Why I Hate Sarcasm

I hate sarcasm. Nothing makes me angrier than when someone responds jokingly to a serious question. People use sarcasm in order to try to appear as the class clown. Well, these jokes are not funny. In fact, sarcastic comments, in certain situations, can result in a fatality. 

Let me give you an example. Let us say that an actor was having a seizure in the middle of a play. You, being a doctor, ask the person next to you whether or not you should go and help. In turn, that person sarcastically says that there is no need to go and help as this is just part of the play. Unless you caught on to the sarcastic comments made by your neighbor, it is likely that the actor who was having a seizure could be seriously injured. This is why sarcasm should not be tolerated in society today - a small misunderstanding can be devastating.

Another reason sarcasm should not be tolerated is because of its effects on someone else's self-esteem. Let me give you another example. Let us say you are talking to your friend about the most recent chemistry test. Your friend thought he did poorly, and you did too. Instead of saying that you thought you did poorly, however, you sarcastically say that you thought the test was the easiest one yet! If your friend doesn't catch on to the sarcasm, this will really put a dent in your friend's self-esteem. Having a poor image of oneself is never a good thing.

Finally, sarcasm should not be used because it can give people invalid information. For example, if you ask a friend who killed JFK and the friend responds sarcastically that it was a conspiracy theory led by Lyndon B. Johnson, then you might not catch on to the sarcasm and believe that for the rest of your life. This incorrect piece of information will eventually spread to your children and close family, and will create a misconception that will make you look stupid until you are corrected. This ties back in to the self-esteem aspect. 

Oh, man. Don't you just love writing satires? ;)

The Plot Against America: A Review

The Plot Against America was an interesting read, possibly even the most interesting school-required readings I have completed to date. 

The story takes place in the 1940s in the United States. It is centered around Philip Roth (who is also the author), a boy who grows up in a Lindbergh-led America. Lindbergh defeated FDR for the presidency claiming that a vote for FDR was a vote for war. This seemed to work as all races voted for Lindbergh except the Jews. The Jews disliked Lindbergh due to his anti-Semitic speech that blamed the Jews for World War II. After his election, the story follows Roth's life and all the obstacles that he has to hurdle. Programs like the "Just Folks" and "Homestead 42" aim to help Jews assimilate to American culture (according to Lindbergh and his advocates), but are protested by Jews. I won't give too much more of the plot away - it's quite interesting.

*Beware, if you continue reading, there may be a few spoilers*

If there was downside of this story, it is that it did not live up to all of my expectations. I expected something dramatic to happen; maybe Lindbergh would set up concentration camps or help Hitler in his conquests. Maybe he would use the civilians army to attack Britain and make a dual-headed monster (with Germany) that controls the entire world. Unfortunately, though, all that happened was Lindbergh went missing and FDR regained the presidency. The plot was interesting and his writing style made me want to continue reading, but I think he could have come up with a much more exciting ending. Maybe Philip Roth, the author, was trying to get across a much bigger picture that I am not seeing right now, but I wish this story had a commercial-esque ending instead of a mysterious one that relied on the reader's inferences.

The Ultimate Smackdown: Fiction versus Nonfiction

"Fiction tries to run, but non-fiction is too fast!"
*smack*
"Ohhhhh, non-fiction had one good body slam right there. I think fiction might be out of this fight."
*one, two three*
"And that's the fight, ladies and gentlemen! Non-fiction prevails once again!"


This is what I think should ideally happen if fiction and nonfiction ever fight to see which one should be read more in primary and secondary school.  After reading an article on the Washington Post, I found that there are other people who have similar beliefs. Fiction is a fun read, one that is used to divert one's attention. Non-fiction is more difficult to read and it requires an attention span. Although  reading non-fiction is widely regarded to be more beneficial to one's intellectual development than reading fiction, students in grade-school read fiction more because of one simple fact - students don't have an attention span long enough to sit down for an extended period of time to analyze literature.

Now, I must say that older fiction and realistic fiction, for the most part, do have some value, but modern fiction is primarily useless as it is only written for commercial value. Take, for example, the Harry Potter Series. I love the series, but what did I gain from reading all the books? Nothing. There wasn't really a moral to the story and the text was simple to read: no difficult words, no phrases to ponder, etc. An even better example is Twilight. Absolutely no literary value. These books are very popular with today's youth (and yes, it is still better than watching TV), but they don't help us in any way.

As college approaches, students like us need to be well prepared to think about what we read. If non-fiction is not integrated into our curriculum, then more students will be left behind. Forget, NCLB; NCLB only focuses on the grade-school education, but it should be more farsighted and realize that those who read very little non-fiction will be impaired when they seek higher education.