An Unrelated Rant

Okay. So this has nothing to do with my blog, but I’ve got to say it. DON’T GO TRICK-OR-TREATING IF YOU’RE NOT GOING TO DRESS UP!!!!!!!

It’s bad enough most of the kids are bundled up in so many layers that you can’t tell if he’s a mummy who likes to ski or an Eskimo vampire, but don’t defame the holiday by shaving the essentials!

My inspiration for this rant came while I was out driving (looking for the ritzy side of town and Mr. Moneybags). I saw a gaggle of teeny-boppers on cell phones who apparently thought they were too cool for costumes but not for free candy. If they came to my door I wouldn’t give them a freaking M&M! Well actually, if they came to my door I wouldn’t be there; I’d be out trying to find some random kid I could take trick-or-treating so I could convince Mr. Moneybags I wasn’t an over-age freak who had no right to be begging a candy bar.

At least I had a costume.

Anyway, I wanted to roll down my window and give them a good drive-by-harangue but I realized it wouldn’t communicate. First of all, who listens to the ravings of a 28 year old in an Iron Man costume? Second of all, I realized at the last moment how horrifyingly like my dad I would sound. I kept the window closed and glowered in the moment.

I finally found a rich gated community, but the gates were gated. Well, I was dressed like Iron Man wasn’t I? Twenty minutes, and a tear in my costume later, I was over the fence and trying to mingle with the rich kids who were trick-or-treating in their own community. And then I saw them . . . a whole slew of little kids not wearing costumes! No cheap, mommy-made hand-me-downs, no expensive Spiderman costumes (with real web-slinging action), nothing. I couldn’t hold it any longer.

I guess the cops understood where I was coming from, cause they drove me out of the community and let me go just outside the gates. In retrospect I guess the whole thing was a tad unnecessary. If a bunch of stupid kids want to ruin the holiday I love so much (and consequently, can’t let go of), let em! It wouldn’t be the first time. Look what they did to Valentines Day! No one in first grade loves anybody . . . how dare they use the sacred “L” word.

In the end it was I who lost out. I’m sure my sermonette fell of deaf ears (no one takes a 28 year old in an Iron Man costume seriously) and I didn’t get that king size 3 Musketeer Mr. Moneybags was handing out. But I’ll sleep well tonight nonetheless . . . cause this Iron Man can climb a mean fence.

http://kevinolsen.wordpress.com/category/candy/

“My Heroes”

“Save the cheerleader, save the world.”

Do these words kindle excitement in your soul? Then you’re either way too involved with high school cheerleading or you’re one of the chosen; those who see the true awesomeness of the T.V. show Heroes.

As most of you know the second season of NBC’s Heroes is in full swing. But I’m not here to talk about this year’s installment . . . that will come later. I’m here to discuss the beginnings, the genesis of Heroes.

This phenomenon is one of the few shows that rightly deserved all the hype. The story line was fantastic, the characters were both extremely believable and totally loveable, and the cinematography rivaled that of the big screen. Though the basic plot is not, in itself, original (it compares with movies like Spiderman &  The Incredibles) it has moved the super-hero genre into the living room. I see this show actually being an extension of M. Night Shyamalan’s Unbreakable. We’re introduced to a cast of real people who’re grappling with a shocking change in their DNA. And just like Bruce Willis in Unbreakablethe cast is 100% believable. The action takes place at school, in the kitchen, on the job, and it occurs without the over-dramatic, sensationalized, uber-action that saps a scene of its humanity. I’m reminded of Claire as she saved the fireman. Nothing fancy, just a bunch of flames, but powerful nonetheless.

Of course this has everything to do with the writing. I bow before the genius that crafted those scripts and I offer up virgin sacrifices on the alter of jealousy. The personal conflict, the multi-faceted plot lines that weave in and out of each other seamlessly, and the unique villains kept me lapping at their creative river. And can you believe they created all of that without constantly throwing sex into our faces or demeaning our intelligence with vociferous profanity? I thought family values and good old character didn’t sell anymore?

In the future (I know because I’ve been there) I’ll deal more thoroughly with the characters, plot, and overal themes of the second season. Until then, keep watching on Monday nights . . . and keep visiting Kevin Olsen: Artist.

Is that scary?

Halloween brings more to the table than candy and excuses to play dress-up . . . it showcases a movie genre that is often overlooked- the “horror film.” But how horrific are these scary movies?

What is scary? What makes you have bad dreams? What creeps you out in the dark? You may have the answers to these questions, but apparently Hollywood doesn’t.

1. Gore doesn’t scare. Blood and guts gross people out, but the vast majority of people aren’t afraid of intestines, regardless of how real they look.

2. Big Computer-Generated monsters don’t scare. Our movie-going society has seen it all. Just because your monster is ugly, has a blade for an arm, and has seventeen arms, doesn’t make it inherently scary.

3. Bulky, slowness doesn’t scare. You think they’d learned their lesson with the Mummy. A stiff legged, barely-can-hobble-down-the-country-lane monster is lame . . . especially when he manages to catch the heroine who just so happens to be setting a new land-speed record. Kind of like that ghostly cloud of dust at the end of House on Haunted Hill.

So what’s really scary? Most of the things you can’t find in movies.

Imagine something. You don’t know what is, you haven’t really gotten a good look at it. All you know is it’s been on a killing spree. But you do know this something is very small. Not only that, but you know it’s fast; it can get you before you breath to scream. So what scares? Unassuming, sometimes “little” things. Especially when those little things are fast.

But the scariest thing of all time is suspense. Suspense is expecting something even though you don’t know what to expect. The unknown can reduce people to tears. Fear of the unknown haunts our daily lives. This happens because your imagination blows the unknown way out of proportion. Scary C.G.I. isn’t as petrifying as your imagination.

So why don’t these things make it into movies? Well, the unknown is hard to film, and it takes a lot of talent to write a genuinely suspenseful script. But there are a few titles that distinguish themselves from the rest. For example, there’s, um . . . well, don’t forget about the . . . yeah. Well, don’t ask me to name them just now.

Poetry

Real men write poetry.

I believe the stereotypical “differences” between men and women need to be burned at the stake. Some of the greatest poets of all time were men, and I would venture to say that the greatest poet of all time was a man.

For these reasons and more, I will feature some of my own poetry in “The Occasional Poet” section of my blog (http://kevinolsen.wordpress.com/poetry/). I hope to start a blog dedicated entirely to my poetry, but the time for that is not yet ripe. Until then, feel free to enjoy my articles and peruse my poems.

Halloween Candy: Kevin’s All Time Picks

Discussing your favorite Halloween candy can be as dangerous as arguing about sports, politics, religion, or the best “Sleep Number” of all time. But, despite the controversy, I’ll be happy to share some of my all-time favorites on the candy cuisine. I am a candy addict with no plea for anonymity, so this is a glorious topic to undertake.

First off, I would have to say my favorite fare are the fruity things. Skittles, Starbursts, Laffy-Taffy, Nerds, and the countless other snacks that leave your tongue purple. I’d take Gummi Worms over M&M’s any day. I don’t even care if it’s some kind of generic lolly-pop or hard candy . . . give it to me, baby.

But I’m not going to turn down a scrumptious piece of chocolate either. I do enjoy normal things like Snickers, 3 Musketeers, Kit-Kat, and Twix. But if you want to know what the best chocolate ever made is I’ll have to throw off my patriotism for a moment. My refined chocolate-eating sensabilities prefer Cadbury (English chocolate) and Ritter Sport (German chocolate) to our domestic brands. There’s not a single U.S. chocolatly concoction that stands a chance when faced with the smooth, creamy goodness of Cadbury and Ritter Sport. Still, if it has to be from the candy cauldrons of the U.S. then hit me with something peanut-buttery: Reeses here I come! Hey, if they’re good enough for E.T. . . !

Either way, you can’t really be picky when pounding the pavement Halloween night. In fact, if doesn’t really matter what they give you. I know that shounds shocking coming from somone with strong candy opinions, but it’s the truth. It’s not what you get, it’s how much. If you’re lucky enough to brake into a rich, gated-community, and your vinal, fake booted-sneakers find the porch of Mr. Moneybags, you might actually receive a WHOLE candy bar. Of course you can’t always count on that kind of generosity, so just remember this ain’t no candy store: come prepared.

1. Forget the plastic pumpkin . . . grab a pillow case, cardboard box, or fifty-gallon drum.

2. Hit every house, regardless of what they gave you last year.

And 3. Bring little kids. It doesn’t matter if they’re siblings, cousins, or some borrowed waif . . . you can always “trade” out the stuff you don’t like later and there’s no way Mr. Moneybags is going to hand a 28 year old an entire 3 Musketeer’s Bar unless you’re towing a child.

I know . . . I do it every year.

 

Also check out this post: http://kevinolsen.wordpress.com/2007/10/31/an-unrelated-rant/

The Force: Which side is Stronger?

Some would argue the Force is based off of the Yin-Yang principle: two equal sides of a complete whole, but Lucas didn’t see it that way.

In life there’s always a choice to be made, whether to participate in good deeds or evil deeds. Yet it does not matter how many people clothe themselves in black or how many befriend R2 units, each side is only as powerful as the weapons in its arsenal; green and red light sabers excluded.

The Sith have an appearance of power since their “control” of the force is more impressive. Darth Vader was capable of tearing just about anything apart simply by willing it. What did Luke do during the first few movies? But this is an unfair distinction for one glaring reason: Darth Vader (with the exception of Yoda) was the only Jedi Master left. Luke was the proverbial baby. Even in the last movie, though Luke’s skills were improving, the special effects didn’t allow us a very good glimpse of the true range of his abilities. Thankfully, in the newest trilogy, Lucas brought the balance of power back into correct proportion. Darth Maul battled two Jedis at once (one of which was a master) without breaking a black and red sweat. But no one, not even diminutive Yoda, was left out of the “impressive abilities” category. Sure, Dooko pulled down a massive piece of equipment, but look who kept it from falling.

It may also be argued that the Dark Side of the Force is more powerful because of its number of adherents. Popularity is never the measure of a belief system. If that were the case mankind would still believe the world is flat, the earth is the center of the universe, and that bathing regularly is bad for their health.

The true judge of power is never a person’s destructive-force or public charisma. Was Hitler powerful? Was Stalin? How about Satan? No one would argue they didn’t have quite impressive and persuasive abilities. But who beat Hitler? Stalin? And Who will eventually destroy Satan? Why is it the good side of life wins out time and time again? Why is it when the bad side wins the people cringe? Lucas understood that the ability to love, to show mercy, and to glory in goodness dominates the ring regardless of the color of the blade. The Sith would destroy without a thought. The Jedis couldn’t not consider the consequences. Standing up for the trodden down, giving to those who have nothing to give, and the ability to embrace differences of opinion will overcome regardless of the opposition. Vader fought for pride. Luke fought for his father. The Emperor was selfishness incarnate. Obi-Wan gave the ultimate gift to help others.

Qui-Gon thought Anakin was going to bring balance to the Force. The little jedi did nothing more than tip it violently in the direction of darkness. It was Luke who fulfilled the prophecy. It was Luke who delivered the universe.

Which side of the force is more powerful? Which side won?

Kevin’s Response to “A Hero is Fallen”

Let it be known that all writers write from a certain world-view. No one can escape their own belief system. To write against ones beliefs would be to prove they didn’t believe it in the first place. I believe homosexuality is wrong. I don’t preach it, I leave that up to my friends, but I do stand against it when it’s thrown in my face.

What Rowling did was completely unnecessary to the character. It was a political move completely unrelated to the purpose, style, audience, and theme of the books (though some would argue it fits the theme of acceptance and tolerance, it in fact does not). That is why I’ve chosen to write about it.

From a literary standpoint, and a heaping cup of personal beliefs, I think Rowling was wrong to do what she did. As a fan I was upset, let down, and mildly offended. Had I known Dumbledore was gay I would have stopped reading the books out of principle. I believe homosexuality is wrong (and you are free to disagree).

The problem is she tossed it in at the end. It’s like a woman marrying a man, having kids with him, and developing a deep, intimate relationship and then having him leave her for another man. It’s personal. It hurts. It’s offensive the way she ”added” it in; extra-textually I might add. It’s like she was trying to hide it from people who would be offened, and then only after all those people were finnished reading (and falling in love with the character) she slaps us in the face with it. In some cases, breaking our hearts. 

That’s not writing, that’s pandering.

A Hero is Fallen: The rise and fall of Albus Dumbledore

Albus Dumbledore.

For any mature student of storytelling, his name joins ranks with Obi-Wan, Merlin, Gandalf, Yoda (2 points for Star Wars), and even Willy Wonka. For Harry Potter he fills the ever-so-necessary archetype of “all-wise-and-formidable-super-old-but-cosmically-capable-mentor.” He’s the one with the answers, the only one who can equip the protagonist and fit him to fulfill his mission. He’s he moral compass, the leader. From The Sorcerer’s Stone on we grew to love the greatest wizard of all time. His pithy words of advice, his sage-like grasp of the mysteries of life, and his incredible skill drew the humble and intimidated the proud. He was an example to be followed, a beacon to be mirrored, and a banner to be rallied behind. Then book seven was released and everything Dumbledore stood for was questioned.

Rolwing crafted a real, multi-faceted man. It may have taken thousands and thousands of pages to finally get around to it, but her character was real nonetheless. But how real does a person need to be? In the answer we find the “fall” of Dumbledore. Most sagely types are placed on a very high pedestal. Gandlaf would be a good example of this; his list of faults and poor decisions wouldn’t fill a Hobbit-sized shot glass. Even Fagan (from Oliver Twist) exhibits a one-dimensional moral compass. Though he’s basically wicked, he doesn’t stray from that path. Let us now consider Obi-Wan Kenobi. He had his faults, but those faults were regretted and eventually recompensed. What about Dumbledore? Throughout the last few books we learn about the weaknesses Dumbledore faced. He informed us of his mistakes but, in true “mentor-archetype” fashion, he regrets them and works to undo their effect. In point, the mentor stands for something. The mentor is the one who helps the hero down the chosen path. The mentor can’t be switching paths on the protagonist! If mistakes are made (and they often are) the mentor distinguishes between what was done and what should have been done and helps to re-focus the hero.

In The Deathly Hallows Rowling injects even more anti-sage qualities. By the end of the series, though Dumbledore is still to loved and admired, he’s lost a cauldron-full of respect because the success he had grew out of the monumental mistakes he made . . . mistakes he isn’t around do apologize for; which in turn leaves the audience assuming that if Albus were alive he wouldn’t have regretted those mistakes. In the end his faults were the foundation of his fame. This is not an honorable role-model.

So at the end of the series our wizened hero has come off of his pedestal and chosen one slightly more “grounded.” That’s a worse case scenario for anyone who’s read the books. But the scandal comes, not from Rowling’s pen, but her mouth . . . .

During a public reading, after the final chapter is printed, Rowling announces that Dumbledore is gay. There are 3 fundamental flaws here.

1. This information is entirely impossible to deduce from the stories themselves. Therefore can it actually be said to be true? Anyone could say that Yoda was gay. Everybody is free to write fan fiction about Willy Wonka being a pedophile . . . but is it true? The answer is no. All you know about a character is what the author gives you over the course of a story. Though there are things about the character the audience will never know, none of those things are important and could be added or subtracted without the character being changed at all. For example, to say that Albus had a cat as a child is no different than saying he had a dog since it has zero bearing on the story. Therefore you will never hear Rowling wasting air-time telling us Albus loves dogs! What an author doesn’t tell you really isn’t important to anyone other than the author.

But sexual preference, in the day and age in which we live, is very important to everybody. That’s not a pet preference. That’s not a favorite color or a child’s hobby. That’s a big deal.

2. The second problem grows from it’s revelation. If it was important enough to be in the story she would’ve written it into the story. But she saved the revelation for after the books were sold. Hmm. Makes a guy wonder if she was afraid it would effect her book sales? She didn’t write him gay, but she announces he was after the fact. Sounds like pandering to both sides. It’s like she’s thinking, “Since most of the people who buy my books wouldn’t openly associate with the gay-lifestyle I’ll avoid it. But hey, now that all the books are sold let’s sell a few more copies by causing a scene!”

If a character isn’t written gay can it be said that character is gay? If it really had anything to do with the story she would have written it in the prologue. This was a publicity stunt.

3. Dumbledore the sage, the mentor, failed in his archetype. The hero has fallen. Who can follow a man with conflicting morals? And here we get into choppy waters. You’ll either agree or you’ll disagree with me on this point: Homosexuality is wrong. It goes against the natural order, it’s condemned by God and most of the US is uncomfortable with it. The funny thing is, Rowling agrees with me. If she didn’t agree with me she would have made it obvious from the beginning that Dumbledore was gay. But she knew she was playing with a taboo. How can you create a character with every quality of wisdom, grace, wit, a strong moral compass, and solid values and then toss them casually into a role that undermines the character’s character? She could’ve written it as one of his “mistakes” which he later overcame, but no, she lists it (in retrospect) along with his virtues.

Dumbledore has fallen. He’s fallen in the eyes of millions of fans.

Or has he?

To be honest, Rolwing’s revelation doesn’t hold any more water than if she tried to convince me that Snape was a cross-dresser or that McGonigal had sexual relations with cats. It’s so far-fetched and unbelievable you’d expect to hear it from a Harry Potter Hater.

Dumbedore isn’t gay. He hasn’t transgressed his character and archetype. He’s who he was written to be. On the other hand, Rowling has fallen. She’s poured the potion, lit the fire, and has climbed into the rolling froth of the cauldron. “Double, double, toil and trouble.” The funny thing is, as a writer she didn’t do anything wrong. But as a poor lobbyist she smeared her own character.

People told the Dixie Chicks to shut up and sing. I say to Rowling, “shut up and write.” If homosexuality is that important to you, include it in the manuscript. Don’t use your fame as a springboard for a pet-sermon if you need to mislead the audience to do it. If you’re a writer than write. If you’re an activist than activate. Mix the two if you want, but don’t write a story that has nothing to do with sexuality and then claim it does after the last paycheck is cashed.

Importing Perscription Medication from Other Countries: Should We be Allowed?

Let’s talk about drugs.

He who has the drugs is a god. Whether they’re licensed doctors of sidewalk dealers, our country idolizes those who provide drugs. Doctors tell us what’s wrong with us and inform us the only way to feel better is by taking their medication. Drug dealers tell us what’s wrong with us and the only way to feel better is to take their drugs.

They’re the deities of the religious and nonreligious alike. And just like the Roman and Greek pantheons of old, the gods are capricious and often times motivated by anything other than the needs of the people. Legal and illegal drugs, the game is money; he who sells the most holds the world at bay with a lightening bolt.

American drug dealers (the legitimate kind) cannot allow us to get our meds from another country because their bottom line would slip. Antibiotics are prescribed for every ailment. Medication cures all. But why are America’s drugs better? American doctors argue that foreign drugs are in some way not as high quality as ours. Unfortunately the only people who can prove this are the ones who have something to gain from selling the drugs. The truth is most European pharmaceuticals are far better than America’s.

Let’s talk alternative medication for a second. It’s illegal to import many homeopathic remedies from Germany and France. Why? Homeopathy was, for years, the king of the medical community. It was the only profession that had real results. Medical doctors were losing their grip because their “practices” were just that failing practices. Solution? Debunk Homeopathy. Thankfully though, Homeopathy has been growing again in the U.S. Unlike medical doctors, Homeopathic doctors would prefer to get their remedies from other countries. But the FDA still won’t allow it, not because they gain money from homeopathic remedies, but simply because homeopathy would eventually put the medical profession out of business. Who would ever ingest anything not approved by the FDA? The doctors win.

The answer is simple. The gods of medicine have the best profession in the world. No one questions their wisdom and no one doesn’t pop their pills. But don’t let their lighting bolt frighten you. The closer you get the more clearly you can see that, instead of Zeus, it’s wizened DR. Smith grasping violently to his golden prescription pad.

Stop doing what’s best for the doctors. Do what doctors claim to do . . . do what’s best for YOUR health, YOUR wallet.

Nicholas Cage in Next

Nicholas Cage.

For some that name screams talent, energy, empathy, and rough good looks. For others it’s merely another way to spell “unoriginal.” Nick has done many things from chick-flicks, to action, to super-hero, to character sketches (yuck). But through it all he remains Nick Cage, bringing the good and the bad to dinner. Yes, he’s been known to patent his style and over-produce it; occasional redefining the phrase “in a rut,” but then other times wows us with a performance that leaves us wondering what muse of fire descended on his bright heaven of invention?

In Next he was better than average . . . he was pretty darn good.

On a purely aesthetic level I appreciated his new look. Though it’s reminiscent of Tom Hanks in The DaVinci Code, it worked well for him. From an acting standpoint I don’t think he did his best work, but bye-golly he sure performed better than he did in Ghost Rider.

Unlike his flaming, chain-toting vigilante, this character rang true, especially under the circumstances he was faced with. Much like in City of Angels where Cage had to become a very ethereal character, Nick handled the uniqueness of his role without succumbing to cliched motivations. No one living truly understands the pressures of knowing everything that might happen in the next five minutes. The tri-persona strain that would put on a man would drive some insane, others into a life of crime, and others into monastic solitude. His performance choices are to be applauded.

Of course the writing was very good . . . that’s like giving a blue-ribbon thoroughbred a five minute head-start. He worked the script like a pro and played against his co-stars like the seasoned vet he is. Speaking of co-stars . . . are there any beautiful women he hasn’t played opposite of?

To bring this to a close, I will say that, though this wasn’t his best work, the movie was extremely pleasing. It was written well, acted well, directed well, shot well, and probably “everything-elsed” well I can think of.

Though I won’t rub my autographed-photo of Nicholas Cage on my head before every play I’m in (well, okay maybe sometimes), I will say I look up to him for the model he exemplifies and the motivations he explores.

The Fantastic Four

Without trying to belittle anyone or hurt any one’s feelings let me say . . .The first Fantastic Four bit. Bit hard.

But it had so much potential. Let’s look at possibilties. 1. Jessica Alba. No, this is not some sort of male=pig comment. Fact: Regardless of your sex, Jessica Alba is both gorgeous and talented. 2. Special Effects. The CGI, though not top-shelf by any means, was really great. 3. The Story. Imagine all the insanely awesome things that could be done with the quartet of coolness. If you’re having a hard time dreaming something up, just grab one of their comic books: possibilities galore. Despite all of that . . . the first movie flopped. Why? The writing. Even great acting and amazing effects can’t revive a dead script or pointless plot. You’d think Hollywood would have learned that lesson by now.

What about the Silver Surfer? Did he save the franchise?

Well, the Human Torch must have been nearby because the acting was turned up a degree or two. Personally, I think some of the actors improved nicely. Special effects? Pretty darn cool. Now here’s the real test: Story. All in all, the second movie performed better than the first; at least the fab four left their hotel room this time. Also, the cast was much larger, and the action was more tremendous.

But still we’re faced with a plot-line and dialogue recovering from cliche-ism. “Super hero angst+big-wedding blues for the country girl+selfish little brother causing trouble+all the right gadgets at all the right times+idiot bad-guy who can’t see the forest for the trees+and right at the end . . . a big fat deux machina thrown in for good measure. Oh wait, that wasn’t the end. After a few of the credits roll we’re subjected to the time honored “wait-a-minute-the-good-guy-you-thought-was-dead-isn’t,” dum, dum, dum (cue the suspenseful music).

So here’s the Olsen Rating (out of 10):
Plot: 4
Writing: 3
Acting: 7
Cinematography: 6
Special Effects: 8
Theme: 7
Total: 35 out of 60 = 58%. If I throw it on a curve I’d probably give it a C-.

All in all, I think it’d be really cool to write substandard scripts for the salaries of some of these professionals. Maybe one day I’ll get my big break. Or, maybe one day I’ll be able to act next to Jessica Alba. That way she can look deep into my eyes and tell me, “I’m really hot for you right now.” Even better.

The Advantages of Homeschooling

The advantages of homeschooling far outweigh formal education.

I was home-schooled from 1st through 12th grade. My parents were on the forefront of the homeschooling revolution. Like any new system it takes a while to get a firm foot hold. During that time I was able to observe the dramatic changes that occurred in homeschooling as an educational system and homeschoolers themselves. Later on, in graduate school, I studied the system further for a project. Here are the encapsulated results of a lifetime of findings.

1. Every educator will assent to the fact that one-on-one education is categorically superior to a one-teacher-to-twenty-students ratio. The lesson takes place at the student’s speed of learning. It also gives the educator an advantage to work with only one child because they get to know the child’s preferred learning style. This is why people pay so much for private tutors.

2. Statistically, homeschooled students perform far above their public and private school counterparts. This is an obvious outcome of the aforementioned point. The parent also has the ability to choose their own curriculum. When chosen correctly, parents can obtain the best materials available.

3. Negative peer pressure is nonexistent. Take an impressionable youngster and insert them into an atmosphere chock-full of other impressionable youngsters. Sure, there are adults around . . . but what child cares more about their teacher’s acceptance than their peer’s? The problem grows out of the fact that the student’s friends are generally going to pressure them to do the wrong thing. Before you know it you have a school full of carbon copies, and most of the time their similarities are not positive attributes.

4. A common critique of homeschooling is the child will not be properly “socialized.” Though there is a small chance of this occurring, the facts swing dramatically in the other direction. A best case scenario would be for the parent to involve their child in activities where they develop friendships and are able to interact with kids their age. Take note: the advantage of having peers is not “socialization,” but simply to develop friendships. On top of going to church twice a week my parents enrolled me in the martial arts. I also played baseball on a team comprised on homeschoolers. Such activities provided multiple opportunities for interaction with kids my age. A worse case scenario would find the homeschooled child’s interaction limited to their parents and the parents’ peers. But is this really a “worse case scenario?” Assuming the parents (and their friends) are capable adults, the child spends the whole day interacting on an adult level. Statistically, homeschooled children are far more mature when it comes to their conversational abilities, vocabulary, and ability to socialize with adults. Childhood shyness fades quicker in homeschooled children as well. If “socialization” is to be defined as “the ability to fit into the cookie-cutter mold of counterparts formed by the negative peer pressure of the public school system” then it’s true that homeschoolers are lacking. But if “socialization” is to be defined as “the ability to interact with children and adults alike in a mature and independent manner” then homeschoolers generally do quite well.

If homeschoolers have historically been able to achieved better grades, become more socialized, and gain larger boosts of independence, then imagine what will happen as parents become better prepared than their counterparts of yesteryear? The same thing that’s occurring now . . . more and more families will turn to homeschooling.

 P.S. Even though this isn’t the focus of this blog, if you have any questions or interest in Homeschooling please leave me a comment and I’ll get back with you. I am passionate about homeschooling.