Mockingjay is the third and final book of the Hunger Games trilogy by Suzanne Collins. This book was intense all the at through...until the end. I can't really say much about the plot line without giving away the ending to the other two books. I will say three things:
1. I loved the book over all.
2. This series is one of the best (and some of the best books individually) that I've ever read.
3. I was fairly disappointed with the last chapter and the epilogue of this book. I can't really explain why, I just expected...more.
Monday, January 16, 2012
Monday, January 2, 2012
Catching Fire (Book Two of The Hunger Games Series)
Catching Fire by Suzanne Collins
The first book had me on edge. This book had me constantly wanting more.
I finished this book in literally 29(ish) hours. I started reading it at 8p.m. New Year's Eve and finished at 1a.m. today. Talk about a crazy ride!
The first book, The Hunger Games set the stage, showing a futuristic America which is under strict control of the Capitol after a rebellion 74 years prior. Each year the Capitol holds The Hunger Games as a way of entertaining the members of the Capitol society and as a way of reminding the citizens of each districts that they are at the mercy of the Capitol after their failed revolt. Each district sends one boy and one girl to fight in the games; a fight which can only be ended when all but one of the players is dead. In the first book, however, two winners, Katniss and Peeta, are crowned after they threaten to attempt a double suicide and almost succeed, which would have left no winner for the Games.
In Catching Fire we follow Peeta and Katniss as they make the tour of the districts to celebrate their win. As they make their rounds they realize that they have actually started something through their show of rebellion in the Games the previous year. It becomes apparent that some of the districts are beginning uprisings, and Katniss in particular is to blame for them. President Snow is determined to make an example of Katniss, showing that rebellion will not be tolerated; but he must do it somewhat discreetly. This years Games, the 75th, marks a Quarter Quell (every 25 years). Each Quarter Quell has a special circumstance meant to remind citizens of the power of the Capitol and the failure of the revolution. This year, the Quarter Quell is meant to remind citizens that even the strongest among them cannot overthrow the Capitol, and thus the Games will be played by winners of past years.
I can't say that this book reminded me as much of other books as the first one did (although I'm sure if I really thought about I could think of a book or two that it relates with). I definitely saw some scenes from "Roots" with the new Peacekeepers put into place. And it seemed obvious to make connections to the Holocaust. This time there was a lot of rebelling on purpose. The big questions throughout the book: How much should one person risk the life of another and how much should they risk their own life to save another? We see Katniss's relationship with Gale grow, but we also see her confusion between choosing either Gale or Peeta. The Capitol is obviously pushing for Peeta, but can she deny any freelings she has for Peeta?
I'll be honest with you: at the end of this book, while I was (and still am) iiiitching to start the next one, I found myself being fairly angry with Katniss. Granted, she's under a lot of pressure, and she didn't really have much choice in the role(s) she has been pushed into...but really? I feel like her actions at the end of the book were quite childish for what I expected them to be. Guess we'll see how the next book goes!
The first book had me on edge. This book had me constantly wanting more.
I finished this book in literally 29(ish) hours. I started reading it at 8p.m. New Year's Eve and finished at 1a.m. today. Talk about a crazy ride!
The first book, The Hunger Games set the stage, showing a futuristic America which is under strict control of the Capitol after a rebellion 74 years prior. Each year the Capitol holds The Hunger Games as a way of entertaining the members of the Capitol society and as a way of reminding the citizens of each districts that they are at the mercy of the Capitol after their failed revolt. Each district sends one boy and one girl to fight in the games; a fight which can only be ended when all but one of the players is dead. In the first book, however, two winners, Katniss and Peeta, are crowned after they threaten to attempt a double suicide and almost succeed, which would have left no winner for the Games.
In Catching Fire we follow Peeta and Katniss as they make the tour of the districts to celebrate their win. As they make their rounds they realize that they have actually started something through their show of rebellion in the Games the previous year. It becomes apparent that some of the districts are beginning uprisings, and Katniss in particular is to blame for them. President Snow is determined to make an example of Katniss, showing that rebellion will not be tolerated; but he must do it somewhat discreetly. This years Games, the 75th, marks a Quarter Quell (every 25 years). Each Quarter Quell has a special circumstance meant to remind citizens of the power of the Capitol and the failure of the revolution. This year, the Quarter Quell is meant to remind citizens that even the strongest among them cannot overthrow the Capitol, and thus the Games will be played by winners of past years.
I can't say that this book reminded me as much of other books as the first one did (although I'm sure if I really thought about I could think of a book or two that it relates with). I definitely saw some scenes from "Roots" with the new Peacekeepers put into place. And it seemed obvious to make connections to the Holocaust. This time there was a lot of rebelling on purpose. The big questions throughout the book: How much should one person risk the life of another and how much should they risk their own life to save another? We see Katniss's relationship with Gale grow, but we also see her confusion between choosing either Gale or Peeta. The Capitol is obviously pushing for Peeta, but can she deny any freelings she has for Peeta?
I'll be honest with you: at the end of this book, while I was (and still am) iiiitching to start the next one, I found myself being fairly angry with Katniss. Granted, she's under a lot of pressure, and she didn't really have much choice in the role(s) she has been pushed into...but really? I feel like her actions at the end of the book were quite childish for what I expected them to be. Guess we'll see how the next book goes!
Wednesday, December 28, 2011
Othello
Othello by Shakespeare
Oh, Othello! You frustrate me so much!
This story, for those of you who haven't read it, touches on the idea of race first of all. In fact, race plays a fairly big role. But the lesson I took away from this book was not about race. The thing that stood out most to me was Iago's ability to manipulate people and Desdemona's inability to prove herself innocent. Of all the people in the story Desdemona is who I felt most sorry for. Iago's lies got to Othello. He spread them through Rodrigo and Cassio and really covered his tracks.
Maybe this was just me being naive, but I feel like Othello should have at least let Desdemona talk.
I think that, even though kids know Shakespeare as "some old, dead guy" that they're forced to read (usually multiple times), his stories still have a lesson to teach. In the case of Othello maybe it's that seeking revenge isn't worth it. Or maybe it's that you should be weary of the trust you put in people's gossip. Or that you should trust your heart.
No matter which lesson you pick up on, I think that we all walk away from this play with some lesson we can use in life.
Oh, Othello! You frustrate me so much!
This story, for those of you who haven't read it, touches on the idea of race first of all. In fact, race plays a fairly big role. But the lesson I took away from this book was not about race. The thing that stood out most to me was Iago's ability to manipulate people and Desdemona's inability to prove herself innocent. Of all the people in the story Desdemona is who I felt most sorry for. Iago's lies got to Othello. He spread them through Rodrigo and Cassio and really covered his tracks.
Maybe this was just me being naive, but I feel like Othello should have at least let Desdemona talk.
I think that, even though kids know Shakespeare as "some old, dead guy" that they're forced to read (usually multiple times), his stories still have a lesson to teach. In the case of Othello maybe it's that seeking revenge isn't worth it. Or maybe it's that you should be weary of the trust you put in people's gossip. Or that you should trust your heart.
No matter which lesson you pick up on, I think that we all walk away from this play with some lesson we can use in life.
Thirteen Reasons Why
Thirteen Reasons Why is Jay Asher's first novel. I don't remember where I first heard about this book, but when I saw it at a book fair a few weeks ago I knew that I needed to add it to my collection.
My roommate actually read it a couple of weeks ago and at ten one night she started texting me. This wouldn't be so abnormal except that Katie is usually ready for bed by then. She told me that she'd gotten the book at work (I had been talking about reading it and she works at Barnes & Nobles). She was still 100 pages from the end and it was intense. So what's it about?
Hannah Baker committed suited, and now Clay is hearing her story. He receives a shoebox in the mail containing seven tapes, each side marked with a blue number, 1-13, the last side blank. Each side tells the story of a person who somehow contributed to the downward spiral of Hannah's life and her ultimate decision. The instructions given: listen to the tapes, then rewind them and pass them on to the next person on the list. If the instructions aren't followed a second set of tapes will be leaked to the public, if they are then the secret stays with those involved.
There were parts of this book that were really hard to read, and the whole idea of why she made the list in the first place was enough to put my stomach in knots. But that being said, I think that this is a book that people should definitely read. It's one of those books that really makes you think. Many of the people on the list knew that they were in some way causing Hannah harm, but not all of them did. Some of them thought that what they did was funny, some of them thought it was a joke, and much of it revolved around a reputation...a reputation that was given to Hannah because of rumors. I think that in high school rumors become part of everyday life, and kids don't always know what is or isn't true, but they continue to pass on what they've heard. Not only that, but even those stories that are true often get twisted around until they no longer are and probably should have never been shared in the first place. When I finished the book last night I text my roommate to tell her. I think that, emotionally, it effected her even more so than me because she has had to deal with many suicides and attempts from people she was/is close to.
As we talked about the book I said that I could see it being a good book for high school students to read. It would probably be very controversial to teach because of the sensitivity of the subjects it covers, not only suicide, but rape as well. I think that there would certainly be merit to teaching it, and if I don't ever teach it I do plan acquire another copy of it and have both of my copies available in my classroom library.
So to wrap this post up, I would like to encourage you to check out the books website, http://www.thirteenreasonswhy.com/ I recommend looking at the 13RW project (the link on the far right at the top).
My roommate actually read it a couple of weeks ago and at ten one night she started texting me. This wouldn't be so abnormal except that Katie is usually ready for bed by then. She told me that she'd gotten the book at work (I had been talking about reading it and she works at Barnes & Nobles). She was still 100 pages from the end and it was intense. So what's it about?
Hannah Baker committed suited, and now Clay is hearing her story. He receives a shoebox in the mail containing seven tapes, each side marked with a blue number, 1-13, the last side blank. Each side tells the story of a person who somehow contributed to the downward spiral of Hannah's life and her ultimate decision. The instructions given: listen to the tapes, then rewind them and pass them on to the next person on the list. If the instructions aren't followed a second set of tapes will be leaked to the public, if they are then the secret stays with those involved.
There were parts of this book that were really hard to read, and the whole idea of why she made the list in the first place was enough to put my stomach in knots. But that being said, I think that this is a book that people should definitely read. It's one of those books that really makes you think. Many of the people on the list knew that they were in some way causing Hannah harm, but not all of them did. Some of them thought that what they did was funny, some of them thought it was a joke, and much of it revolved around a reputation...a reputation that was given to Hannah because of rumors. I think that in high school rumors become part of everyday life, and kids don't always know what is or isn't true, but they continue to pass on what they've heard. Not only that, but even those stories that are true often get twisted around until they no longer are and probably should have never been shared in the first place. When I finished the book last night I text my roommate to tell her. I think that, emotionally, it effected her even more so than me because she has had to deal with many suicides and attempts from people she was/is close to.
As we talked about the book I said that I could see it being a good book for high school students to read. It would probably be very controversial to teach because of the sensitivity of the subjects it covers, not only suicide, but rape as well. I think that there would certainly be merit to teaching it, and if I don't ever teach it I do plan acquire another copy of it and have both of my copies available in my classroom library.
So to wrap this post up, I would like to encourage you to check out the books website, http://www.thirteenreasonswhy.com/ I recommend looking at the 13RW project (the link on the far right at the top).
Thursday, December 22, 2011
A Midsummer Nights Dream
Oh boy! Okay, I don't usually mind Shakespeare. I think he was a pretty great story teller and I really enjoy some of his works. But I just had to read A Midsummer Nights Dream in preparation for student-teaching, and I have to admit that I'm not looking forward to teaching this one. I'm looking for ways to spice it up right now, but honestly, this was not (by any means) one of my favorite books. I understood what was happening, and the part with the Fairy King and Queen in the woods and all of the magic and confusion about who-loves-who and all that was exciting, but otherwise I thought this one was pretty boring. Sorry, Shakespeare, not your best play, but I guess I'll be teaching it anyway (since I don't have a choice)! We'll see how it goes!
Thursday, December 15, 2011
Of Mice and Men
Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck
This story was very complex. Not only does it bring up the idea of justice (with the murder of Lennie), but it brings up gender roles (all of the women mentioned in this story besides Aunt Clara are whores or presumed whores as is the case with Curley's wife) and it brings up the treatment of people who have special needs.
In terms of justice, I don't think there really is any true justice. No matter what George had done they wouldn't have been able to run and hide forever, and if they'd stayed Lennie would have ended up dead either way. Not only that, but there is also the underlying idea that letting Lennie run free with George (if they had run away) would put society in general in harms way because there is no telling whether or not Lennie might have done this again. If Lennie had realized what he was doing when he had done it, or learned from past events that might have been one thing, but Lennie had continually had the same problem with not knowing his own strength and accidentally killing things (the mice, the puppy, and then Curley's wife). What if he ran into a situation like with the little girl in Weeds again? Would he kill her if George wasn't there to stop him? There really is no way to bring justice for everyone (Curley's wife, Curley, society, and Lennie). George believes that ethically he is doing what he has to do because he is killing Lennie in a way that he isn't feeling any pain, and is calm because he doesn't know what's happening. If Curley had gotten a hold of Lennie he would have had him all riled up and been cursing at him and Lennie would have seen the gun pointed at him and been scared and maybe even confused. While there is not real answer to whether it was right for George to kill Lennie, I can see why he did it. I don't think I could have done it if I were in his position, but I think that it took a lot of courage on George's part to do that, especially in light of the relationship that he and Lennie had.
I think that a feminist reading of this text would be really interesting. If you look at the female characters who are mentioned in this book, only Aunt Clara is seen as a "decent" person. The other women are all "tarts" or "whores". In the case of Curley's wife this a negative thing, because she's married. It's interesting that when it comes to the women who own or work in the "cat houses" they are repeatedly referred to as whores, but the girls at Susy's are still seen as better than the other girls (52). These women are purposely allowing men to use their bodies for pleasure. Curley's wife is doing so in much the same way, standing in the doorways in postures which purposefully show of her legs and pushing her body forward to show it off. While the other men realize what she's doing, Lennie doesn't understand it. He stares at her, dumbfounded by her beauty and falling into her trap as she shows it all off.
Even though Aunt Clara is not a whore, in fact, Lennie and George often talk about what a good person she was, she's also not a very strong nor a very prominent character in this book. The only real descriptions we get of her are as a motherly figure to Lennie because she has taken care of him since he was young. A feminist would argue that this book not only portrays women in a negative light, but it seems to encourage it with the constant talk of whore houses? The only time that going to a whore house is ever shown in a negative light (other than the discussion of Susy's being better than the other place) is when George and Lennie are talking about being different from everyone else. They avoid spending their money on alcohol and women because they have a dream in mind, but the fact that their dream is never realized and the George realizes at the end that without Lennie he is just like everyone else makes it seem like he has succumbed to the idea that it is the way men like him are supposed to live because they can't actually do any better than that.
The third big topic that this book brought to my mind was the treatment of people with special needs. As I was reading Of Mice and Men two other books kept coming to mind. The first was The Green Mile. (Yes, I actually took the time to read the book even though I'd seen the movie. Long book, but better than the movie I think.) I think that this book came to mind for two reasons. The first was that I kept picturing Lennie as John Coffey. Lennie was white, which would have changed the outlook of him since we see how blacks are treated in this book through the portrayal of Crooks, but they also have a lot of similarities. They were both big and strong. They neither one had a place that they really belonged and floated from place to place to find work. After this the similarities pretty much stop, but I think that the fact that they're both large plays into this idea of the way they are treated. John is never known to be have any sort of disability, but he does talk a little slower than the other characters (at least in the movie version) which gives the impression that he might have had one. The other book this one continually reminded me of was The Man Who Loved Clowns. In the book Punky Holloway is a thirty-five year old man with Down's Syndrome, and throughout the novel we see his interactions with his fifteen year old niece. Many people make rude comments about Punky both to him and behind his back. While we don't really see people talking about Lennie much while he's not around we do see that people are constantly calling him "dumb" while he's around, even George talks about him in this way. Both Punky and Lennie are very child-like, and other people don't seem to understand this and it takes them some convincing to accept it. For example, in Lennie's case George believes that in order for people to accept him they must see him work before they realize that he "ain't bright" (22). George is comparable to the niece in the other story. She helps take care of her uncle and finds herself protecting him against other people who make fun of his disability or who are scared of the way he acts. The treatment of mental disabilities in this novel is interesting because even the character who most stands up for Lennie, George, doesn't always treat him with the most respect in terms of the way he talks to him. They almost seem to have a brotherly relationship, which often means name calling and fits of anger on George's part when Lennie messes up, but also means love and care and protection from the cruelty and discrimination of others.
This story was very complex. Not only does it bring up the idea of justice (with the murder of Lennie), but it brings up gender roles (all of the women mentioned in this story besides Aunt Clara are whores or presumed whores as is the case with Curley's wife) and it brings up the treatment of people who have special needs.
In terms of justice, I don't think there really is any true justice. No matter what George had done they wouldn't have been able to run and hide forever, and if they'd stayed Lennie would have ended up dead either way. Not only that, but there is also the underlying idea that letting Lennie run free with George (if they had run away) would put society in general in harms way because there is no telling whether or not Lennie might have done this again. If Lennie had realized what he was doing when he had done it, or learned from past events that might have been one thing, but Lennie had continually had the same problem with not knowing his own strength and accidentally killing things (the mice, the puppy, and then Curley's wife). What if he ran into a situation like with the little girl in Weeds again? Would he kill her if George wasn't there to stop him? There really is no way to bring justice for everyone (Curley's wife, Curley, society, and Lennie). George believes that ethically he is doing what he has to do because he is killing Lennie in a way that he isn't feeling any pain, and is calm because he doesn't know what's happening. If Curley had gotten a hold of Lennie he would have had him all riled up and been cursing at him and Lennie would have seen the gun pointed at him and been scared and maybe even confused. While there is not real answer to whether it was right for George to kill Lennie, I can see why he did it. I don't think I could have done it if I were in his position, but I think that it took a lot of courage on George's part to do that, especially in light of the relationship that he and Lennie had.
I think that a feminist reading of this text would be really interesting. If you look at the female characters who are mentioned in this book, only Aunt Clara is seen as a "decent" person. The other women are all "tarts" or "whores". In the case of Curley's wife this a negative thing, because she's married. It's interesting that when it comes to the women who own or work in the "cat houses" they are repeatedly referred to as whores, but the girls at Susy's are still seen as better than the other girls (52). These women are purposely allowing men to use their bodies for pleasure. Curley's wife is doing so in much the same way, standing in the doorways in postures which purposefully show of her legs and pushing her body forward to show it off. While the other men realize what she's doing, Lennie doesn't understand it. He stares at her, dumbfounded by her beauty and falling into her trap as she shows it all off.
Even though Aunt Clara is not a whore, in fact, Lennie and George often talk about what a good person she was, she's also not a very strong nor a very prominent character in this book. The only real descriptions we get of her are as a motherly figure to Lennie because she has taken care of him since he was young. A feminist would argue that this book not only portrays women in a negative light, but it seems to encourage it with the constant talk of whore houses? The only time that going to a whore house is ever shown in a negative light (other than the discussion of Susy's being better than the other place) is when George and Lennie are talking about being different from everyone else. They avoid spending their money on alcohol and women because they have a dream in mind, but the fact that their dream is never realized and the George realizes at the end that without Lennie he is just like everyone else makes it seem like he has succumbed to the idea that it is the way men like him are supposed to live because they can't actually do any better than that.
The third big topic that this book brought to my mind was the treatment of people with special needs. As I was reading Of Mice and Men two other books kept coming to mind. The first was The Green Mile. (Yes, I actually took the time to read the book even though I'd seen the movie. Long book, but better than the movie I think.) I think that this book came to mind for two reasons. The first was that I kept picturing Lennie as John Coffey. Lennie was white, which would have changed the outlook of him since we see how blacks are treated in this book through the portrayal of Crooks, but they also have a lot of similarities. They were both big and strong. They neither one had a place that they really belonged and floated from place to place to find work. After this the similarities pretty much stop, but I think that the fact that they're both large plays into this idea of the way they are treated. John is never known to be have any sort of disability, but he does talk a little slower than the other characters (at least in the movie version) which gives the impression that he might have had one. The other book this one continually reminded me of was The Man Who Loved Clowns. In the book Punky Holloway is a thirty-five year old man with Down's Syndrome, and throughout the novel we see his interactions with his fifteen year old niece. Many people make rude comments about Punky both to him and behind his back. While we don't really see people talking about Lennie much while he's not around we do see that people are constantly calling him "dumb" while he's around, even George talks about him in this way. Both Punky and Lennie are very child-like, and other people don't seem to understand this and it takes them some convincing to accept it. For example, in Lennie's case George believes that in order for people to accept him they must see him work before they realize that he "ain't bright" (22). George is comparable to the niece in the other story. She helps take care of her uncle and finds herself protecting him against other people who make fun of his disability or who are scared of the way he acts. The treatment of mental disabilities in this novel is interesting because even the character who most stands up for Lennie, George, doesn't always treat him with the most respect in terms of the way he talks to him. They almost seem to have a brotherly relationship, which often means name calling and fits of anger on George's part when Lennie messes up, but also means love and care and protection from the cruelty and discrimination of others.
Stargirl
Stargirl by Jerry Spinelli
Why is society so afraid of "different"? And why are we so afraid of each other? I feel like these were the questions that kept coming up for me as I read Stargirl. Stargirl's popularity goes from low to high and then back down, but in the end we see that she is celebrated. I felt like it wasn't that they just "didn't like" her differences, but that they were scared of them. Stargirl did things that were unheard of, but they weren't bad things. She didn't do anything that harmed anyone else (although the basketball team might disagree with that) and she didn't do anything that put anyone else down or tried to make them feel inferior. Why is it that when she tried to show friendship and support she was shut down? Why were these things looked down upon?
The two most prominent instances of this were the funeral she attended for the one girls grandfather and the bike that she bought for the little boy (43-47). She wanted to show friendship. She wanted to support people. It wasn't as though she had to be really snoopy about it to find out these things either. She didn't sneak around people's houses and read through their mail to find out what was going on in their lives and what she might be able to do for them, she simply paid attention. Not only did she watch people (like at the mall) but she paid attention to the newspaper. Almost everyone has some kind of access to the newspaper at least weekly if not daily, but how many people take the time to read the filler stories, the stories that give us just a little insight into someone else's life? How do we read the paper when we read it? I know for me I go for the comics first, and then I flip through and look at the headlines and the accompanying photos to see what articles I want to read. As I thought about the little fillers that Stargirl talks about I realized that I don't think I've hardly ever read these. They aren't very big and with all of the other words and images that fill the page they get lost. They're not something you find if you're not looking for them, and we're so wrapped up in what's going on in our own lives and the larger things that will affect us that we don't pay attention to the little things that are happening in others lives. We seem scared of other people almost. We're scared to let them into our lives, and we're scared to get too close to theirs. Granted, things happened to make this so. Kidnapping happened. Murder happened. Rape happened. People were given reasons not to trust each other, and through this it because easier to trust no one than to try to figure out who could and could not be trusted. We isolated ourselves and the few people that we already knew and were close to so that no one could come into our circle unless they were first criticized and scrutinized and determined to be like us. The similarities we shared with them made them "safe."
Stargirl did so many things with other people in mind, and she didn't see them as being wrong or rude, she saw them as helping. She saw them as a way to help other people or to get to know other people. Why not learn about someone else? Why not get to know a stranger? Why not brighten someone else's day? Stargirl starts the scrapbook for the little boy across the street, and drops money for little kids to find. I still remember finding money on the ground as a little kid, and now when I see change on the ground I smile and hope that a little kid will find it. (And, this is the superstition setting in I suppose, but when I see a penny bottom up I kick it or bend down and flip it over, knowing that it will become somebody's lucky charm.) Why don't we do this? It would take little if any effort. Have you ever found a note left in a library book? It instantly brightens your day! Why don't we do this? I know the answer: because we don't think about others as much as we should. Because we focus so much on ourselves and what makes us happy that we forget the little things we can do to make others happy.
Aside from this idea of making others happy there is another big idea that stuck out to me as I read this book. It first came up on page 32 when Archie, Kevin, and Leo are talking about Stargirl. Kevin claims that Stargirl is "Like another species." Archie, thinking this through, responds with "On the contrary, she is one of us. Most decidedly. She is us more than we are us. She is, I think, who we really are. Or were." This quote really made me think. I read it over and over again trying to figure out exactly what it meant. If Stargirl is "who we really are" then how was she me? How was she a me that I no longer was. There are multiple ways to think of this, I guess, but the one that came to mind was that she was growing older but never really "growing up". She was holding onto that child-like sense of adventure and willingness and caring that we're all born with. I thought about my little sister at this point. I remember when she first decided she wanted to dress herself. It didn't matter if her clothes matched, to her it just mattered that they were hers and she had made the decision. It didn't matter if anyone else thought they were cool, it didn't matter that we pointed out that they didn't really "go together." She just didn't care. Not only that, but little kids can sense how people are feeling. Little kids will say "hi" and chatter to just about anyone. It doesn't matter if it's Grandma or cousin John or a stranger, they're just happy to share their own happiness and love for life. Stargirl is the version of us that doesn't care about what others think. She does what she does because it makes her happy and shares her love of life and happiness with others. So what if she changes her name? So what if it's "Pocket Mouse" or "Stargirl." Archie says that "maybe that's how names ought to be, heh? Why be stuck with just one your whole life?" (34). That's kind of how it is with nicknames. I've had multiple nicknames, and as I've changed they have changed too. Granted, mine were never "outrageous" compared to the "standards of society," and they were usually chosen by other people who just decided they wanted to call me something other than "Emily", but why can't we do that for ourselves? Why can't we decide we feel like being "Stella" or "Sunflower" or "Stargirl" for a while? Even as the kids at the school start to be more like Stargirl they're not really being themselves, they're being Stargirl wanna-bes (40). They are taking on not who they are but who she is and in doing so are still contradicting what she stands for.
I think if I were to teach this book I would pose the question "Who defines normal?" because I kept writing this in my margins over and over again as I was reading this book. Normal was defined by "society," but different societies see normal differently, so who decided before it became popular? I suppose it has something to do with power? But what if "being normal" meant being different? Being yourself? What if do be considered "normal" you couldn't be a copy of someone else, but rather, you had to prove yourself unique? Would this make a difference? How would it change the way we look at the world? How would it change the way we look at other people? Would we begin to look at other people more? Would we celebrate their uniqueness? Or would we focus on our own and ignore other people all together?
Why is society so afraid of "different"? And why are we so afraid of each other? I feel like these were the questions that kept coming up for me as I read Stargirl. Stargirl's popularity goes from low to high and then back down, but in the end we see that she is celebrated. I felt like it wasn't that they just "didn't like" her differences, but that they were scared of them. Stargirl did things that were unheard of, but they weren't bad things. She didn't do anything that harmed anyone else (although the basketball team might disagree with that) and she didn't do anything that put anyone else down or tried to make them feel inferior. Why is it that when she tried to show friendship and support she was shut down? Why were these things looked down upon?
The two most prominent instances of this were the funeral she attended for the one girls grandfather and the bike that she bought for the little boy (43-47). She wanted to show friendship. She wanted to support people. It wasn't as though she had to be really snoopy about it to find out these things either. She didn't sneak around people's houses and read through their mail to find out what was going on in their lives and what she might be able to do for them, she simply paid attention. Not only did she watch people (like at the mall) but she paid attention to the newspaper. Almost everyone has some kind of access to the newspaper at least weekly if not daily, but how many people take the time to read the filler stories, the stories that give us just a little insight into someone else's life? How do we read the paper when we read it? I know for me I go for the comics first, and then I flip through and look at the headlines and the accompanying photos to see what articles I want to read. As I thought about the little fillers that Stargirl talks about I realized that I don't think I've hardly ever read these. They aren't very big and with all of the other words and images that fill the page they get lost. They're not something you find if you're not looking for them, and we're so wrapped up in what's going on in our own lives and the larger things that will affect us that we don't pay attention to the little things that are happening in others lives. We seem scared of other people almost. We're scared to let them into our lives, and we're scared to get too close to theirs. Granted, things happened to make this so. Kidnapping happened. Murder happened. Rape happened. People were given reasons not to trust each other, and through this it because easier to trust no one than to try to figure out who could and could not be trusted. We isolated ourselves and the few people that we already knew and were close to so that no one could come into our circle unless they were first criticized and scrutinized and determined to be like us. The similarities we shared with them made them "safe."
Stargirl did so many things with other people in mind, and she didn't see them as being wrong or rude, she saw them as helping. She saw them as a way to help other people or to get to know other people. Why not learn about someone else? Why not get to know a stranger? Why not brighten someone else's day? Stargirl starts the scrapbook for the little boy across the street, and drops money for little kids to find. I still remember finding money on the ground as a little kid, and now when I see change on the ground I smile and hope that a little kid will find it. (And, this is the superstition setting in I suppose, but when I see a penny bottom up I kick it or bend down and flip it over, knowing that it will become somebody's lucky charm.) Why don't we do this? It would take little if any effort. Have you ever found a note left in a library book? It instantly brightens your day! Why don't we do this? I know the answer: because we don't think about others as much as we should. Because we focus so much on ourselves and what makes us happy that we forget the little things we can do to make others happy.
Aside from this idea of making others happy there is another big idea that stuck out to me as I read this book. It first came up on page 32 when Archie, Kevin, and Leo are talking about Stargirl. Kevin claims that Stargirl is "Like another species." Archie, thinking this through, responds with "On the contrary, she is one of us. Most decidedly. She is us more than we are us. She is, I think, who we really are. Or were." This quote really made me think. I read it over and over again trying to figure out exactly what it meant. If Stargirl is "who we really are" then how was she me? How was she a me that I no longer was. There are multiple ways to think of this, I guess, but the one that came to mind was that she was growing older but never really "growing up". She was holding onto that child-like sense of adventure and willingness and caring that we're all born with. I thought about my little sister at this point. I remember when she first decided she wanted to dress herself. It didn't matter if her clothes matched, to her it just mattered that they were hers and she had made the decision. It didn't matter if anyone else thought they were cool, it didn't matter that we pointed out that they didn't really "go together." She just didn't care. Not only that, but little kids can sense how people are feeling. Little kids will say "hi" and chatter to just about anyone. It doesn't matter if it's Grandma or cousin John or a stranger, they're just happy to share their own happiness and love for life. Stargirl is the version of us that doesn't care about what others think. She does what she does because it makes her happy and shares her love of life and happiness with others. So what if she changes her name? So what if it's "Pocket Mouse" or "Stargirl." Archie says that "maybe that's how names ought to be, heh? Why be stuck with just one your whole life?" (34). That's kind of how it is with nicknames. I've had multiple nicknames, and as I've changed they have changed too. Granted, mine were never "outrageous" compared to the "standards of society," and they were usually chosen by other people who just decided they wanted to call me something other than "Emily", but why can't we do that for ourselves? Why can't we decide we feel like being "Stella" or "Sunflower" or "Stargirl" for a while? Even as the kids at the school start to be more like Stargirl they're not really being themselves, they're being Stargirl wanna-bes (40). They are taking on not who they are but who she is and in doing so are still contradicting what she stands for.
I think if I were to teach this book I would pose the question "Who defines normal?" because I kept writing this in my margins over and over again as I was reading this book. Normal was defined by "society," but different societies see normal differently, so who decided before it became popular? I suppose it has something to do with power? But what if "being normal" meant being different? Being yourself? What if do be considered "normal" you couldn't be a copy of someone else, but rather, you had to prove yourself unique? Would this make a difference? How would it change the way we look at the world? How would it change the way we look at other people? Would we begin to look at other people more? Would we celebrate their uniqueness? Or would we focus on our own and ignore other people all together?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)