Why we read

EA Younker recently had a new addition to her house, a young man named Tech, who struggles with reading. EA makes some pretty valid points - you need to be able to read to get a driver's licence and a job, but why is literature pushed so heavily in school? I clearly understand the need for people to communicate well in writing. However, is there validity to people questioning why they are required to read Shakespeare, Dickens, or any of the other "classics" out there? Just as people in the arts question the need for them to study algebra is there a reverse argument? EA's husband, Moose, did his training in technical fields and had very little patience or preference for reading. He's done well for himself and his career and his life without analyzing or even reading the classics. So - like math - what is defending the study of literature?

Unlike math, students can graduate from most colleges and universities without taking a literature course. I never took one. Writing classes, however, tend to be required as much as math is. With that said, I will say it's unlikely that a student will not be exposed to at least one instance of literary analysis in college. So, to get some kind of perspective literature requirements, I went back to high school. The Common Core has a nice website for what the standards are for the different levels from Kindergarten to 12th grade. Once you hit sixth grade and up the standards look very similar, but just require more extensive supporting of your ideas. From this, I get that the goal of studying literature is to help students see narrative structure, engage in critical reasoning based on evidence and inference, comparing and contrasting mediums in both artistic and practical uses of conveying ideas, examining how the characters respond to their environment, and being able to succinctly convey complex ideas. I guess I can understand those goals.

However, couldn't those skills be developed via other means? In fact, I demonstrated how algebra develops reasoning and critical thinking when defending why we study math. Scientific experimentation could be used to examine different mediums. Speaking and writing classes would be perfect for examining how to convey ideas. And psychology and sociology would let us examine real people interacting with their environment more accurately than a fictional character in a fictional environment. So, is literature just being redundant? Books take time to read - especially for someone with dyslexia, vision difficulties, and attention limitations. And many of the books that are required are books that the generation reading them don't feel they can relate to.

So, why do we require students to study literature? Because, the human mind works by building connections between both internalized, personal experiences and external examples. And literature can help provide us with both personal experiences and external examples in ways that other forms of entertainment can. Take film - often seen as the opposite of books. Lets take the Twilight series as an example. The bulk of the books is taken up by Belle's internal struggles, thoughts, insights, and musings. How do you translate that to visual - Stares! Mary Robinette Kowal mentioned this in talking about puppetry (4:05 in the podcast). The puppet is thinking about what it's looking at. Unfortunately the audience is watching the watcher and has to infer what they are thinking. While it is possible for an actor (or a puppeteer) to convey exactly what is being felt, it may still not be clear why they are feeling that way because we have no insight into the character's mind short of a blatant (and often criticized) voice-over. Not to say that books can't be ham-fisted in their approach to their topic, just that there are more options open to a writer than a film maker.

I threw this question out on Facebook and had a number of people contribute. One linked to an article on Scientific America that discussed results of reading literary fiction (the genre that "classics" often fit into). The study found that people that read literary fiction had a higher capacity for empathy. The same was not true for genre fiction, according to the study. The reason for this was that, "literary fiction... focuses more on the psychology of characters and their relationships." Which I find clashes slightly with the next statement, "Often those characters' minds are depicted vaguely, without many details, and we're forced to fill in the gaps to understand their intentions and motivations." If they focus so much on the characters' psychology and why are their minds often depicted vaguely. Anyway, I will agree that literary fiction tends to focus on unsympathetic characters and situations, requiring the reader to develop forms of empathy to understand the character better. I do think that thoughtful reading of genre fiction can also increase empathy, but the work will need opportunities for the reader to empathize.

A part of literature building our ability to empathize is that through literature we have the ability to witness the world through other peoples' eyes. George R.R. Martin said, "A reader lives a thousand lives before he dies. The man who never reads lives only one." My initial thought was that Julius Ceasar (in the Shakespeare play of the same name) says, "A coward dies a thousand times before his death, but the valiant taste of death but once." There are very important distinctions between these quotes. They just sound the same. Unlike the coward a reader has the luxury of experiencing others' lives and points of view in whether those people be fictional of real. One of the best books I ever read was It Doesn't Take a Hero, the autobiography of General H. Norman Schwarzkopf. Another was The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich by William Shirer. Both were non-fiction and enabled me to experience, in a small way, events and wars that helped shape my culture and generation. People looking to experience censorship and government controls have but to look to Fahrenheit 451 by Bradbury, 1984 and Animal Farm by Orwell, and Anthem by Rand. There are so many topics that may be explored and experienced in literature. It doesn't just have to be non-fiction.

And lastly, a reason to study literature. To help people come to enjoy reading. Books are a basis for entertainment and culture all over the world. Many movies start life between covers. Even those that don't are first written down. The same goes for theater, broadcasts, speeches, and comedy. Someone first committed it to paper and it sounded good enough there to expand and build on it. I don't begrudge film makers their adaptations of books. I don't prefer audio books over paper copy or digital. I'm just glad that I gained an appreciate for a good story early in life so I could enjoy it for the rest of my life.

"Just because it's a classic doesn't mean it's good."

The title of this post is a quote from my paternal grandmother who was a vivacious reader of just about everything. She was the one that introduced Harry Potter to my mother before my mother read it to us. Her collection of books was a great legacy and her ability to talk about books was always a delight. I was looking forward to such a discussion when I called her to tell her that I had finished Bram Stoker's Dracula.

"Grandma! I finished reading Dracula!"
"Oh."
(pause) "Aren't you proud. I read a classic."
"Just because it's a classic doesn't mean it's good."
(pause followed by me chuckling) "So, Grandma. I take it you didn't like it."
"Nope."

That's a pretty accurate account of how the "discussion" went. Personally, I loved Dracula. I found it interesting and intriguing and more than a little suspenseful - particularly since I knew what Dracula was and could see the writing on the wall. I remember wanting to scream at Johnathan Harker, "He doesn't have a reflection!! This man is not normal! Get out of there!!!" but of course he wouldn't have heard me.

Dracula is considered a classic, and it's one of the few books that I've read that have that distinction. 11th grade English was not a good class for me. The only book I actually finished was The Great Gatsby by F. Scott Fitzgerald. Didn't read Huckleberry Finn (Twain), The Scarlet Letter (Hawthorne), or anything else that year. So, you could say that my experience with "great American Classics" is..... unfinished. I've read and seen more Shakespeare than many, but a deficiency of Dickens. I feel quite familiar with Austin but have only read Jane Eyre from the Bronte sisters' works. And my Classical (Greek and Roman) literature is even more lacking than my Dickens. I would say of my classic (and classical) literature education that I know what I should have read, but haven't actually done so.

Which launches me into my musing of what constitutes a "classic" and what should we be reading. "Classic book" even has its own Wikipedia page. For many, it's what we should be reading. Books that young people should be exposed to in order to "learn literature." However, there is some pretty heated debate about that. If you're looking for entertaining discussions on this, click the links to read and listen by authors I enjoy over at Monster Hunter Nation and Do I Dare to Eat a Peach who have something to about it.

For myself, a classic book is one that has longevity. Something that has stood the test of time, for one reason or another. They may be message fiction (have a particular agenda or moral lesson in mind - Scarlet Letter, 1984, and Lord of the Flies I'm looking at you.) It might be genre altering (The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings come to mind, not to mention Asimov's work). It might be well written and compelling (King Lear, Macbeth, and Julies Caesar are just three of the many works - three that I'm more familiar with than others). These works have been through a lot and are still read and meaning and enjoyment is found within them.

What I find difficult to fathom is when someone will say "That isn't a classic because it's (a genre fiction)" or "(book title) is an instant classic." The definition of "classic" used in these statements must differ from might significantly. Standing the test of time, gaining a kind literary immortality, happens to many different kinds of books. J.R.R. Tolkien practically invented modern fantasy - one of the key staples to genre fiction. For the second, can anyone project what the next "classic" will be? In 1952 the movie "Singin' in the Rain" was released. Looking at the Academy Awards for 1953 the movie was involved with only two categories: Best Actress in Supporting Role (Jean Hagen in the role of Lina Lemont) and Best Music, Scoring of Musical Picture and it didn't win either of them. Based on that, one might think that "Singin' in the Rain" might fade from time. But when was the last time you talked to someone who saw "American In Paris" the show that won Best picture the year before? "Hans Christian Anderson" with Danny Kaye was nominated for more awards and is a wonderful movie, but is virtually unknown in popular circles. Yet, "Singin' in the Rain" has drawn audiences of many ages for years since. I only want to show that you can't say what will become a classic and what won't. Not until the time has passed and we look at what people are still reading.

And what should we be reading? Why are classics considered so important to read? With how long this post has gone, that is a question for another time. But in the meantime - What do you think people should read?

Fanboys and the arguments they make

I was thinking about doing a Star Wars vs. Star Trek post, but then I realized just how crazy that would be.

The battle between the two has been the basis for nerd fan-boys to fight for years. Being part of the silent majority who enjoys both I find such debates to be entertaining until they get to the awkward phase when you realize just home much the other person has invested in their franchise being "the best." When you think about the energy that they could have put into other things that they instead poured into proving that the USS Enterprise could take out the SSD Executor, it gets kind of scary. It reminds me of a conversation with a friend. I had just finished the campaign mode of a video game and mentioned it to him. He proceeded to tell me that he had all of the in game extras. "I have the characters, the music, the artwork..." My first thought was, "I have a house. I have a wife. I have a kid. I have a career. I have a life." There are some truly passionate people out there. I reminds me of my own obsession (albeit a known obsession that I am striving to moderate - see last week's post). When somebody disagrees with us on something that we feel passionate about it feels "like someone ripped out your heart and put it in a blender." When it comes to popular media I try to keep an open mind. I know what I like and what I don't, and I'm generally open to criticisms against it. I'm sure Angel will let me know how wrong my assessment of myself is.

Many have heard the term "fanboy" in relation to someone who feels very strongly about something and doesn't appear to be capable of considering ideas, opinions, jokes, or anything else contrary to their passion. A perfect example of this from the news - "Angry Justin Bieber fans vandalize Esperanza Spalding's Wikipedia page." Not to mention any number of links from the Google search page linked to in the first sentence. It isn't enough for a fanboy's obsession to be good, it must be the Best Thing Ever(!!) and anyone who says otherwise doesn't know anything, isn't a true beliber (sorry) believer), or isn't cool. While I wouldn't say that hipsters are inherently fanboys (of non-mainstream products) they can look like them sometimes. While technology (Apple, iPhone vs. Android, Play Station vs. Xbox vs. Nintendo), popular media (aforementioned Beliebers and Star Wars vs. Star Trek), and even original source (ex books) vs. new version (ex movies) tend to be the big players, there is another area that breeds fanboys. (wait for it......)

Politics. (Boom! did he just go there?! Yes he did!)

I am not going anywhere into politics. I will not discuss my political views in this post - just that people tend to have strong opinions about politics that can turn them into fanboys. In any event, I've found an interesting checklist that can help you understand the way that most fanboys tend to argue and debate. The originator is Larry Correia, a particular favorite author of mine, who has very (very, very, very) strong political views. And has gotten tired of the way that many debate against him - or rather the way they don't debate but just talk smack. I am not claiming that Larry is a fanboy for two reasons: I've found there to be logic behind his statements and second he points out, "If your tactics are to shut down debate, you are an idiot. It should never be to shut down or scare off, but to WIN." Notice, that I did not say that all fanboys argue this way, or that fanboys argue this way all the time. I also did not say that not being a fanboy makes you nice. Larry is very blunt, not soft spoken, and can be very insulting when he puts his mind to it. His language can be extreme - you've been warned. I will say that his checklist has proven quite accurate for fanatics of all kinds. Check it out and the next time you find yourself talking to someone and you notice the person has just checked off one of Larry's boxes - know that you're dealing with a fanboy.

And make sure you don't check off any boxes yourself.

Misconceptions: Doing verses Knowing

I had an interesting conversation with Angel last night that really got me thinking. We often think about the different families we come from. Her parents and grandparents had minimal formal educational opportunities while mine had undergraduate and graduate degrees. Her family worked farms, machine shops, and supply chain while mine taught, did engineering, and worked in finance. Her family built their house, fixes their cars, and raised cows. Mine - didn't, doesn't, and can't. These differences are just a small part of who they individually and don't get in the way of them enjoying each other's company. I love my in-laws and Angel has told me that my parents are some of her favorite people.

The conversation got me thinking about why I am driven to know things, and to be known as a person who knows things. I always hate to acknowledge how egotistical I can be. It literally makes me wince when I think about it. Unfortunately it's true though. Just ask my wife. One of her better qualities is the ability to deflate my ego when it needs it. Regardless of periodic egocentric tendencies I have placed some measure of my self worth in being known as a person who knows stuff. I'm sure there are some positives to that, but I can't think of any right now. One giant negative is that when I remember something wrong, or am just flat out wrong about something I tend to take it rather personally. Or as one person put it I "act like someone has torn my heart out and put it in a blender." I really try not to be such a martyr, but few people understand what they look like through the eyes of others. Maybe we just need to get shot with a point of view gun (or at least those of us that are male).

I think that this emphasis that I've placed on knowing things comes from a misconception of knowing verses doing. My father went to work in a cubical, crunching numbers, building spreadsheets, and manipulating percentages (in a good way). There was very little visual representation of his efforts. To me, it must have appeared that he worked by knowing things, insubstantial things. He went to school so he could know things so he could work at knowing things. To my muddled brain "doing" something meant you had a finished product that could be used, something that you could see and manipulate to accomplish something else. "Knowing" and "doing" were two sides of a scale in my mind. Remember, that young minds tend to revolve around dualism, the idea that there is a right a wrong approach to everything - and nothing in between. One of my least favorite expressions "those that can, do; those that can't, teach." is a prime example of this dualistic thinking. As if knowing and doing are two very different things when really they are simply different manifestations of the same catalyst - productivity.

My obsession with knowing things, I believe, stems from this misconception of knowing and doing being exclusive of each other. I did not know how to "do" much. My father knows his way around a shop, can identify basic problems with a car, and has built some impressive items for our home - mostly utilitarian in design. However, because he made his living "knowing" things and because I couldn't "do" anything (ask my dad about digging window wells for him one summer) I put more emphasis on "knowing." My degree is in history, an area that is infamous for it's focus on "knowing" and not "doing." I tend to remember rather random and often useless facts and trivia. And, as pointed out, I tend to take it personally when people say I'm wrong about something that I feel that I "know" well. Not exactly a well balanced psyche if you think about it.

There is lots that I'm not talking about. In depth discussion on the similarities of knowing and doing. How I've learned to "do" many different things. The respect that I have for those that "do" (enormous!). What people in "knowing" jobs actually do. But I'm still coming to grips with reality of my skewed, subconscious preconceptions. However my brain decided that there was a bigger difference between knowing an doing I've now have to adjust my thinking accordingly. I will probably return to this topic again.

Musings on marriage

With Valentine's Day coming tomorrow it seemed fitting to express my musings on a topic that I've had on my brain for a little while. Via Facebook, I've been introduced to Matt Walsh and his blog. While I've ready read a small of his posts, I find that I agree with what I read. I recently read two of his posts that focused on marriage. The first was a response to an anthropology professor's statement that monogamy is unnatural. The second was a confession that is something that I can agree with. I encourage people to read both of them. While I may reference either of these articles, the purpose of my musings today is simply to express my own feelings on marriage and why I think it is important.

A little background. My wife, Angel, and I have been married a few days over seven and half years as of this posting. Our courtship was literally on and off for about six months before we became engaged, marrying four months later. She was not my first fiancee. A year before I had met Angel I had been engaged to a long time girl friend from high school. After getting engaged we both realized that neither one of us was really happy about it and mutually broke it off. By the time I met Angel I had a pretty decent idea of what I as looking for in a wife after taking many different young women on dates. We currently have two kids with a third on the way. I know that my experience is pretty stereotypical for my current residence and atypical for most of the the rest of the world outside of Utah, USA.

Perhaps the best way to start this topic is to give the reasons why I married. I'm not talking about the reasons I married my wife, but rather the reasons why I sought and desired marriage. There are many people who do everything but marry. Cohabitation, self imposed bachelor / bachelorette  hood, focusing on your career, are all alternatives to marriage that we see in the media and real life. So why did I marry?

First, there was the expectation. I am in full agreement with the Church of Jesus Christ of latter-day saints in their statement The Family: a proclamation to the world, that "marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator's Plan for the eternal destiny of His children." (Sept 23 / 1995). To understand the strength of this statement understand that the Church of Jesus Christ of latter-day saints believes that the highest level of salvation is reserved for families - men, women, and children.

In the celestial glory there are three heavens or degrees; and in order to obtain the highest, a man must enter into this order of the priesthood [meaning the new and everlasting covenant of marriage]; and if he does not, he cannot obtain it. He may enter into the other, but that is the end of his kingdom; he cannot have an increase. (Doctrine and Covenants 131:1-4)

I'm not going to get into the theology of that for the sake of time and space, but the understanding is that marriage is key to the great plan of our Heavenly Father. As a faithful and believing member of the Church Jesus Christ of latter-day saints, this is a very, very compelling reason to seek a companion to spend my life and eternity with. Our church receives fire for young marriages with short engagements. Some critics claim that it's because we believe in abstaining from sexual activity prior to marriage. Since we've been "sexually repressed" we marry young in order to fulfill those basic needs. I'm not discounting that hypothesis, but I think it's weak in the light of our theology. Marriage is nothing to rush into and nothing to put off. Some may claim that such a doctrine may seem unfair, chauvinistic, or even cruel seeing how there are millions of people who don't marry or can't marry. In answer to that, we believe that any commandment that God gives has a way for it to be fulfilled. God is just and everyone will have an opportunity to receive the highest level of salvation.

Second reason why I married, I wanted someone to share life with. Psychologists, and philosophers led by Aristotle claim "Man is by nature a social animal". We often crave society. Especially extroverts like me. This is not to say that we never want to be alone. I rather enjoy my evenings when everybody else is asleep and I can do housework, read, play the piano, or play a computer game by myself. But when I sought marriage it was to be able to have someone that would be a part of my life. I wanted someone I could serve and be served by (in the giving love way, not the butler way). I wanted someone I could talk to about anything, play games with, explore new things with. I've been to a few movies by myself and they aren't as fun. I think life is similar. Perhaps it was a movie that said it best, we want a witness to our lives.

In thinking of additional reasons, most of them have to do with my wife specifically. She was a person who made me happy, that inspired me to be better without actually trying to. I didn't want her to get away.

After we got engaged we received a torrent of advice (per the norm) and even some criticism ("Too young, too early, good luck." - an actual card we received for our wedding). There was a lot of advice to help us "through the hard times." It occurred to us that a decent amount of the attention on marriage was on the negative aspects of it. We decided that we would do our best to avoid that and encourage newlyweds. Whenever I hear of an upcoming wedding I tell the couple, "Congratulations! Marriage was the best decision I ever made." I mean that sincerely and honestly. We've worked hard on our marriage - it hasn't always been easy - but it has been worth it. We take great pride in the fact that on our seventh anniversary and again four months after that we were asked how long we had been married. We smiled and replied, "7 years and we have two kids." It's good to be taken for newlyweds every now and then.

What is real

Our minds are amazing at what they do. However, there are some things that can throw it off. As we get older we become susceptible to dementia or senility. We can develop any number of mental illnesses, including bipolar, paranoia, or other conditions that warp perception. But even without our brains breaking down we can be fooled into perceiving things that that are not there. This can be due to stress, strain, tiredness or some such physical ailment that reaches in to effect our wold.

It used to be thought that the more someone watched violence in their media the more violent they would be. This is not the case. It is now under stood that the more media we consume the more we see it as reality. Which begs the question, if the media is to present the facts is it a conflict of interests that their very media coverage will impact the watchers to believe that there are such events are the norm. 

Mathematical Beauty and Creativity

http://vimeo.com/77330591 - Beauty of Mathematics

http://www.firstpost.com/topic/organization/pixar-pixar-and-math-disney-pixars-brave-wonder-moss-video-EnaA9ZRPXiE-35299-1.html - Wonder moss

http://fineartamerica.com/featured/4-flow-of-life-flow-of-pi-cristian-ilies-vasile.htmll - Flow of life / flow of pi

I got thinking about this topic when a friend on Facebook liked this quote. I fully agree with this quote in all aspects and I want to draw attention to point II. Music is mathematical - pitch, frequency, rhythm and meter - really all of music can be described by mathematics.  Destin from Smarter Every Day did a great video of a beatboxer (Flula) in slow motion In it he shows how overtones produce a unique sound signature. It also goes over the different mathematical components that make up sound. I'm not saying that music can be replaced by mathematics, only described by it. We can do the same with art. In fact, in the special features of the Disney-Pixar move Brave they describe how math is used to create the amazing world shown in the film. Really, mathematics is a language that can be used to describe just about everything within our world. Not just the sciences but also the arts. I am not saying that it can be used to predict things. Nassim Nicholas Taleb would tell us that anytime we have a human element involved, predictions go out the window. But mathematics can be used to describe it in its present state.

Many think of mathematics as cold and unfeeling. Statistics and probability are guidelines not rules. The mathematical analysis of a painting will never look the same as the painting itself. Algorithms can't put their heart and soul into producing a piece of music like a composer might. To call someone "calculating" is usually considered, if not an outright insult, a derogatory remark used for villains and along the lines of "heartless." I think that this view of mathematics is one of the big reasons that many see the arts and mathematics as mutually exclusive. It is not uncommon for me to hear, "I'm one of those English people / art people / music people and so can't do math." I think my previous examples demonstrate that mathematics is not separate from the arts, but rather is something that can help us understand it even more.

So rather than continue my reasons why people don't like math, I want to demonstrate some of the beauty of mathematics. It is my hope that the following examples may be appreciated regardless of mathematical ability. Just like art or music you don't have to know how to create it in order to enjoy it.

First, fractals.

[picture citation]
Simply Googling "fractals" and looking at the images will give you lots of cool pictures, both from nature and artificial. Fractals are produced you have a design replicate itself so that ever successive generation or iteration looks like the initial one. The picture above shows how every new iteration branches the same way that the first do. If you were to zoom in (or out on a fractal you would find yourself looking at the same image, they are infinite in their presentation. One of the most famous fractals is the Dragon Curve. Numberphile did a great video on the Dragon curve and how it works.

The second example I want to look at is an artist by the name of Cristian Ilies Vasile. Numberphile introduced me to his art in one of their videos - Pi is Beautiful. Looking like a web of colored lines Cristian plotted the digits 0-9 in a circle and then starting with 3 he drew a line to 1 then to 4, back to 1 and continued along the digits of pi. He's done the same with e and the golden ratio. Like the Dr. James Grime points out, this is math for art's sake. There is no real mathematical use for these pictures, but they are quite striking. Check out the link on Cristian's name above. I would love to pick up one of his pictures myself and am hoping to in the near future.