Turn on the Faucet

I know I did a fairly random post yesterday, but I have to do another one today.  I watched a documentary last night (I know... I'm like an old person with all these documentaries lately), and it really opened my eyes about some things.

It's a film called "Tapped," and it's about bottled water.

I had heard a good bit of what the documentary told me.  Plastic bottles have chemicals that can cause cancer and other problems, some companies bottle tap water, and the bottles have very detrimental environmental effects.  However, this documentary showed images that I can't get out of my head.

So many un-recycled bottles make their way to our oceans.  Plastic doesn't break down like organic materials... it takes a very long time.  Plus, it washes up on our beaches.

[source]

Is this what you want future generations to play in when they visit the beach?  It's not what I want.

Those plastic pieces also are being ingested by marine animals and fish.  It's killing entire populations. 

[source]

Is this what you want to find when you eat your filet of fish?  It's not what I want.

It's not even just the environmental effects that are so crazy.  It's the fact that these companies producing bottled water take it from small towns like many of us grew up in.  Did you know that when Georgia was in a very serious drought several years ago (one in which lakes were at the lowest recorded levels) and everyone else was on severe water restrictions that the Coca-Cola bottling company was still pumping water out of local lakes and streams to bottle water--  many of which were sold back to people in Georgia?  How about them apples?

And the politics behind it all?  Oh, it's frustrating.  Politicians are pretty much working for the bottling companies that are bottling our free tap water and selling it back to us.  Does anyone else see something wrong with this?

Now that I've told you some of the juicy tidbits, I should tell you that there's much more.  I highly recommend  that you guys check this film out.  It will change your way of thinking, and you will want to turn on that tap more often.  

Here's the trailer so you can check it out.  The full length version can be found on Netflix, for sure, but I'm sure you can find it other places as well.

Snubbed?

Warning:  Today's post is a bit of a rant/question session dealing with literature-- yeah, I'm a nerd.  Read on if you dare...

For the past few days I've been a reading machine in an effort to "take a break" and get through my island fever.  

 [source]

I mean I read just about all day... for three days.  In that time, I read three  fairly long books.

And I think it helped.  It transported me to a new place where I met new people (if only in my head).

Now, I'm sure the next question someone would ask would be,"What did you read?"  Well, I read what my past teachers called "brain candy," and I loved every minute of it.  I am not ashamed to admit that I read some "romance novels" by Jodi Thomas.  They were set in Texas in the 1850s, and while the storyline may not always be realistic (that's not what I'm looking for when I look for an "escape"), the settings and historical details were certainly researched.   

For some reason, it seems there is a stigma attached to "romance novels" or "mystery novels" or "fantasy novels," and despite majoring in English in college, I'm afraid I still don't understand this stigma.  I certainly understand the value of well-written literature-- the kind that can be analyzed and discussed.  I've read more than my share of Shakespeare, Dostoevsky, and Faulkner, and I appreciate and respect such literature.  However, I still don't understand why other writers who write more light-hearted work for the purpose of entertaining so often get snubbed and belittled. 

Do writers of thrillers, romance, mystery, and fantasy really do nothing?  Do they do less research on a subject?  Are their writing styles and diction really so inferior?  Do they not plan and draft and revise their works the same way?  I don't understand.

I also don't understand why readers of these "non-literature" works seem to be looked down upon.  To me, reading is reading.  My eyes are still moving across the page, I'm still taking in new information, and my imagination is still being put to good use.  Why is it less important when I read something with a happy ending or a somewhat predictable outcome?  Aren't so many of the "classics" based on well-known archetypes which might make them predictable as well?  It just doesn't make sense to me.  I remember hearing some of my college professors saying very condescending things about the writers of anything but the classics, and it still bothers me thinking about it.  I truly think it's those kinds of attitudes that crush young people's attitudes towards reading in the first place.

Would it not be better to teach a young person that a book is just a portable personalized movie and that they can read any kind of story they want?  That they aren't "wrong" if they don't find Heart of Darkness or Crime and Punishment interesting?  That it's okay if they want to hear a story that's not full of death and some of the terrible realities of life that are found in As I Lay Dying?  Call me crazy, but I think it would be best to start accepting pretty much all forms of writing as acceptable reading. (Note, I mean within reason... I'm certainly not pushing "mature" literature or anything of the such, and I understand keeping things age appropriate.)  It seems to be acceptable to enjoy a "chick flick" at the movies, so why not a romance novel?  It's acceptable to enjoy mysteries and thrillers, so why not mystery novels?  And "Avatar" was a very well-decorated and respected movie, so why not science fiction novels?  It just doesn't make sense to me. 

Does anyone else feel this way?  Have any of you ever questioned this?  Maybe I'm a little nutty?