Where is Waldo, really?

So where is Waldo, really?

During the summer vacation, I spent about two weeks at my uncle’s house. Frankly speaking, I enjoyed the break. Not only because I was in Seoul without my parents, but also due to the presence of my cousin—a five year old girl. It was quite different you know, to live with a five year old instead of my teenage sister who is almost as tall as me, and perhaps larger in volume. Her name is Jenny and she seemed to like my presence in the household.

So there I was, doing my homework and Jenny comes in with a box of crayons and orders me to draw things with her. Although I was busy, I followed her orders and began to draw a tree on the paper. About halfway through, Jenny looks at my drawing and states that she would like to continue it. Once again, I follow her will and finish up the creature that she was drawing while she continued on the tree that I was drawing. After she finishes her job with the skills of Picasso at age six, she points out that her drawing was far better than mine. By the way, “her drawing” in this case is the tree that I almost finished. The point I’m trying to make is that playing with little children is fun and enjoyable, but at times challenging and perhaps even annoying to a certain point.

The founders of toy companies must have noticed such problems as well. It seems quite evident, since most of the toys produced usually aim for a common goal: to allow the child to play by themselves without pestering their parents. The numbers on the price tags are proportional to the estimate amount of free time that the parents will earn through purchasing the particular product. That is the reason why the Lego is so expensive, but loved at the same time. The parents like the “creativity” and “freedom” advertised by the company. But what grabs their attention more is the enumerable number of pieces that could form into just about anything. Even though most parents love their child and enjoy spending their free time with their spouses, the imagination of some free time drives them into purchasing the Lego for their child. The statistics that show the popularity of the Lego proves that the desire for some private time is a universal experience among parents with young children.

Another toy, or book in this case, that achieves the ultimate goal very successfully is “Find Waldo”. The book contains pictures full of people with similar clothing and asks for the child to find one specific character. I myself confronted the book for the first time at age five, but the question still remains as a mystery of my childhood. Now being a little older and a bit more skeptical, I am quite sure that Waldo does not exist anywhere in the book. That way, the child would fall in an endless struggle to find a non-existent character and fail continuously, earning the parents a lot of private time. Or even if Waldo does exist, I’m confident that the manufacturers have taken time to make sure that he is undetectable by the human eye. If by any chance, he is spotted, there are a lot of pages in that book. So either way, Waldo has served the parents of our generation very well.

If I had to make a choice, I would say that Waldo only exists on the cover. Not because I myself have failed in my youth, but that seems like the practical choice that I would make from the point of view of the designer. Anyhow, the whereabouts or whether Waldo exists is not really the important point to consider. Rather the fact that parents also crave for some free time and that they are willing to spend money on it interests me much more. That is why the book “Find Waldo” exists in almost every household in the U.S. while, ironically, Waldo exists only in our imagination.

**For those of you who disagree with me--Give it a try!

[1000 letters] Presidential Elections

With the upcoming presidential election in our country, I began to wonder what we really want from a presidential candidate. In the status quo, the media tends to focus more on the past wrongdoings than the future proposals of the candidate. Some say that this is wrong and some say that it isn’t. I personally believe that the past wrongdoings of a candidate should not be a major part in our decision making process during presidential elections. However, I will attempt to argue otherwise.

     Just because he or she had made mistakes in the past doesn’t mean that the candidate is inevitably doomed for failure. But, the mistakes show us a lot about who he or she was and this links to their credibility. If his or her history is contradictory to the proposals at the time, whether the policies they propose are appealing or not becomes irrelevant since we can’t rely on them in the first place. Therein, the past wrongdoings should be an important focus in presidential elections.

[Ben X Review]The Twist That Saved a Movie

     In the Korean society that I grew up in extensive gaming was usually an act to be reprehended for. Ironically Korea is the country with the most game-addicts. Nevertheless, the social consensus is that gaming is in most cases a waste of time. That is why the story of Ben grabbed my attention in the beginning. For Ben, the world inside the game was where he could be normal and even strong compared to the other gamer's. The idea that for some people, like Ben, the gaming world could actually be helpful and even essential was an approach that I had never thought of. The portrayal of how Ben combines his gaming experience with the real world was also very effective.

     The one thing that continued to bother me though, was the vagueness of the theme. At the beginning I was interested about how the director related autism and the gaming world, but then the story went onto introduce a virtual friend. Up to that point, it was okay. However, when the story started to focus on bullying and suicide it was just too much. The themes are all related in a way, but essentially they are different. The effort to gather these themes together in one story is interesting but the movie failed to recognize them in a balanced way, thus creating confusion for the viewers.

     Although the theme was confusing and thus diluted my attention from time to time, the film itself was very successful in building up the suspense. The idea of autism was not only described through the narration but the way they took the film from the point of view of Ben in between allowed the viewers to really delve into the disorder. Such scenes intensified the suspense because the bullying was much harsher from Ben’s perspective. The cross-cutting of the game world and the real world also increased our understanding of Ben’s autism. Furthermore, the comparison of Ben’s solution to a situation in the real world to that of the game world was interesting because it emphasized his helpless state. Through all this, the director effectively established the suspense but even so, I was expecting nothing more than the typical resolution of either suicide or violent behavior. That’s why I was thrilled by the twist at the end.

     What seemed like a scene of suicide was actually an elaborate fabrication by Ben. The idea itself was creative and for me all the more enjoyable because of the unexpectedness. A victim getting revenge through fabricating his own death! How cool is that? For me, the last twist of the movie was enough to make up for vagueness caused by the overwhelming amount of things that the director put into the movie. The scene where he appears in front of the movie viewer at his own memorial service was my favorite. The way he surprised everyone in and out of the movie was like an unexpected present. Perhaps the surprise came so abruptly because I wasn't expecting much from the movie, but all the same, the ending was a real savior of the day. 

Flash FIction

1. He stood on the edge of the cliff. After taking one last look at the flower next to his bare feet, he took a step forward.

2. During the worst famine of the century, my neighbor’s dog lost its voice.

3. The last thing she saw was the beautiful red blossoms on her shirt.

4. My father paid 500 dollars for a book titled, “199 ways to detect business fraud”.

5. For Sale: SAT books, used less than one month.

6. The kid next to me accidently dropped his ice cream. I covered my ears.

7. At the age of 52, I took out my basketball shoes once again.

8. Lord Dracula’s vintage winery: 32 year old Italian for only 40 euros.

9. A tribe called seiranoisiV did exactly the opposite they were educated to do at school: they foolishly pursued their childhood dreams.

10. There is at least 1984 reasons why writing is important.

Hmm...I wrote this before I saw Seungin's and never had the idea to write one about KMLA. Maybe I should try it sooner or later. 

Frankenstein's view on the issue of Stereotypes

Frankenstein's view on the issue of Stereotypes

WIQ After-Dinner Speech

     Ladies and gentle monsters, it is my greatest pleasure to be here talking to you all. I would like to give special thanks to Lord Dracula who has provided us with vintage drinks from his own collection. Now as the civilized members of our society we have gathered here this lovely evening, and you may be wondering why. I, Frankenstein, felt the need to address the increasing problems that we face in the twenty first century.

     In my early years, I have traveled to various countries. Being born in a lab in the University of Ingolstadt, I have traveled to Geneva, the Alps and even up to the glaciers of the North. In those days, all was fine. Everywhere I went, people were scared of me for who I was. They would find horror in the things I did and the things I said instead of the scars or the color of my skin. I was a proud monster, not well known, but respected for being myself. But somewhere in the process of modernization, things began to change. The story of my creation began to spread, thanks to Mary Shelly, and people started asking me to star in movies. I refused of course. How silly would it seem, for a respectable monster to appear on television! But that was one of my biggest mistakes.

     The humans eventually decided to dress up another human as me. Oh, the terror. I swore the first time I saw the movie that I shall kill who ever decided to call that ugly, despicable creature with my name. What’s up with the bolts? The green skin? Really? I mean, I had scars in my old days but even that has been long gone since plastic surgery has developed. (For those of you ladies who are interested, Korea is hands-down the best). The most disturbing thing though, is that they picture me as if I am some illiterate monster with speaking issues. The so called Frankenstein’s in the movies go around saying “arghh….!”(Arm Gesture…), and how cliché is that? But the human society seems to believe that it is okay to defame me with those so called “films”. Why? Because we are not one of them. Because we are different. We may not share the same values or cultures, especially in the dietary aspect, thankfully, but we are also inhabitants of the earth and I say that we deserve equal rights.

     I accuse the media of the human society as the source of such stereotypes against us. Just about a week ago, kids were running around in green paint and bolts glued to their necks saying “trick or treat”, and they seem to think that's scary! All this is because of the media that portrayed me with such an image! Many of you comrades would also have faced such problems. Even Lord Dracula who provided us with the magnificent beverages suffers from all the twilight syndrome and whatnot. Dating with their lunch!

     The real problem is, surprisingly, that the public doesn't care about the truth. The original story of me, written by Mary Shelly, contains nothing about a green folk with limited vocabulary and a bolt stuck in his neck. Actually it is quite an accurate description of the well educated and civilized monster that I am. But nowadays the human governments are censoring the truth by classifying such books as “classics”. For them it is better for us monsters to remain as a terribly uncivilized species. By inducing fright against us in the public, the government can most effectively take care of any mistakes by turning the blame on us. How simple is that? In the past, the western humans would use this policy against other human beings. But in the modern days, with less of their own species to pick on, they have turned their eyes to us.

     I say that the situation is urgent. The best solution is to get humans to read books. But, we all know, that’s impossible. Instead, what we could do is to hunt down the people who are insinuating the idiotism of the public. Oh no, not the politicians, at least not this time. It is the media that I would like to accuse. We monsters need to get together to solve this problem. But the issue is complex and requires careful planning. We need to take time to slowly change the perspective of the humans. After all we are civilized aren’t we? So until then, ladies and gentle monsters, eat, drink and be scary. 

Ben X Review--The beginning

     The beginning of the movie Ben X was--how should I put it?--interesting. Combining it with scenes of gaming, the beginning of the movie introduced the main character to us. The way he looked at real life and how he would compare it with is experience in the game was creative. Also the fact that his status in the game was so different from his status in his real life increased the dramatic characteristic of the movie. The first thirty minutes of it set up the characters and from the part that we saw, it seems that he would either become violent or commit suicide. 

[Earthlings Review] The dilemma of raising an issue

The dilemma of raising an issue--how we should approach it

Imagine that one day you come home for dinner and find out that every single dish was full of a vegetable named pathos. For some people, that might be exactly what they have dreamed of. But for the majority they would be heading towards the kitchen to look for some meat, or in this case, logos. The documentary, “Earthlings” was similar to this in my case. In five different sections of pets, food, clothing, entertainment, and scientific research, the film shows repelling scenes of animal abuse. Some critiques praise the documentary film as a portrayal of reality that people don’t want to see. Many reviews of this film accuse such enterprises that participate in animal abuse and the government that is overlooking the reality. On the other hand, there are people who accuse the director of “Earthlings” for selectively editing scenes and omitting any explanation that could defend these “slaughterhouses”. For either side of the debate, however, the director harmed the value of the documentary by focusing too much on the value of pathos and neglecting logos in the process.

The people who accuse this film as being propaganda point out the fact that many of the scenes would be understood differently if one was aware of the whole situation. The director however, pieced together the worst shots of the worst places in our society. For instance, taking street animals into captivity and killing them in a perhaps, violent way happens in the first place because of the irresponsible people who abandon their pets. These animals living in the streets become agents that spread diseases over the city. Furthermore, these animals themselves suffer from starvation and inhospitable environments. Thus, taking them into captivity is inevitable to protect the public health and also protects the animals as well. The violent murder of these animals, however, does happen in reality because of the lack of financial support for anesthesia. Whether the public health is worth the suffering of these animals is a reasonable topic to debate on. The main problem of “Earthlings” is that it leaves no room for such debates from the beginning.

The last part of the story which discusses animal experimentation is also based on ignorance of the purpose and value of animal vivisection. Unlike what the documentary argues, animal testing does have scientific value in medical testing. History has proven the effectiveness of vivisection compared to testing on cells cultivated in labs. Although the actual effects of a certain treatment may differ from humans and animals, the purpose of vivisection—to minimize danger for human beings—has been fulfilled. Also the film mentions that such experiments have to be redone on human beings. This apparently shows that they agree on vivisection itself but denies the use of animals in the process. Along with the selective editing of shots taken from the few labs that don’t follow the universal doctrine for animal vivisection, such problematic ideas presented in the documentary destructs its own credibility because it relies too heavily on dramatic scenes and music to emphasize it.

The film begins with stating that we are all inhibitors of Earth and thus “Earthlings.” Through selective portrayal of the worst, the film attempts to reject the idea of “speciesism” as a whole. However, from an evolutionary point of view, it is only natural to strive to preserve one’s own species. Furthermore, even between animals themselves speciesism exists. Each and every species strive to preserve their group. Who are we to say that this distinction that has existed even before the human race is wrong? Unless the director of this film is simply a misanthrope, he should also be preventing animals from violently killing each other.

The analogy between speciesism and racism or sexism is also somewhat problematic. The standard for “sentient” beings that the film is discussing about is contradictory in itself since people could also argue that plants or other microorganisms should be treated equally. If animals should be saved from unnatural death, then why not plants? What about bacteria? In this sense, the title of the film is also problematic for it covers only “Animals” instead of  “Earthlings”.

The purpose of the documentary is also questionable. All it does is making us feel bad. Of course, at times presenting a problem that the public is unaware of is helpful for the development of our race. However, the documentary focuses on emotional influence too heavily that it neglects the importance of logical explanation and introduction of the other side of the table. This is why the people who come up with so-called “solutions” after watching this film become vegetarians. Such individual refusal of participation does not improve the situation. Rather, it is merely an excuse for individuals to feel happy about themselves as if their approach will solve the fundamental problem. Thus the sole effect that this documentary has brought upon our society is financial loss for corporations that follow the moral and proper methods in producing products.

The film “Earthlings”, however, does present an important issue to our society. Even though I have defended speciesism, I am against extensive killing of animals for commercial purposes. These animals or “sentient” beings should also be respected. But the presentation of this idea in “Earthlings” has gone astray and lost its value. The selective editing to increase pathos, or emotional response, is the main issue. Another is the ignorance of the necessity for animal vivisection or anesthesia. The universal doctrine that works to minimize the suffering of these animals shows that not all of us are corrupted like the ones’ that appear on the film. Just because there are companies that do not follow the rule one shouldn’t debunk the whole industry and accuse them for what they never did. With a balanced presentation using pathos and logos, the director could have presented a work that is, perhaps less convincing, but much more valuable to us, “Earthlings”.