Happyhappyhappyness

GO CANADA!

Yes, by some miracle - one that I still cannot, even now, believe occurred, and executed by none other than the magical Sidney Crosby himself - we won the Gold Medal for Men's Hockey, the only medal that mattered to our entire country; it mattered without question for sport-serious fans, and it even mattered to those who have no interest whatsoever - like me - in hockey. Today, our entire country was paying attention to the goings-on in the final between the United States and Canada, even if they weren't directly watching it. I, an infamous hockey-hater, sat glued to the screen for the whole thing, just like I did with the match against Russia. As much as hockey is far from being my sport, this was clearly a game not to be missed, an opinion so ubiquitous throughout Canada - hell, throughout all of North America - right now, that I'm pretty sure most of you can relate. 

If you can't, you're missing out. It's a great feeling. In fact, it's such a great feeling that I felt like posting a short and [almost] completely non-cynical post stating my happiness over the fact that such a glorious thing has occurred. And I would also like to mention that never before have I been so proud to be Canadian. I realized it when I inexplicably started bawling during the Olympic Opening Ceremonies, and further reinforced by the numerous instances when tears would hit my eyes at every slight success or (understandable) shortcoming by a Canadian. And, of course, the gut-wrenching, heart-throbbing anxiety that overtook me whenever I was watching one of our own do his or her thing, and the unexpected blooming of happiness in my chest whenever we won. 

Like the Gold Medal in hockey. That was easily the best feeling of all. 

I don't drink, ladies and gentlemen, but there is absolutely no doubt that I AM CANADIAN. 

Please party responsibly, designate a driver, or have a cab company on speed dial. You don't want your celebrations to go to waste x]

Ecstatically,

Aya

Positive Negativity

Okay, let's face it: the world loves negativity. I'm not talking about the disasters that ravage unbearably unfortunate parts of the world (although there do exist some sadomasochistic psychos who actually enjoy others' misery), or depressing events, or sadness, or in general any tangible form of negativity. No, I'm talking about negative outlooks, negative tones, pessimism, realism (which is just pessimism in disguise, when you really think about it), etc. This is usually brought forth in the form of sarcasm, irony, cynicism, annoyed rants, aggravated rants, angry rants, rants of any form, really...the mediums and methods are endless! (Well, maybe not endless, but I just can't name everything off the top of my head right now.) 

Think about it: nobody wants to read the happy blog entry of some girl who won her volleyball/karate/tennis/etc tournament; they want to read the laugh-my-ass-off sarcastic articles and editorials criticizing politicians, celebrities (especially politicians), current events (especially where politicians are involved), countries (being led by incompetent politicians) and their pathetic governments (specifically what each politician is doing wrong, how, and why), and any other topic that interests a great number of people. (Of course, I'm exaggerating the amount of abuse politicians get, but it's a popular topic in my family, so it carried over.) People don't want cute stories about birthday parties and puppies; they want to read about misdeeds, about stupid occurrences, about huge mistakes - in short, about anything that will make them feel superior and better about themselves. After all, it's easy to call someone else stupid when all we're doing is watching from the sidelines. 

Which, I might add, is something I do all the time. I'm kind of a hypocrite that way. 

But anyway, it's true. Think about it. The most interesting articles and essays are sarcastically amusing ones that detail all the faults of this world and its creatures. (For example: amongst the biggest hypocrites on this planet - the one and only Al Gore! He claims he wants the world to go GREEN, and yet his ginormous house consumes more energy in a few weeks than most houses do in a year...oh, and by the way? Buying carbon credits? Bullshit. It's a way to feel better about yourself when you're really one of the biggest polluters on the PLANET.) And from my own personal experience: I get ideas for topics from things that really annoy me. In fact, I read a quote in a book once. It went something along the lines of this: "There's no point in writing if you can't piss somebody off."  

Looks like a prayer out of a journalist's bible. 

You have to wonder why that is, though. Why do humans find the negative aspects of our lives so compelling, while the cute and happy stuff is deemed mundane, uninteresting, and, thus, ignorable? And why are things the most interesting when they're shown through a negative light? Why does the majority of humanity see the glass as half-empty instead of half-full? Why does the negative stuff influence us more than the positive stuff, even if it's sometimes in a positive way? (There's a twisted question for you.) That is to say, sometimes people only take things into serious consideration when it's presented to them in a cynical, sarcastic, or ironic form. Why is that? (By the way, this is a generalization, and I may be wrong in my assumption, so don't be offended or take this the wrong way.)  

Not to get all philosophical on you, but if you have a thought, let me know. And if I ever come to some semblance of an answer, I'll post it, too.


Wonderingly yours, 
Aya

Online Communication

Or rather, pathetic online communication. I got an email today, and it gave me an idea for a post. (Oh, the irony: I haven't had anything to write about in weeks, and suddenly my head is brimming with ideas on one night - it's still the 18th as I start to write this. And I have another idea, too, but it's way too late now...)

The topic: terrible online communicationalists (wow, that sounds so good...too bad it's not a word). Specifically in terms of emails and instant messaging (any form of instant messaging, including MSN, Skype, AOL, whatever). [Note: I don't have Facebook, or MySpace, or Twitter, or anything similar, so I can't really comment on those, but I'm pretty sure my rant will still apply in some ways.]

Ironically, the email that gave me this idea was a really good one. Not just because it contained a good message, but because it was so...different. From all the other emails I get, I mean. More creative and, thus, far more interesting. The title was an inside joke, but while it was funny and meant one thing, it was also the opposite, and implied something more serious. The message itself was short, but it actually meant something, and it wasn't written plainly, but in the complex type of wording that can make an impression on someone. Well, on me, anyway. 

It was this particular email, though, that made me realize how pathetic and boring the other emails I get are. No interesting titles, no captivating words or letters, nothing to make them stand out in my mind. One of my pet peeves is forwarded emails (although there is one person who is good at this, sending on only the ones that are actually interesting or worth reading). Why people think I want to figure out my fortune, or find out who my soulmate is, or read about fake people who want to raise money for some fake ailment (God help me if, in fact, these people and ailments are not fake, and I am simply a cruel, heartless bitch), or other generic and brain-cell-killing topics is completely beyond me. And who creates them in the first place, anyway? How bored do you have to be to waste precious hours and minutes on something so completely useless? I have better things to do with my time. (For those people who don't and actual enjoy these emails, I do not apologize if I've offended you. Seriously. This is how strong my opinion is.) 

I also hate junk mail, but I think that can be agreed on unanimously. 

When it comes to emails, I guess all I want to say is that I wish I got more that are as interesting as the one I got earlier. Something different. Something that actually makes me smile or laugh (I admit to being a person who uses the abbreviations "lol", "lmao," and "lmfao" excessively, with an extreme lack of emotion when it should be there. For example: Someone: Hey, what's up? Me: Not much, you? S: Not much, just doing homework. Me: lol OR S: omg, i really want to see [insert movie here]. Me: lol, yeah, me too. I mean...it's not funny that someone is doing homework...and it's not funny that we want to see some movie...and yet "laugh out loud" is there. Why? Why would you laugh out loud at that? WHY ON EARTH WOULD YOU LAUGH AT HOMEWORK? I CRY at homework. And yet I didn't say, "bmeo" (bawl my eyes out); no, I said L-O-FRIGGIN-L. I say lol all the time. Everybody does. It's a conversation softner more than anything. If you want somebody to know that you're happy and relaxed, you say lol. Otherwise, they start thinking you're pissed off and moody. It's impossible to carry on a normal conversation through instant messaging. AND ON THAT NOTE, I WILL CLOSE THIS PARENTHETICAL SIDE-NOTE! *Ha ha, bet you forgot that this was bracketed. Bet you forgot what this paragraph was originally about, actually. Because I did.*)

Speaking of instant messaging conversations, this is the other online communication failure I wanted to discuss. In all honesty, how many times have you been forced to partake in conversations like this: 

Person A: hey
Person B: hey
A: what's up?
B: nm, u?
A: nm, jc
B: lol
[...*chirping crickets*...]

[NB: For the record, I am one of those people who refuses to use shorthands like "nm," "u", "jc," etc. It does not take much longer to type out you than u. It is this abbreviated MSN-speak that is going to be North American Literacy's demise. (Although I'm not anal enough to care about capitals.)]

What kind of conversation is this? Person A, if you are starting a conversation, that means - for some reason, however inexplicable or expected it may be - you want to speak to Person B. If this is the case, it is then your job to keep the conversation going - you accepted this responsibility by default when you started the conversation. In most cases, Person B didn't do this because Person B had nothing to say, and therefore did not feel the need to say something for the sake of saying something. (I say most cases because, of course, there is an exception to every rule...or theory.) If you have nothing to say, though, and have started the conversation for the sake of starting a conversation, here's a word of advice: don't start the conversation. This will be a rude awakening for many, many of my friends, but I hate conversations that start with a "hey" or "hey, what's up?" and basically end there. Unless you actually care about what I'm doing, or you have something interesting to tell me, or have something to ask me, or have a legitimate reason for talking to me, do me a favour: don't. It's true that conversations with a purpose can taper off to nothing, too, but at least they start with something. Conversations that are nothing from the very start are doomed. (It is important to note that when a conversation is interesting, it usually continues on for a long time. Unfortunately for the human race, such interesting discourse is difficult to come by. It requires an emotional attachment or involvement that is rare on the web. In fact, you have to ask yourself: if you want to talk to this person so much, why not call them? Why not meet up with them? Why keep talking online? Of course, there are many reasons, including the confidence being unseen gives, or the fact that you can take time to calculate and concoct a witty response with no one realizing that that is what you are doing. But still...)

Oh, and another thing that annoys me! (Wow, aren't I just a little ray of sunshine?) People who take forever to respond! And I don't mean once or twice, because that's understandable. Most people do things other than chat when they're at their computers - or at least, let's hope so - and sometimes they are involuntarily drawn away from their computers, but they can explain themselves when they return. But when people continuously take two, three, ten minutes to reply, it PISSES ME OFF. If you don't want to talk....WHY'D YOU START TALKING?! Otherwise, if you're busy, TELL me you're busy and that you'll take a while to reply, so that I don't feel like hunting you down! Actually, if you're busy, SIGN OFF. Do yourself AND everybody else a favour. But do NOT take five minutes to reply. DO NOT.

*FUMING*

Oh, and in fact, I hate responses like this (some of which I'm guilty, but only in cases where I dislike or am annoyed with - not a rare occurrence - the person I'm speaking to): cool; nice; sick; i dunno; i see, and etc. If you have nothing to say, or if you don't want to talk, tell the bloody person that you're busy and stop wasting their time (unless you don't give a shit about them, and want to waste their time, or want to make them feel bad; in that case, you have the green light. Don't forget that you're wasting your time, too, though...)


Oh, and while I'm on the topic of pathetic communication, let's touch on text messages, shall we? I hate having conversations through texts. The irony of that statement is that I do it all the time. But I hate doing it. I don't even know why I do it. Same with lol. There are just some things that aggravate me, and yet it doesn't seem like I can avoid them (or rather, I can, but not without isolating myself entirely.) But seriously. If you want to talk, CALL the person. It's not as hard as it sounds.

So, in summation: boring emails, strained and dull conversations, and poor conversationalists are all things that need to be eliminated.

Cheers!
Aya

University Hype

"Hey! How's it going? Good? Yeah, me too! I know, I hate school, too! I'm so sick of it, honestly. So, have you decided where you're going next year?" 

Everyone at, around, or over the age of 18 knows what I'm talking about. The moment you're the age when most people start getting ready to head off to university or college or whatever - even if you've got a few years of high school to go - this question will inevitably - and I mean inevitably - pop up in conversations. Often. It's as though, now that high school is almost over, it's time to talk about something that no one has any real clue about, but loves to discuss as though they do. For example:

"Oh my God, I'm so screwed for next year. I know nothing."
"Oh my God, I'm so screwed for next year. My marks suck." 
"Oh my God, I'm so screwed for next year. My study habits are atrocious."

And then there are the people who don't care about the actual academic aspect of going off to post-secondary school, but think that the only good thing in attending university or college is that they will then be faced with a minimum of four years full of nothing but a) drinking, b) partying, c) sex, sex, sex, and d) getting drunk at parties and having mindless, uninhibited sex with everyone in sight. I am being extremely cynical and stereotypical in this assumption, of course, but let's face it: people like this do exist.

That's not what bothers me about university hype, though. After all, for many people, post-secondary school is an opportunity for independence, a broadening of horizons, new experiences...all that good stuff that attracts the worst of students. No, what bothers me is the way people ask the question "What university are you going to go to?" Especially when they ask it at the beginning of the grade twelve year. Because how the hell are you supposed to know? Unless you've already applied, and already been accepted everywhere, and thus have your pick of schools, how the hell are you supposed to know where you're going to go? You may know where you want to go, or where you're going to apply, but that's an entirely different question (one that, of course, is discussed nonetheless).

The other option, of course, is that you know where you're going to go because you've decided to go somewhere you are 101% certain you will get in. If that's the case, then I have to wonder why you've decided to go to that school. After all, if you know for a fact that you will get in, why not try to aim higher? Why not stretch or challenge yourself? Of course, it may be that this precise school has exactly the program you want, or maybe it's really cheap (or is giving you a full scholarship or something), and is conveniently close to home, or a variety of other possible scenarios that could affect a person's decision. (I know someone who is incredibly smart - above 90 average for sure - but decided to go to a school that requires a really low average. But he's going to grad school, so his reasoning is that he'll save money over the four years of undergrad, be top of his class, and go to his choice of graduate schools. A pretty good argument, and I still say he should have gone to a better school.) Otherwise, I personally think it's not a good idea to just settle; everyone owes it to themselves to give it their all and strive for the best.

Before I get preachy, I'll continue my point. If you haven't been accepted to any university yet, how can you state where you are going to go? It irks me to no end. Oh, and the other thing that bothers me is when people try to convince you to go somewhere particular, some school that either a) they want to go to, or b) they think you SHOULD go to. Why? Why do people think they know what's best for you better than you do? I have decided that I want to go [here], therefore this is where I will go if I get in, so stop trying to convince me otherwise. No, I do not think that school is amazing. No, I do not think its campus is amazing. No, I do not think its programs are amazing. No, I do not think anything remotely related to it is amazing, so STOP BOTHERING ME ON THE SUBJECT.

To add to my endless list of annoyances, can I just ask why everybody feels the need to continuously and repeatedly talk about subjects related to post-secondary school? Seriously. Why? Is there nothing else to talk about? Are current events too dull for our tastes? Do our lives revolve around getting accepted to some school, and then go there to "pursue" our "dreams"? Are we not living our lives until we become freshmen at unis/colleges? Or WHAT? What is stimulating all this university talk? I understand being asked once or twice, but when the same people ask you the same question over, and over, and over again, I'd be surprised if you aren't ready to snap. Frankly, I see uni as yet another obstacle to overcome before we no longer have to worry about homework and being graded. Everybody else sees it as some doorway to another universe. Really? I mean, I guess if you chose a career path that actually requires a university degree - or multiple university degrees - then, sure, knock yourself out (something you're very liable to do at one point if you've decided to become a doctor or lawyer), but otherwise, stop sitting around on your butt, waiting for some professor or program to kick-start your life. If you know what you want to do, DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT. And talk about THAT, instead.

Don't get me wrong. I think that university should be a part of everyone's life at one point. Higher education is the only thing that will keep civilization civilized. High school curricula are dumbed down more and more every single year, so a graduate can't really consider him- or herself all that smart and accomplished anymore. University is the only thing that will really take learning to a new level, and even then, a bachelor's degree isn't all that special or respected anymore (even though it should be). We should continue getting an education after high school. Not necessarily till half our lives have flashed by, but at least until we get a good sense of the world, a good knowledge of something, a good base for our futures. It's just...can people please STOP TALKING ABOUT POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION? You'll have plenty of opportunity to do that once you GET THERE. Now, enjoy everything ELSE. Like the free time that you won't have in the future. And being able to manipulate teachers. And skipping class while not suffering for it. All that stuff that makes high school what it is.

On that note, hope all's well!
Aya

P.S. Sorry for the crudity of some of what I said...but it had to be done.

Dear John

Okay, I've rethought the purpose of this blog, simply because it does not seem liable to work. For one, I haven't been able to get as much writing done as I had originally hoped, but on top of that, every time I do write something, I always end up going back and revising it, which is really just a nice way of saying that I basically rewrite whatever I have down (case in point: I now have a fourth version of the beginning of my story, the first and third of which you have been exposed to). Seeing as I don't want to have to keep putting up the beginning, I just won't put up anything at all. I feel less pressured that way, anyway.

That being said, I will, from this point forward, do what I seem to do best (at least in person): rant.

Today's topic will be "Dear John," by Nicholas Sparks. I will admit that I was excited about buying the book, particularly because I have been in the mood to read sweet, romantic love stories lately. I did my research before getting it, too, reading a few excerpts, watching the trailers for the movie that's coming out based on it. I even read a few reviews (although, in all honestly, I went this far only because I was left with no access to either a bookstore or library at the time). The reviews were all good, too, expressing that it was a typical Nicholas Sparks story, set in a small town, beginning through sheer spontaneity, faced with a difficult situation, fueled by unsinkable desire and longing - all that fun stuff that elicits envy and desire in most females (very heavy emphasis on most). It didn't seem like it would make a long-lasting impression on me, but it seemed good; seemed like something I was in the mood to read.

Which is why the first thing I am going to stress is that I was extremely, extremely disappointed when I read it. I felt almost betrayed, in a way, by all the hype. I have read numerous reviews on the book, and I've yet to read a single bad one. Maybe I'm looking in the wrong places - I don't know. What I do know is that I only recommend reading this book if you are a) looking for something to use as a bad example, or b) desperate for some form - any form - of literature, and it is the only, only thing you have. (I may be exaggerating, but if I am, only slightly.)

Theoretically, the idea isn't bad: former bad boy meets naive good girl; boy is in the army, girl is studying how to help the mentally ill in college; boy falls head over heels for girl, and vice versa; time spent together; much, much longer time spent apart; after the first time, difficulties set in, etc., etc., etc. But the whole bad boy/good girl thing is so overplayed that Sparks' only saving grace is the somewhat different situation. Well, that, as well as the fact that the ending more or less makes sense, and that there are a number of underlying messages that make the story a lot better than it otherwise would have been.

But that's where my positive feedback ends. Maybe I'm being a little harsh, but so be it. I actually enjoyed reading "The Notebook" (not so much the movie), and absolutely loved "A Walk to Remember" (both the book and movie were spectacular), so I guess I was expecting a lot more from the world-renown Monsieur Sparks.

The story starts off with the main character and narrator, John Tyree, describing his life, explaining his reasoning for joining the army. He's home on his third leave, and is sitting at the beach, resting after a day of surfing, when two girls walk by. One of these girls is Savannah, the other main character and John's love interest. John calls out a greeting, and while her friend rolls her eyes and turns away, Savannah calls back. And kaboom! It's love! While John is somewhat interesting, Savannah, in my opinion, is not a compelling character at all, and neither is the way Sparks words her description. John mentions a lot about her "kindness" and "sweetness", but there really doesn't seem to be much else about her that would attract someone like him to her. She has an open face, and a good heart, and she volunteers to help the unfortunate, and she cares about everybody...straight-A student...valedictorian...very pretty...naive and innocent... I mean, come on. That just isn't enough. I didn't find that there was a truly engrossing aspect to her personality that could have pulled someone like John in. And yet somehow, she does. And then her bag falls into the water, and of course John is the one who gets it out, and their eyes meet, and he feels something (the Sparks spark) - again mentioning the kindness - and he never wants to look away. They end up spending that evening together, and the next, and the one two nights after that. So after knowing each other for a whopping four days, they are deeply, beautifully in love - and say so, too. Seriously. That's where the "I love you"s come in, and the situation could not have been any more unrealistic and unromantic.

Maybe it would have been more believable if Sparks had done a better job developing the emotions that played out, or by giving more details to the three days spent together, or just by giving more details. But there just wasn't enough of that. They don't do anything particularly exciting when they're together, and their conversations seem both unnaturally boring and conditionally improbable. (In fact, the dialogue throughout most of the book seems pretty stiff and unreal.) There's nothing gripping about them, so I don't see how they could have fallen so deeply for each other so quickly. I'll concede to the fact that Sparks did seem to try and make it seem as though their relationship was different, as though it stood out: Savannah took an uncanny interest in John's father (because "he was the one who raised [him]"), and John felt an irrepressible jealousy and protectiveness whenever around her, even that first night. But it was all just too dry. It wasn't captivating, it didn't entice me, and it certainly didn't move me. Seriously, four days and they're completely and utterly in love? Fighting a week in because there is now such a depth to their relationship that family is now involved in the emotional roller coaster? Entirely committed to each other less than two weeks later, as John leaves for the army? Really? I can only see that happening if they spent many, many hours together, bonding over unique and unusually romantic activities. I don't even know how to accurately explain what I'm trying to say: there just isn't enough development of the relationship.
 
So after the less-than-two-week-long period together, they manage to survive an entire YEAR apart through letters, occasional phone calls, and a ritual to look at the full moon every month and remember their two weeks. That way, they wouldn't ever forget. When John returns, things are smooth sailing at first, then troubles ensue - as they should. But the troubles, in all honesty, are pretty trivial, and they don't seem like the type that would arise if their relationship was plausible...and then the "solutions"...

Okay, I won't give away the ending, but all in all, this was a disappointment. In fact, I am going to return the book - something I never, ever do, because even books that I don't exactly love I tend to keep. But this one just does not belong anywhere in my collection. I refuse to have it anywhere on my shelves. It would be an insult to all that I stand for. You may think I was harsh, but I'm only being honest.

In all candour yours, 
Aya