The Truth of Perspectives

(SPOILER ALERT for Ender's Game)

In perspective we are all heroes and yet we are all villains too. Really, if we look to the truth to show us what we are, we aren't heroes or villains because defining us in such ways isn't about the truth, it's about perspectives. People are complex, we aren't all of one thing and none of another, we are mixtures; of love, of hate, of sadness, of joy, of good, and of bad. However, we try to define people so easily as heroes and villains, never thinking that maybe they are both, maybe they are neither, but according to this perspective they are good and according to this perspective they are bad. We try to define them as simply just one.

There is a saying that, "there are three sides to every story, yours mine and the truth." In your story you can chose to think you are the hero for killing that spider, but in the spider's story you are the villain. The truth says that you killed the spider; the truth isn't biased, it's factual. Where we find our role is how we decide to perceive the facts and determine opinions: Is killing wrong? Is it justifiable?

I have recently finished the confusing yet marvelous story THE YOUNG ELITES by Marie Lu a story that follows the life of the villain. Funny, though, that when I read THE YOUNG ELITES that I didn't seem to think of Adelina as the villain. I was reading her story; her story which made her seem more as a heroine than a villain. The facts cannot tell me whether a person is good or bad I have to take this decision into my own hands with the information I have.

Where we stand according to perspectives has the ability to change our moral compass if our views are stronger than our sense of right and wrong. An example can be the Heaven's Gate Cult in which people's views led them to take their own lives which was heroic in their perspective, but to the greater public their actions were a horror.

The term "greater public" shouldn't lead people to believe that right and wrong can be determined by the majority, either. The majority has been oppressive in many cases, too, which we now look back on and view as wrong. There are many examples of this in history, a few are: Nazi Germany's treatment of the minority groups, and the United State's own Jim Crow Laws that oppressed the minority. These groups would have argued that they were merely protecting themselves and their way of life in which they disputed that the minority groups were complicating.

Wherever a person stands gives them a unique way to view a situation. As I watched the movie ENDER'S GAME (I know I really should have read the book first) I was stricken by this thought of how heroic Ender was for killing of an entire alien species, until I took on an entirely different perspective. While Ender thought he was playing a game he later found out he had actually carried out the mission. This spectator perspective led me to see he had been pushed into the role of villain right before my eyes.

It is so easy to illude a person's moral ideas based on their perspective. Most people would agree that killing is morally unjust however we will crush the lives of harmless insects. We are more than willing to tell white lies to children, all while we tell them not to lie. It is our perspective that tells us that it is okay, that we are the heroes for telling children about their pet bunnies running away, rather than telling them the truth, that the bunny died.

Good and bad is all about perspective and where we find ourselves standing. It is important to realize that our enemies are heroes in their own stories, that we are villains in theirs. Perspective is a powerful tool, and if people were more gracious in using it as a tool for empathy rather than misunderstandings, I believe, we could have much kinder actions in this world.

The Definition of Success

"Joy is the essence of success."

This is from my wonderful yogi tea again, but this time I wholly agree. I often catch myself thinking about the future, about where I want to be later in my life, about success in general. But I'm always caught on this key question: how do I define success?

I've been told many times that I have high expectations. However, there are so many possibilities; how could I not expect great things. As long as I follow through with these expectations then I know I will be successful.

What if I don't? Am I still successful?

Success shouldn't be defined by the size of a persons house, or the money in a person wallet. The definition of success varies from person to person; for some, success is defined by money and houses but for others success is defined by relationships.

As I think of how to define success I've decided that experiences and knowledge define success. Relationships define success. Contentment defines success.

In my definition college is making me successful. Not because its a way to earn more money but because of the experience I have here. Because of the friends I'm making here. Because in college I am learning how to handle myself.

And that is how I am becoming a successful person.

An Anxious Mind

I have some wonderful tea that leaves thoughtful quotes. As I poured my energizing tea today, I pondered upon a quote that I strongly, very strongly disagree with.

"A relaxed mind is a creative mind."

The reason I disagree with this quote is because, as an aspiring author, I pay attention to the life authors led/lead. I would say that some of the greatest most creative minds were anything but relaxed.

relaxed

1.

being free of or relieved from tension or anxiety:

in a relaxed mood.

In fact many artists, including writers, suffer from things such as depression and anxiety. Maybe that is what makes the greats so great. Maybe the depression that taunted Edgar Allan Poe was the reason he could write such amazingly dark poetry. Perhaps the failure for F. Scott Fitzgerald to "relax" is what gave him the ability to write THE GREAT GATSBY.

Relaxing is not creative, it does not bring ideas about, it does not draw worlds inside of a persons soul, because none of those things are for us, for the person they belong to. Those ideas, those worlds are for themselves and they engross themselves inside a person, which is anything but relaxing. If relaxing resulted in creativity then the artist would relax for their work and not just for those short moments of self-preservation.

There are so many artists/writers/creators that suffer from the tension that is left in their minds after the artwork is no longer stored their. When their creations see sun light, more tension pulls them every which way. Veronica Roth, author of DIVERGENT, felt so anxious with all the comments on her blog that she felt the need to turn off the comment option.

I refuse to believe that the author of a bestselling dystopian series, by the age of twenty-four, is not creative because she get's anxious.

As much as an author would like to be relaxed, it is so hard. As we build stories, people, lives, we decide what our characters should be as if it weren't hard enough already deciding who we should be; deciding to take a chance on a piece of ourselves. We are creative, because there is simply no other way to be. But we are also taut with emotion, afraid that the piece of us we want to break away, to see sunlight, never will; we are anxious, but that does not mean we are less creative.

The Polite Policy

There is a constant struggle that I see in society. Some people might not see it as a struggle, maybe that's just me, because society has had this polite policy for as long as I've been alive, really longer. But I am going to use a great quote (of course!) that is in DIVERGENT by Veronica Roth.

 "Mom used to say that politeness is deception in pretty packaging."

When I first read that I thought it was the weirdest thing I've ever read. Politeness was (is) something I want to stand by. It's classy, to be polite. Right? Right. I want to be a classy lady.

But I've also heard that old saying "The truth will set you free" and whatnot. I want to be free. Maybe it's me being one of those stupid teenagers but freedom is something that just gets to me. It's so appealing, and not just to me, to a lot of people, I mean that's what America is all about, right? Freedom! Yeah..

But society relies on kindness. People expect, or at least hope, that others will be kind to them. And the truth is not always kind. Society wants people to be polite, like children are raised to say please and thank you, even though they may not always stick with it. Politeness relies on saying "nice to meet you" even when it may not be that pleasant to meet someone. Politeness relies on apologies when you've done something wrong, even if you aren't truly sorry. Society relies on politeness and politeness often relies on those little white lies.

I don't want to be told those little white lies anymore. I want to be set free, I want to know the truth. I want to know when my writing sucks, when I have something in my teeth, when my fly is unzipped, when someone isn't sorry. All of those impolite things that you can't say, just tell me because maybe I can fix it, and if not I can deal with it. But one thing is absolutely for sure: I cannot fix anything, if I don't know that it's a problem.

The truth will set me free, and on the other side of freedom lies possibilities. I think that those possibilities are going to feel a lot better later than any white lie will in the moment.

So what will you choose? Politeness or Truth? I'm eager to know.

Negotiating

There has been quite allot of talk about the negotiations that led to soldier Bergdahl coming home. The most talk that I've seen is mostly negative, mainly saying "negotiation with terrorist is against policy" and shouldn't be considered for the well being of America. But this is where my thoughts lie:

1. What if it was my brother? My father? My uncle?

2. What does the well being of America really mean?

I can honestly say that if soldier Bergdahl were my brother, father, uncle etc. I would be absolutely, no question about it, set on their homecoming. I think most people would be, but maybe I am wrong. Maybe people wouldn't care. I highly doubt this though, people are often more effected when they have relationships. It is sad to think that knowing someone in a slightly more personal way can change a person's perception. But it does and so I can't help but want soldier Bergdahl to come home for his family, despite any negotiations with terrorists.

If one looks at the definition of terrorist as a person who terrorizes or frightens others then negotiations with terrorists is more common than one would think. I am not advocating for terrorism when I say this. I think terrorism is awful and if someone wants to prove a point then there are other ways to do that besides resigning to terrorizing others until the person gets what the person wants.

Negotiating with terrorist should not be considered a bad thing. Negotiation should never be considered bad because it results in an understanding in some way. Understanding is a step closer to peace. And suggesting that negotiation with terrorist is against policy could be interpreted as there will be no attempt to understanding, which in turn means there will be no attempt at peace. Peace should be a priority to protect the American people. Peace doesn't always mean "giving in" but it does mean trying to keep stable ground between two very different ideas. Stability is important for a nation, isn't it? So why is negotiating such a bad thing?

When I look at the reactions that people have about negotiating with terrorists I immediately think why? Yes. Terrorism is bad. Yes. America does not condone terrorism. Yes. America does not want to seem weak, especially in the eyes of our enemies. However, people fail to take into consideration that negotiating is a way to understanding--which is a step closer than we were. It doesn't mean that America condones terrorism, because we don't and that won't change. It doesn't show any weakness that terrorist wouldn't have seen before. Every country's weakness is it's people, citizens are what makes a country and if citizens are weak then a nation is weak, it is common knowledge, known for years as we witnessed in a series of terrorist attacks on September 11th .

It is hard to believe that five terrorist could make such an impact on an already present organization. Though it is possible the organizations could take into consideration whatever these five men have for ideas or it is even possible that the five men could offer their lives to the terrorist organizations. It is possible that five men could make a difference, but not as likely as people fear. The five prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay likely did not have updates and would have little information not to mention their stability may not be reliable enough for their organizations to find useful.

In my opinion, bringing home a soldier should be America's priority. They have fought well and hard and should get the chance to come home and remember why they are fighting. America should be supportive for the POWs that are returning, no matter the circumstances, because no one could know exactly what hell they went through. Enduring five, sometimes more, years of wondering if each breath you take will be your last is torture enough and then coming home without the full support of the citizens you fought for must be painful. And I think soldier Bergdahl has been through enough pain.

My opinions may vary from yours and that's okay, diversity is a good thing and I would love to hear different opinions, as long as they are respectful. So please, be respectful for soldier Bergdahl and his family and friends, and also be respectful of the people that made the difficult decisions to negotiate soldier Bergdahl's way home. Thank you.

A Characters View

There are two sides to every story. I especially love to know both sides. When it comes to a book, it is great to have another story from a different characters perspective. It's almost magic that we can honestly see both views of a story. When does that ever happen in real life? Right? Right.

I loved the fact that FREE FOUR by Veronica Roth came out (Fours perspective of the knife throwing scene) and I liked that ALLEGIANT, also by Veronica Roth, had dual perspectives too except that made the ending...possible... Anyways I can't wait to get a hold of the book that has all of Four's stories!

Marie Lu's LEGEND series was also like that (as far as I know, I still haven't gotten to book three yet) with the switching perspectives and whatnot.

Reading both perspectives of the story, gives the story line more depth. It gives characters more depth too. I believe, and this might be a totally wrong assumption, that authors create these stories in a separate characters perspective not just because it has a worth (that's just an added bonus) but because it makes the character deeper. It drives them to get in the other characters head. These perspectives make two dimensional characters come off the page in 3D, they make already alive characters more intense.

A character that was just a puppet starts to have a pulse, all because you found their perspective. They become understandable because you know their side of the story, or maybe even their own story. You start to know why they do things. Why they think certain ways.

With writing, even as an amateur, I've realized that knowing the why is important. It means knowing the characters.

So find the why. The best way to do that, in my opinion, is to write (of course!) their perspective, or even their story. Write the story that happened before the story. You may find out more than you thought you ever could.

Why I'm "That girl at the party that..."

Warning rant...oh and OPINIONS. So beware.

Today in class I was told that I am "That girl at the party that you talk to and then realize that you shouldn't have talked to her."

The worst thing about being told this is that I wasn't even given an explanation why. So I am left with my own over-analyzed assumption of why I am "That girl at the party..."

1. Women shouldn't talk more than 40% of the conversation.

2. Women shouldn't speak without permission.

3. Women shouldn't have, let alone speak their opinions.

Now, I am going to give my OPINION because I don't give a frickity frack about why I am "that girl at the party..."

I would like to first say that this is the freaking twenty-first century, in America, and women aren't the girls that wait for permission and we sure as hell aren't mindless zombies that don't have opinions. If a man is going to speak his mind then you better bet that I am going to say a few words too. If you don't like that, then stop listening.

This may be a news flash for some people, but women are intellectual too and so we can actually carry on an intelligent conversation.

Whoa...Wait! What? You mean she actually knows what she's talking about...?

This may come as a shocker, but yeah she probably does. All my life, at least, I have been told to think before I speak (or type) and so I'm trying to be relevant and contribute to the conversation.

It might be me being honest, but I think a conversation goes both ways. This isn't some kind of grading scale that is 40% homework and 60% test...um no. Conversations should be a nice fifty-fifty split. No one is any more special than the other.

According to the nice list I made...I am "That girl at the party..." and I don't give a hoot. If someone ever tells me that again then maybe I'll prove to them that I am that girl by showing them this lovely blog post. Now, I am sincerely asking, don't be that person in life that goes around big headed thinking that you have more to contribute than anyone else. I am willing to listen to you as much as you are willing to listen to me.

Finally, please think before you speak. And. If you don't have anything nice to say then don't say anything at all.