more than yesterday, less than tomorrow

stories may be structurally the same but individual's experiences and personal character is what adds flourish to them and makes them more unique and intriguing  my response to this week's question, are all stories the same?, is the following: no. let me expand on that.  while most stories follow the handful of skeletal structures that have existed since the beginnings of written word, they also have unique authors that shape these blueprints into something more like a personalized human experience rather than a robotic set of rules. i think that it takes a specially powerful mind to be able to take something that everyone has given their piece on, and rework it into something new and exhilarating. many people try and fail to carry out this task, and i think that is because they are trapped in the belief that they have to produce something that fits into the classic structure-- artists do not become acclaimed because they exactly replicate something that is already famous. the

does anyone else feel like the stranger is an unrealistic portrayal of human character? how does mersault have friends, and a sort-of girlfriend who wants to marry him, have sex, or let alone spend any time with him? i feel like if he was a real person-- not to say that existentialists do not exist-- he would be generally disliked by those around him. by me especially, because indifference is something in a person that really irks me. i actually remember mrs. feldkamp introducing the stranger to us and explaining that the title itself is already a rough translation, which more likely means outcast in french rather than stranger . so if mersault is supposed to be an outcast, how does he go about life with side characters? is he not, in the grand scheme of things, the side character in a world of main characters?  this book first gave me the hint that i would quickly learn to hate mersault when i began to listen to its audio on my text-to-speech website. the rather boring stream of consc

while watching little miss sunshine , ridaa, jacob, and i had a lot of commentary to give in our group chat. something that we talked about a lot was the fact that a lot of the themes in the movie, which came out in 2006, would not be reacted to in the same way if it was released in 2020. some of these things i actually thought to be quite funny, such as gay and suicidal steve carell, so i think it just depends on the audience. though people on the internet will always be mad about something, i don't believe that there was anything in this movie that would cause mass condemnation or is retrospectively offensive, such as slurs or other discriminatory language. and despite that, many movies from the early 2000s have dialogue that is more wholeheartedly considered to be offensive in modern times. take mean girls for example: though it's been over a decade, people just cannot seem to get over it. i re-watched it about a year ago, and i remember being able to point out specific sc

watch out, parents! with halloween just two days ago, countless children will fall victim to illegal-substances-or-items-hidden-in-candy-by-evil-people-related-illnesses. this may be found in, but is not limited to: candies such as twix, starbursts, fun dips, organic/non-gmo gummy bears, snickers, skittles, m&ms (peanut excluded), old bags of chips that old people throw in the bowl after they run out of candy, and anything purchased from target. an anonymous mother submitted these horrifying images saturday night after her children returned from trick-or-treating. a dangerous substance was maliciously hidden in her daughter's rolo.  the mother in question had smartly trained her children on how to thoroughly examine all of their halloween candy to prevent this when the time came-- and her three-year-old daughter put those skills to the test when she discovered this and presented it to her parents. "my husband and i never would've been able to catch that if she hadn'