love his work more than they would otherwise. I am one of these people, therefore I know it to be true. There are a lot of inside jokes and references that endear the books to us that others don't get, for one thing, plus, as I said in my first counter post, we are biased.


Elfarmy concluded by writing "I will think about this and most likely see that you are correct once I've written those short stories for my deadline. Who has author credit now? I do. In YOUR face."

Ok, congrats on the deadline and whatnot but it is author cred, not credit.


I was under the impression that "cred" was shorthand for "credit." My mistake.


This is sort of unrelated, as it was a point I made in my last counter post. 
About how characters should be different from the author. 
That's true. However, the narrators are not necessarily duplicates of the author (although Pudge may debatably be so, as he won't admit to just how much of Looking for Alaska is true. The school itself is certainly very similar to his own boarding school, and he and Pudge share a fondness for famous last words.) When I write, I steal certain aspects of myself and apply them to my characters, and do the same to other people I know. You stole our names for The House. 
I am a big believer in the idea that writing novels is a fantastic form of psychotherapy. Some such novels are well-disguised and good enough that you can work through your own issues and still entertain others. Some (such as my own When the Sun Was In Your Hair) are most definitely not and should never see the light of day ever ever ever.
So maybe John takes "I have doubts about the afterlife" and writes a book about it.
Takes "Why can't romance be quantified?" and writes a book about it.
Takes "I have trouble imagining people complexly and apparently so does the rest of the world" and writes a book about it.
Takes "Sometimes I am a selfish coward" and writes a book about it.
Key word: Maybe.
He doesn't need himself as a character. Only the aspects of himself that involve those fears or worries.


Then there's the "If all the books are the same, why read the new ones?"


Why watch new episodes of Doctor Who? The Doctor arrives in a new place/time and is excited about it. Something bad happens. Perhaps evil aliens are trying to take over or kill all life on Earth. So he does something cool to fix it. (This is over-simplifying. I know there's so much more to each episode and the overall plot of the show than that. The point is that even when something is really predictable, we still enjoy it because there are uniquely enjoyable and/or interesting things within each one.)


I find it interesting that we've ended up agreeing on a lot of things.

Will Grayson Will Grayson: The Counter Counter Counter Post

"Fanaticism consists in redoubling your effort when you have forgotten your aim." - George Santayana, the same guy who said those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it.


Rock4ever95 has had the audacity to call me audacious in countering his review, and therefore I must counter it once again. Or through some form of skewed reasoning like that. Here is his post.


He says "The real way to push the envelope is to give readers a plot that makes them question things and is clever and new and edgy and progressive. If only someone had written a book like that. Oh, wait, someone has. It was called Boy Meets Boy and it was written by David Levithan."

Looking for Alaska, and Paper Towns did make me question things. Maybe they're not new or edgy or progressive, and maybe they are, but they succeeded in the questioning category. WGWG didn't so much make me question, but it made me think, but the things I am referring to are rather personal and probably don't apply to you/most other people. Maybe it's not progressive or new or edgy. However, I enjoyed reading it a lot. 

I loved Boy Meets Boy. I will not dispute its quality. But when did this turn into a competition between Green and Levithan? I agree with you that Levithan is an excellent author. You might remember that collaborating on a book is not a competition. They each wrote their own chapters about their own characters, but that doesn't mean they didn't work together on the character development or the plot. More on this later.

"If the characters are very similar,the style is the same, and the plots are really alike then why bother reading the new books? Why don't you just reread the old ones? Why bother writing anything new? What's the point? If a writer is just writing the same thing over and over then how can you say that they are still a good writer? I used to love Caroline B Cooney but recently she is basically writing the same plot over and over and over again trying to get a hit and she isn't very good anymore. A good writer actually, again not to be flippant, but a good writer writes. They create new things, they don't just reinvent the wheel. The stretch and create characters who are different from each other and different from the author. So if the author were, say, a gay man, he might write a book about two straight brothers. And he might call it Are We There Yet."

I never said that all of his characters and all of his plots are really alike. I said the plots of Paper Towns and Looking for Alaska are similar, and that Quentin and Uppercase Will are similar.

I will repeat my point that there are different lessons to be learned from each of the four books. Some elements are similar, but that does not mean that the books are.

As I said, sharing similarities does not mean they are clones. We share 97% of our DNA with chimpanzees, and 99.9% of my DNA is identical to yours. Yet we are very different people.

Before I Fall is the same thing written over and over and over again. That is why it is not a good book. (And for those who liked it, yes, it has its merits, but that is a discussion for another time).

A good writer is a writer who writes well. A good career novelist shouldn't write the same thing over and over. 

Now the "different from the author" bit. That is a good point. 

Yes, the gay man might write a book about two straight brothers and call it Are We There Yet. That book might be a very good book. That does not mean that a different book the gay man writes with someone else isn't also a good book in different ways.

"Elfarmy went on to write

""Nothing happens in this book." I guess it depends on what you want to happen. It's a book about teenagers doing stuff. There aren't any vampires, or evil governments, or parents who are Greek gods. There's nothing to make them unique. They're just people. Some like to read such books, and some don't."

Interesting thing about that, I do like to read those books but normally something happens, there is a point. And looking back at WGWG here is what happened: lowercase Will struggled with his sexuality and went out with this weird character Green created and fought with this weird girl. And that was about it. Uppercase Will had problems with the weird character who Green created and wanted to go out with a girl and a school play. So all of that could have been interesting if it had been done better."

First off: Don't diss Tiny Cooper.

Here is something the authors agree on: Tiny Cooper was raised by two dads. John's just the one that "birthed him." And that's almost a direct quote. Again: this book was a collaborative effort. Tiny Cooper was introduced in an odd-numbered chapter. That doesn't mean he belongs solely to the odd-numbered chapters.

What happens in The Catcher in the Rye? A guy leaves school, talks to some nuns, thinks about metaphorical ducks a lot, feels lonely so he calls people, but no one wants to talk to him, and he decides that he wants to spend his life metaphorically standing in a rye field making sure kids don't fall off cliffs. Not much happens there either. It's just that lots of people identify with Holden and get stuff out of the book.

Maybe there's nothing inherently special about WGWG. I quote from John Green: "My part of the book is only half the conversation." I agree that he didn't make Quentin and Will the same to show that everyone is the same. But guess what: that's something I learned. Something he inadvertently made me think about. Therefore even if the merits of the book aren't intentionally placed there, it is still a good book.

Now, if they aren't intentional, what does that say about the authors? You're going to say it's lucky chance and I'm looking for stuff to learn to prove my point. I'm going to say that in this case (Will and Quentin being similar), it was a lucky chance, but for some other things, it was subconscious skill.

Then, of course, there are the intentional ones, which can be attributed to conscious skill.

 "And I have to say, Uppercase Will is kind of a jerk. I mean, the way he treats his supposed friend is pretty shameful. If he had been nicer and gotten more involved in the school play the book would have become way way way way way way better. But no, John Green did not do that for whatever reason. He apparently did not realise that the school play could make for a really really good main plot and the other stuff could make for an acceptable sub plot."

Yeah. Uppercase Will is a jerk. You're a jerk sometimes. I'm a jerk sometimes. You can't say a book or an author is bad just because the main character (or one of them) annoys you. That just means you didn't enjoy the book. 

You keep blaming flaws within the book on John. David Levithan worked on this book as well, and you can't attribute only the good parts of it to him. 

The play could have made an excellent main plot. But that's not what the book is about. The book is about learning to deal with people, which is something Uppercase Will isn't very good at, nor is Maura.

"Elfarmy then wrote

"You can't give good author-cred to someone just because they mention musicians you like."

My response: Heck Yeah you can, and I just did. IN YOUR FACE!!!!!!"

That's complimenting the person, not the author.

"Also, on a side note, Eragon and Eldest are almost scene for scene rewrites of Star Wars. Think about it and you will see that I am right (I spent a lot of time thinking about this)."

I will think about this and most likely see that you are correct once I've written those short stories for my deadline. Who has author credit now? I do. In YOUR face. ;)

Yes, those of you who aren't in my writing group, I have a deadline. However, I won't be saying for whom or with what yet, since it's not official and I don't want to announce it online and then have it not happen. It's not for The Clockwork Experiment, though. I'll tell you that much. 

Those who do know, please don't leave details in the comments. Thank you.

Will Grayson: The Counter-Post

“Love is hard and love is messy, and it can hurt worse than fire and sometimes it makes you want to tear down a building with your bare hands. But it also happens to be the best thing that’s ever happened to me. And I’m obviously not a big fan of hyperbole.” - Hank Green


"Christmas isn't a season. It's a feeling." - Edna Ferber


This is a counter post to this one on The Liberal Rocker, so please read that first. Yes, we all know that I am rather biased on this topic, but I am going to try to be as fair and objective as possible, so don't toss aside what I say just because of that. I've been meaning to write this post for awhile, and now seems like a good time to do it.


WARNING: Some spoilers of Looking for Alaska.


"Going into this book I had one problem with John Green, I felt that he had appointed himself the savior of YA Literature and saw it as his duty to push the envelope."


I'm not exactly sure what this means, nor do I know what this opinion is founded on, therefore I can't really refute it. However, I will say that there is a difference between believing you made YA better and believing you are the "savior" of it. 


"Coming out of this book I have another problem with him, all his characters are the same. Seriously, Will Grayson is almost exactly the same as the main character from Paper Towns. "


"All of his characters," no. Will and Quentin? Yes, they are similar.
I suppose that this is a matter of taste. I am predisposed to like anything John does, granted, so maybe if I weren't, I would also have a problem with it. I do find both Quentin and Will to be thoroughly entertaining narrators, though, so I don't mind reading two books from that perspective. 
As for whether or not it is a mark of a good novelist, well, not really. It could be argued that he's pointing out that all people are essentially the same on the inside and it's only our situations and backgrounds that make us different (which is something he's frequently talked about in videos), but I doubt that philosophy was behind it. I think it just turned out that way, and some people will find it annoying, and others will not.
Also, just because their voices are the same doesn't mean that they are the same. Outside of themselves, they are completely different, if that makes any sense. It's not just the personality that makes the person. Our surroundings determine our actions just as much as our "selves" do. I believe that the "soul" is just half of the person. Just like how when you get married, you're not marrying one person. You're marrying an entire family. Your new spouse is only half the package.


I believe you also once said that "all of his books read exactly the same."


My question is this: If they do read exactly the same, is that a bad thing?


Yes, Pudge, Colin, Quentin, and Will all share traits. They all sound somewhat the same within their minds. However, they are in totally different situations, battling totally different aspects of life. Pudge struggles to come to terms with the death of a friend. Colin faces the unfortunate fact that love cannot be treated as a science. Quentin realizes that he isn't the only complex person in the world, while Will learns to be brave and Lowercase Will deals with people.
Even if the books were all based around one narrator, there are different things to be learned from each one. There are different things to laugh at, different characters to love, and different issues to deal with.
Even with Looking for Alaska and Paper Towns, which I think are the most similar in plot: 
Pudge thinks about life, death, and religion, while Quentin ponders how we view each other and ourselves.
If you mean they read exactly the same in regards to style, well, don't all authors have a style? That's what makes you like an author, as opposed to a book by that author. 
The summary of a John Green book: Somewhat nerdy teen with a specific quirk and lovable friends confronts an issue that is easily related to by teen readers through humor and character-recognized metaphor.
Either you like that plot line, or you don't. I do, and therefore I don't mind that the books are the same.


But back to Will Grayson, Will Grayson.


"There is no reason for the characters to meet (though it was handled well) as it doesn't really do much for the plot. Really, nothing happens in this book. And don't even get me started on the ending. "


The characters don't meet because they are the main characters. They are the main characters because they meet. 
The entire basis of the book was two people with the same name coming together. They started with that, and then built the plot around it.
David Levithan's best friend is David Leventhal, and either Levithan or Leventhal's college roommate was a different person named John Green, although I don't think that last bit was a factor in their deciding to work together on the book.
The Levithan/Leventhal coincidence prompted Levithan to want to write a book with a similar meeting, and that's how the book grew.


"Nothing happens in this book." I guess it depends on what you want to happen. It's a book about teenagers doing stuff. There aren't any vampires, or evil governments, or parents who are Greek gods. There's nothing to make them unique. They're just people. Some like to read such books, and some don't. 


The ending... all right. You have a point there. 


"David Levithan is one of my favorite writers and he has actually saved YA Literature (namely by editing the Hunger Games)."


I'm not the only biased one in the house tonight, folks.
(Yes, David Levithan is an excellent author and The Hunger Games was beyond fantastic, but I will not let you get away with that.)


"(John Green) also put in some cool band references as he has done in at least one of his previous works (Billy Bragg was referenced in Paper Towns)."


You can't give good author-cred to someone just because they mention musicians you like. Christopher Paolini watches Doctor Who. There's even a reference to it within Brisingr.
That doesn't mean Eragon doesn't copy a ton of stuff from Lord of the Rings (and if anyone wants to contest that, I literally have pages of notes I wrote in middle school -- when I was obsessed with the Inheritance Cycle and had nothing better to do -- of comparisons between it and Lord of the Rings. Who's a geek? Yeah, I'm a geek).


"This Year David Levithan has another collaboration coming out called Dash and Lilly's Book Of Dares which is far far far superior."


I have requested this book. We shall see. I'm actually afraid that I will end up agreeing with you.


"Three and a Half stars out of Five"


Oddly enough, I don't give it much better than that: 4 for book-quality, and 5 for how much I enjoyed it.

"There is nothing on this earth more to be prized than true friendship." - Thomas Aquinas


Toda'y post comes in some number of parts that I haven't counted yet.


Part 1: Lost


Basically, I started watching the show. We're 3 episodes in, and expect to go crazy once we're done with this disk and have to wait for Netflix to send us the next one.


Part 2: Recommendations


I enjoy passing along reading material-- especially that which is written by people I know. So if you aren't the creator or the other people who know about it already, go look at The Strand for the 21st Century-- a blog on which teen writers may get their writing available for the consumption of others.


Then there's another friend of mine whose blog I mentioned awhile ago. She's only posted a few times, but I figured I'd point you all towards her, since she said she didn't mind-- partially because her stuff is amazing, and partially because I want her to have the motivation to post more, because her stuff is amazing and I miss reading it. Meet The Fleur-de-lis. Play nice, Strand. You don't get to hog the spotlight in this Part of the post. :)


Part 3: NaNoWriMo


So it's over, or may as well be as far as the people I know are concerned. Congrats, guys. I look forward to hearing what you churned out over the past month, but if you're like me and don't want people seeing until its much, much better than it is now, I completely understand.


My sister said to me this morning, "Zoe didn't make it. She got stuck at about 36,000." 
I said, "Yeah, that's the roughest part. I don't blame her." 
"Her dad did, though. At least, he was only 2,000 words away a couple days ago."
(I hear our dad getting himself a bowl of cereal in the kitchen) "That's awesome. That's so cool that he's doing NaNoWriMo too. I wish I had a dad as cool as that!"
Dad: (laughs) I knew you'd say that!


Now comes the months of dilemma: To watch House, or to write? To watch Lost, or to write? To read Book X, or to write? To watch Buffy, or to write? To play Oblivion, or to write?


Part 4: Haircut


Go choose your own adventure with the creator of the Potter Puppet Pals, and then go back and try all of the other options. All are hilarious.