Character Dimensions... human dimensions?

Today in class we discussed the difference between a 2-D character and a 3-D character, specifically using examples from The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn which we are currently reading. To sum up what we came up with in class, we decided that 2-D characters are unchanging, stereotypes, shallow, and linear. While 3-D characters were well-rounded, adaptable, and often have a back-story. Obviously there are other qualities that could define these characters, but this was our outline. It got me wondering, though...

Do these "character dimensions" say anything about real people?
In many cases, I think that characters from books are based off of real people, or they are a combination of people that the author may know. Therefore, can one assume that the "dimension" of the character could be applied to the human model? I know you can call someone shallow or stubborn (unchanging), but do those characteristics automatically place them in a broader category... I've never heard of a person referred to as 2-dimensional that I can recall.

Also... Are the main characters usually the main characters?
As a class we decided, rather unanimously, that Huck and Jim were the only 3-dimensional characters in the book thus far. All the other, more minor characters, seemed to fit much better with our description of 2-D. I wonder if this is always the case or if this is often the cases in books. Perhaps it makes the books more interesting or more relatable to the reader if the primary character in a book is something other than a shallow, undeveloped personality.

I am rather undecided as to what I think on both issues, but what do you think?

The Giving Tree

Recently in class we have been looking at the role of women and children in American society and secret messages hidden in children's books. I'm pretty sure most people read Shel Silverstein's book, The Giving Tree, at some point during their childhood. For those of you who never read it or don't remember the story line here's a brief summary.

There is a boy and a tree, and when the boy is very young he always comes to climb the tree, swing in her (the tree is referred to as "she" in the book) branches, and eat her apples. Both of them are happy with this simple relationship and not needing more. As the boy gets older, however, he visits the tree less and less and after a long absence the boy finally goes back to the tree, but claims he is too old to play and asks the tree if she has any money she can give him. She does not, but offers him her apples to sell. Time goes by and again the boy comes back to visit, but is too old to climb the tree or swing in her branches, and again wants something from the tree. She eventually gives him everything, until she is nothing more than a stump. The boy comes back one final time and is happy to simply have a place to sit and rest, and so the tree is finally happy again.

I think, essentially, the underlying message of the story is that sometimes you have to give everything away in order to get something in return. However, I also think that there is a great significance in the fact that Silverstein calls the tree "she". It made me think that the book might have been written to show a mother-son relationship. To the kids, the message is that they should always come back to their kids and that, in the end, money and material objects are not the things that are going to bring you happiness. I also think, however, that there may be a message to the parents in this story. I believe Silverstein is encouraging parents to do everything for their children and, in the end, they will be happy.

What do you think the message might be? Is their a significance in the fact the the tree is a "she" and not a "he"?

New security measures at airports

After multiple terror scares over the holiday break, the US has decided to implement new security measures for US-bound flights, especially if you are flying from or through a country that is part of the list of "state sponsors of terrorism or other countries of interest". The list includes 14 countries, and anyone traveling through or from those countries will automatically be subject to more intensive screenings at airports. Passengers from other countries could still face increased security measures, but not necessarily.

While watching the news, it appeared that many people were criticizing the new measures as too intensive and too intrusive due to the nature of the new scans and increased number of pat-downs. However, the most controversial subject was the list of 14 countries that was compiled. Some believe that this will contribute to the narrative that the US is fighting their war against Islam and one went so far as to call it racial profiling.

What do you think? Is this list going too far or do you think it could be considered racial profiling? Are the new security measures to intense?

Ever wanted to live on the moon?

Apparently some people find the idea of setting up a permanent colony on the moon an interesting and, now, feasible idea. I, personally, am not sure I would ever want to live on the moon. It would be cool to be able to visit and walk around, but I never found the idea of outer space particularly intriguing. Some, however, now believe that it would be possible to live in or station a base in a lunar lava hole.

According to an article I read on CNN, scientists recently discovered a large hole on the moon that might be suitable for a moon colony or lunar base. The hole is situated on the near side of the moon and is about 213 feet wide and more than 260 feet deep. This hole, however, is not just any lunar lava hole; it's unique in that it is protected from the moon's harsh temperatures and meteorite strikes by a thin layer of lava. Also, it does not appear prone to collapse. It has been reported that NASA is working on plans to return to the moon by 2020 and to set up a temporary lunar colony by 2025.

I, however, do not see why we would be so inclined to colonize the moon because of the living conditions. Although, this hole could reportedly protect one from such conditions, it would mean being confined there constantly. Why do you think people are interested in colonizing the moon? Would you want to live there if you could?