Monday, February 27, 2012
Thursday, February 16, 2012
Ramses Meets Batman
Ramses has been brought back to life and has to relearn the society and it's ways. He's been thrust into a complicated and unfamiliar world. He knows nothing except who he loves and that he's willing to go to any measures to protect her, even if it means breaking a few laws along the way. Much like the famous Batman.
Batman is your typical hero. Undercover and hidden from sight in the plainest of ways. He must struggle to help his friend eventhough she loves another. He devotes himself to 'his city' working tirelessly to rid the city of his enemies.
He ignores the world and its laws to save Gotham City over and over again until the citizens begin to revere him as a villian. This is like when Ramses begs Julie to allow him to kill Henry because Henry killed her father and tried to kill her. The two characters blatent disregard for rules is striking and yet justified because they're willing to commit these crimes in the name of justice, in the name of the law. It's an internal struggle between good and evil over something simple as a girl or a city. Something that drives them and resembles a 'life source' of sorts. At a point in both the book and movie, the two characters are subjugated as the villian and the very essense of their love pulses against them and they must struggle to react without creating a disaster in and upon themselves.
It may be argued that each character chooses a bad way to 'save' what they love, considering Batman actually fails and Julie pretty much leaves Ramses and believes him to be insane, but they made these choices out of love and out of love they rise from the ashes to push forewards and pursue their dreams and that's what makes a true protagonist in my eyes.
Batman is your typical hero. Undercover and hidden from sight in the plainest of ways. He must struggle to help his friend eventhough she loves another. He devotes himself to 'his city' working tirelessly to rid the city of his enemies.
He ignores the world and its laws to save Gotham City over and over again until the citizens begin to revere him as a villian. This is like when Ramses begs Julie to allow him to kill Henry because Henry killed her father and tried to kill her. The two characters blatent disregard for rules is striking and yet justified because they're willing to commit these crimes in the name of justice, in the name of the law. It's an internal struggle between good and evil over something simple as a girl or a city. Something that drives them and resembles a 'life source' of sorts. At a point in both the book and movie, the two characters are subjugated as the villian and the very essense of their love pulses against them and they must struggle to react without creating a disaster in and upon themselves.
It may be argued that each character chooses a bad way to 'save' what they love, considering Batman actually fails and Julie pretty much leaves Ramses and believes him to be insane, but they made these choices out of love and out of love they rise from the ashes to push forewards and pursue their dreams and that's what makes a true protagonist in my eyes.
Thursday, February 9, 2012
nonfiction is truth so don't call it nonfiction if it's a lie
Nonfiction is a true completely acurate story. That's it. No exceptions, unless your some form of book god. Highly unlikely if you ask me. It's the legitimate definition of nonfiction and there's no way around it. If you begin to fabricate details and jepordize the authenticity of a memoir of piece of work you're creating then it becomes fiction or some other sub-genre. This all may seem harsh but if I'm reading a nonfiction book, I expect it to be such and any less of the truth would make it seem false.
Frey and Mortenson both created wonderful books but in no way are they concidered nonfiction in my eyes. They contain false information which makes it regular fiction. This is no way affects the impact the book should have; it simply clarifys the category the book falls under and protects those who write and publish and such.
I don't really think David Shields' comment about blurring nonfiction and fiction holds any promise. We read nonfiction to gain knowledge and if you then read a book containing fabrication then you're not reading fiction, the truth is simply being altered to serve another purpose and I don't think that's justified in the long run. You're lying to many many people and decieving to make money. Besides blurring truth and fiction seems like it would land us in a load of trouble like highschool gossip does. Books should be above that, the're better than the lies they are becoming.
Frey and Mortenson both created wonderful books but in no way are they concidered nonfiction in my eyes. They contain false information which makes it regular fiction. This is no way affects the impact the book should have; it simply clarifys the category the book falls under and protects those who write and publish and such.
I don't really think David Shields' comment about blurring nonfiction and fiction holds any promise. We read nonfiction to gain knowledge and if you then read a book containing fabrication then you're not reading fiction, the truth is simply being altered to serve another purpose and I don't think that's justified in the long run. You're lying to many many people and decieving to make money. Besides blurring truth and fiction seems like it would land us in a load of trouble like highschool gossip does. Books should be above that, the're better than the lies they are becoming.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)