1. Explain one or two ways your writing has improved (or not) over the semester. Include a few examples from your posts over time, with analysis and links to the original posts, to illustrate how the improvement(s) happened.
For the second semester only: If you want, you can reflect on improvements you've noticed over just the second semester, the entire year, or even multiple years if you have examples of your writing from the more distant past.
3. Explain one or two ways audience feedback helped you grow over the semester. (It doesn't have to be stuff Sutherland said.)
Have you been tracking your blog's traffic with Google Analytics? If so, you can respond to this prompt using the rich data that Analytics provides: Where is your audience reading from? What are your most popular posts (and why do you think they got the most traffic?) There are lots of possibilities here...
8. How do you like having a blog? How has blogging changed the way you write, the way you think, or the way you think about writing?
Has blogging had any other effects on your life beyond strictly your "school life"? If so, explain.
For the second semester only: Do you plan on continuing to publish writing on your blog this summer, next year, or beyond? If so, what are your writing goals and how will you use your blog in the future?
1. I looked over my blog recently for this assignment, which took a really really long time, and what I noticed was that my writing doesn't sound too terribly different from how it sounded at the beginning of the year. And when I read some of the stuff I had written in my portfolio, it sounded pretty much the same. The only difference I could really tell over the years is that when I was a freshman, I wrote very rigor mortis. I had no style, it felt like I was following a formula, and I'm pretty sure that's actually what I was doing at the time, but I was following it to the letter. My writing just seemed so constricted. Now, I have broken those chains. I don't follow a formula, I have a blog, who needs it (the formula)? Because of this blog I have a developed an independence, a style, and for that I thank you Mr. Sutherland. I can't really show any specific examples because it was a very slow process and it was very subtle as well. The only way I noticed was from looking at a paper from an important time. For example, looking at something from freshman year, then sophomore year, at the beginning of this year then at the end and only then can you see a difference.
That first post was short, and reminded me of the stuff I wrote when I was a freshman, it was a little boring, and didn't really show me I guess would be the best way to describe it. Now my last free blog post, I think it had character, it had a lot of writing in it, even if it wasn't exactly 500 words, and I believe that all of this is because of the blog and the amount of writing in it.
3. I can not say that I have gotten much audience feedback, and I can't say that the feedback I've gotten has helped me grow, but I can say Google analytics is really interesting. It has told me a lot about my site, even some ethically questionable things. It's told me what site's people are visiting my site from. What color they are viewing it in, what their operating system is. It's told me how long they've stayed on my site, what country they live in. It can tell you if they have visited it before, what post they look at. Pretty much the only thing it won't tell you is who they are. My audience mostly consists of people from the bay area and random places in the U.S., but I've gotten a few views from Great Britain, Russia, Turkey, and Sweden. Google analytics could probably tell me how many hairs each person has on their left index finger but that would be morally wrong so it doesn't include it in the report.
It said that my skateboarding vs. cops post was my most popular one. I'm not completely sure why this is, maybe because I have a lot of friends that skate, maybe someone saw it and thought it was a relevant issue and spread the word. I don't know, but I do really like that post, maybe that's why it's the most popular. One of the cool things about that post is that someone that I did not know commented on it, which is always nice. Just to know that someone reads these things always feels pretty good, it doesn't really affect my writing but it gives me more of a sense of purpose, and that motivation is a very good thing, it's probably why I will end up keeping this blog.
8. I still really like having a blog, even though not many people read it. For some reason my myspace music page has almost three times more views and it's only been up for a few months. I guess there's just more traffic on myspace, which is weird because myspace died like a year ago. Blogging has definitely changed the fluidity of my writing, or so I've been told. It would make sense that it has improved in that nature. I've written a ton of stuff this year. I think this will be my 40th post and they've all been at least 300 words, a lot of them are over 300. Even if you don't learn anything, your writing should still improve if you write close to 20,000.
I think now, I think a lot more openly about writing. I can just write, I mean, after writing a few hundred words a bunch of times, it gets easier. I'm also not as scared of writing. I used to hate doing big writing projects and stuff, but now it's a lot easier so I don't stress as much.
My blog hasn't had much of an impact on my life outside of school. I'm thinking over the summer I will put some more time into it, maybe to raise awareness around the music I make sometimes. But it's whatevs, I learned that there are a couple people at school that read my blog sometimes, I found that pretty cool, but it doesn't really affect my life much. But I am going to keep the blog, maybe not this one because, as analytics shows me, I don't get much traffic on this one, but I do have a tumblr with some of my favorite posts on it. And tumblr is geared more towards my age group. Lots of people have been able to make a living off of blogs, hopefully I can kickstart my music career, or I could just have fun with a blog that has no limits.
Tuesday, June 8, 2010
Sunday, May 30, 2010
The Last Monthly Review
3. What are the weaknesses of this book, in your opinion?
4. How would you describe the author's style of writing? What's your opinion of the style? (You must include a passage or two from the text if you choose this question.)
5. Find out about the author. How did they end up writing this particular book? Is the author's true life reflected in the book in any way(s)?
World War Z: An Oral History of the Zombie War is exactly what the title says. It is a series of oral recounting of the Zombie War from many different fictional characters and it was written by author and screenwriter Max Brooks. In this book there is a break-out of a virus that can only be spread from blood or saliva. It envelopes the world and very few of the former 6 billion people on the world are still alive, or rather not undead. The remaining leaders of the remaining nations decide to fight back, and the apocalypse is pretty much overcome.
3. Overall, I would say that this is a very solid book. It gets the reader very involved and can easily make the reader crap their pants, metaphorically speaking. Really the only thing I had a problem with was that there were so many characters, from so many places, and they all sounded very similar. He didn't even give the Texan a southern accent. I think 3rd quarter you gave us that assignment about making a story where someone asks someone for a favor, and we read all those Fitzgerald short stories. The theme was to get characters to have different personalities. Fitzgerald did a great job, Max Brooks, not so well. Even the girls sound like the guys, other than their girl talk.
This is a quote from one of the women in WWZ. If it weren't for "celebrity gossip" and "on the scale every morning," you would never know this was a woman. It seems a bit like he just puts key words and phrases into their dialogue just to distinguish their gender, instead of actually spending the time to develop a characters personality. However, I will cut him a break because their are upwards of twenty characters, and some of them are distinguishable, but not all of them. Another example of this is that their is an Australian character. Do you know how I found out he is Australian? The book said he was. It didn't come across in the dialogue at all. He didn't say mate once! Not a single time! What kind of Australian is that? Although this is a really good book, character development needs work.
4. This book is very unique because of the style it was written in. Basically it is a series of interviews about a world war with the undead. I have never had the experience of reading a book like this. And I have to say that this would be a totally different book without this styles of writing. Although the interviewees do not have much differentiating character traits, the interview-like writing style opens opportunities to tell tales of different countries and cultures. Henceforth, this book doe not suffer from the single point of view writing style that most protagonist based novels share. And that is really what sets this book apart. That fact alone opened up numerous opportunities in the writing of this book.
In any normal novel, the political analysis would all be up to the point of view of the main character. In a typical U.S. military survivor retelling of the same Zombie War tale, he'd be like man, those Russian commies were too brutal on their soldiers. But in this style, you have the opportunity to tell it from the point of view of the jar head and the Russian Official who would say, we did what we had to, or something like that. There was no Russian official interview, only one with a Russian soldier and a Russian priest. And to give a little insight into the Russian psyche, I will quote the priest.
When the Russian army first discovered what they were fighting (the infection), much against the will of their superiors, their was a mutiny. As punishment, the Russian soldiers were put in groups of ten and to exercise their policy of democracy, the soldiers voted on which of the ten was to be killed. The members personally had to execute the member they voted out.
An American or Japanese person would never have that insight into Russian culture. And displayed in other ways throughout the book, the views of many cultures can be represented without the bias of a main character.
5. All I really wanted to know about this topic is why Max Brooks is so obsessed with zombies. He's the author of this book (World War Z), The Zombie Survival Guide, and The Zombie Survival Guide: Recorded Attacks. The only thing I could find on him that would make him messed up enough to write an apocalyptic zombie book such as this, is that he is the son of Mel Brooks. And while I love Mel Brooks, he is a little crazy. The genetic funny bone seemed to have been passed on to Max as shown by The Zombie Survival Guide, which is pretty funny, and the fact that he was a writer for Saturday Night Live. He is also an actor and voice actor. As I said before, I couldn't find very much information on his personal life. This is the biography on his personal website:
Really? That's all you have to say for yourself? Whatever he really has to say for himself, I don't mind. He seems like a cool person.
4. How would you describe the author's style of writing? What's your opinion of the style? (You must include a passage or two from the text if you choose this question.)
5. Find out about the author. How did they end up writing this particular book? Is the author's true life reflected in the book in any way(s)?
World War Z: An Oral History of the Zombie War is exactly what the title says. It is a series of oral recounting of the Zombie War from many different fictional characters and it was written by author and screenwriter Max Brooks. In this book there is a break-out of a virus that can only be spread from blood or saliva. It envelopes the world and very few of the former 6 billion people on the world are still alive, or rather not undead. The remaining leaders of the remaining nations decide to fight back, and the apocalypse is pretty much overcome.
3. Overall, I would say that this is a very solid book. It gets the reader very involved and can easily make the reader crap their pants, metaphorically speaking. Really the only thing I had a problem with was that there were so many characters, from so many places, and they all sounded very similar. He didn't even give the Texan a southern accent. I think 3rd quarter you gave us that assignment about making a story where someone asks someone for a favor, and we read all those Fitzgerald short stories. The theme was to get characters to have different personalities. Fitzgerald did a great job, Max Brooks, not so well. Even the girls sound like the guys, other than their girl talk.
"Yeah, for about five minutes every day: local headlines, sports, celebrity gossip. Why would I want to get depressed by watching TV? I could do that just by stepping on the scale every morning."
This is a quote from one of the women in WWZ. If it weren't for "celebrity gossip" and "on the scale every morning," you would never know this was a woman. It seems a bit like he just puts key words and phrases into their dialogue just to distinguish their gender, instead of actually spending the time to develop a characters personality. However, I will cut him a break because their are upwards of twenty characters, and some of them are distinguishable, but not all of them. Another example of this is that their is an Australian character. Do you know how I found out he is Australian? The book said he was. It didn't come across in the dialogue at all. He didn't say mate once! Not a single time! What kind of Australian is that? Although this is a really good book, character development needs work.
4. This book is very unique because of the style it was written in. Basically it is a series of interviews about a world war with the undead. I have never had the experience of reading a book like this. And I have to say that this would be a totally different book without this styles of writing. Although the interviewees do not have much differentiating character traits, the interview-like writing style opens opportunities to tell tales of different countries and cultures. Henceforth, this book doe not suffer from the single point of view writing style that most protagonist based novels share. And that is really what sets this book apart. That fact alone opened up numerous opportunities in the writing of this book.
In any normal novel, the political analysis would all be up to the point of view of the main character. In a typical U.S. military survivor retelling of the same Zombie War tale, he'd be like man, those Russian commies were too brutal on their soldiers. But in this style, you have the opportunity to tell it from the point of view of the jar head and the Russian Official who would say, we did what we had to, or something like that. There was no Russian official interview, only one with a Russian soldier and a Russian priest. And to give a little insight into the Russian psyche, I will quote the priest.
"To kill your comrade, even in cases as merciful as infection, was too reminiscent of the decimation's. That was the irony of it all. The decimation's had given our armed forces the strength and discipline to do anything we asked of them, anything but that. To ask, or even order, one soldier to kill another was crossing a line that might have sparked another mutiny."
When the Russian army first discovered what they were fighting (the infection), much against the will of their superiors, their was a mutiny. As punishment, the Russian soldiers were put in groups of ten and to exercise their policy of democracy, the soldiers voted on which of the ten was to be killed. The members personally had to execute the member they voted out.
An American or Japanese person would never have that insight into Russian culture. And displayed in other ways throughout the book, the views of many cultures can be represented without the bias of a main character.
5. All I really wanted to know about this topic is why Max Brooks is so obsessed with zombies. He's the author of this book (World War Z), The Zombie Survival Guide, and The Zombie Survival Guide: Recorded Attacks. The only thing I could find on him that would make him messed up enough to write an apocalyptic zombie book such as this, is that he is the son of Mel Brooks. And while I love Mel Brooks, he is a little crazy. The genetic funny bone seemed to have been passed on to Max as shown by The Zombie Survival Guide, which is pretty funny, and the fact that he was a writer for Saturday Night Live. He is also an actor and voice actor. As I said before, I couldn't find very much information on his personal life. This is the biography on his personal website:
"Max Brooks is the author of the two bestsellers The Zombie Survival Guide and World War Z. He has also written for Saturday Night Live, for which he won an Emmy. His new graphic novel The Zombie Survival Guide: Recorded Attacks will be released in October of 09."
Really? That's all you have to say for yourself? Whatever he really has to say for himself, I don't mind. He seems like a cool person.
Saturday, May 22, 2010
Lit Circle Letter 3
The final section of the book World War Z, is a little disappointing, I have to admit. They are mostly little boring short stories about life after the war. There were a few good stories at the beginning of the section but after that its just blah, blah, blah. I understand there's not much you can do to end a book like this but the stories could be a little longer than two pages.
Well, I guess that's not fair to say. After re-looking at the section I realized that the boring little short stories were under the section labeled "Goodbye's". But that section really detracts from the overall awesomeness of this book. Other than that part I would say I was very pleased with this book. I read it in about a week, which is pretty impressive by my standards, especially because it is about three hundred and fifty pages. I read a book I would actually like to read since the last Harry Potter book, so if I read a book that fast, you know it's good.
At the beginning, the author seemed to have a pretty bleak outlook on life. There was so much death and panic and suicide. There was deception and misconceived politics. But in this section I think the author showed his true outlook on life and society, there were still sad parts, but it looked like the world was healing its wounds. And he still accurately portrayed the mind of the political machine.
"Hope. I'm not kidding, the town was actually named Hope.
They say the brass chose it because of the terrain, clear and open with the desert in front and the mountains in back. Perfect, they said, for and open engagement, and that the name had nothing to do with it. Right."
This is a quote about the location of the first American offensive in World War Z. And I think that's exactly how politicians would react. They would give the people hope precisely by beating the zombies in a town called Hope. Real life situations are portrayed well, except for the zombies, but other than that, I think this is exactly how the Z War would be.
Well, I guess that's not fair to say. After re-looking at the section I realized that the boring little short stories were under the section labeled "Goodbye's". But that section really detracts from the overall awesomeness of this book. Other than that part I would say I was very pleased with this book. I read it in about a week, which is pretty impressive by my standards, especially because it is about three hundred and fifty pages. I read a book I would actually like to read since the last Harry Potter book, so if I read a book that fast, you know it's good.
At the beginning, the author seemed to have a pretty bleak outlook on life. There was so much death and panic and suicide. There was deception and misconceived politics. But in this section I think the author showed his true outlook on life and society, there were still sad parts, but it looked like the world was healing its wounds. And he still accurately portrayed the mind of the political machine.
"Hope. I'm not kidding, the town was actually named Hope.
They say the brass chose it because of the terrain, clear and open with the desert in front and the mountains in back. Perfect, they said, for and open engagement, and that the name had nothing to do with it. Right."
This is a quote about the location of the first American offensive in World War Z. And I think that's exactly how politicians would react. They would give the people hope precisely by beating the zombies in a town called Hope. Real life situations are portrayed well, except for the zombies, but other than that, I think this is exactly how the Z War would be.
Hippies
From a few years ago, until recently, I wasn't very fond of the group labeled as hippies. There are a few reasons. My dad is kind of one, and he can be a little annoying sometimes. A lot of them aren't exactly the most hygienic types. And there are a few who think they know everything about the world, especially politics. But after watching the movie Taking Woodstock, much of that becomes forgivable. "Hippies" re the most loving and down to earth people on the planet. And how they are labeled is a product of it. They shouldn't be labeled, just because there are people that don't believe in the normal rules of society, doesn't mean they should be put into a group. Did you know that at Woodstock, there were hundreds of thousands of people, close to, if not a million. And there wasn't a single recorded act of violence.
There's a reason a lot of them do drugs, and that's to experience the world how they think it should be. And the music they listen to is good for their trips I guess. Maybe it's just because they want to follow the crowd but, I don't think so. Anything goes, because they're world is just so awesome. You're gender, your ethnicity, nothing matters. The reason they're all for protecting the environment is that they love the world, other than the people that inhabit it who are trying to destroy it. Which is probably why most of them are so liberal, liberals tend to want to take care of the world, and want people to have more freedom to do what they want.
So please people, don't be an Eric Cartman. Don't hate hippies,the only reason they're a group is because they aren't part of any group. As always, I'm probably just talking out of my ass. Maybe they are a group. Maybe some of them aren't loving people, they just put on a mask to fit in with the crowd. Maybe that's the reason why there isn't rarely a hippy who will call themselves one. But I think it's because they don't identify as a group, they just are. Think about this, do you know any wannabe hippies? I don't, I think a hipster is the closest thing to that, but most of them are just assholes that ride around on fixies and don't want to be associated with real hippies, if there is such a thing. So yeah, that's all I got on the subject, later. (In honor of them, before this point, there were 420 words)
There's a reason a lot of them do drugs, and that's to experience the world how they think it should be. And the music they listen to is good for their trips I guess. Maybe it's just because they want to follow the crowd but, I don't think so. Anything goes, because they're world is just so awesome. You're gender, your ethnicity, nothing matters. The reason they're all for protecting the environment is that they love the world, other than the people that inhabit it who are trying to destroy it. Which is probably why most of them are so liberal, liberals tend to want to take care of the world, and want people to have more freedom to do what they want.
So please people, don't be an Eric Cartman. Don't hate hippies,the only reason they're a group is because they aren't part of any group. As always, I'm probably just talking out of my ass. Maybe they are a group. Maybe some of them aren't loving people, they just put on a mask to fit in with the crowd. Maybe that's the reason why there isn't rarely a hippy who will call themselves one. But I think it's because they don't identify as a group, they just are. Think about this, do you know any wannabe hippies? I don't, I think a hipster is the closest thing to that, but most of them are just assholes that ride around on fixies and don't want to be associated with real hippies, if there is such a thing. So yeah, that's all I got on the subject, later. (In honor of them, before this point, there were 420 words)
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
Lit Circle Letter 2
In this second section of the book, the tide starts to turn in favor of the human's (the live ones). Throughout this section there are tales of heartache, the limits of human endurance, the return of faith in humanity, and other corny crap, no pun intended. Films are created to raise spirits, communities are built, companies are constructed, and the new military is resupplied. The world finally goes back on the attack at the end of this section.
"The man didn't shout, didn't try to restore order. He just kept going in that calm, firm tone that I don't think any world leader has since been able to duplicate. He even thanked his "fellow delegates' for their 'valued opinions' and admitted that, from a purely military perspective, there was no reason to 'push our luck.' We'd fought the living dead to a stalemate and, eventually, future generations might be able to reinhabit the planet with little or no physical danger. Yes, our defensive strategies had saved the human race, but what about the human spirit?... We had to prove to ourselves that we could do it, and leave that proof as this war's greatest monument. The long, hard road back to humanity, or the regressive ennui of Earth's once-proud primates. That was the choice, and it had to be made now"
This was the president speaking in front of the remaining world leaders and I feel, it very well exemplifies what would have to be done to really save the human race. Not just save it, but return it to it's original splendor.I think the authors point in this passage is the great epidemics may not kill all of us, but if we have lost faith in our own species, we might as well be dead.
This section was definitely my favorite section of the book, there was the most action, the most plot. Juicier characters and stories. This first part of the book was basically just how it started, a lot of chaos; people running through the streets with the undead, and specific isolated incidents. But in the second section, more unravels on the toll this war has taken on the world. It's even noticeable in the air, the ashes of people and cities. and it's way better than the end, which is just a bunch of really short stories about life after the zombies (spoiler alert).
There are longer stories in this section, with more emotion in them. Emotion drawn out from watching the hopelessness of people just trying to survive. And then there's the other side; new practical weapons being created, little communities surviving sieges of undead without a scratch, and the overall, somewhat improved spirit in the surviving humans. It's all very enthralling, and it's all very good.
"The man didn't shout, didn't try to restore order. He just kept going in that calm, firm tone that I don't think any world leader has since been able to duplicate. He even thanked his "fellow delegates' for their 'valued opinions' and admitted that, from a purely military perspective, there was no reason to 'push our luck.' We'd fought the living dead to a stalemate and, eventually, future generations might be able to reinhabit the planet with little or no physical danger. Yes, our defensive strategies had saved the human race, but what about the human spirit?... We had to prove to ourselves that we could do it, and leave that proof as this war's greatest monument. The long, hard road back to humanity, or the regressive ennui of Earth's once-proud primates. That was the choice, and it had to be made now"
This was the president speaking in front of the remaining world leaders and I feel, it very well exemplifies what would have to be done to really save the human race. Not just save it, but return it to it's original splendor.I think the authors point in this passage is the great epidemics may not kill all of us, but if we have lost faith in our own species, we might as well be dead.
This section was definitely my favorite section of the book, there was the most action, the most plot. Juicier characters and stories. This first part of the book was basically just how it started, a lot of chaos; people running through the streets with the undead, and specific isolated incidents. But in the second section, more unravels on the toll this war has taken on the world. It's even noticeable in the air, the ashes of people and cities. and it's way better than the end, which is just a bunch of really short stories about life after the zombies (spoiler alert).
There are longer stories in this section, with more emotion in them. Emotion drawn out from watching the hopelessness of people just trying to survive. And then there's the other side; new practical weapons being created, little communities surviving sieges of undead without a scratch, and the overall, somewhat improved spirit in the surviving humans. It's all very enthralling, and it's all very good.
The Rules of Love
1. What rules dictate relationships today?
I don't think there are any set rules, rules can vary drastically depending on where you are. And even if there were rules here, they would be broken quite often. And the rules I believe in are obviously invalid, so I'm not sure if I can answer this question well. But I will say what I think the general rules are for my culture.
* Thou shalt have only one partner
* Thou shalt have sex before leaving high school
* Thou shalt have to make the person interested in you work to be in a relationship
* And if you are not interested in a person anymore, but they're still into you, thou shalt take six more months and a really shitty relationship to end it.
2. Name a situation in which the rules have clearly been violated. In other words, what are things "nice girls" just don't do? What are things "nice guys" just don't do?
* When A girl/guy has two or more people "sharing them", that's a violation, and gross, Christina (cough cough)
That's the only serious situation I can think of.
3.What are the possible consequences for breaking these rules?
* If you have more than one partner, thou shalt be labeled a slut or "fucked up"
* If you are still a virgin, you're bad with girls
* If you don't make them work, the consequences will be, thou shalt have a clingy bf/gf
* And if you're not interested in a person and you break it off immediately, absolutely nothing bad will happen.
4. Where do these rules come from? Who "invented" them and who enforces them?
We probably get it from the last generation, not necessarily our parents but the people that control the media. I know that probably has the biggest impact on our rules. Dating shows, music, anything on MTv, I guess that's where we get it from. And the "enforcers", they're the people the rules apply to.
I don't think there are any set rules, rules can vary drastically depending on where you are. And even if there were rules here, they would be broken quite often. And the rules I believe in are obviously invalid, so I'm not sure if I can answer this question well. But I will say what I think the general rules are for my culture.
* Thou shalt have only one partner
* Thou shalt have sex before leaving high school
* Thou shalt have to make the person interested in you work to be in a relationship
* And if you are not interested in a person anymore, but they're still into you, thou shalt take six more months and a really shitty relationship to end it.
2. Name a situation in which the rules have clearly been violated. In other words, what are things "nice girls" just don't do? What are things "nice guys" just don't do?
* When A girl/guy has two or more people "sharing them", that's a violation, and gross, Christina (cough cough)
That's the only serious situation I can think of.
3.What are the possible consequences for breaking these rules?
* If you have more than one partner, thou shalt be labeled a slut or "fucked up"
* If you are still a virgin, you're bad with girls
* If you don't make them work, the consequences will be, thou shalt have a clingy bf/gf
* And if you're not interested in a person and you break it off immediately, absolutely nothing bad will happen.
4. Where do these rules come from? Who "invented" them and who enforces them?
We probably get it from the last generation, not necessarily our parents but the people that control the media. I know that probably has the biggest impact on our rules. Dating shows, music, anything on MTv, I guess that's where we get it from. And the "enforcers", they're the people the rules apply to.
Saturday, May 15, 2010
Skating 3
Last week I said that beating the crap out of yourself in order to land a trick was worth it. It is worth it if you can actually land the trick after beating the shit out of yourself. Unfortunately if you land wrong, roll your ankle, and because of it, you get a second degree sprain, I don't think it is at all worth it. First of all because you can't possibly land the trick. Secondly, it causes you 2 to 4 weeks of pain. Thirdly, walking around on crutches sucks. On another note it is the reason why this blog post is late and also the reason why my lit circle letter will be late.
The only positive outcome of this unfortunate event is that I can get an elevator key and I don't have to deal with all the retarded people that stand in the middle of the halls. Other than that this sucks. I can't go out, can't skate, can't do very much at all except sit. Which, as you probably know, is really boring. Luckily it doesn't hurt as much as it did Thursday and Friday night, the pain could be almost unbearable when I didn't have ice on it and pain killers in my system. But that's the kind of stuff you have to deal with if you want to skateboard, after a high ankle sprain, a fractured wrist, a broken and dislocated elbow, and now this second degree ankle sprain, I'm starting to wonder if it's all worth it.
I know it might seem odd that I'm just now starting to wonder, but I think about it every time I seriously injure myself, and I always end up skating again. Because it's fun, a lot of my friends do it, and it's challenging. You're always relentlessly trying to improve your abilities when you skate and most of the time you get a lot of fun and good times out of it. It's only the worst case scenarios that put a drag on things, like right now. My legs cramping from me having to elevate it. And I'm typing an English assignment in the middle of a beautiful Saturday, when I could be skating or playing music, or just chillin' with my friends. But no, I'm stuck here, and I have to look after my dying cat. Which also sucks! My cat is dying to put a cherry on top of this disgusting, deformed cake.
It's kinda cool having room service and not having to clean up after myself much, but I still do a lot of stuff myself, which is never very easy, especially trying to get things from downstairs into my room. But I have a pretty sweet setup, I have "elevation stations", as I like to call them, in all then places I normally sit or lay down. Still, I'd rather not have to go through all this, but as I said, it's the price I have to pay for skating.
The only positive outcome of this unfortunate event is that I can get an elevator key and I don't have to deal with all the retarded people that stand in the middle of the halls. Other than that this sucks. I can't go out, can't skate, can't do very much at all except sit. Which, as you probably know, is really boring. Luckily it doesn't hurt as much as it did Thursday and Friday night, the pain could be almost unbearable when I didn't have ice on it and pain killers in my system. But that's the kind of stuff you have to deal with if you want to skateboard, after a high ankle sprain, a fractured wrist, a broken and dislocated elbow, and now this second degree ankle sprain, I'm starting to wonder if it's all worth it.
I know it might seem odd that I'm just now starting to wonder, but I think about it every time I seriously injure myself, and I always end up skating again. Because it's fun, a lot of my friends do it, and it's challenging. You're always relentlessly trying to improve your abilities when you skate and most of the time you get a lot of fun and good times out of it. It's only the worst case scenarios that put a drag on things, like right now. My legs cramping from me having to elevate it. And I'm typing an English assignment in the middle of a beautiful Saturday, when I could be skating or playing music, or just chillin' with my friends. But no, I'm stuck here, and I have to look after my dying cat. Which also sucks! My cat is dying to put a cherry on top of this disgusting, deformed cake.
It's kinda cool having room service and not having to clean up after myself much, but I still do a lot of stuff myself, which is never very easy, especially trying to get things from downstairs into my room. But I have a pretty sweet setup, I have "elevation stations", as I like to call them, in all then places I normally sit or lay down. Still, I'd rather not have to go through all this, but as I said, it's the price I have to pay for skating.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)