The Fault in our Stars

I finally, FINALLY read The Fault in our Stars.
I'm so terrible at writing book reviews.
It was fantastic. I loved it and I'm not okay right now.
How can one book make me feel that emotional?
That's all.

Having Fun With Google Translate

I translated this into a few different languages and back to English:

All that is gold does not glitter,
Not all those who wander are lost,
The old that is strong does not whither,
Deep roots are not reached by the frost.
From the ashes a fire shall be woken,
A light from the shadows shall spring,
Renewed shall be blade that was broken,
The crownless again shall be king.

Until I got this:

All the gold morning sickness
Do not lose them all
Ma, all its flower from the body powerful
O ye ice and not take deep root, and arrive
Shivered fire you
In the dark area
Innovation is a broken knife
The throne, the crownless elected

Why Myers Briggs is Not Really Accurate

Hello. Sorry for the long delay in posting. Not that there is actually anyone reading this blog. Anyway, I am going to talk about Myers Briggs. I love Myers Briggs. It is simple and easy to understand and it helps me understand people. But it's actually kind of stupid. The reason I say this is because, like every other kind of personality typing system, it's a way of looking at people, and not a description of the people themselves. The way I see it, your type does not define you in any way, it simply predicts what you might do and how you might behave, and possibly what you feel and think about things. In a way, I think it works better for fictional characters than it does for real people. Real people are so infinitely complicated that it is impossible to describe someone using four letters.

Also, functions. I honestly think functions are stupid. That doesn't mean I don't use them. I do. But technically, all the functions do is make a simple thing complicated. I don't think they are accurate at all, and even if they were, they're much too difficult to determine. For example, take my type, INTJ. My functions are (in order)

Introverted Intuition
Extroverted Thinking
Introverted Feeling
Extroverted Sensing

So, these functions are supposed to describe me, right? Well, they kind of do. Introverted intuition fits me pretty well. So does extroverted thinking. But then again, introverted thinking actually describes me too. Almost as much as extroverted thinking does. Also, I think introverted sensing describes me much better than extroverted sensing.

I don't think things should be more complicated than they have to be. That's all I'm saying. You can only truly understand something if you can explain it to someone who knows nothing about it. Sorry, is that a quote from Einstein or something? Anyway, for that reason, it is impossible to understand Myers Briggs. It's just a way of looking at things. Just a pair of glasses. Glasses can help you see, but they only show you the world in a certain way. People look at the world in all kinds of ways. That's what makes us all different. I simply prefer to look at people through the lens of Myers Briggs because it makes sense to me. It helps explain things that in reality don't have an explanation.

Every single thing a human thinks is influenced by the way they look at the world. Even science. Science is supposed to be about figuring out what stuff is truly like instead of looking at it through a lens, but that's really impossible since we humans are so stupid and so tiny. It's one of the things that annoys me most about the universe. No matter how hard I try not to be influenced and to see the world the way it actually is, I can't. Sometimes I think that's because the world isn't actually a certain way and that it's just our perceptions that matter.  And that's why I like Myers Briggs. It's one of my favourite lenses.

Okay, I did not expect this post to go in that direction. I am very sorry for taking up your time. No seriously. I'm just a 15 year old girl who is as stupid as anyone else. Please ignore me.

My Life and Stuff

Hello. This post will pretty much be completely random so you're probably better off not reading it. It's about me (and stuff).

Sooo... since my last reading post I have read:

• Extras (It was okay.)
• I am the Messenger (I read this for school and I liked it... I think.)

And I have started reading

•  A Study in Scarlet (Which is seriously boring but it's old so I expected that.)

 I have watched:

• Ender's Game (It was okay. I got annoyed at it a lot.)
• Most of season 5 of Doctor Who (Which is really awesome and I can't stop thinking about it.)

I will most likely not be posting very much at all for the next two weeks because I am going camping and doing other stuff.

Reading Updates

Since my last post on the the books I've been reading I have read:

• The first two Vampire Academy books (They're okay.)
• The Uglies Trilogy (Though I haven't read Extras yet.)
• The Son of Sobek (Anyone who has read both Percy Jackson and the Kane Chronicles must read this. You have no choice.)
• The first three books in The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy Trilogy (For some reason my library doesn't have the fourth book.)
• Speaker for the Dead (A kind of sequel to Ender's Game. I liked it though I'm not completely sure why.)

My Opinion: The Top 25 Awesomest Characters #5

I've written four "Top 25 Favourite Characters" lists before, as it changes often. Here are the links to my first four:

My Opinion: The Top 25 Awesomest Book Characters

My Opinion: The Top 25 Awesomest Book Characters #2

My Opinion: The Top 25 Awesomest Book Characters #3

My Opinion: The Top 25 Awesomest Characters #4

Here is an updated addition with some major changes. I rethought some of my old opinions.

25. Ender Wiggin from Ender's Game
24. Suzy Turquoise Blue from Keys to the Kingdom
23. Tris Prior from Divergent
22. Sadie Kane from The Kane Chronicles
21. June Iparis from Legend
20. Sam Gamgee from The Lord of the Rings
19. Jem Carstairs from The Infernal Devices
18. Eowyn from The Lord of the Rings
17. Bilbo Baggins from The Hobbit
16. Tessa Gray from The Infernal Devices
15. Frank Zhang from The Heroes of Olympus
14. Hazel Levesque from The Heroes of Olympus
13. Will Herondale from The Infernal Devices 
12. Katniss Everdeen from The Hunger Games
11. Rose Tyler from Doctor Who 
10. John Watson from Sherlock BBC 
9. Neville Longbottom from Harry Potter
8. Annabeth Chase from Percy Jackson
7. Hermione Granger from Harry Potter
6. Percy Jackson from Percy Jackson
5. Albus Dumbledore from Harry Potter
4. Luna Lovegood from Harry Potter
3. Gandalf from The Lord of the Rings
2. Sherlock Holmes from BBC Sherlock 
1. The Doctor from Doctor Who

Houses and Factions for the Billionth Time

I made a table. I like making tables. It shows the correlation between Hogwarts Houses and Factions (Yeah, I know, I've done that 200 times already). The table shows how common it is for a Ravenclaw to also be an Erudite, a Gryffindor to also be a Dauntless and so on.

	Ravenclaw	Gryffindor	Hufflepuff	Slytherin
Erudite	Obviously very common as both Erudite and Ravenclaw value intelligence.	Not very common. Gryffindors are unlikely to value intelligence enough to be in Erudte and most Erudite would not be considered brave.	Very uncommon. Erudite are rarely kind and loyal and (no offense) Hufflepuffs on average do not have above average intelligence.	Quite common. Perhaps as common as Erudite/Ravenclaw. Many Erudite are willing to go to any means to get what they want and Slytherins can be very intelligent.
Dauntless	Very uncommon. Not many Ravenclaws would be cut out for Dauntless and the Dauntless would find Ravenclaw extremely dull.	Very common, as both focus on bravery, though the two are more different then most people seem to think.	Quite uncommon, though not impossible. I have a hard time imagining this, though.	Quite common. Slytherins can be just as reckless as Gryffindors, and both Dauntless and Slytherins aren’t usually very nice.
Amity	Not very common. Ravenclaws generally don’t mind conflict, which means they’re not likely to choose Amity.	Not likely, since Amity avoid conflict and Gryffindors are willing to fight if necessary.	Very common. Hufflepuffs are the most peaceful of the houses and value kindness, just like the Amity do.	Very, very, very uncommon. These two are kind of the opposite and I don’t see how someone could possibly be an Amity Slytherin.
Candor	Fairly common. Ravenclaws value the truth.	Not very common, but not unheard of. Gryffindors can be very honest.	Kind of common, though many Hufflepuffs might lie if it would hurt someones feelings. Still, not impossible.	Fairly common. Slytherins do tend to say what’s on their mind (though they usually have to problem lying). I think Slytherins are more likely to be Dauntless or Erudite.
Abnegation	Quite uncommon. Abnegation, being so selfless, would not fit well into the mostly self centered Ravenclaws and Ravenclaws would find Abnegation tedious.	Fairly common. Many Gryffindors are very selfless, in fact it is one of their defining traits, and as Tris says, selflessness and bravery are kind of the same thing.	Quite common. Being so kind and helpful, Hufflepuffs wpuld generally do well in Abnegation.	Extremely uncommon. Practically impossible. Selflessness goes against the nature of Slytherins in every way possible.