40 Minute Writing Challenge - Are Movies Better Than Books?

Visual media and textual media are often regarded as similar things. When they cross paths, things can get confusing. When a book is turned into a movie or television series, there are often debates on how good the movie is compared to the book/s. My take is that movies are seldom as good as the books. This is because movies tend to leave things out, they don't feed the imagination as much, and you can take as much time as you need to finish a book.

The main downside I can see to a book being made into a movie is that movies can't leave in all the details. For example, in Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Ring, quite a few details about the time between Bilbo's birthday party and Frodo's leaving are left out in the movie, such as Frodo selling Bilbo's house. This is because it's very difficult to fit the content of an entire book into between 90 minutes and 2 hours, meaning a lot of minor plot points and scenes must be removed to fit in the time frame. This can cause a few plotholes in the movies that aren't present in the books.

These plotholes can stop the watcher from getting fully immersed in the story. Books let the reader's imagination run wild and let them picture for themselves how characters would look, scenes would play out, and areas would look. It creates an entire movie-like sequence in the reader's head that matches their tastes. An example of this is when I was reading Divergent. Though I haven't watched the movie yet, one part of the book - I won't disclose which, for spoilers - made me stop reading in anxiety for a few moments, something that is very difficult to pull off. I could feel the same feelings as the main character herself, making the entire scene much more engaging.

Sometimes being too engaged in a book can be exhausting, which is why taking a break can be very helpful. Unlike while watching a movie, where it's difficult to bring yourself to pause the movie to do something else, you can read a book for as long as you need, then put it down while keeping your page. No one can sit down and read an entire 150-page novel in one go, right? Unless your mind is completely set to finishing it all at once, which can break the immersion, having a break is crucial to the reading of a book, but a disadvantage to watching a movie.

In conclusion, I believe that books are far better than movies. This is because they're more contentful, immersing, and pausable. So next time you go to watch a movie that was made from a book, read the book afterwards and try to see how much better it is.

Volcanoes

I will be studying a volcano.

I chose Mount Fuji in Honshu, Japan. It's an active composite volcano, meaning it's a cone-shaped volcano with sills and pikes branching from the main conduit. Some of the rocks found include andesite and basalt.


I didn't do the experiment involved in this research, however, many groups chose to use a chemical reaction known as elephant's toothpaste - a reaction involving hydrogen peroxide and potassium (most people use potassium iodide, but we used potassium permanganate) - to erupt the model volcanoes they had built. Most of the volcanoes built were cinder cones, similar to composites but without the sills and pikes. One group tried to use the coke and mentos reaction (a physical reaction caused by mentos creating nucleation sites for the bubbles of carbon), but the coke turned flat before the experiment could take place.

40 Minute Writing Challenge: Are Team Sports Better Than Individual Sports?

PLANNING
Argue for both sides
1. Less worry about others' skill levels (Individual)
2. Teamwork makes things easier (Team)
3. Both have similar properties

Sports aren't everyone's cup of tea. However, individual sports and team sports are highly debated over, mainly about which is better. But is one truly better than the other? I don't believe that's the case. Individual sports don't harbor any worry for other team members' skill levels, team sports can be easier due to use of teamwork, and both kinds of sports can have very similar properties when analyzed.

In individual sports, you don't have to worry about lack of skill bringing your 'team' down. In games like golf, you are the only one playing for your side, meaning you only have to think about your skill level and your opponent's. Not having to think about things like that can make individual sports much less mentally taxing, meaning you can just focus on the game. This makes playing solo much more enjoyable.

Although individual sports don't require teamwork, team sports do, which can make playing the game easier. Team sports require everyone to help to get to the objective, whether it be kicking a ball from one side of the field to the other or hitting a ball as hard as you can with a bat. In games like rugby, passing the ball from one player to the next can help to avoid the other team, making a try much easier to get. A range of different skills in one team can help too. For example, evening out a person who's amazing at passing but horrible at shooting with someone who's terrible at passing but a magnificent shooter can bring balance to a team.

So we've covered both kinds of sports, but they are wildly different. Or are they? Both sports have similar properties. Games that are normally team sports, like soccer/football or basketball, can be played as individual sports by themselves, and vice versa for games like tennis or wrestling. Even without that, they can have very similar properties. Tennis and cricket both require hitting a ball with an object, both with similar objectives - don't let the other person or team get the ball. This makes comparing the two seem more pointless.

Conclusively, there is no better type out of team sports and individual sports. They are both easier in different ways - individual sports being less mentally taxing and team sports having more members to make things easier - but either way they're very similar.

40 Minute Persuasive Writing

Is the South Island better than the North Island?
Opinion: Disagree
Points:
Tourist attractions (North)
Danger risk (South)
Nature (Both)

Aotearoa is a country consisting of many islands. However, the two main islands, North and South, have stark differences that can be difficult to recognize from an outsider. While some believe that the South Island is better than the North Island, I can't help but disagree. I have this opinion due to the North Island having a few more tourist attractions and risk of danger in the South Island, but both of these islands have interesting natural views. These all make me believe that the North Island is better off.

The North Island has many tourist attractions that make people want to visit. Even people born and raised in New Zealand, like myself, must admit that there are many attractions in the North Island they've wanted to visit, especially if they've never been to the North Island. There are buildings like Te Papa and the Auckland Skytower, as well as natural occurrences like Lake Taupo and Aoraki/Mount Cook. This, plus the relatively safe environment, make many people come to this small country.

The South Island has many dangerous factors for visitors. From devastating earthquakes that have brought down buildings and cast large pieces of land into the ocean, to the more recent mosque shootings that have still left everyone in shock, the South Island is a cause for concern worldwide. These occurrences have damaged the South Island's reputation, making tourists less likely to come here and more people that lived here to move elsewhere. But even then, there are things that people do come here to see.

The local nature in both islands is breathtakingly beautiful. From vast ocean views, to thick forests, to tall mountains, this little country has it all. The large array of native plants and animals make coming into the New Zealand bush a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, prompting people that even have already seen these sights to go out one more time and get a closer look. It really goes to show how beautiful the wildlife in this part of the world is.

In conclusion, while both islands have their flaws, the North is objectively better. Its higher amount of tourist attractions and lower rate for danger, combined with the already breathtaking natural beauty of the country, really make the North Island the ideal place for a visit. And while the South Island has its fair share of appealing aspects too, it doesn't quite compare to the North Island.