I read an article about how Gary Ross will not be directing Catching Fire, the sequel to the world-famous book and movie The Hunger Games. I think this decision will have a bigger impact than might have been predicted by Ross. This article is important because Ross' decision affects not only how the movie will be changed in terms of cinematography, but also the perception by fans of the books, how accurately the movie will portray the book Catching Fire, and the general popularity of Suzanne Collins' masterpieces.
Collins' books caused a craze throughout the United States and overseas. The topic of post-apocalyptic child-killings stirs up the emotions of many people. The fact that the Hunger Games is told by a girl subjected to horror like that who completely detests the entire system is what makes the subject not only digestible but popular, because the writing is actually superb, and the plot is fascinating and completely original. This is why I think the impact of a new director on the next movie might affect the popularity itself. Says Ross, "I simply don't have the time I need to write and prep the movie I would have wanted to make..." (Rolling Stone, 'Gary Ross Will Not Direct "Hunger Games" Sequel'). Since the first movie was a big issue of staying true to the plot for may fans of the books, the fact that the directing for the sequel will be completely different might be pushing the limits for some. When fans won't see the movie, the books' ratings could drop.
No director can ever guarantee that they'll provide good ratings. It's difficult to stay true to the plot of a book when you're only allotted a specific amount of time. Fans of the Hunger Games books all have varying opinions of and levels of devotion to the new movie. How will they react to the new one, with a new director? What will happen if it's less accurate than the last? There is definitely lots of pressure on the new director, once they come forward, to present a film worthy of Collins' books.
Needless to say, the world is waiting with baited breath for Catching Fire. The movie is bound to be remarkable, and I can't wait. What awaits? We don't know, but whatever happens, whatever we see, the books remain very much intact, a living legend, and a symbol for peace and justice.
Wednesday, April 11, 2012
DIY Writing: Why Plagiarism is Wrong
What did the student do wrong? What could he/she have done to include the source correctly?
The student who plagiarized the passage from A Brief Understanding of the Starry Night Paintings violated the rights of the author (unknown) of the article. The article was written to be read and appreciated as an analysis of the painting, not as free to be stolen. Plagiarism is a form of theft, because it's taking something somebody deserves credit for because it's their work, and taking credit for the time and effort they themselves put into it, not you. It's stealing time, hard work, and honesty. The student, in order to correctly include the source, could have copy & pasted the passage but put it in quotation marks and cite the source. They also could have paraphrased and said the same idea using different words.
Write a sentence using the original source correctly; use a quotation or paraphrase. Also, make sure to cite correctly.
Original sentence: "This sky keeps the viewer's eyes moving about the painting, following the curves and creating a visual dot to dot with the stars." (http://www.vangoghgallery.com/painting/starryindex.html)
Paraphrased: The night sky in the painting lets the person looking at it follow the stars like a pattern, and keeps their eyes moving along the swirls.
What are at least 3 ways to avoid plagiarizing?
The three ways to avoid plagiarizing are really very easy. The first is quotation, which is including a passage from the original text but putting it in quotation marks ("") and citing the source correctly. The second is paraphrasing, my personal favorite, which is keeping the idea from the source but stating it using different words (see above.) The third way is summarizing, which is taking information from a source, putting it in different words, and minimizing it, trimming it down to main ideas.
The student who plagiarized the passage from A Brief Understanding of the Starry Night Paintings violated the rights of the author (unknown) of the article. The article was written to be read and appreciated as an analysis of the painting, not as free to be stolen. Plagiarism is a form of theft, because it's taking something somebody deserves credit for because it's their work, and taking credit for the time and effort they themselves put into it, not you. It's stealing time, hard work, and honesty. The student, in order to correctly include the source, could have copy & pasted the passage but put it in quotation marks and cite the source. They also could have paraphrased and said the same idea using different words.
Write a sentence using the original source correctly; use a quotation or paraphrase. Also, make sure to cite correctly.
Original sentence: "This sky keeps the viewer's eyes moving about the painting, following the curves and creating a visual dot to dot with the stars." (http://www.vangoghgallery.com/painting/starryindex.html)
Paraphrased: The night sky in the painting lets the person looking at it follow the stars like a pattern, and keeps their eyes moving along the swirls.
What are at least 3 ways to avoid plagiarizing?
The three ways to avoid plagiarizing are really very easy. The first is quotation, which is including a passage from the original text but putting it in quotation marks ("") and citing the source correctly. The second is paraphrasing, my personal favorite, which is keeping the idea from the source but stating it using different words (see above.) The third way is summarizing, which is taking information from a source, putting it in different words, and minimizing it, trimming it down to main ideas.
Two Favorite Student Blogs
I read two amazing blogs from my class, Izzy's and Alli's. Izzy's blog about the relationship between Romeo and Juliet was very engaging. I loved how she really emphasized her opinion about the "love" they shared, using exclamation points and underlining stressed words. It really gave me a window into Izzy's thoughts on the matter. Izzy thinks that the love between Romeo and Juliet is based on beauty and the teenage need to rebel. To reinforce this claim, she provided plenty of text evidence. She included passage and page numbers that showed me the process by which she formed her statement. All the proof made me realize her side of the argument.
Alli's review of Much Ado About Nothing was indeed worthy of a journalist. The way she described the play made me realize details of the show I didn't even notice when I was watching it. And she didn't just talk about the actors and how they portrayed their characters, although she did a good job with that too. But she described the set, the lighting, and the transitions from scene to scene. This made for a complete and advanced response that got me thinking again about my experience watching it. Alli let me see the play through her eyes and think through her brain, to see her thought process. This is always the mark of a good writer.
Izzy and Alli inspired me to be better in my own blog posts. From Izzy I learned about forming opinions of the text, and not being afraid to confront the intentions of the author. Also, reading Izzy's blog helped me realize that text evidence is a must-have when trying to prove a point--and there's no limit either. The more proof of your claim, the better, which is something Izzy did flawlessly. Alli's blog post reminded me to be mindful of small details, and to let the reader know how you perceived something, even something that at first may have seemed arbitrary.
Alli's review of Much Ado About Nothing was indeed worthy of a journalist. The way she described the play made me realize details of the show I didn't even notice when I was watching it. And she didn't just talk about the actors and how they portrayed their characters, although she did a good job with that too. But she described the set, the lighting, and the transitions from scene to scene. This made for a complete and advanced response that got me thinking again about my experience watching it. Alli let me see the play through her eyes and think through her brain, to see her thought process. This is always the mark of a good writer.
Izzy and Alli inspired me to be better in my own blog posts. From Izzy I learned about forming opinions of the text, and not being afraid to confront the intentions of the author. Also, reading Izzy's blog helped me realize that text evidence is a must-have when trying to prove a point--and there's no limit either. The more proof of your claim, the better, which is something Izzy did flawlessly. Alli's blog post reminded me to be mindful of small details, and to let the reader know how you perceived something, even something that at first may have seemed arbitrary.
Thursday, March 22, 2012
Heeeeeere's Johnny
I've started reading The Shining by Stephen King. And let me just tell you, it's amazing. I thought Stephen King might just be so venerated because his plot lines are so original and freakish. So I wasn't expecting the writing to be anything spectacular. But King's a unique and spirited author. His details are really descriptive and his characters are deep and thoughtful. So I thought I would just talk about the writing techniques that make him different from other novelists, because there are plenty.
One thing that makes King special is that in The Shining, there is no main character. For those who have only seen the movie, you might think it's Jack, but in the book, perspective rotates between Jack, his wife Wendy, and their son Danny, and sometimes it switches within the chapters. I think this really keeps the reader hooked. Sometimes the reader can become attached to one character only, even though the others also have interesting back stories. They all have different perspectives about the same events, so the reader doesn't form a biased opinion because they're instantly drawn to a character.
King includes just enough detail in his setting descriptions so that the reader is intigued but not bored. "Mr. Ullman was a step below them, buttoned into an expensive-looking brown mohair overcoat. The sun was entirely behind the mountains now, edging them with gold fire, making the shadows around things look long and purple." (page 145). King provides enough description to paint an image in the reader's mind, but doesn't go full on J.R.R. Tolkien. Also, I like the way he subtly hints at aspects of his characters, like Ullman, who's rich, and so is wearing a thick fur coat.
One thing that makes King special is that in The Shining, there is no main character. For those who have only seen the movie, you might think it's Jack, but in the book, perspective rotates between Jack, his wife Wendy, and their son Danny, and sometimes it switches within the chapters. I think this really keeps the reader hooked. Sometimes the reader can become attached to one character only, even though the others also have interesting back stories. They all have different perspectives about the same events, so the reader doesn't form a biased opinion because they're instantly drawn to a character.
King includes just enough detail in his setting descriptions so that the reader is intigued but not bored. "Mr. Ullman was a step below them, buttoned into an expensive-looking brown mohair overcoat. The sun was entirely behind the mountains now, edging them with gold fire, making the shadows around things look long and purple." (page 145). King provides enough description to paint an image in the reader's mind, but doesn't go full on J.R.R. Tolkien. Also, I like the way he subtly hints at aspects of his characters, like Ullman, who's rich, and so is wearing a thick fur coat.
Thursday, March 15, 2012
Review of Much Ado About Nothing
Yesterday, my class went to see Shakespeare's Much Ado About Nothing at the CSC theater in Manhattan. It blew me away. The way each actor was so enthusiastic about their character made the play really enjoyable. The stage itself was really interesting also--it was round and small, with strange spherical mounds of some material I couldn't identify suspended above it. I highly recommend it to any Shakespeare fans or fans of humor in general. There was a lot of both slapstick and dialogued humor, and the combination worked itself out really well.
The director made a decision that I think was really smart, which was to set the play in the 1920s. I thought this was a wise choice because the play is a comedy, and in general very jolly. In the 1920s, at least before the stock market crash, everybody was partying and celebrating a new era to come. Throughout the play, there was drinking, partying, dancing, etc. Also, what made this a good idea was that it let the female characters express themselves more, to be as silly as they were feeling. They wore flapper dresses and flirted all the time. In Shakespeare's time period, women wouldn't be allowed to sing in public or wear anything but ankle-length dresses all day. It was a much more gender-based society when Shakespeare was alive, and to have the play be a comedy, I think it was easier for the director and actors to be funny in a fun time period.
The one thing about the play I didn't like was the fact that it never explained to the audience why Don Jon is so evil. They never talked about why he never wanted people to get married and caused so much mischief. I think that the audience should always have some understanding of why the villain is villainous. Other than that, I loved the play. It was funny, romantic, and not too challenging to keep up with. I encourage my readers to look into the play and theater because I totally enjoyed myself.
The director made a decision that I think was really smart, which was to set the play in the 1920s. I thought this was a wise choice because the play is a comedy, and in general very jolly. In the 1920s, at least before the stock market crash, everybody was partying and celebrating a new era to come. Throughout the play, there was drinking, partying, dancing, etc. Also, what made this a good idea was that it let the female characters express themselves more, to be as silly as they were feeling. They wore flapper dresses and flirted all the time. In Shakespeare's time period, women wouldn't be allowed to sing in public or wear anything but ankle-length dresses all day. It was a much more gender-based society when Shakespeare was alive, and to have the play be a comedy, I think it was easier for the director and actors to be funny in a fun time period.
The one thing about the play I didn't like was the fact that it never explained to the audience why Don Jon is so evil. They never talked about why he never wanted people to get married and caused so much mischief. I think that the audience should always have some understanding of why the villain is villainous. Other than that, I loved the play. It was funny, romantic, and not too challenging to keep up with. I encourage my readers to look into the play and theater because I totally enjoyed myself.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)