"Summer Nights" (Short Story)

Night was her favorite time of day. 

She wasn’t quite sure what it was that she so enjoyed—the darkness, perhaps, or the cold, or the quiet—but out of all the endeavors of her daytime schedule, none could compare to her favorite pastime—sitting on the roof of her secluded cabin just as dusk began to swallow the sun.

Bliss. Not a soul (dead or alive) to bother her, left alone with just her thoughts. Truthfully, those were oftentimes as irksome as any person could be, but raised there she could allow the gentle breeze to chill her skin, rustle her hair, and clear away some of that burden. Seeing the forest—now dark as charcoal—and the ocean—revealing the colors of its depths—from an elevated point of view seemed to change her perspective on life, as well, and caused each of her problems to dissipate for a brief moment, a temporary pause in time’s tiresome script.

She looked to the stars, too. She used to know all the constellations, back in her childhood and before the lights of neighboring cities conquered and distorted the midnight sky. Admittedly, she loved night’s scattered stars far more than day’s sole, and she sometimes felt, at such a height, as if she could extend two fingers and pluck them from their positions. Once she tried, in a moment of childlike credulity, but then lowered her hand in mortification.

Thus occurred to her another pleasant aspect of the Earth’s black shadow—every action of hers was concealed, hidden from any eye that might pry. She could make a great fool of herself, do any sort of unspeakable or ridiculous thing, and it would be known to none but her own conscience.

She kept a blanket with her—one of which the fabric was just thick enough to keep her warm but thin so that shivers from the slowly-cooling air still shook her. She was unaware of its color, as she hung it each night around the chimney and did not glance at it again until the sky reverted to black.

Her summer nights were of the utmost importance. Her summer nights allowed her a comfortable and kempt place to rest, whilst the day tossed her round and round until she could no longer see. Her summer nights wrapped her in velvet cloaks and lacy veils, whilst the day stripped her of coverings and laughed as the sun glared upon her bare skin. Her summer nights reassured her with comforting whistling and peaceful quiet, whilst the day hurled at her harsh insults and blatant shrieks.

Her summer nights belonged to her and her alone.

The Filter Bubble: Harmful or Hoax?

In the days, weeks, and months following the widely controversial outcome of the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election, the term “filter bubble” has been tossed around between liberals and conservatives alike—but what exactly does it entail? Is it a false theory perpetrated by those who are upset by the election, crafted simply to place blame on the Internet rather than their own political parties? Is it a phenomenon caused by the decisions of social media users themselves and not at all the fault of Facebook’s algorithms? Is it a real issue that should be studied and eliminated? Each of these claims have been supported by vast numbers, to the point where this “filter bubble” idea has become a household phrase. According to journalist John Bohannon of Science Magazine, “political scientists have wondered [for years] whether the social network’s news feed selectively serves up ideologically charged news while filtering out content from opposite political camps”—which is the theory behind the filter bubble (Bohannon 1). Eli Pariser, the author of a 2011 book regarding filter bubbles, agrees that “it’s much easier than it’s ever been to live in an information environment that is several standard deviations from normal” (Brodeur 2). Perhaps this idea of social media filter bubbles has existed for longer than this generation has imagined, and the recent election merely struck surprised voters with the realization of just how potent they might be.

The term “filter bubble” is defined as “the tendency of social networks…to lock users into personalized feedback loops, each with its own news sources, cultural touchstones, and political inclinations,” according to Amanda Hess of The New York Times (Hess 1). Many blame the networks themselves—usually Facebook and Twitter—for this phenomenon, but Michael Andor Brodeur of The Boston Globe disagrees, calling filter bubbles “self-styled personal ecosystems of information we burrow ourselves into” (Brodeur 1). Others believe that the bubbles are caused in part by users’ own behavior and choices but also by the algorithms these websites use to enhance the browsing experience. For example, “when you do a search on Google…the results you get back will differ depending on what the company knows about you” (Bohannon 2). No matter the origin, however, it is important that social media users become aware of their own filter bubbles and the threats they may pose.

A filter bubble creates an environment for an individual that is friendly to their political opinions and only exposes them to posts and stories with which they will agree. Perhaps this sounds harmless in theory, but it actually politically polarizes the user, allowing them to sink to the deep end of their political ideology. Liberal or conservative, left or right, the more they click on news stories that comment positive on their side or negatively on the other, the less inclined they will be to analyze or even consider an opposing opinion. John Bohannon of Science Magazine believes that this division of media exposure could eventually lead to total political extremism of both major parties, and ultimately a chaotic pandemonium of a country. Views like this can seem a bit far-fetched themselves, and many are skeptical, but it isn’t so hard to imagine the consequences of a society in which “liberals and conservatives…rarely learn about issues that concern the other side simply because those issues never make it into their news feeds” (Bohannon 2). Brodeur agrees that “these are not ideal conditions for a productive cultural conversation” (Brodeur 2). For these reasons, it is likely in the country’s best interests to attempt to defeat this filter bubble phenomenon.

Brodeur claims that “it’s highly unlikely that Facebook will take steps to burst its own bubble,” but a variety of solutions to this situation are available for individual use. The Google Chrome extension PolitEcho, which “crawls through [a user’s] Facebook network and visualizes its political bias,” is one option that is becoming increasingly popular (Hess 2). FlipFeed is a plug-in coded by researchers at M.I.T. that allows you to experience the Twitter feed of a “random, anonymous user of a different political persuasion” (Hess 2). Read Across the Aisle, an iPhone application, alters its users’ news-reading experiences—as they browse articles within the app, an onscreen meter will fade from red to blue and back again “based on the particular site’s ideological bent” (Hess 2). Another plug-in that deploys a different tactic is Escape Your Bubble, which is available for Google Chrome. Described as “aggressively positive,” it sprinkles stories and posts of opposing political views within a user’s Facebook feed and labels them with a pink heart icon, smiley face, and the message “happily inserted by your EscapeYourBubble Chrome Extension” (Hess 2). The idea behind all of these plug-ins and applications is the benefits of “stripping opposing ideas of their negative emotional impact” (Hess 2). Heavy emotional influence is one of the leading motivators behind a person’s political ideology. 

While not entirely agreeing that Facebook’s filter bubbles are caused by algorithms, CEO Mark Zuckerberg does agree that there is an existing “need to grow local news outlets…and present people with a range of perspectives,” which is just what these web extensions can accomplish (Hess 4). Zuckerberg’s net worth has actually plummeted by close to four billion dollars since the 2016 Presidential Election, and many believe this is due to the claims against Facebook’s code. Others see this as finger-pointing, however, and stand firmly with their beliefs that social media played no role in the election outcome. A 2012 study found that “Facebook’s news feed algorithm does indeed create an echo chamber effect,” but it is nothing to fear—according to their research, “the algorithm made it only 1% less likely for users to be exposed to politically cross-cutting stories” (Bohannon 3). This study was performed, however, by Facebook’s own in-house social scientists and could be heavily biased. Despite this, they did produce at least one statement of truth—“the power to expose oneself to perspectives from the other side in social media,” they stated, “lies first and foremost with individuals” (Bohannon 3). To have any hope of defeating the filter bubble, whether it be a product of a computer code or each user’s own internal bias, social media users need to increase their awareness of what they are reading and why and work to expose themselves to new beliefs and opposing ideologies.

March and April Reads

Here's a shelf update for March and April 2017. These past two months have been busy ones, and I didn't have a chance to read as much as I would've liked to. I have some exciting stuff on my list for May and June, though—including the new Rick Riordan book coming out tomorrow!

Once again, my favorite works are in bold:

• The Upside of Unrequited (Becky Albertalli, 2017)
• Mother Courage and Her Children (Bertolt Brecht, 1939)
• The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes (Arthur Conan Doyle, 1892)
• "The Final Problem" (Arthur Conan Doyle, 1893)
• "Young Goodman Brown" (Nathaniel Hawthorne, 1835)
• "Dr. Heidegger's Experiment" (Nathaniel Hawthorne, 1837)
• "The Birthmark" (Nathaniel Hawthorne, 1843)
• Blasted (Sarah Kane, 1995)
• "Miss Brill" (Katherine Mansfield, 1920)
• Aristotle and Dante Discover the Secrets of the Universe (Benjamin Alire Sáenz, 2012)
• Oedipus Rex (Sophocles, 430 B.C.)

To read/finish for May/June:

• More Than This (Patrick Ness)
• Hidden Figures (Margot Lee Shetterly)
• The Dark Prophecy (Rick Riordan)
• Alex and Eliza (Melissa de la Cruz)
• Eurydice (Sarah Ruhl)
• Alexander Hamilton (Ron Chernow)

"The Upside of Unrequited" by Becky Albertalli (Review)

"I'm on the toilet at the 9:30 Club, and I'm wondering how mermaids pee."

From the moment I opened this book to the moment I closed the back cover, I could not stop smiling. First of all, Molly Peskin-Suso is one of the most relatable main characters I have ever encountered, and I felt happy and sad and proud of her through every twist and turn of her journey. Albertalli perfectly captures the personality of a socially anxious girl who is afraid to do everything she believes being a teenager entails. Never before have I seen social anxiety written so well--Albertalli's experience as a psychologist definitely shines in her work.

The humor is quite endearing (though at some points a little overkill, but it fits the characters and the story), and I loved the pop culture references. Allusions always make a story feel so much more REAL.

I also adored the relationship that Molly has with her sister. It's heartwarming and so, so authentic. I was nearly reduced to tears when they eventually came to the conclusion that, yes, eventually all siblings grow apart and find new people to be their confidants. It's a depressing subject, but the real, raw emotion expressed in her simplistic writing style is beautiful and poignant.

The one aspect of this book that I didn't enjoy so much is its political side. I'm always a supporter of writers making political statements through their storytelling, but Albertalli went a bit overboard with this one. It was too much at once and she made her opinions far too obvious. The best way to make a good, thought-provoking statement in a novel is not to state it outright or drag it out of the characters' mouths, but rather to weave it seamlessly into the story. Show, not tell.

Other than that, though, this book was lovely. I highly recommend it to any contemporary YA reader who enjoys the work of John Green, David Levithan, and the like. Definitely a full five stars!

"Because that's the thing about change. It's so painfully normal. It's the most basic of all tragedies...and it's weird how I can know this, but it doesn't make it hurt less."

Selfishness: The Human Condition

"Good character consists of recognizing the selfishness that inheres in each of us and trying to balance it against the altruism to which we should all aspire." - Alan Dershowitz

Selfishness—it’s what we all despise and condemn. It’s everything we never want to project onto our outer facades because we all want to be seen as good, kind, caring people. However, deep inside, it’s a trait we all carry. It dictates our every decision, decides our aspirations, controls our very lives. “But,” you protest, “what about the things we do for others? What about self-sacrifice?” Most humans, at one point, will attempt to do something selfless. Acting out of love or respect for others does exist, of course, but true selflessness does not. It may appear prominent on the surface of many, and we worship them as heroes, but these so-called “good deeds” and “acts of kindness” are rooted in our brains to a much larger force. Pure selflessness can be proven to be completely nonexistent.

Imagine a scenario in which you have just escaped a house fire. You perform a head count of your family when you realize someone’s missing. You choose, in a split-second decision, to run back inside the building and rescue them. Is this a selfless act? Not entirely. You are, of course, sacrificing your health and possibly even your life for someone else—but what are you gaining from it? Quite a lot, actually. You are saving the life of your family member, some who makes you happy. Attempting to save someone or something because it brings joy to you is inherently selfish. You are also, most likely, going to be publicly praised and admired for your actions. Even if we deny that we do, every single one of us desires adoration. We all want to feel appreciated. This is also technically selfish.

Now let’s remove a few of these details. Let us first imagine that this person you are rescuing from the fire is a stranger, someone you have never met before. Saving their life would be less selfish, wouldn’t it? Wrong. Firstly, you would still gain the public attention, possibly even more so, and secondly, you would gain quite a large sense of pride. Try saying “I rescued a stranger from a burning building” out loud. Feels good, doesn’t it? Well, “feeling good” is what all of us strive for with every decision we make, whether we know it or not. And if we make a choice because our instincts tell us that we will feel bad or guilty if we don’t do it, the choice is a selfish one. Even if someone is completely unaware of how “good” doing something morally correct will make them feel, they are making that choice because they know that if they don’t, they will feel bad. One may even decide to perform an act of kindness because of this fact only. Therefore, selfishness can apply to every action of “doing the right thing”—even if you don’t know the person you are helping or won’t get any praise for it.

It is interesting how religions view selfishness. “Love your neighbor as yourself” is a commandment in the Church that plays off of human selfishness and urges Christians to project those feelings onto others. Many other religions have similar views and laws in place. If we follow these rules, though, are we truly acting selfless? The answer is, once again, no. Why do Christians follow the teachings of the Church? Why does eighty-four percent of the human population follow a religion? It’s not just because they think it is “correct” and “good,” despite what you may hear. It is out of fear—the fear of the consequences of doing something wrong—and the desire to reach an afterlife. There is not a single religion that does not place emphasis on the idea that if you die as a “good” person, you will reach some sort of reward or paradise after death. Many also believe that some deity will punish you for doing anything morally wrong. Therefore, one of the main motivators for most people to do anything “good” is the desire of a peaceful, happy afterlife—selfishness. Does this mean that unreligious people are less selfish than the religious? No. They just have slightly different selfish motivations.

The idea that every single person is inherently, instinctually selfish and that a choice without it does not exist may seem like a dark view of humanity, but it is actually just a realist one. Every species of animal is selfish as well, every action of theirs taken for their own survival, but do we consider them to be selfish in the same way we do for a human? Not usually. We see it as them just doing what they need to in order to live and thrive. It is their nature, and it is ours, too. Selfishness is not necessarily evil. Saving someone from a fire is not an act of immorality, even if some of the motivations for it are selfish. Only sometimes can selfishness get out of hand; that is the kind we usually see and point out.

Is there, then, any hope for controlling human selfishness or suppressing it entirely? In some ways, yes. If we assess every decision we make and figure out how it is tied to our own benefits, we can become more aware of it. We can work to make decisions that, even if they are for our own advantage, do not harm anyone else. If an action is motivated by selfishness and knowingly hurts others in the process, it is a truly immoral one. Humans are not predisposed to evil, just oriented by our own individual needs and desires.

If you’re looking for more examples, take this essay. Why did I write it? Well, quite obviously, I want it to gain attention. I want to be applauded for my writing and ideas. I also find great joy in writing—it makes me feel good. I can fully admit that almost every reason for writing this and posting it is selfish. Everything I do and likely everything you do as well is motivated by self-interest. It is simply how humans’ brains are hardwired. The results of our actions are what really matter.

I'm Writing A Musical?!

Yep. It's official! I'm currently in the second-draft process of writing a—you guessed it—musical based on my all-time favorite book series, Percy Jackson and the Olympians.

Perhaps this is of zero interest to you, but maybe some of you want to know a little more. I'll try to keep this post as brief as possible, but I am admittedly extremely excited to share every detail about this project into which I have put so much time and effort.

First off, I'd like to mention that I am in no way associated with TheatreWorks or their Lightning Thief Musical that is opening in New York this summer. I began work on my musical months prior to its announcement, and mine is quite different in content. I am also in no way endorsed by Rick Riordan or his publisher or any of that (unfortunately). Okay, moving on.

In early 2016, about one year ago, I was assigned by my English teacher (hi, Mom) to write a scene from a book or movie in Shakespearian style. Of course, I chose a scene from a Percy Jackson book, and while writing it, I was suddenly struck with an idea—imagine Percy Jackson as a stage performance.

My first thought: That would be crazy. There are five books, ten if you count the second series. It would be, like, twelve hours long. My second: Eh, who cares. I'm gonna try.

So I gave it a shot—four, in fact. The first attempt was quite terrible. I decided to go with a musical drama—minimal song and dance, though, mostly dialogue. I tried to sum up the entirety of the first series in a single monologue and then dive right into the second. The plan was to show only the most important scenes from each of the five books, barely touching upon the characters themselves and focusing mainly on the plot. The idea was, in short, awful, and it was rightfully trashed after eight days and eleven pages.

Fast forward two months, and I've returned to the drawing board. I decided that this time I wouldn't take the story so seriously and attempted to make a humorous, AVPM-esque parody musical. It might've turned out well if I had put some effort into it, but the problem is I don't do silly very well. I can incorporate jokes and comic relief into my work, but writing straight-up comedy is not my forte. This one also lasted only about a week.

My next idea was to ditch the whole musical aspect entirely and just write a play. Then I narrowed it down even further to just the first book, The Lightning Thief. I spent two hot summer days simmering away in my attic bedroom, transcribing the book into a play format, and then gave up. At the time, I figured that was it. Maybe someday I'd return to this ridiculous project.

It wasn't until late September that I analyzed my thought processes for these failed ideas in an attempt to figure out what I was doing wrong, and I realized fairly quickly that I was focusing too much on plot.

To me, Riordan's characters have always been the most important and memorable aspects of his books. His characters are seriously like children to me—just ask my friends. I discovered then that I was putting way too much effort into making the plot of this stage adaptation exactly the same as that of the original stories, and that I was ignoring the best part, the part that means the most to me.

Here's something I've realized while writing this, my novel, and many other things—I am much better at creating and developing characters than plot. Therefore, for my next try at this Percy Jackson stage show, I decided to showcase my strengths instead of relying on my weaknesses.

It's not really a show for the average Percy Jackson fan. It's not a kids' show. It's something that is built on everything I love about the books, which themes I believe are the most meaningful. I played with each characters' strengths, weaknesses, relationships, and desires, and crafted a mainly character-driven plot that is a very simplified but still complex version of the original story. I decided to focus mainly on the first five-book series, but I tied in a few of my favorite aspects of the second one. Choosing what to include and what to skim over made for some seriously tough decisions, but I am extremely pleased with the outcome.

Despite everything I had to cut, the show's estimated running time is still close to two and a half hours. I have written over twenty original songs (just lyrics, vocals, and chords so far), and a completed rough draft of a one hundred and twelve-page script. Is it done? No. Is it almost done? Not even close. When will it be done? Who knows. I still have so much work to do and so many decisions to make. All I can tell you right now is that I really like it, and I hope you will, too.

There are no definite plans for the future of this project just yet. I would love to have an actual cast, set, costumes, orchestra, and performances before I go off to college, but that would involve quite a bit of time and money that I just don't have. It's still possible, though, and would be the most amazing dream come true.

For now, I'm just going to keep chugging along, refining and tweaking to bring this crazy project as close to perfection as I possibly can. I'll let its future be determined when it arrives.

So, what do you think? If you like Percy Jackson, or even if you just like musicals, and would be interested in getting involved, let me know. If I want this to really become anything at all, I'm going to need quite a lot of help. Also let me know if you would perhaps like to see a blog post going into more detail about the musical itself—I'd be happy to ramble on for hours.

And if you've read this far, thank you. It's my love for writing and others' love for reading that inspires me to do crazy stuff like this.

January and February Reads

Bimonthly shelf updates? I'm going to try.

During these past two months, most of what I've read has been for some class or another, but I've still enjoyed just about all of it. I see assigned reading not as a tedious requirement, but as an open door to discover new authors and stories that I normally wouldn't have picked up on my own. Because of the classes I'm taking this semester, the majority of this January/February list is plays and short stories, but it has quite a bit of variety.

Highly-recommended pieces are in bold:

• Wonders of the Invisible World (Christopher Barzak, 2015)
• "The Story of an Hour" (Kate Chopin, 1894)
• "Clothes" (Chitra Banerjee Divakaruni, 1995)
• "Killings" (Andre Dubus, 1979)
• "A Rose for Emily" (William Faulkner, 1930)
• "Love in L.A." (Dagoberto Gilb, 1993)
• "Soldier's Home" (Ernest Hemingway, 1925)
• "Hill's Like White Elephants" (Ernest Hemingway, 1927)
• A Doll's House (Henrik Ibsen, 1879)
• "The Cranes" (Peter Meinke, 1987)
• "Three Girls" (Joyce Carol Oates, 2004)
• "The Cask of Amontillado" (Edgar Allan Poe, 1846)
• A Midsummer Night's Dream (Shakespeare, 1600)
• Antigone (Sophocles, 441 B.C.)
• "Mines" (Susan Straight, 2003)
• "A & P" (John Updike, 1961)

To read/finish for March/April:

• More Than This (Patrick Ness)
• Hidden Figures (Margot Lee Shetterly)
• The Outsiders (S. E. Hilton)