Book Review: Flight of Shadows

Flight of Shadows by Sigmund Brouwer is a suspenseful dystopian novel that plays with themes of extreme science, extreme government control, and the effects of extreme religion. The novel follows the story of Caitlyn, a hybrid human born with a deformity that sets her apart from everyone else. She's on the run from her old life, and from the authorities who want to control the powers that her genes hold.

The novel is middlingly suspenseful, but won't keep you up at night. "Flight of Shadows" is very enjoyable, though not always novel. As a one who greatly enjoys the sci-fi/fantasy genre, and especially dystopian novels, I found Flight of Shadows a bit predictable at points. There were a few twists, though, that really kept the plot going. Most of the characters are well formed, though they all fall into very typical categories (conflicted hero, unpredictable trickster support character, etc). My favorite character was the classic intelligent policeman who is on the opposite side from the hero, but probably will not stay there.

I really only had two problems with this novel: First, "Flight of Shadows" is actually a sequel to a previous book by Brouwer, "Broken Angel," which I have not read. The author did try to explain the previous connections between the characters, but not knowing the whole back-story made "Flight of Shadows" a little harder to read. Secondly, "Flight of Shadows" follows about four story-lines within the overall story. There are a lot of characters, and the book switches between story-lines almost every chapter. If you're not good at keeping track of characters, you might have some problems. Again, I would highly suggest reading "Broken Angel" first, as the characters would have more depth and hopefully would be less confusing.

If you've never read a dystopian novel, try this one out. If you don't know what a dystopian novel is, think "The Giver" by Lois Lowry, "Anthem" by Ayn Rand, "Uglies" by Scott Westerfield, "Brave New World" by Aldous Huxley or "Nineteen Eighty-Four" by George Orwell. A dystopia is a future society that has regressed in some way from the present one. "Flight of Shadows" will introduce you (or reintroduce you, if you read one of these books in high school) to the dystopian genre. Overall, "Flight of Shadows" is a worthwhile, if not spectacular, read; one that might even make you think a little bit about where the future is going.

*I received this book for free from WaterBrook Multnomah Publishing Group for this review* I really do believe in what I wrote here though :) In simple terms: I enjoyed the book, would recommend it, but would not re-read it.

Musings: Normal vs. Abnormal

What is normal? It is too easy to just say normal is what we see to often. That really doesn't answer the question. At least not from a philosophical, let's base our morality/philosophy on this definition point of view. Do we define normal by what we know to be abnormal or abnormal by what we know to be normal? Or a mixture of the two, I guess? What are our expectations of something once we have determined if it's abnormal or normal? Do we say everything abnormal is bad and normal is good? If we don't then how do we treat it? In Generosity, a girl with 'abnormal' characteristics is first heralded then torn down for these genes which she did not choose and cannot control. Is it actually important to judge based on normal versus abnormal? If we're only talking about genetically based characteristics, then what does it matter? If Thassa is like that because of her genes, then how can she share anything for the good of humanity? If it's because of her and some choice she made or makes, then why would defining it as normal or abnormal even be a useful distinction? Perhaps the inherent-ness of normal and abnormal do not need to be fully genetically connected, which would leave the ability to find what makes a person one way or the other in their early life--a nurture related determinism instead of a nature related one. But it still doesn't seem the most helpful distinction. Even if at that level it can be helpful, in many cases the label of abnormal (or mental illness, or diseased) has a very detrimental effect on a person's life (whether because of their own response, or society's response to them, or both). This effect often seems bigger than the benefit of being able to put people into categories. Especially, if all we do as a society is go trigger-happy with the drugs, without actually teaching anyone how to manage their own lives without dependence on some pill, then how do these labels really help. Our whole society seems set up to help people fail, even as we have higher and higher incidences of 'mental illnesses.' Maybe the more important thing is to invest in finding how to help people help themselves--therapy, I'm saying--rather than in more drugs which take away symptoms. And then actually training people. But also, it seems like it is necessary to have a revolution in how we think about normal and abnormal. If we as a society can't get past the idea that someone with bipolar is disadvantaged, and ill, then we will never be able to use non-pill means of dealing with these diseases--because there are huge benefits to being somewhat bipolar, to being somewhat autistic, in what one can offer society. Many of the most influential and world-changing people in our history have been suggested to have had mental illnesses of one sort or another--and it allowed them to reach a much higher potential (perhaps even pushed them to) than the 'normal' human beings of the time.

Musings: the Pursuit of science

Is explaining things by science to the public actually ever helpful or even true? Without a very strong basis in science (and I mean one of multi-discipline multi-year study, really) it is very easy to make mistakes in the interpretation of science, and even in the pursuit of science. This happens pretty much every time scientific information is presented by the media to the public, with some sort of scientific background. This background is often paid for by the companies that benefit from it--unsurprisingly, since they're the only ones who have enough reason for the financial investment. However, many times the research does not even live up to the standards of peer-reviewed, pseudo-scientific method science that the academic world requires. But, when something is told to the public, if it's convincing at the first, it will live on long past the science. Therefore, should science even be used as a basis for media-mediated advice? Does this not just tear down the credibility of science every time the opinions go back and forth? On the other hand, what's the point of science if it is not used to change people's lives (or at least animal's lives, the environment, etc)? If the problem is the system, not the goals or the science, then is there another system that would work better? (other than the level of democracy/capitalism we use today)

Is striving for unbiased science actually worthwhile? Does it not need there to be an absolute truth to reach? To what extent should we try to be unbiased, and how far can we actually go? Since everything we 'know' is through our own senses, so is automatically biased. But which is more worth knowing: What we can perceive through our senses or some absolute that we cannot?

Musings: Homo Evolitus

How should evolution and purposeful evolution be thought of in today's human world? We are not under the same evolutionary pressures as when we developed, but we also will not evolve at any reasonable speed (even for evolutionary change), because of our ability to help people live, and even reproduce, who would not have been able to before. We have eradicated so many diseases, that the only ones left are the kind that are very good at adapting, or allow reproduction before becoming fatal (if they ever get fatal). Many health problems (which I personally hesitate to call diseases, by my own definitions at least) actually result from what were historically adaptations. Should we then begin to change ourselves? Not just behaviorally, but at the genetic level? Homo Evolitus. And if we should, how do we tell if a trait has any benefit today? Ex. in Generosity, the 'happiness gene.' We know why the pattern of normal anxiety/stress and occasional peaks of happiness/ecstasy were useful historically, but are they still necessary today? And how can we tell without trying (and causing some humans, or at least animals, to take genetic risks?

Musings: Getting out of our paradigm

So I'm going to post some things I've been thinking about, in relation to my classes and other things that have been going on in my life. I just sat down and wrote out what I've been thinking about/struggling with, so they not very well formed. A lot of the writing is in the form of questions, as well, because I don't have the answers yet (and may never, of course). I'm just going to post them though, and will hopefully come back at some point and edit/add to them. Some of the topics may be used for papers this semester, too...so that might lend a more concise form to them :) Also, there are a few book references from my class, that will be a bit incomprehensible if you haven't read the book--but ask me if you want to know more!

Getting out of our paradigm. Is it possible to do so? Does it come down to a forced change every time, or can we in some way choose to change? How do we judge how much our views are affected by our own paradigm. Is it possible to broaden our paradigm? Or is it only possible to change it? For example, in Avatar the main character and the scientists seemed to mostly just switch sides, rather than encompass both. This often seems to be the case (perhaps because I/We most easily see the polarizations) in people who have gotten out of their own cultural prejudices (most easily, indigenous peoples advocates in the US/Western culture). As a listener, I often get the feeling that I should be ashamed of everything Western and just convert to the indigenous viewpoint.

Top Ways to Procrastinate:

So I'm currently avoiding writing a lab report and studying for a different lab final...woohoo! Here's my best guilt-free procrastination methods:

1. Cooking! Somehow I always make my best meals when I'm supposed to be doing something else...or running late for school :)

2. Blogging! Whether its philosophy, cooking, or something totally random, blogging never feels like a waste of time...when I get around to it ;)

3. Phone Calls to Family! Somehow, I never feel guilty talking to my mom, dad, or sister...yet those conversations often occur on days when studying should be the priority

4. Cleaning! HAHA, like I ever actually do THAT! No really, I have been known to sort my room when avoiding something, especially when avoiding cleaning my bathroom or doing the dishes...

5. Playing with my Bird! She never gets enough attention when I'm at school, so OF COURSE I need to give her more when I'm home!

6. Studying my Bible! Yes, this can be used to procrastinate...just start reading Genesis and looking up the etymology of words and the historical background and you'll be fascinated too...I could spend hours!

And now, the guilty procrastination devices:

Somehow most of these are on the computer:
1. facebook
2. runescape
3. email
4. puzzle pirates
5. looking up grad schools :)

Also:
6. reading books
7. browsing the library
8. hanging out with friends for hours on end
9. watching movies

So there you have it, I'm sure I do more than that, but now back to my homework...

Healthy Cooking in the College World: Breakfast

Eating a fast, healthy breakfast can be really difficult. However, breakfast is extremely important to a healthy eating pattern. I normally eat my breakfast in the car on the way to school, which really limits the options. If you have time, cereal and milk obviously makes a good breakfast, as do smoothies. Smoothies are really easy if you have some type of a blender. strawberries and bananas are a great base for any smoothie. bananas will thicken a smoothie. strawberries, other berries, and oranges all add a tartness. mango and pineapple go really well in a more tropical smoothie. Add peanut butter to a strawberry and banana one. Add yogurt to any (will add a flavor) for extra protein. Use juice or milk to make the smoothie thin enough to blend (milk will drown out the fruit if too much is used--juice is really the best way to go). Use frozen fruit or ice cubes to make it colder and thicker. Less juice is needed if fresh fruit is used, though.

Hot cereals can also be really healthy. I like to buy some good multi-grain cereals like oats or muesli from a healthier store (around me there's whole foods, sunflower market, and trader joe's). I then cook it and add frozen berries such as raspberries or blueberries and some chopped nuts (any kind works, I just chop the ones I use for snacks :).

If you're taking smoothies or hot cereal on the go, I suggest cups that can close and be left in the car, or washing the cup out as soon as you get to school, or going the not-eco-friendly way and using disposable cups. They get pretty nasty after a day in a hot car!

My other fast breakfasts are to buy drinkable yogurts, make toast and peanut butter, or to eat a protein bar...my favorites are luna bars, larabars, and the harvest whole grain powerbars. I only buy these if they're on sale though: my aim for my breakfast is to cost a dollar or less, which means a sale is needed on the energy bars and drinkable yogurts. I would also love any other suggestions in this category, as I don't have a lot of ideas for fast breakfasts!

Oh, and I also eat cold pizza whenever I have it :)