Banned Books Week (Plus Some)

Note: This is an opinion piece. Everything said is my opinion. It is also a rant. You have been forewarned.

Hello, I'm Morey. I'm so sorry for not posting in so long. My excuse is that I haven't read anything bad enough to review. I'm currently reading Twilight, but the book is so bad, I might go insane reading more than two pages at a time. There are movies and anime I can review, but since I reviewed a movie last time, I want to review a book next. No worries. If I can't find anything to review next week, then I shall review one of Nickolaus Pacione's short stories, as those stories are atrocious. This week, as banned books week is coming up, I'd like to talk about recent news.

First, I'd like to talk about Stockton, Missouri's recent ban on The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian by Sherman Alexie. I have not read the book, nor do I wish to read it, but I can not accept that fully grown adults will ban this book from a high school. For those who don't know the story; The book was in the English curriculum and a group of parents threw a fit. It got banned, the ban got challenged, but the judges didn't learn about the first amendment and kept the ban. I personally think that because people got it banned, they're depriving the teens the knowledge the book could have. I mean, The book couldn't have won awards if it was just porn.

As I have not read the book, I do not know what content is in it, but (from the articles I've read) the people of Stockton are focusing on the sex and language. All I can do is bang my head on the desk repeatedly and hope I can erase my memory. Here's something; my local high school library has books that cover adult subjects and have adult themes. In my English classes, we read books like Frankenstein and Lord of the Flies. In the book club we had, we read books like The Color Purple, Prep, and Memoirs of a Geisha. Should that school ban all of those books because of adult content? No!

This leads us to our next topic. Recently, Wesley Scroggins (an egotistical man who thinks his word is law, yet works at Missouri State) wrote an article in the News-Leader (a Springfield, Missouri newspaper) about what Republic schools were teaching the kids. Basically wanted to ban three books from the high school and change the sex ed curriculum.

The first book he wanted banned was Speak by Laurie Halse Anderson because he considered it softcore porn. Again, I have not read the book (Young Adult novels aren't part of my genre), but I'm coming from reading other people's comments and my own thinking. Inside the article, he considers it softcore porn, then in the next paragraph, says that there are two rape scenes. How the hell is rape considered porn? As others have commented, the book focuses on the rape and for the girl to speak up. No part of it would be considered porn.

The other two books Scroggins wanted banned were Slaughterhouse Five by Kurt Vonnegut and Twenty Boy Summer by Sarah Ockler. Both he claims to be porn. Here's some food for thought, Scroggins! School districts will not allow books to be part of the curriculum if it's porn. As these books are part of the curriculum, then they're more than what you believe as porn, and something the students (teenagers, mind you) should learn. So instead of opening your mouth, try reading a book and not get your boxers in a bunch whenever there's a sex (more like rape) scene! If it'll make you happy, I'll buy all of these books, read them, and tell you whether it's porn or not. As it's part of the curriculum (as I've said a thousand times) I'm betting my money that it is not porn, but novels that have important lessons the students should learn.

The next part that bugs me about Scroggins' article is his belief in the sex ed. He said that he was mortified that students were learning about sex, homosexuality, condoms (in eighth grade), and reproduction (in fourth grade). I'm just mortified about how sheltered he must be. Here's a little lesson: teaching abstinence only does not work! It would be better to teach the children about safe sex as well as abstinence.

Another thing, Why the hell should fourth graders not learn about reproduction? Well, when should people learn about where babies come from, oh wise one? What? When they get married? What drugs are you on? Isn't it important to tell children what they're going through is normal and to teach them what to expect? Honestly fourth graders should learn about reproduction. They should know where babies come from, how reproduction works, and what their bodies go through.

Then there's what eighth graders are learning. Good! They should learn all of that. They'll be going to high school (the heart of teen pregnancy). No matter what you tell kids, there are going to be some who won't have sex. Just as much, there are going to be those who do have sex. Honestly, it's not a good idea to plug your ears and ignore the topic of sex. It is important to teach the students about sex and to show tell them the truth. Showing them gross pictures of STD's is just being immature (and that's coming from me).

Talking about sex ed, here's my history of learning. In second grade, my counselor taught my class that a pussy is a vagina, a prick is a penis, sex is only when the penis is in a vagina, sex isn't a bad word, or a bad thing, and HIV can occur from having sex. In fifth grade, we learn about the reproduction system and about our bodies. We also learn about puberty and the changes in our bodies. In eighth grade, we learn about pregnancy, that teens will have sex and get pregnant, and that it's okay to go to the counselor or nurse if you are pregnant. In tenth grade, we learn about STDs and that it's not okay to have sex. Yeah, Tenth grade was the worst with sex ed.

Another food for thought; when I was in school and we were going to read/watch/learn about something adult, the teachers sent permission slips home for the parents to sign. So if there's something you don't want your child to learn/see, then you can say, and the teachers will be happy to give the child something else to do.

Now about the subject you knew was coming: how Scroggins thinks that children should learn about homosexuality. Although he never said “children shouldn't learn about homosexuality”, one can interpret his words to mean that. What is my response? Good! Children should learn that there are people who like the same sex (or both sexes) and that it's normal. There are already problems with parents teaching their children homophobia. Someone outside of their parents should teach tolerance. Oh wait, it's okay to teach that it's okay that people are different than you, but if they like the same sex, then it's okay to hate them. Please. Homophobia is so 1950's. Fucking teach your children tolerance!

I think that's the biggest problem with the book banning and suppressing sex ed. A group of parents don't want their child(ren) to read/learn about something, and suddenly they think that's how all parents feel. Then they want that thing banned because they feel that all children shouldn't read/learn about it, even if the parents of the other children are okay with such things. No wait. The biggest problem with this whole thing is the fact that parents are trying to childproof the world.

Not trying to insult as there are many people in the world who raise their children on their own, and there are people who have to work and need others to help raise children. There are good parents, yet there are bad parents. The problem I have are with those who just put their child in front of the TV or take them to a toy store, and leave them for someone else to raise the kid. I have a problem with people who don't want to raise their children, yet want the world to be child proof. I have a problem with those who aren't willing to see what their child does, but expect the teachers to raise their child how the parents want them raised.

The world can not be child proof. You can't expect the world to change just for your child or you're beliefs. Everyone's morals are different. What you think is not okay might be okay for another person. If you don't want your child to see something, go turn off the TV. You don't want your child to read something? Go to the teacher and tell them you don't want your child to read that story, and if your child can do something else. Don't take away the knowledge from others just to protect your own child.

Another thing, with these books being/might be banned, what are we teaching the children? That it's not okay to think for yourself? That it's not okay to have an opinion? That your parents don't raise you? What will we teach them next? That you can only be of a certain religion? That only certain races are good? That women are useless? That war and hatred is okay? When will we let our children think for themselves?

Another thing I should bring up from Scroggins. He sent a letter to the Republic school district wanting to change the school curriculum. He doesn't believe that the US is a Democracy (because the people never vote on anything. Oh wait, yes they do), there is no separation of church and state (yes, there is), and there is no freedom of expression (there is). He wants to change science to get rid of all mentions of Evolution and only teach that God created Earth. He wants to get rid of all Sex Ed, and remove everything un-Christian from the English curriculum.

First, the US is not a Christian country. All religions are practiced here. Teaching only Christian stuff in public schools goes against the separation of church and state (it does exist), and it is a punch in the face for all of those not of the Christian faith. Honestly, if the school board changes the curriculum to fit this man's idea, they are just shooting themselves in the knee. I mean, you're putting Christian teachings in a public school, plus you're not teaching the students properly. Not only that, but there's the end of the year exam (used to be called MAP) to think about. Let's just hope the school board is smart enough to ignore this egotistical man.

Finally, as Banned Books Week draws near, what can we learn from it? Books are not as they seem. Taking a book away takes away knowledge. Don't like a book? Say you don't like it and let others have their own opinion. Nothing makes a book worm go crazy except banning and censoring books.

Enjoy the freedom we have to read these books, and don't let others think for you. I shall celebrate by reading books that no doubt would be banned if it wasn't for laws. I'm Morey Bibliophage; reading books because she can.


Ice Twister Review

Disclaimer: I do not own the rights to Ice Twister. I only own a piece of shit DVD.

This scene never happens.

Hello, I'm Morey Bibliophage. Why do disaster movies tend to suck? Is it the fake science or the bad dialogue? Honestly, natural disasters are interesting and can make for great movies. For some reason people just can't make good disaster movies. The few good movies tend to be covered by the really bad movies. This movie isn't any different. Let's go ahead and jump into Ice Twister.

First off, let's go through the characters. There's House wannabe (Gary-Stu), Science chick wannabe, Spencer Reid wannabe, Dude-whom-I've-forgotten-his-name wannabe, Ben Stiller wannabe, Dead prep, Dead guy, High-school-looking college girl, and High-school-looking college boy. I was too confused with the plot to remember their names, so these are their new names. Having all of these wannabe's just injures the movie since it's basically showing the audience all the stars they couldn't afford, so here's some unknown lookalikes to please you.

As I said above, House wannabe is a Gary-Stu. He's always right, he's rich, he's smart, he's 'pure', he's pretty much 'perfect' according to the movie. It just adds to the annoyance. Science chick wannabe isn't any better. She just has to be in the right. She is 'wonderful'. You just know the moment they first meet that these two are going to get together in the end.

From the movie, You can practically tell the director hates Spencer Reid wannabe. He's always angry or ditsy with Jesus House wannabe one-upping him. I'm guessing the director was a conspiracy theorist who hated that one geek who was smarter than him. All Spencer Reid wannabe is, is a pretty face for the girls. Then the DWIFHN wannabe is basically the bad guy's henchman turned good who gets his demise because he's not agreeing with Saint House.

It was obvious Dead Prep was gonna die the moment we first saw her. She was ditsy and completely preppy. As we know, preps can never live in movies (unless she shows boobs). Dead guy had to die because he sided with Spencer Reid Wannabe instead of Jesus House.

High-school-looking college girl always thought logically, but she has to be the dumber person since all she did was whine. High-school-looking college boy is the obvious smart, male conspiracy theorist who is a disciple of Jesus House wannabe.

Finally, there's Ben Stiller wannabe, who's the bad guy because, well, he's a senator. Yup. But don't worry! Ben Stiller wannabe gets his own demise because he went against Jesus and Science chick wannabe. Isn't that so realistic?

Next, the entire movie is confusing. It starts of with some science experiment that we don't know about, but the director thinks we can get. Then twenty minutes in, we're still confused. What are they doing? What are they talking about? Why are there a ton of planes flying around that look exactly like those US army planes? Where is this supposed to be? Basic story telling: you're not supposed to confuse your audience the moment the story begins. Even more basic story telling: don't tell your audience what's going on. Show the audience what's going on.

Even when the characters explain what's going on, you're still confused since they're talking science that isn't science, but science fiction bull shit. Throughout the movie, we just said 'that can't happen', 'that would never happen', 'why are you speaking bull shit?'. Why are they shooting silver into the air? How is it able to kill that man? If the ozone layer is weak, wouldn't that mean the air would be getting warmer instead of colder? When did satellites get lasers built into them? Did you do any research or did you just read some sci-fi book?

To add to that, they fail at even the basic weather science. For instance; if a storm suddenly pops up out of nowhere, it would be a pretty weak storm, not a tornado causing one. One is more than likely to have a tornado form when there's a significant temperature change, like say 90° yesterday and 70° today. Tornadoes are unpredictable. Not all tornadoes are F5. Most are fairly weak. A tornado will more likely form from a cluster of small, organized storm cells. The biggest sign a tornado could form where there is a hook-like formation in a cell. That's all for today's basic weather. Back to the review.

A big problem with the movie is the fact that so many people just randomly die. What's worst is that majority of those who die are those who went against (or hated) House wannabe. The rest were some no named extra who just died for the hell of it. Watching the movie, we counted 7 on screen deaths. The big problem with this is that the more people they kill the less significant it becomes. Especially when they show House wannabe's face's reaction to the dead person. Even worse when the deaths are uncreative. They just die because of the tornadoes. This doesn't make people feel sad. They just make fun of it (or make a game out of who will die next).

Oh, by the way. If you're wondering about hail, it doesn't come down like bullets. They would be more on the lines of dropping a baseball from a very high altitude. Sure the guy would die, but he would die from a head wound, not bullet-like hail. With that, Hail hitting the body would cause bruises and maybe a broken bone or internal bleeding. Not cause bullet wounds.

With the whole tornado killing everyone, it really doesn't show any other horrors except you can die from a tornado. Just a bit of info: you are more likely to die from lightning than in a tornado. There are more than tornadoes that can kill you in a storm. High winds, hail, lightning being the biggest thing. Don't show death by tornado constantly. Especially when you show Jesus going right through multiple tornadoes without causing harm.

Ok, ok. I'll stop complaining about science. I'll complain about everything else. One more thing (I lied). If you are in a field when a tornado hits, hide in a ditch, not a tunnel. Tunnels –like bridges– are pretty much wind tunnels when a tornado is near you. First there's the fact that a tornado's wind becomes stronger in a tunnel, so you'd be blown away. Second, because there would be stronger winds going through the tunnel, a piece of debris would more than likely go through the tunnel and kill you.

The special effects are pretty bad. The rockets that look like lawsuit were very fake looking. The planes were fake looking. The storms were fake looking. The deaths were fake looking. The hail was fake looking. The tornadoes were fake looking! Everything was fake! How could Twister –a movie made in 1996– have more realistic special effects than this movie (which was made in 2010)?

Next; the acting was terrible. Everyone was over-acting. Their lines were exaggerated. You couldn't tell what their emotions were and had to abuse the music to relate to the audience what they had to feel. The actors never did the most logical thing. They just stand around looking at the tornadoes coming their way instead of, y'know, running away. Majority of the time, the acting was laughably bad. The rest of the time, it was just painfully bad.

Finally, the camera shots just sucked. Over half of the time, the camera would be shaking enough to give anyone a headache. It gets worse when there's an action scene since the shaky camera becomes tenfold, causing everyone watching it to break out into seizures. With the shaky camera is the awkward shot from behind something. There's no reason you have to put the camera behind a car when you don't need to. This isn't a documentary. The scenes should flow smoothly, not tell the audience you just got out of college.

We tried to find something good about it. Unfortunately, our brains would have malfunctioned if we thought any harder. It's just a really shitty movie.

Well, that's Ice Twister. How was it? Shitty. What's the moral of the story? Don't mess with Jesus House, and don't watch this movie when you live in or near Tornado Alley. My suggestion? Don't waste money on this movie. Use that $10 for a better disaster movie (like Dante's Peak). I'm Morey Bibliophage, Remembering it for you entertainment.