#context I was 70 percent into the book and I was getting really bored so I was like fuck it let's go into the tags

[pagan-corruption]

HOW DID I GET SO CLOSE BUT SO FAR?

#context I was 70 percent into the book and I was getting really bored so I was like fuck it let's go into the tags #Can .... can they even be together? #and a lot is still no context but how tf does violet get a second signet? does she just get xaden now that he's the demon wizard? #I chose dain because dain is an antagonist #and him selling himself to the dark arts wouldn't ya know destroy four of the main characters' lives potentially #hot take maybe but this is worse than acotar because Tamilin being abusive makes sense #he kidnaps feyre someone with far less power in every way as revenge for her killing her friend #no healthy relationship could start off like that #and maybe a few chapters in it will start to make sense and by god I want wlw endgame more than I want money #but this just feels like a weird fuck you

[lastgeeksdying]

On the twelve Friday the 13th films

I recently rewatched or watched for the first time all of the F13 movies.  Here's what I thought. On Part 1: The ending is a cool twist on expectations, even today.  Most folks go into this film still expecting Jason Vorhees and instead are shocked.  If they get that far.  Because this movie is super garbage otherwise.   Poorly written, poorly edited, it looks like it's from the early 70's but instead is from the 80's.  The movie goes out of it's way to make you hate most of the characters.   On Part 2: A remix of the first film, trying to make a sequel to a really strange final moment.  Lumberjack/Baghead/KKK Jason here is the where his personality seems maluable, but you can see the seeds of him starting to become the Silly theatrical maniac that would come on display as we go.   On Part 3: If the first film is laughable bad for it's low budget, this is laughable for how big it's budget is and how much time is wasted on shitty 3D effects.  But Jason with a Harpoon gun is choice.   On Part 4: Solid. Because it felt like it was going to be the last Jason movie, it did a good job creating the world of Crystal Lake and bringing it to a close. It also cautiously set up sequels.  Corey Feldman did a good job for a child actor.   On Part 5: Interesting ideas with Characters as developed as the first few films so...actually underrated. I think this film gets a lot of hate because SPOILERS the killer isn't Jason.  Much Like Halloween III, Every character that isn't Tommy, is laughably bad.  I think a really good reboot could do Tommy's arc justice.  If a writer was careful.  This also feels like the point where the series is taking itself less seriously.  This may be because it's become a cash grab annual franchise, but I think it gives the franchise a soul.  It's not a dark a gritty series anymore.  It's not Low Rent Halloween, but it's not the campy gore-fest of Nightmare on Elm Street. It's exactly where I want it to be.   On Part six: Great. If my favorite Jason movie didn't exist, this would be it.  It takes every trope established in the franchise up to this point and nails them.  It has Tommy come back and not pay off the ending of Part 5 since audiences hated that, and instead has been have a break down and create the thing he hates.  It's when the series moves from silly, but maybe real to Supernatural Killer.  I feel like every idea non-fans have of the character of Jason comes from this movie.  My only complaint is that his costume isn't as cool as the one in 7.   On Part Seven: The last act is cool.  Otherwise this movie just trots along at a slow pace.  Nothing super exciting happens, even with a telekinetic main character.  This was originially conceived as a Carrie vs Jason movie, but they couldn't get the rights.  Which is likely for the best considering how they handled Tina's backstory here.  But it'd be funny to use this movie as a launch pad for continuing Carries rain of destruction.  But the last 20-30 minutes are worth the wait.  Once Tina starts cutting loose with her powers, suddenly Jason has a real adversary that he can go toe to toe with.     On Takes Manhattan: Half good, half a joke So the funny story about this movie, go watch the trailer.  It's all this is a movie set in new york. You know this is new york.  And here's shots of Jason on a street!  Here's Jason on a Subway.   For anyone whose seen the movie, they laugh at the trailer.  Because it's actually set on a "cruise" ship that passes by Crystal Lake on it's way to New York.  It's 2/3rds of the film before they reach New York.  Then it's about 2/3rds of the time remaining on the docks and the warehouses there.  Including a really gross and needless mugging, drugging, and attempted rape scene.  The last third spends most of it's time getting from the docks, to downtown New York, onto a Subway, and then into the Sewers.  The last 10ish minutes are in the Sewers and Jason dies in the stupidiest, most non-sensical way.   Now, this is the part where I say something that sounds silly.  The stuff on the boat?   Actually feels like Jason and the Friday the Thirteenth movies.  The stuff in New York?  So bad, and such a joke...which leads us to...   On Jason Goes to Hell: Hated it.  Don't do it. This is the worst film in the franchise.  This is a film that is trying way way too hard to take itself seriously and make Jason scary again.  It loses all of the fun of the previous movies and it just falls apart.   It's way too late to try to go back. It's plot is nonsensical.  Long Story Short:  Jason gets tricked by the FBI who blow his body up.  Then via MAGIC(???) or something it's discovered in the dumbest way possible that Jason isn't just Supernatural, but a demon.  And it's the dumbest fucking thing.  The coroner examining Jason's body is maybe compelled by the heart, maybe he's just crazy, to eat Jason's heart.  This transfers Jason from his exploded body into the coroner's body.  Now he can run around and kill people, and as his new body is dying he has to change into a new person. Yeah, it's a body swaping movie that feels like they just reshot a huge chunk of the movie to take a generic horror movie and make it about Jason.  And surprise, it was heavily reshot and edited and changed by the producer/franchise creator because the lead actress walked off set and the director had to be let go with days of filming still to go.  And then later they went back and filmed more.  So about 60 percent of the movie was done after the principle filming.   This gets worse when you get to the fact that there was a secret Vorhees sister who had a daughter who had a daughter.  The Sister is killed and now Jason is hunting the Daughter and her daughter.  But it's not a Michael Myers situation.  It's because of a shitty prophecy that Jason can reborn his original body by using a blood relatives body.   At the end of the film, Jason breaks out of his body as a demon creature, and it looks really bad.  Eventually he uses the body the dead sister (He didn't use the sister earlier because the writers had thought of that plot line yet.  There were three writers, can you tell?).  Jason is reborn, there is another prophecy about only a Vorhees can kill a Vorhees so Jason's niece stabs Jason witha  magic knife and he gets pulled into hell.  Then big suprise ending moment.   The surprise ending moment is that Freddy Krugars claw comes out of the ground and Freddy Laughs.  At this point, they were trying hard to get a Freddy Vs Jason movie, but hadn't nailed the rights yet.  This will lead to them making Jason X.   The one redeeming moment is that they used a prop from another movie as just a creepy book in the Vorhees house.  But for fans it is the Necronomicon from Evil Dead.  Which lead to a comic of Freddy Vs Jason Vs Ash.   On Jason X: Loved it.  Jason X is my favorite film in the franchise.  If Jason goes to Hell takes itself too seriously, Jason X understands how campy it needs to be and what a scifi movie needs to be.  There are characters I genuinely like and am saddened when they die.  There are surprises for someone who hadn't watched it in years.  You can tell that these were fans of Alien and Aliens and wanted to Mash them together with the previous core Jason concepts.  And by doing so it creates magic.   It also has a cool premise about the idea that Jason in the future isn't unstoppable, but he is tough.  They stop him, and then in the fifth act twist, space science accidentally gives him an upgrade and he becomes Uber Jason, who crashes on Earth 2.  I don't want to ruin anything else about the movie, but this is the movie with the best line.   "Hey guys, it's fine!  He just wanted his machete back!"  And not only is it a great line, it actually works in context and creates a hilarious but terrifying moment.   On Freddy Vs Jason: It's so bad.  And it's a shame because there is bare concept that's good.   The idea that Freddy has been forgotten.  That the town banded together to try and stop him from existing by blocking thoughts and dreams of him and redacting everything possible, that's neat.   The film is missing elements that are key to making it work.  The first thing is the teens. They are all shitlords and totally not worth your time.  The "Good" Characters are both flimsy at best, but also not really likable.   Characters don't make dumb choices, the writers drop bad ideas into their heads because they want certain scenes or plot.  The entire plot involving dream suppressing drugs feels like it is going to be important, but by the midpoint, the film has tossed it out.   Freddy has always been a pretty garbage and had traded entirely on gore and Robert Englund's performance.  Here he makes dumb decision after dumb decision.  And it's just...you know, I don't even care.   What really pushed this movie into almost Goes to Hell bad is it's portrayal of Jason.   This Jason has no personality.  He's a big killy monster who wants to kill. He doesn't have any of the theatrics that make Jason interesting to watch.  He doesn't have the weird teleports or the brutal kills.  He's boring here.  And then they gave him a weakness.  They handed him a water phobia.  Which doesn't fit the character or the continuity.  He Looks like a Jason Cosplayer and has the scripting of one.  It's bad, and mostly unforgivable.   The redeeming element of this movie is that there are ideas here that are interesting, but so much of it is mishandled by bad direction and bad writing that it just becomes a shame.   On the Remake: I appreciate that the used the film to try and pay homage to what little plot exists in the first three films.  Let's show the mom is a killer.   Let's show him do some kills with the bag on his head.  Let's have him find the mask after his bag is damaged.  And that's the first 40 minutes.  It is almost like they knew they a modern audience could take just one of those films plots and they really wanted to speed it up.   It even feels like they want to create a Tommy Jarvis like anti-Jason in the form of the very tall Jared Padelecki.   It's important to remember this is a new Jason, and a new world.  And I am okay with that.  But the writing feels too on the nose.  It gives character traits to people that are going to die, and character missions for characters who will survive.   I don't hate this new Jason.  I want to know why he grows weed and doesn't want to let anyone near it.  That's really weird.  But overall the film does some brutal kills.  It has nudity for nudity sake.  It has drug use.  It has virginal characters.  It has the killer.  It has the teens (Who are campers instead of counselors which annoys me but whatever).  And even has a smidge of heart.  I just feel like the film could have been tighter.  The flashback about Pamela should have been saved as a Camp Fire story flashback.  And the first group of Campers should have been killed off much faster.  The film spends a solid fifteen minutes with them, when it should have been five.   The biggest missed opportunity here is that it is trying to be serious again, and it needed to embrace the camp.  There is a part where a character walks off and starts singing with his ipod to Sister Christian.  This should have lead into a montage where Jason kills those five to that song.   Ultimately, there were only a few I will ever go back to.  And only one I'd tell people is worth the time to watch if you like comedy/horror(Jason X rules!) Don't worry guys, he just wanted his Machete back!

#F13 #Friday the 13th #friday the 13th the game #Jason Vorhees #Freddy Kruger #Batman

[17-996-blog]

1984

Blog 1：growth as a readerBlog 2: connections to our class

   This year is my third year in Canada. I try to improve my read ability. Here is my way to growth as a reader.

   First, I found a book I interested. In grade 10, I read a book named Animal Farm, I like George Orwell’s style. He had another very popular book 1984. I decide this semester I will read 1984. I want to understanding that crazy word. I know this is a challenge for me, but I believe myself.

   Second. When I was reading the book, I found my vocabulary improved if I compare with three years ago. In 2015, I totally can not understand what is this book talking about, like when I reading Romeo and Juliet, I must have a Chinese version to translate what is each scene want to tell me. In grade 10, when I was reading Lord of the Flies , I can understand 30 percent to myself. I need to use translate to understand the word, sometimes I still need to Chinese version to understand some difficult sentence. This time, I can understand book about 65 to 70 percent. This book have some difficult word, so I still need to translate. However, I can see I grow a lot in this three years. Especially when I do not know the word means, I can guess though the sentence and

Context. The reason is my vocabulary improved. I remember the words after I used translate, so I can memories when I see these words next time.

   Third is I will try to understand what is this context want to tell me. In the book, have some very important or very famous context like “To be or not to be” in Hamlet. Formerly, when I read this part, I just read and go to next part, I never thinking what is this part want to tell us, but right now, I will stop reading and thinking about why Hamlet said this

monologue and what is the meaningful about this monologue. I also go to the Internet to search this monologue and find how do other people understand this passage? Then I combine to my idea and totally understand this famous monologue.

   I can see I changed a lot, I want to be a good reader and I am working on it. I want to get some good habit in reading. Like sit down and just read in two hours. Reading is a good way to eliminate boring not the video game or watch TV.

   1984 is a dystopian novel. In this book, author Orwell portrays a suffocating world of horror. In the imaginary future society, the dictator takes the pursuit of power as the ultimate goal, humanity is completely killed by power, freedom is completely deprived, and the mind is severely restrained.

   The one theme both presence in Hamlet and 1984 is madness.

   In Hamlet, throughout the play, Hamlet displays many characteristics indicative of madness. First is at beginning, he saw the ghost about his father but other people do not see it, especially his mother. That means at that time, Hamlet might be already mad.

   Many facts can cause Hamlet madness. His father was murdered by his uncle and his mother was married with the uncle again. Hamlet could not accept it and he pretended to be crazy, then went to test the king.

   When Hamlet face to women, he can not use the normal tone. Ophelia love Hamlet but Hamlet told she “Get thee to a nunnery. Why wouldst thou be a breeder of sinners?” (Act 3, Scene 1, 131). In this sentence shows  Hamlet has misogyny. He is very madness because his mother remarried very soon. He thought this is unfaithful and incestuous. Hamlet also madness with women, he vented his angry to Ophelia.

   In Hamlet, Ophelia is madness too. She is Polonius’s daughter. Ophelia likes her father, she often listens to what her father said. That’s why when Polonius was killed by Hamlet, she felt very mad, she thought her spiritual pillar is gone, Hamlet also insult her. In Ophelia mind, she can not walk out the shadow, finally, she suicide.

When Hamlet come back from England, he was very mad after learning that she committed suicide. This is the result about Ophelia suicide. Hamlet is very mad and he wanted to duel with Laertes. Hamlet is so mad when he know Claudius is the killer to kill his father and Gertrude. Hamlet’s madness influence so many people died including himself.

   In 1984, this book is talking about a madness world. At beginning the book, Orwell describe the world of despair, war, sentimental anger; electric screen, surveillance and tracking; idol, absolute worship; truth, tampering with history.   

  The word cause Winston madness, he can not find the goal about his life and he is crazy in the end. He is a smart man, he is dissatisfied with the party's affairs, so he wants to oppose the party. However, due to the monitoring of his older brother, he had to accept the reality, and finally he was transformed by his older brother.

·       Blog 3： reviews my independent books

   In 1984, this book is talking about a madness world. At beginning the book, Orwell

describe the world of despair, war, sentimental anger; electric screen, surveillance and tracking; idol, absolute worship; truth, tampering with history.

   When Winston met Julia, his madness factor could not stand. He began to do things that he once couldn't think of, having a lover, a house without a curtain, and those of the bourgeoisie, as well as love and trust, and anti-Party things. This is the time when he is the happiest and most insane. But he and Julia are aware that doing so means that they are getting closer and closer to each other, and each time they get together, the fear is closer. That’s why the plot turned sharply, and when Winston and Julia felt the warmest and most powerful, a cold voice sounded: "You are the dead." When I read this, I really felt that I was shuddering. The good hopes were always arranged. They were already in the conspiracy of others, but they didn't know it, and we didn't know it. So when the truth is revealed, it smells a very cruel taste.

What follows is what you can imagine. Winston and Julia have accepted extremely brutal physical persecution and mental abuse. This kind of persecution is unbearable. Its purpose is not simply to persecute you, but to change you, so that when you die, you die with reverence and love for your older brother. You won't be a hero of rebellion, you will never exist, no one will remember you. So in the mysterious room of 101, Winston completely sold his soul when he faced the mouse he was most afraid of in his life, and completed the transformation he had.

   He was released, which is undoubtedly temporary. His important thing every day is to drink the gin in the chestnut cafe. The electric screen is still endless. On this day, there was news of the victory of the war. He couldn’t help but be ecstatic. He knew that he had achieved a change of reincarnation. At this time his soul was white as snow. He walked in the white tiled corridor, like walking in the sun, behind the bullet that had been waiting for a long time.

   The madness world changed the world also changed the madness Winston. That madness party have thoroughly turned Winston into a goalless, blindly worshipping the party, without the waste of thinking. Such people have not been in any danger to the party structure. Now, Winston only loves his big brother, even if he is shot with his back, he can't erase his love for his big brother.

·       Blog 4: makes connections between your independent reading and the world

      The long history shows that people wants freedom, people don't want to be tied. The human has a magic power stay under the heart, people do not know in which day, this magic power will break out, this perfect world will going to the destruction. The real one hundred percent perfect world is not presence.

      At this world, people is self struggle, this is an endless things, because the people’s desire is endless. Converse, people is creative. After World War II, lots country need to rebuild and people use their power to build new city and creative new world. The nature of man’s kind is not perfect even in some respects is extremely ugly, but we can not kill it because of some ugliness face, it may bring the unique value of human’s existence. People need to recognize ourselves and to guide ourselves. The world is not beautiful and people is not perfect. The way to make the life better is not the question each other, the way we need to do is the build the world together, we must believe everyone not use the camera to monitor.

           Right now, the world is not peace, Arab region still have war. In the book, the idea is “war is peace” This is totally wrong. The world need peace and people can develop the country. The peace is one important thing for the world. Nobody like to see World War III happened at one day. If World War Three happened, no country will benefit from it and people will suffer died and injury. Stop the war, world need peace.

     In 1984 , Against pleasure is not allowed, like eat chocolate, cigarette, and alcohol is irregular，but right now, these things is very popular around the world. Like e – cigarette is popular especially in teenager. They can get e-cigarette easily, however this is  illegal. Nicotine is an unhealth chemicals, teenagers can not touch this, but this is hard to supervision. In the book, Winston is very angry because he can not drink the wine, but in our life this is still not good, whenever for adult or for teenager.

           1984 want to warn us the consequence if loosing out freedom and our mind. George Orwell wants to tell us the world we created whenever it’s love, mind or anything else, this is not perfect. The things we need to do is the control the world and do our best to control this world. People need to have own mind, can not listen to someone forever.   This world depends on us to build.

[junker-town]

Rookies hit a ton of home runs in 2017, but it wasn’t the all-time best season for rookie dingers

Which season had a higher percentage of rookie home runs than any other? The answer .............. might surprise you.

There were a lot of reasons for the baseball card boom of the 1980s, but I submit to you that nothing was more responsible than the overwhelming quantity of badass rookie cards available to a kid in 1987. Maaaaybe these are just the ramblings of an old man who’s had one too many nips from the nostalgia flask, but there was nothing like cracking open a pack of wood-paneled 1987 Topps and watching the rookie cards fall out: Will Clark, Ruben Sierra, Cory Snyder, Barry Larkin, Rafael Palmeiro, Bobby Bonilla, Benito Santiago, Kal Daniels, Andres Galarraga, Kevin Seitzer, Kelly Gruber, Wally Joyner, Danny Tartabull, Pete Incaviglia, Jose Canseco, Mark McGwire, Barry Bonds ... my god, it’s beautiful. I want a pack right now.

ANYWAY, the point is that there a lot of fine hitting rookies back in 1986. Some of them flamed out, and some of them got better and better, but it’s not out of place to suggest that there was something of a youth movement that year. Of the 3,813 home runs hit in ‘86, nearly 12 percent were hit by rookies.

Is that a lot? I wanted to find out. Not because of 1986, but because of 2017. This was the year of Aaron Judge and Cody Bellinger, sure, but it was also the year of Rhys Hoskins, Matt Olson, and Paul DeJong. It felt like with every roster I looked at, there was at least one rookie in double-digit homers*, and it got me wondering about the homer-happy rookie seasons from the last 50 years.

Which seasons from the past 50 years have featured a higher percentage of home runs hit by rookies? Here are the top five:

5. 1982 — 3,379 total home runs, 427 by rookies (12.64 percent)

Oh, there are some names here, but this is partly a function of the low-power ‘70s bleeding through into the next decade. There were nearly half as many home runs hit in 1982, and while some of that had to do with there being 26 teams instead of 30, it was still the anthesis of 2017. If you brought someone from ‘82 immediately to Game 5 of the 2017 World Series, well, he or she would suffer the same fate as the panelist from Scanners.

There are names you recognize, of course, like Cal Ripken, Kent Hrbek, Gary Gaetti, Tom Brunansky, and Chili Davis. But there were still only 12 rookies to hit double digits in home runs, and a third of those were Twins (including the other Randy Johnson).

The ‘82 season doesn’t show up because it was a harbinger of homer doom, but because it was a sad skeleton of a dinger golem.

4. 2017 — 6,105 total home runs, 798 by rookies (13.07 percent)

I really thought this would be the winner. It was the inspiration for the Play Index rummaging that consumed hours, and it’s always fun when those searches don’t bear fruit. I thought this would be a sign, a trend.

Extra, Extra (pronounced “Ex-tree”): Kids are swinging harder and getting bigger, and what with the computer modeling and travel ball, this trend is here to stay, boy, howdy!

Of course, we’re talking percentages. When it comes to raw totals, there were more rookie home runs in 2017 than ever, and second place is more than 100 homers away. If you’re looking for the greatest rookie dinger season in history, regardless of context, this is it. Ten different rookies had 20 homers or more, which broke the previous record by four.

3. 1972 — 2,534 total home runs, 341 by rookies (13.46 percent)

A question I get a lot is if I’m ever going to write a baseball book. It’s a tricky question, because when I’m not watching baseball or writing about baseball for my day job, I retreat into a bunker that was developed by NASA scientists to keep baseball from coming in. There is not a single neutrino of baseball that can penetrate this fortress of solitude. I love baseball, but I have my limits.

But if I were to write a baseball book, it would be about baseball in the ‘70s. It’s so gnarly. Attendance is awful. There’s Astroturf all over the place. There’s baseball in strange, new places that haven’t quite taken to it yet. There are riots because of both cheap beers and disco records. And the game is pretty boring, at least by home run standards. There were more home runs hit through the middle of June this year than were hit in the entirety of 1972.

That written, the rookies had a chunk of them. There were just 11 rookies in double digits, but they were led by Dave Kingman, followed by 29-year-old rookie Bobby Darwin, who sure looks like a player who got hosed by the high-strikeout stigma of years past. After that, there were Carlton Fisk, Greg Luzinski, Dusty Baker, Don Baylor, and Ben Ogilvie, all future thumpers.

Mostly, though, it was just a down year for home runs because the ‘70s was an unspeakably dumb baseball decade.

2. 2015 — 4,909 total home runs, 691 by rookies (14.08 percent)

Even with Bellinger and Judge, this is the real recent champion. Kris Bryant and Joc Pederson led the way with 26, which means they didn’t even combine to hit as many homers as Judge in his rookie season, but it was a deep roster of rookies. There were 26 of them who hit double-digit home runs, from the 30-year-old Clint Robinson to Mark Canha to Alex Guerrero to Preston Tucker.

Note that this was before the juiced/slippery/low-seamed baseballs, too. This rookie surge didn’t have a lot to do with a general spike in the home run rate. There were just a lot of hard-swinging rookies compared to normal.

Just four rookies had 20 homers or more, which isn’t a big deal. That was the case in 1977 (Wayne Gross, Ruppert Jones, Mitchell Page, and Eddie Murray), so the good showing in these rankings wasn’t concentrated at the top. It was in the middle. There were 26 rookies with 10 homers or more, which is more than any other season, including 2017.

If you’re looking for a larger trend, here are the top three seasons in baseball history when it comes to rookies with 10 home runs or more: 2015, 2016, 2017. That probably means something more than “there sure are a lot of home runs these days,” but I’m not smart enough to figure out what.

1. 1969 — 3,119 total home runs, 446 by rookies (14.3 percent)

Surprised? I was! There are a couple of things going on here:

There were two new expansion teams, which meant a lot more at-bats for rookies

The mound was lowered after The Great Offense Suffocation of 1968

I’m not sure why that second one would help rookies specifically. Work with me here.

It’s not like there was a bumper crop of rookies that year, either. Bobby Murcer and Nate Colbert had long, productive careers, but it’s not like Bill Melton, Larry Hisle, and Coco Laboy set the world on fire after their strong starts. I’m willing to file this under “just one of those things.”

My original question was if more home runs were hit by rookies in 2017 by percentage than any other year. The answer was no, but it was close. I’m pretty sure I asked the wrong question, but the research was done, so, here, have whatever this article is.

When it comes to rookies hitting 20 homers or more? There’s never been an era like this one. Even though there aren’t kids today who are experiencing the thrill of the rookie dinger boom through the wonder of jaw-exploding gum, maybe they’re just as exciting about all these rookies while playing MLB: The Show, and it’s basically the same feeling.

Maybe.

I still love those 1987 cards, even though I’m still mad at Topps for making it so that it wasn’t Mark McGwire’s real rookie card. If they’re going to do that, where is the Will Clark Olympic card? I have a lot of thoughts about this, and it’s a long offseason, so buckle in, pal.