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.
Wednesday, December 28, 2011
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?
Speak
Speak by Laura Hulse Anderson
One of the things that really captivated my attention in this book were the connections that were made to other works of literature, other forms of media, and things like art that I knew about and could connect to Melinda. The two references that struck me the most were The Scarlet Letter and Picasso (100 & 118). I didn't read The Scarlet Letter until last year. I felt silly not ever having read it (especially as an English major) and when I finally got around to it I loved it. I think that connections Melinda makes with Hester really show the reader how she's feeling. In the book Hester is silent as well, her voice taken away from her when she is found to be pregnant and given the "A" to wear. Melinda feels like she may as well be wearing a letter as well. She says that she would be wearing an "S"..."for silent, for stupid, for scared. S for silly. For shame." This really struck me. Hester's A stands for adultery. It is a negative symbol. It sets her apart from everyone else, and yet it does nothing to punish the other person involved. Not only that, but Hester protects the preacher. She has the chance to say who the child's father is but she chooses to stay silent, just as Melinda has. She protects the preacher because he was a good man and because the community respects him. While Melinda knows that Andy is not a good man, he is one of the "popular kids" so by pointing fingers at him and telling her secret she is afraid she would still become even more of an outcast and that no one would believe her. When we look at the words Melinda associates with the S she is putting on herself it is all about blaming herself. It's not only what she's done but it's how she's felt: scared, silly, shame. I think that many of these same words could have belonged to Hester as well.
Reading The Scarlet Letter and then reading these pages of Speak really made me think about this idea of carrying around guilt. I think that, in a way, we all have our own letters that we wear. We all hide our own secrets, no matter how big or how small. And if you stop and think about it, why do we keep secrets? Sometimes it's to protect ourselves, and sometimes it's to protect others, but what are we protecting them from? Isn't keeping secrets really all about other people? We already know the secret, it's not about what we think and feel about it, but how we think other people will perceive it. If we trust a friend we may share our secret with them, it's because we're no longer afraid (or as afraid) of how they will react, but we still don't want our enemies to have ammunition against us, and we still don't want ridiculed by society, so we keep them held within us for as long as possible. Reading this story I kept seeing moments when Melinda could have told somebody. She could have told Heather, or Ivy, or Mr. Freeman, or any number of people...but she didn't, she held it all in. As I read there was a voice in the back of my head that kept screaming "JUST TELL SOMEBODY ALREADY!" But I knew that she wouldn't...not yet...not until something big happened, something that forced her to tell. Because in truth that's how I am, and that's how most people are. If it were anyone else's secret they probably would have reacted the same way. That's a sad thing to say, especially when you know, as I do, people who have had this happen to them and who have been afraid to tell anybody. I know a girl who is not a senior in college, who was raped at a party when she was in high school. Her best friend (at the time) was there and knew what was happening but didn't help. Her parents didn't ever know, and when she was diagnosed with an STD she didn't tell her parents about it either, she let them assume and point fingers at her. She let them think that it was her fault, that she had slept with this guy or that...regardless of the fact that she has never willingly slept with a guy. The secret is kept out of fear. The secret is kept because she doesn't want to point fingers at someone whom her parents know, who actually lives just down the street from where her parents now live. She doesn't know how they will react, if they will still simply say it's her fault for being at a party she never should have been at, so she just keeps quiet.
I think that the major part of this comes from a lack of understanding and education. It was mentioned in one of the forum posts that there is little sex education presented in general, but even less (if any at all) about self-defense and prevention of assault and rape. Not only that but society has put a stigma on it that makes people think they can't come forward when it does happen. Girls in movies who get assault are represented in one of two ways: either they're weak and crying, or they're wearing short skirts and tons of make-up. Neither of these in any way should say to people that "they were asking of it" or "they deserved it" as is sometime heard, but I think people are also afraid that because this is the portrayal and because these things are said they don't want to be associated with them. (I found it interesting and somewhat empowering to finally read a book where this wasn't the case. Steig Larson's character in The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo is thrown into this situation but takes a very different approach. While it seems almost uncharacteristic according to how society portrays women, it should be what we are teaching our girls about how to deal with these situations. It may not have been a solution available to everyone, but the idea of a more aggressive reaction is the lesson taken from this.) We need to find a way to teach everyone (because I realize that it's not just girls that deal with this) not only how to talk about this and who to talk to if the situation should occur, but how to prevent the situation from happening. I think that education and support are the key to helping solve this problem.
One of the things that really captivated my attention in this book were the connections that were made to other works of literature, other forms of media, and things like art that I knew about and could connect to Melinda. The two references that struck me the most were The Scarlet Letter and Picasso (100 & 118). I didn't read The Scarlet Letter until last year. I felt silly not ever having read it (especially as an English major) and when I finally got around to it I loved it. I think that connections Melinda makes with Hester really show the reader how she's feeling. In the book Hester is silent as well, her voice taken away from her when she is found to be pregnant and given the "A" to wear. Melinda feels like she may as well be wearing a letter as well. She says that she would be wearing an "S"..."for silent, for stupid, for scared. S for silly. For shame." This really struck me. Hester's A stands for adultery. It is a negative symbol. It sets her apart from everyone else, and yet it does nothing to punish the other person involved. Not only that, but Hester protects the preacher. She has the chance to say who the child's father is but she chooses to stay silent, just as Melinda has. She protects the preacher because he was a good man and because the community respects him. While Melinda knows that Andy is not a good man, he is one of the "popular kids" so by pointing fingers at him and telling her secret she is afraid she would still become even more of an outcast and that no one would believe her. When we look at the words Melinda associates with the S she is putting on herself it is all about blaming herself. It's not only what she's done but it's how she's felt: scared, silly, shame. I think that many of these same words could have belonged to Hester as well.
Reading The Scarlet Letter and then reading these pages of Speak really made me think about this idea of carrying around guilt. I think that, in a way, we all have our own letters that we wear. We all hide our own secrets, no matter how big or how small. And if you stop and think about it, why do we keep secrets? Sometimes it's to protect ourselves, and sometimes it's to protect others, but what are we protecting them from? Isn't keeping secrets really all about other people? We already know the secret, it's not about what we think and feel about it, but how we think other people will perceive it. If we trust a friend we may share our secret with them, it's because we're no longer afraid (or as afraid) of how they will react, but we still don't want our enemies to have ammunition against us, and we still don't want ridiculed by society, so we keep them held within us for as long as possible. Reading this story I kept seeing moments when Melinda could have told somebody. She could have told Heather, or Ivy, or Mr. Freeman, or any number of people...but she didn't, she held it all in. As I read there was a voice in the back of my head that kept screaming "JUST TELL SOMEBODY ALREADY!" But I knew that she wouldn't...not yet...not until something big happened, something that forced her to tell. Because in truth that's how I am, and that's how most people are. If it were anyone else's secret they probably would have reacted the same way. That's a sad thing to say, especially when you know, as I do, people who have had this happen to them and who have been afraid to tell anybody. I know a girl who is not a senior in college, who was raped at a party when she was in high school. Her best friend (at the time) was there and knew what was happening but didn't help. Her parents didn't ever know, and when she was diagnosed with an STD she didn't tell her parents about it either, she let them assume and point fingers at her. She let them think that it was her fault, that she had slept with this guy or that...regardless of the fact that she has never willingly slept with a guy. The secret is kept out of fear. The secret is kept because she doesn't want to point fingers at someone whom her parents know, who actually lives just down the street from where her parents now live. She doesn't know how they will react, if they will still simply say it's her fault for being at a party she never should have been at, so she just keeps quiet.
I think that the major part of this comes from a lack of understanding and education. It was mentioned in one of the forum posts that there is little sex education presented in general, but even less (if any at all) about self-defense and prevention of assault and rape. Not only that but society has put a stigma on it that makes people think they can't come forward when it does happen. Girls in movies who get assault are represented in one of two ways: either they're weak and crying, or they're wearing short skirts and tons of make-up. Neither of these in any way should say to people that "they were asking of it" or "they deserved it" as is sometime heard, but I think people are also afraid that because this is the portrayal and because these things are said they don't want to be associated with them. (I found it interesting and somewhat empowering to finally read a book where this wasn't the case. Steig Larson's character in The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo is thrown into this situation but takes a very different approach. While it seems almost uncharacteristic according to how society portrays women, it should be what we are teaching our girls about how to deal with these situations. It may not have been a solution available to everyone, but the idea of a more aggressive reaction is the lesson taken from this.) We need to find a way to teach everyone (because I realize that it's not just girls that deal with this) not only how to talk about this and who to talk to if the situation should occur, but how to prevent the situation from happening. I think that education and support are the key to helping solve this problem.
The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian
The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian by Sherman Alexie
I really liked this book, and thought that it specifically fit for junior high and high school aged kids if nothing more than for the fact that they're still trying to figure out who they are and what they want. Heck, I'm still trying to figure out exactly who I am and what I want out of life! I felt like this made Arnold a very easy character to relate to. It's like he's living a split life: he's an Indian by night (and on the weekends) but a...well, for lack of a better phrase "white-man-wannabe" by day. That seems really harsh to say that's what he's trying to be, but I think that in a sense it's what he's doing. He would like to keep a part of his "Indian self", but he knows that if he wants to fit in he has to be more like the other kids he's going to school with, and that means trying to "be white." I think that as we grow up we go through this too. He wants to get out and being something bigger, and I experienced the same thing and still am to an extent.
I grew up in a very small town. (Actually, it was more of a "small community with lots of little towns added together".) It was common to see the older kids graduate and think that they would go out into the world and leave the small town life behind to "make something of themselves" only to end up back in the same small town working a minimum wage job. There were plenty of kids who gave up on college after only a year. There were plenty of kids who didn't even make it through a summer of being away from home before their lack of experience in the world and their fear of something bigger forced them back to their parents homes (or the apartment down the street, or the tiny little house they shared with two or three other friends who had done the same thing).
Growing up I wanted to be a writer. I always wanted to, and I still do. That was my "big dream." I was going to leave my small town behind, move to someplace far away where I could live in the beauty of a wide-open place that would allow me to write. Teaching was also always in the back of my mind, and it came about particularly when I realized that writing probably wasn't going to pay the bills. This was a part of that small town attitude pulling me back in: "You can't really do that. You have to be more realistic. You know how well that will work." But even now I find myself still trying to get out. I want to teach, but I don't want to stay here. My plan has always been to come back to Iowa eventually, but I want to experience something different for a while. I want to teach in Ireland, get a feeling for what it's like to become a part of another culture. I want to teach in L.A. for a while, find out what else there is to this country and our society, see something more than rural farm town schools. Des Moines is the biggest I've seen, and while I've loved the experience I've had there and the differences I have seen between these schools and my own high school, it's still Iowa. It's still the same types of experiences and culture (though more diverse than what I'm used to). I want to see what else is out there. Maybe it's the same. Maybe there really isn't much that's all that different; but that's not something I can know without experiencing it, and that's exactly what I want to do.
Arnold's motives for getting out are a little bit different. He isn't doing it just because he wants to experience more, but because he wants to get out of the cycle that he sees happening over and over again. He doesn't want to become an Indian who is always drunk. He doesn't want to become disconnected from life. In a sense that's what trying to get out of a small town has been for me. The kids who go back, they work, they drink, they work, they drink...that becomes their life. But like Arnold, I've realized that there are some pieces of my past, pieces of my small town, that I want to take with me. Arnold realizes that while he wants to escape the drinking, he wants to keep his sense of family. He learns from his interactions and observances that the parents of the kids at Reardan aren't all that connected to their children. They don't support their children the way the parents on the reservation do. I think that this same thing can be said for a rural life. I know my neighbors, I know most of the people in town (or I did growing up at least) and even the ones that I didn't necessarily know usually knew me and/or my parents. Everyone said hi to everyone whether it was your next door neighbor or just someone you occasionally saw at the grocery store. Society as a whole I think is moving away from this, but particularly in bigger cities. While I understand that the city isn't as safe of a place necessarily and that this may not be a practical way to look at life in a "bigger place" I feel like this ideal of knowing your neighbor and being friendly to everyone whether you know this or not is one of the main things from my childhood experiences that I will take with me no matter where I go.
I really liked this book, and thought that it specifically fit for junior high and high school aged kids if nothing more than for the fact that they're still trying to figure out who they are and what they want. Heck, I'm still trying to figure out exactly who I am and what I want out of life! I felt like this made Arnold a very easy character to relate to. It's like he's living a split life: he's an Indian by night (and on the weekends) but a...well, for lack of a better phrase "white-man-wannabe" by day. That seems really harsh to say that's what he's trying to be, but I think that in a sense it's what he's doing. He would like to keep a part of his "Indian self", but he knows that if he wants to fit in he has to be more like the other kids he's going to school with, and that means trying to "be white." I think that as we grow up we go through this too. He wants to get out and being something bigger, and I experienced the same thing and still am to an extent.
I grew up in a very small town. (Actually, it was more of a "small community with lots of little towns added together".) It was common to see the older kids graduate and think that they would go out into the world and leave the small town life behind to "make something of themselves" only to end up back in the same small town working a minimum wage job. There were plenty of kids who gave up on college after only a year. There were plenty of kids who didn't even make it through a summer of being away from home before their lack of experience in the world and their fear of something bigger forced them back to their parents homes (or the apartment down the street, or the tiny little house they shared with two or three other friends who had done the same thing).
Growing up I wanted to be a writer. I always wanted to, and I still do. That was my "big dream." I was going to leave my small town behind, move to someplace far away where I could live in the beauty of a wide-open place that would allow me to write. Teaching was also always in the back of my mind, and it came about particularly when I realized that writing probably wasn't going to pay the bills. This was a part of that small town attitude pulling me back in: "You can't really do that. You have to be more realistic. You know how well that will work." But even now I find myself still trying to get out. I want to teach, but I don't want to stay here. My plan has always been to come back to Iowa eventually, but I want to experience something different for a while. I want to teach in Ireland, get a feeling for what it's like to become a part of another culture. I want to teach in L.A. for a while, find out what else there is to this country and our society, see something more than rural farm town schools. Des Moines is the biggest I've seen, and while I've loved the experience I've had there and the differences I have seen between these schools and my own high school, it's still Iowa. It's still the same types of experiences and culture (though more diverse than what I'm used to). I want to see what else is out there. Maybe it's the same. Maybe there really isn't much that's all that different; but that's not something I can know without experiencing it, and that's exactly what I want to do.
Arnold's motives for getting out are a little bit different. He isn't doing it just because he wants to experience more, but because he wants to get out of the cycle that he sees happening over and over again. He doesn't want to become an Indian who is always drunk. He doesn't want to become disconnected from life. In a sense that's what trying to get out of a small town has been for me. The kids who go back, they work, they drink, they work, they drink...that becomes their life. But like Arnold, I've realized that there are some pieces of my past, pieces of my small town, that I want to take with me. Arnold realizes that while he wants to escape the drinking, he wants to keep his sense of family. He learns from his interactions and observances that the parents of the kids at Reardan aren't all that connected to their children. They don't support their children the way the parents on the reservation do. I think that this same thing can be said for a rural life. I know my neighbors, I know most of the people in town (or I did growing up at least) and even the ones that I didn't necessarily know usually knew me and/or my parents. Everyone said hi to everyone whether it was your next door neighbor or just someone you occasionally saw at the grocery store. Society as a whole I think is moving away from this, but particularly in bigger cities. While I understand that the city isn't as safe of a place necessarily and that this may not be a practical way to look at life in a "bigger place" I feel like this ideal of knowing your neighbor and being friendly to everyone whether you know this or not is one of the main things from my childhood experiences that I will take with me no matter where I go.
Thursday, November 10, 2011
Out of the Dust
Out of the Dust by Karen Hesse
One of the things I continually picked up on as I was reading this book was the idea of hope. Each character seemed to have their own symbol of hope. For Ma it was the apples. She nurtures her true apple trees, urging them to grow even in the dust and lack of water (43). They also connect her to Billie Jo. The entry on page 43 talks about when Ma planted the apple trees before Billie Jo was born "that she and they might bring forth fruit/into our home,/together." (43). Billie Jo looks forward to the apples and we find out that she also loves apples. Two entries later we see her again connect Ma and the trees to one another when she says that the apples will be ready to eat around the time when the baby is born (45).
Bayard's symbol of hope is the rain as well as water in general. His connection is to the land. He is a farmer, and in Billie Jo's eyes he is even a part of the land. She says, "I tell him he is like the sod,/ and I am like the wheat" (205). Pa keeps waiting for rain, and when it comes he tries again to plant his wheat, but the dust keeps coming back, taking away his hope. He finally decides to dig his pond. This, again, is him finding hope in water. If the pond fills then the drought will be done which will mean things will grow again and he can go back to farming. If the pond doesn't fill then it will be just like Billie Jo says, he will have dug his own grave. In the end he must compromise with the earth. The rain comes and it will grow things for him, but he must learn to care for it better.
Billie Jo's symbol of hope is the piano. When she can play the piano she is hopeful. She finds hope through playing the piano in the beginning because she sees it as a way of getting out of Oklahoma. It's her big break! She can go play on the radio or play concerts. She plays local concerts to help better herself and make the path that she hopes will lead her out. When her hands no longer play and when her Ma and the baby have died we see that she has lost hope. Not only does she not have much hope of her and her father being able to carry on without her Ma, but she no longer has the hope of her music to carry her away because her hands won't play anymore. Her hands become a symbol along with the piano. They "scream with pain", fighting against her hope, but she tries anyway for a while (135). She veers away from the piano at times, letting the state of her hands and the tragedy of what has happened take away her hope. The images of her hands kept coming to my mind as I was reading this. They were always really vivid in her entries, "The doctor cut away the skin on my hands, it hung in/crested strips./ He cut my skin away with scissors,/then poked my hands with pins to see what I could/feel" (62). This image made my stomach turn. Again and again she describes the "lumps of flesh" that once were her hands (73). She becomes really worried not only about how she uses her hands and what she can and can't do now, but about what other people think and say about them. The hands that once provided her hope and happiness are now a source of pain and remembrance of the blame that she puts on herself and her father.
I read this book for the first time when I was in third grade, and I read it at least three or four times after that throughout my elementary, junior high, and high school years. Reading it again now that I'm through college, I found that I read it through a different lens. I still picked up on some of the same elements, but I feel like the images were stronger, and I feel like I picked up on the themes a lot better. As a child I read the book wanting the enjoyment and entertainment out of it. I was interested in the time period and I loved talking to my grandparents and finding out what they had to say about the time period and what happened during the dust bowl for what they remember. This time when I read it, I found that I read it as a teacher, looking for the connections I could help my students make if they were to read it in class. I think that this is definitely a good book to use when making connections between the literature and history. It would work with many different age groups, because the level of the text makes it very accessible, but a teacher could very easily up the level of the reading through the questions they posed to the students and the discussions they led in connection with the book.
One of the things I continually picked up on as I was reading this book was the idea of hope. Each character seemed to have their own symbol of hope. For Ma it was the apples. She nurtures her true apple trees, urging them to grow even in the dust and lack of water (43). They also connect her to Billie Jo. The entry on page 43 talks about when Ma planted the apple trees before Billie Jo was born "that she and they might bring forth fruit/into our home,/together." (43). Billie Jo looks forward to the apples and we find out that she also loves apples. Two entries later we see her again connect Ma and the trees to one another when she says that the apples will be ready to eat around the time when the baby is born (45).
Bayard's symbol of hope is the rain as well as water in general. His connection is to the land. He is a farmer, and in Billie Jo's eyes he is even a part of the land. She says, "I tell him he is like the sod,/ and I am like the wheat" (205). Pa keeps waiting for rain, and when it comes he tries again to plant his wheat, but the dust keeps coming back, taking away his hope. He finally decides to dig his pond. This, again, is him finding hope in water. If the pond fills then the drought will be done which will mean things will grow again and he can go back to farming. If the pond doesn't fill then it will be just like Billie Jo says, he will have dug his own grave. In the end he must compromise with the earth. The rain comes and it will grow things for him, but he must learn to care for it better.
Billie Jo's symbol of hope is the piano. When she can play the piano she is hopeful. She finds hope through playing the piano in the beginning because she sees it as a way of getting out of Oklahoma. It's her big break! She can go play on the radio or play concerts. She plays local concerts to help better herself and make the path that she hopes will lead her out. When her hands no longer play and when her Ma and the baby have died we see that she has lost hope. Not only does she not have much hope of her and her father being able to carry on without her Ma, but she no longer has the hope of her music to carry her away because her hands won't play anymore. Her hands become a symbol along with the piano. They "scream with pain", fighting against her hope, but she tries anyway for a while (135). She veers away from the piano at times, letting the state of her hands and the tragedy of what has happened take away her hope. The images of her hands kept coming to my mind as I was reading this. They were always really vivid in her entries, "The doctor cut away the skin on my hands, it hung in/crested strips./ He cut my skin away with scissors,/then poked my hands with pins to see what I could/feel" (62). This image made my stomach turn. Again and again she describes the "lumps of flesh" that once were her hands (73). She becomes really worried not only about how she uses her hands and what she can and can't do now, but about what other people think and say about them. The hands that once provided her hope and happiness are now a source of pain and remembrance of the blame that she puts on herself and her father.
I read this book for the first time when I was in third grade, and I read it at least three or four times after that throughout my elementary, junior high, and high school years. Reading it again now that I'm through college, I found that I read it through a different lens. I still picked up on some of the same elements, but I feel like the images were stronger, and I feel like I picked up on the themes a lot better. As a child I read the book wanting the enjoyment and entertainment out of it. I was interested in the time period and I loved talking to my grandparents and finding out what they had to say about the time period and what happened during the dust bowl for what they remember. This time when I read it, I found that I read it as a teacher, looking for the connections I could help my students make if they were to read it in class. I think that this is definitely a good book to use when making connections between the literature and history. It would work with many different age groups, because the level of the text makes it very accessible, but a teacher could very easily up the level of the reading through the questions they posed to the students and the discussions they led in connection with the book.
The Giver
The Giver by Louis Lowery
This book had been talked up to me by many, many people, and while I loved the lessons it taught, I wasn't as impressed with the book as I thought I would be.
Set in a utopian society, the people are kept from having any painful memories or knowing anything of the past. They don't know war, they don't know murder and death. In fact, you find out through the training of our main character that the other members of the utopia don't even know what colors are, they see in blacks and whites and tones of gray, but the idea of color is foreign to them.
The idea is that people must know about these past events in order to learn from them. And while the Receiver of Memory in the book is meant to hold all of these memories in order to keep the rest of the community from knowing pain and in order to keep peace, it tears this poor man apart to have all of these painful memories to bear as his own burden.
Overall a good read, and certainly some lessons to be learned. While I didn't find it as good as I expected it to be, I would still recommend it. It's a short book and a quick read and memorable. There are two sequels, and I have been told that the pieces I felt were missing from this book are incorporated in the the other two books of the trilogy.
This book had been talked up to me by many, many people, and while I loved the lessons it taught, I wasn't as impressed with the book as I thought I would be.
Set in a utopian society, the people are kept from having any painful memories or knowing anything of the past. They don't know war, they don't know murder and death. In fact, you find out through the training of our main character that the other members of the utopia don't even know what colors are, they see in blacks and whites and tones of gray, but the idea of color is foreign to them.
The idea is that people must know about these past events in order to learn from them. And while the Receiver of Memory in the book is meant to hold all of these memories in order to keep the rest of the community from knowing pain and in order to keep peace, it tears this poor man apart to have all of these painful memories to bear as his own burden.
Overall a good read, and certainly some lessons to be learned. While I didn't find it as good as I expected it to be, I would still recommend it. It's a short book and a quick read and memorable. There are two sequels, and I have been told that the pieces I felt were missing from this book are incorporated in the the other two books of the trilogy.
The Hunger Games
The Hunger Games by Suzanne Collins
Oh! Wow!
Definitely a must read book!
Set in futuristic America, it portrays the lives of the people who have rebelled against the government and now must pay the price by sacrificing their children once a year in the ultimate game of life-and-death.
This book is one of the new big trends in high school English classrooms. With so many aspects that can be focused on and so many big questions that can be used as themes it lends itself to a universal classroom available to many different grade levels and units.
I really enjoyed this book, and since it's been a little while since I read it (I've read three other books since then), I'd like to share with you my journal entry from when I read it for class:
Warning: Contains Spoilers
I connected to this book in a lot of ways. In particular I found myself connecting it back to other texts that I had read. The two texts I kept coming back to were Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire and "The Most Dangerous Game." Particularly, I kept thinking about this idea of killing and how it was portrayed in each of the three stories. In The Hunger Games it was very brutal, usually involving a lot of blood and some sort of savage act. Some competitors seemed to have no problem will killing one another. They had been raised and trained to do just that so that if the time came they could bring back a victory for their district. It wasn't about morals or allies for these kids, it was about the way their district would treat them when they returned and the honor that their district would receive. For others, killing came less naturally, but as we saw with Katniss when Rue was killed, there became a time when the killing was justifiable and it didn't matter that it was murder because it was in revenge of something or someone that really mattered.
In The Goblet of Fire the winners aren't supposed to actually die, but it happens regardless. This causes controversy and people begin pointing fingers. Because no one sees what happens Harry becomes the target. Winning is not seen in that case as being held above life, but then, it also isn't a life-or-death game. For Voldemort, however, he is like the tribute that doesn't care who he kills. He kills mercilessly simply for the sake of killing.
"The Most Dangerous Game" seems to tie these two ideas together. First there is the idea of it being a sport. Certainly in The Hunger Games the killing itself becomes a sport as they must hunt each other not only in order to survive against one another, but to survive against the Gamemakers by being the sole survivor. Both of these stories present the idea of what it means to hunt and how hunting humans is similar and different from hunting animals. Not only that, but they both create a situation in which killing becomes the only option for survival. While they post a situation in which killing is the ultimate outcome, do they not also lend themselves for other ways to try and outsmart they're opponent. Katniss doesn't jump right into the idea of killing the other tributes, but she does use her wit and skills to try to outsmart them as a way of wearing them into defeat. In the case of the food pyramid, for instance, she destroys it, not only hoping that it will lead them to the conclusion that another tribute did it, but also diminishing their food supply to take away the ease that they have created for themselves. In "The Most Dangerous Games" this also happens. Traps are set as a way of slowing down his enemy as he attempts to keep himself alive. These are meant to outsmart but not to necessarily kill (in most of the instances).
The two big questions related to killing that I was left with after this book were "how far can you/should you go to prove a point" and "are we more likely to follow society or our own morals?" These questions can both relate not only to killing, but to life in general. In the book the Capitol believes they have a point to prove to the districts. There as been an uprising before and while the destroyed District 13 as a way of stopping them from uprising, they are convinced that in order to keep control they must continue to hold the Hunger Games every year. Does it make sense to punish these people though? Yes, it was their ancestors that created the uprising, but how many of them were alive or even remember knowing those ancestors who were? This is the 74th Hunger Games, creating a large time gap. Do they still believe that the districts will rise against them? If they continue to hold the strict rules they have created and the crappy conditions which they force upon the districts is there even any way they could create an uprising? (Probably. I'm hoping they could and eventually would, actually, but really, is it even a possibility?) I think that by keeping the laws and conditions they have proven their point, and not only have they taken it too far by holding the Hunger Games, but they've crossed an entirely new boundary line by forcing everyone to watch the Games as they are played out.
The second question, that of society and our own morals, seems to be one that the tributes aren't given much of an option about. The choice is to fight or die. But there are certainly moments of defiance toward the Capitol (which could be the society in this instance) where the characters morals show through. Alliances are created and upheld, like that of Rue and Katniss. Thresh letting Katniss go in exchange for her kindness and alliance with Rue. Peeta protecting Katniss from the pack of Careers at the risk of his own life. In all of these instances the players morals showed through above what society would have told them today. The Capitol told them what they must do, and they showed their defiance through the kindness towards one another. The final defiance and showing of upholding their morals comes from Katniss and Peeta at the end of the Games. At first Katniss jumps to the ready with her bow, believe she will have to fight Peeta to the death after all, but when Peeta gives in, throwing away his knife and begging her to take the victory, she realizes that she can't do that. Her morals and her love for him (whether she is willing to admit it or not) will not let her. Their defiance in choosing to die together and leave no victor leads the Gamemakers to retract their previous statement and change the rules yet again. Their defiance leads to a change in the rules of the society. Can't we do the same thing? Maybe it's not always in a life-or-death situation, but can the defiance and refusal of a few, or even one, cause people to notice and society to somehow change?
Oh! Wow!
Definitely a must read book!
Set in futuristic America, it portrays the lives of the people who have rebelled against the government and now must pay the price by sacrificing their children once a year in the ultimate game of life-and-death.
This book is one of the new big trends in high school English classrooms. With so many aspects that can be focused on and so many big questions that can be used as themes it lends itself to a universal classroom available to many different grade levels and units.
I really enjoyed this book, and since it's been a little while since I read it (I've read three other books since then), I'd like to share with you my journal entry from when I read it for class:
Warning: Contains Spoilers
I connected to this book in a lot of ways. In particular I found myself connecting it back to other texts that I had read. The two texts I kept coming back to were Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire and "The Most Dangerous Game." Particularly, I kept thinking about this idea of killing and how it was portrayed in each of the three stories. In The Hunger Games it was very brutal, usually involving a lot of blood and some sort of savage act. Some competitors seemed to have no problem will killing one another. They had been raised and trained to do just that so that if the time came they could bring back a victory for their district. It wasn't about morals or allies for these kids, it was about the way their district would treat them when they returned and the honor that their district would receive. For others, killing came less naturally, but as we saw with Katniss when Rue was killed, there became a time when the killing was justifiable and it didn't matter that it was murder because it was in revenge of something or someone that really mattered.
In The Goblet of Fire the winners aren't supposed to actually die, but it happens regardless. This causes controversy and people begin pointing fingers. Because no one sees what happens Harry becomes the target. Winning is not seen in that case as being held above life, but then, it also isn't a life-or-death game. For Voldemort, however, he is like the tribute that doesn't care who he kills. He kills mercilessly simply for the sake of killing.
"The Most Dangerous Game" seems to tie these two ideas together. First there is the idea of it being a sport. Certainly in The Hunger Games the killing itself becomes a sport as they must hunt each other not only in order to survive against one another, but to survive against the Gamemakers by being the sole survivor. Both of these stories present the idea of what it means to hunt and how hunting humans is similar and different from hunting animals. Not only that, but they both create a situation in which killing becomes the only option for survival. While they post a situation in which killing is the ultimate outcome, do they not also lend themselves for other ways to try and outsmart they're opponent. Katniss doesn't jump right into the idea of killing the other tributes, but she does use her wit and skills to try to outsmart them as a way of wearing them into defeat. In the case of the food pyramid, for instance, she destroys it, not only hoping that it will lead them to the conclusion that another tribute did it, but also diminishing their food supply to take away the ease that they have created for themselves. In "The Most Dangerous Games" this also happens. Traps are set as a way of slowing down his enemy as he attempts to keep himself alive. These are meant to outsmart but not to necessarily kill (in most of the instances).
The two big questions related to killing that I was left with after this book were "how far can you/should you go to prove a point" and "are we more likely to follow society or our own morals?" These questions can both relate not only to killing, but to life in general. In the book the Capitol believes they have a point to prove to the districts. There as been an uprising before and while the destroyed District 13 as a way of stopping them from uprising, they are convinced that in order to keep control they must continue to hold the Hunger Games every year. Does it make sense to punish these people though? Yes, it was their ancestors that created the uprising, but how many of them were alive or even remember knowing those ancestors who were? This is the 74th Hunger Games, creating a large time gap. Do they still believe that the districts will rise against them? If they continue to hold the strict rules they have created and the crappy conditions which they force upon the districts is there even any way they could create an uprising? (Probably. I'm hoping they could and eventually would, actually, but really, is it even a possibility?) I think that by keeping the laws and conditions they have proven their point, and not only have they taken it too far by holding the Hunger Games, but they've crossed an entirely new boundary line by forcing everyone to watch the Games as they are played out.
The second question, that of society and our own morals, seems to be one that the tributes aren't given much of an option about. The choice is to fight or die. But there are certainly moments of defiance toward the Capitol (which could be the society in this instance) where the characters morals show through. Alliances are created and upheld, like that of Rue and Katniss. Thresh letting Katniss go in exchange for her kindness and alliance with Rue. Peeta protecting Katniss from the pack of Careers at the risk of his own life. In all of these instances the players morals showed through above what society would have told them today. The Capitol told them what they must do, and they showed their defiance through the kindness towards one another. The final defiance and showing of upholding their morals comes from Katniss and Peeta at the end of the Games. At first Katniss jumps to the ready with her bow, believe she will have to fight Peeta to the death after all, but when Peeta gives in, throwing away his knife and begging her to take the victory, she realizes that she can't do that. Her morals and her love for him (whether she is willing to admit it or not) will not let her. Their defiance in choosing to die together and leave no victor leads the Gamemakers to retract their previous statement and change the rules yet again. Their defiance leads to a change in the rules of the society. Can't we do the same thing? Maybe it's not always in a life-or-death situation, but can the defiance and refusal of a few, or even one, cause people to notice and society to somehow change?
Monday, October 24, 2011
Monster
Monster by Walter Dean Myers
What is a "monster"? Is is an internal quality, an external characteristic?
How fair is our justice system? Is it really free from prejudice? Can one really over-look stereotypes placed by society when trying to judge the guilt or innocence of someone sitting before them accused of a crime?
How do you find yourself in a world who is trying to define you as they see you? Can you fight against what other people say you are to show who you think you are?
There are so many questions that arise in Walter Dean Myers' Monster. The list of questions here only begins to get at what is addressed in this novel.
I read this novel for my Young Adult Literature class, and I'm glad that it was one of the chosen texts for the class. I learned a lot about how I see the world and how it can be different for different people. I think that growing up in a rural Iowa town I certainly was naive about how things worked in "the real world". It's not that our small farming community wasn't "real", but it certainly wasn't near as diverse as much of the U.S. population and didn't come anywhere near addressing the diversity found globaly.
I think that one of the most interesting things about this book was the authors choice in style and formatting. This book contains journal entries as well as movie scenes which include the dialogue as well as the setting. There is certainly something different about reading a novel only from the outward perspective. Might the reader feel differently about the characters if they knew what they were thinking and feeling on the inside? We get a few small glimpses of this from Steve's point of view (he's the main character) through his journal entries, but most of the book is comprised of the scene scripts. We see the trial through the eyes of the jury. We see and hear what they see and hear and we get very little else. What we do get outside of what the jury perceives is not even always helpful as it often presents contradictions and mixed feelings. In the end, the reader is left to decide along with the jury whether or not they believe Steve to be guilty. And for me at least, "the jury" is still out.
This book is an excellent book to use in a classroom and with the multitude of resources available it can be used to discuss any number of themes and elements. There is some material that has been questioned in schools, but I would like to address that as well. Writers are often trying to conserve their words. Words are chosen wisely (if the text is written well) so that they do not become excessive but still get the authors point across and convey a message to the reader. Reading things in a book (such as the scene in the book where the main character is trying to ignore the sexual harassment happening on the other side of the cell from him) are placed there to better help the reader. I didn't read that scene and find myself disgusted with the author for including it, but rather, I found myself more empathetic toward Steve and his situation. I certainly think that parents have a right to know what their children are reading, but why ban them from reading it and keep them blind to the situation until the time when they may have to confront it in some way without the guidance and controlled setting offered in a classroom? Why not read the scene (or even the whole book) with your child and discuss the issue? Why not talk to your student and let them know what you think they need to about the situation? Answer their questions. Talk to them. But don't tried to hide it from them. Don't let them ignore it and don't rob them of the experience and understanding that they will gain from the book.
What is a "monster"? Is is an internal quality, an external characteristic?
How fair is our justice system? Is it really free from prejudice? Can one really over-look stereotypes placed by society when trying to judge the guilt or innocence of someone sitting before them accused of a crime?
How do you find yourself in a world who is trying to define you as they see you? Can you fight against what other people say you are to show who you think you are?
There are so many questions that arise in Walter Dean Myers' Monster. The list of questions here only begins to get at what is addressed in this novel.
I read this novel for my Young Adult Literature class, and I'm glad that it was one of the chosen texts for the class. I learned a lot about how I see the world and how it can be different for different people. I think that growing up in a rural Iowa town I certainly was naive about how things worked in "the real world". It's not that our small farming community wasn't "real", but it certainly wasn't near as diverse as much of the U.S. population and didn't come anywhere near addressing the diversity found globaly.
I think that one of the most interesting things about this book was the authors choice in style and formatting. This book contains journal entries as well as movie scenes which include the dialogue as well as the setting. There is certainly something different about reading a novel only from the outward perspective. Might the reader feel differently about the characters if they knew what they were thinking and feeling on the inside? We get a few small glimpses of this from Steve's point of view (he's the main character) through his journal entries, but most of the book is comprised of the scene scripts. We see the trial through the eyes of the jury. We see and hear what they see and hear and we get very little else. What we do get outside of what the jury perceives is not even always helpful as it often presents contradictions and mixed feelings. In the end, the reader is left to decide along with the jury whether or not they believe Steve to be guilty. And for me at least, "the jury" is still out.
This book is an excellent book to use in a classroom and with the multitude of resources available it can be used to discuss any number of themes and elements. There is some material that has been questioned in schools, but I would like to address that as well. Writers are often trying to conserve their words. Words are chosen wisely (if the text is written well) so that they do not become excessive but still get the authors point across and convey a message to the reader. Reading things in a book (such as the scene in the book where the main character is trying to ignore the sexual harassment happening on the other side of the cell from him) are placed there to better help the reader. I didn't read that scene and find myself disgusted with the author for including it, but rather, I found myself more empathetic toward Steve and his situation. I certainly think that parents have a right to know what their children are reading, but why ban them from reading it and keep them blind to the situation until the time when they may have to confront it in some way without the guidance and controlled setting offered in a classroom? Why not read the scene (or even the whole book) with your child and discuss the issue? Why not talk to your student and let them know what you think they need to about the situation? Answer their questions. Talk to them. But don't tried to hide it from them. Don't let them ignore it and don't rob them of the experience and understanding that they will gain from the book.
Sisterhood Everlasting
Best friends. Sleepovers. Getting through the tough stuff together. Promising to always be there for each other. These are some of the strongest memories I have from my childhood. I was the girl whose life revolved around her best friends, and that was the way it was always going to be.
When I was in junior high I began reading the Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants series. There were five books in the series, the last of which came out while I was in high school. (I think it was my senior year actually.) These four girls in these books reminded me so much of myself and my own best friends that I felt like I could see our own lives played out through their sorrows and celebrations and we hoped that we would always have a friendship like theirs.
A couple of months ago I was at the bookstore with my granny and I came across a book by the same author, Ann Brashares. I knew that she was still writing. I'd read another book by her, My Name is Memory during the past school year. It was completely disconnected from the Sisterhood books, but it was still very well written and I had loved it. I picked up the book and quickly realized that this book was in-fact a continuation of the Sisterhood series. The book, Sisterhood Everlasting, is what happens "ten years later". A follow-up and unraveling of the lives the girls had been leading since the last novel in which they had finally finished college and were heading out into the world as adults.
I was gripped by this novel right away, excited to delve back into the lives of some of my favorite childhood fiction characters. But the girls were so disconnected from one another as the novel began and I was a bit sad because I recognized the signs of this slow separation in my own life as we all head in our own directions in life. Not far into the novel, tragedy struck. While it was my hope that it would somehow bring them together, it ended up pushing them farther and farther apart. As I followed each of the remaining three girls (I can't say which three) on their own torn journey's to find themselves and the pieces that suddenly seemed to be missing I found my heart hurting for each and every one of them.
It took me a while to get through the first half of the novel since classes were going and I was overwhelmed with a heavy reading load for my classes, but as I lay down before bed the first night of fall break I had planned to read only for half an hour so that I could get some sleep... Three and a half hours later, at 2 o'clock in the morning, I found my self crying into my pillow reading the last pages of the book. So it turns out, it had a better ending than I had expected, and Ms. Brashares wrapped up the girls' stories nicely. I wish with all of my heart that I could continue to follow these girls' lives as they continue to grow and as their family's grow as well. But I'm glad that it has ended this way. I think (though I guess I can't say for sure) that this will be the final installment. With all of the loose ends tied and a pretty (if someone tattered and sad) bow placed on top (figuratively of course) I think that I can happily set aside this book and realize the lessons that I learn not only from this novel in particular, but from all six novels. I can see their lessons played out in my life and I hope that I can carry them with me in the years to come as I continue on my own journey through life with my own best friends who have always been there for...no matter what.
When I was in junior high I began reading the Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants series. There were five books in the series, the last of which came out while I was in high school. (I think it was my senior year actually.) These four girls in these books reminded me so much of myself and my own best friends that I felt like I could see our own lives played out through their sorrows and celebrations and we hoped that we would always have a friendship like theirs.
A couple of months ago I was at the bookstore with my granny and I came across a book by the same author, Ann Brashares. I knew that she was still writing. I'd read another book by her, My Name is Memory during the past school year. It was completely disconnected from the Sisterhood books, but it was still very well written and I had loved it. I picked up the book and quickly realized that this book was in-fact a continuation of the Sisterhood series. The book, Sisterhood Everlasting, is what happens "ten years later". A follow-up and unraveling of the lives the girls had been leading since the last novel in which they had finally finished college and were heading out into the world as adults.
I was gripped by this novel right away, excited to delve back into the lives of some of my favorite childhood fiction characters. But the girls were so disconnected from one another as the novel began and I was a bit sad because I recognized the signs of this slow separation in my own life as we all head in our own directions in life. Not far into the novel, tragedy struck. While it was my hope that it would somehow bring them together, it ended up pushing them farther and farther apart. As I followed each of the remaining three girls (I can't say which three) on their own torn journey's to find themselves and the pieces that suddenly seemed to be missing I found my heart hurting for each and every one of them.
It took me a while to get through the first half of the novel since classes were going and I was overwhelmed with a heavy reading load for my classes, but as I lay down before bed the first night of fall break I had planned to read only for half an hour so that I could get some sleep... Three and a half hours later, at 2 o'clock in the morning, I found my self crying into my pillow reading the last pages of the book. So it turns out, it had a better ending than I had expected, and Ms. Brashares wrapped up the girls' stories nicely. I wish with all of my heart that I could continue to follow these girls' lives as they continue to grow and as their family's grow as well. But I'm glad that it has ended this way. I think (though I guess I can't say for sure) that this will be the final installment. With all of the loose ends tied and a pretty (if someone tattered and sad) bow placed on top (figuratively of course) I think that I can happily set aside this book and realize the lessons that I learn not only from this novel in particular, but from all six novels. I can see their lessons played out in my life and I hope that I can carry them with me in the years to come as I continue on my own journey through life with my own best friends who have always been there for...no matter what.
The Great Gatsby
The Great Gatsby is a novel by F. Scott Fitzgerald written in (year). It is very much a novel of it's time, based out of the decade in which it was written. The book is filled with scandals and affairs. I had been meaning to read it for a while, being that it's a book most people read in high school and as an English major I felt a little embarrassed that I had never read it. So, I read it for my senior project, intending to create a set of lesson plans around it which will incorporate the philosophy of New Historicism in the classroom.
The book had a bit of a slow start, but once it picked up I was caught. I can't really say why I thought it was slow at first. Maybe it's because it's more of the main character's background. While Nick isn't a particularly disagreeable character, I was impatient to meet Mr. Gatsby. I liked the novel, and I could certainly envision it in the time period it was set in. You could see the big parties and the trips to the city, but you could also see the interactions that were happening between Gatsby and the other characters. The novel did make me mad, however, as I had trouble not reading it through a feminist perspective. Feminist readings and New Historicism are certainly connected, but it was important for me to try to step outside of seeing the story only through that lens and putting other perspectives into it.
Since I read it through a feminist perspective (and since this blog is not part of the project but simply my own Reader Response reaction) I would like to share my concerns with you about this novel. I can't say what the author's intent with the novel was, and while certain schools of thought are interested in that, it's not usually my concern. I was particularly interested in what it said about society and our interactions in society, and that's when the feminist in me came out. As I said, there are multiple affairs and scandals that come about. Multiple people are sleeping with someone-or-others husband or wife. The problem is that the women are given the blame. A man finds out his wife is cheating on him and while he chastises her and tries to suppress her he is having an affair of his own as well. And while he sees issues with her having an affair, he never worries about his own, nor does he see the woman he is having an affair with as having morally implicated herself. Why is it that the women get all the blame? Does the man not have some involvement and therefore responsibility in the whole matter? We're talking about this issue in my human relations class right now. America (even today) is under the impression that men cannot control themselves when it comes to sexual urges and so women are left with the full responsibility of making sure things don't go too far. A woman is expected to look beautiful, sexy even, and meet the standards of beauty presented by society, but she is also expected to draw a thin line between "being sexy" and "being a whore." Why is it that a woman sleeping with a man becomes a "whore" but a man sleeping with a woman (or even multiple women) gains respect and a certain "higher status" among other men? How does this double standard help anyone? A man must sleep with a woman to gain this, but a woman must resist him in order to keep her own social status. There is no happy medium. There is no way for everyone to gain a sense of pleasure (and a certain sense of self) from the situation.
So, I guess my final thought on Gatsby is that while there are clear sexist implications throughout it, and while it shows the signs of it's time, there is still a real-world application of this text today and we can still use it today in connection with other texts and resources to teach out students about society as well as gender lines.
The book had a bit of a slow start, but once it picked up I was caught. I can't really say why I thought it was slow at first. Maybe it's because it's more of the main character's background. While Nick isn't a particularly disagreeable character, I was impatient to meet Mr. Gatsby. I liked the novel, and I could certainly envision it in the time period it was set in. You could see the big parties and the trips to the city, but you could also see the interactions that were happening between Gatsby and the other characters. The novel did make me mad, however, as I had trouble not reading it through a feminist perspective. Feminist readings and New Historicism are certainly connected, but it was important for me to try to step outside of seeing the story only through that lens and putting other perspectives into it.
Since I read it through a feminist perspective (and since this blog is not part of the project but simply my own Reader Response reaction) I would like to share my concerns with you about this novel. I can't say what the author's intent with the novel was, and while certain schools of thought are interested in that, it's not usually my concern. I was particularly interested in what it said about society and our interactions in society, and that's when the feminist in me came out. As I said, there are multiple affairs and scandals that come about. Multiple people are sleeping with someone-or-others husband or wife. The problem is that the women are given the blame. A man finds out his wife is cheating on him and while he chastises her and tries to suppress her he is having an affair of his own as well. And while he sees issues with her having an affair, he never worries about his own, nor does he see the woman he is having an affair with as having morally implicated herself. Why is it that the women get all the blame? Does the man not have some involvement and therefore responsibility in the whole matter? We're talking about this issue in my human relations class right now. America (even today) is under the impression that men cannot control themselves when it comes to sexual urges and so women are left with the full responsibility of making sure things don't go too far. A woman is expected to look beautiful, sexy even, and meet the standards of beauty presented by society, but she is also expected to draw a thin line between "being sexy" and "being a whore." Why is it that a woman sleeping with a man becomes a "whore" but a man sleeping with a woman (or even multiple women) gains respect and a certain "higher status" among other men? How does this double standard help anyone? A man must sleep with a woman to gain this, but a woman must resist him in order to keep her own social status. There is no happy medium. There is no way for everyone to gain a sense of pleasure (and a certain sense of self) from the situation.
So, I guess my final thought on Gatsby is that while there are clear sexist implications throughout it, and while it shows the signs of it's time, there is still a real-world application of this text today and we can still use it today in connection with other texts and resources to teach out students about society as well as gender lines.
Friday, September 2, 2011
The Phantom of the Opera
So, I finished The Phantom of the Opera last night, and I must say that while it was a good book, the convenience of being able to see it rather than read it has somewhat ruined it for me.
The book was great overall. It was the perfect mix of adventure and mystery and romance, but there was just something about it. I think part of it was the redundancy of some of the stories. (There were several stories told over more than once from a different persons perspective.) Maybe it was the unbelievable long explanations of certain aspects of the story which I found already obvious. Whatever it may have been, as much as I loved seeing it live when it came to Des Moines and as much as I like the movie, it literally took me over a month to fight my way through the book.
If you want to read the book I think you'll find it intriguing, but be warned that there are pieces along the way that you will find daunting. It will probably serve you better if you haven't seen it in some medium or another, but if you have and you still feel the need to read it, by all means, please do!
After all, the journey all depends on the person taking it, right?
The book was great overall. It was the perfect mix of adventure and mystery and romance, but there was just something about it. I think part of it was the redundancy of some of the stories. (There were several stories told over more than once from a different persons perspective.) Maybe it was the unbelievable long explanations of certain aspects of the story which I found already obvious. Whatever it may have been, as much as I loved seeing it live when it came to Des Moines and as much as I like the movie, it literally took me over a month to fight my way through the book.
If you want to read the book I think you'll find it intriguing, but be warned that there are pieces along the way that you will find daunting. It will probably serve you better if you haven't seen it in some medium or another, but if you have and you still feel the need to read it, by all means, please do!
After all, the journey all depends on the person taking it, right?
Wednesday, July 6, 2011
The Lovely Bones
I feel like I've been slacking on my reading lately...which I probably have been. I've been trying to fit it in, but sometimes I just get wrapped up and don't get to it or there are other things that need to be done. And in my defense, some of that would-have-been reading time was spent trying to get back into a workout routine! But, enough excuses, let's get this ball rolling!
Hmmm...what to say, well, I should probably start (I suppose) by letting you know that over the holiday weekend I finished reading The Lovely Bones by Alice Sebold. This book was different for me because while I always try (key word: try) to read a book before I see it's corresponding movie, this time I had actually seen the movie first. It's been a while since I saw it (last summer maybe?) but I still remembered quite a bit of it. I can't say whether that played to it's advantage or not.
I loved the book, and I think that the characters and their development where great. There were places where the jumps between years and between Earth and Heaven might have been a bit confusing. It was at these times that I think having seen the movie helped me. But there was a catch-22 (of course). Having seen the movie, I already had an idea of what someone else imagined the characters and the scenes to look like. There were certainly parts of the book that I didn't remember from the movie. I liked imagining my own scene, but I'm not sure that I liked the fact that no matter how hard I tried, I couldn't create my own Susie, I could only see the girl cast to play her in the movie...Okay, I think I'm getting off topic.
For those of you who haven't read the book, Susie is a high school girl just like every other girl, kind of awkward but still fitting-in in her own special way. On her way home from school one day she takes a short cut through the corn field between her house and the school. Her creepy neighbor is waiting for her and has built a fort under ground which he coaxes her into. The rest of the story is what's happening in her Heaven but also what she sees happening on Earth. There's the search for any clues about Susie disappearance, which leads into the lives of some of her classmates (including the boy who wrote her a love note the day she disappeared). The side stories and the creative telling of each person's piece in the larger story of Susie Salmon (like the fish) is intriguing and keeps the reader hanging on to each character.
Over-all I think this is a great book and would gladly recommend it!
Check back soon! The Phantom of the Opera is next!
P.S. Who is excited for Harry Potter 7 part II?!?!? (Not that it will ever be as good as the book, but it's gotta be half-way decent, right?)
Hmmm...what to say, well, I should probably start (I suppose) by letting you know that over the holiday weekend I finished reading The Lovely Bones by Alice Sebold. This book was different for me because while I always try (key word: try) to read a book before I see it's corresponding movie, this time I had actually seen the movie first. It's been a while since I saw it (last summer maybe?) but I still remembered quite a bit of it. I can't say whether that played to it's advantage or not.
I loved the book, and I think that the characters and their development where great. There were places where the jumps between years and between Earth and Heaven might have been a bit confusing. It was at these times that I think having seen the movie helped me. But there was a catch-22 (of course). Having seen the movie, I already had an idea of what someone else imagined the characters and the scenes to look like. There were certainly parts of the book that I didn't remember from the movie. I liked imagining my own scene, but I'm not sure that I liked the fact that no matter how hard I tried, I couldn't create my own Susie, I could only see the girl cast to play her in the movie...Okay, I think I'm getting off topic.
For those of you who haven't read the book, Susie is a high school girl just like every other girl, kind of awkward but still fitting-in in her own special way. On her way home from school one day she takes a short cut through the corn field between her house and the school. Her creepy neighbor is waiting for her and has built a fort under ground which he coaxes her into. The rest of the story is what's happening in her Heaven but also what she sees happening on Earth. There's the search for any clues about Susie disappearance, which leads into the lives of some of her classmates (including the boy who wrote her a love note the day she disappeared). The side stories and the creative telling of each person's piece in the larger story of Susie Salmon (like the fish) is intriguing and keeps the reader hanging on to each character.
Over-all I think this is a great book and would gladly recommend it!
Check back soon! The Phantom of the Opera is next!
P.S. Who is excited for Harry Potter 7 part II?!?!? (Not that it will ever be as good as the book, but it's gotta be half-way decent, right?)
Thursday, June 9, 2011
Reading Frenzy--Summer at Tiffany and a little of The Lovely Bones
I've spent this first part of summer (and really, the last three weeks of school as well) reading as much as I possibly could. I've got a list of books a mile long that I've been wanting to read for a while, and every so often people tell me "You have to read this book" or "I read a book you'll love" and the list gets even longer. The down side to this of course is that the list keeps growing and I never really get ahead. But the bright side is that there's always something else I want to read waiting for me, and that every book I finish is another great adventure had!
This past Monday I finished the book Summer at Tiffany. When I first picked up the book I was drawn to it for a coupe of reasons. First of all, I really like history. I particularly like history that happened to specific people (whether I know/knew them or not) because it's an individual story rather than a blanket outline of an event. Second, I loved that the author was from Iowa. I think it's amazing to find a local story, especially since I often have a hard time finding stories from Iowa authors.
Summer at Tiffany is a carefully crafted memoir. It follows Marjorie through the summer of 1945 when she and her friend traveled to New York from the University of Iowa (where they were both attending school) and became the first girls to ever work on the floor of Tiffany's.
The book kept me enthralled! Miss Hart did a great job of recreating her memory in a way that I, as the reader, felt like I was with her. At times I felt as if I were her, and at other times I felt as if I were a ghost floating above the scene and watching it unfold. I loved her voice through-out the piece.
The ending was a toss-up for me. I loved that it was real and that it stayed true to her memory, but as I read through the last chapter (which explained what happened after that summer) I couldn't help but think that if this had been a non-fiction piece it would have happened differently. In reading the ending I gathered that she was satisfied with how her story continued, and I happy with the ending, regardless of the fact that it didn't follow my "whirl-wind idea" of romance and love.
Tuesday I began reading the book The Lovely Bones by Alice Sebold. I've seen the movie (although I'd always planned on reading the book first). Typically once I've seen a movie I cannot read the book it's based off of unless I read the book once beforehand. With this book I am very happy to report that this has not been the case! Three days and 100 pages into the book and I am absolutely captivated! (And really, it's only two days of reading because I didn't get a chance to read at all yesterday.) I can't wait to finish and let you know how I feel about the rest of the book, but let me say, once you pick it up you won't want to put it down!
This past Monday I finished the book Summer at Tiffany. When I first picked up the book I was drawn to it for a coupe of reasons. First of all, I really like history. I particularly like history that happened to specific people (whether I know/knew them or not) because it's an individual story rather than a blanket outline of an event. Second, I loved that the author was from Iowa. I think it's amazing to find a local story, especially since I often have a hard time finding stories from Iowa authors.
Summer at Tiffany is a carefully crafted memoir. It follows Marjorie through the summer of 1945 when she and her friend traveled to New York from the University of Iowa (where they were both attending school) and became the first girls to ever work on the floor of Tiffany's.
The book kept me enthralled! Miss Hart did a great job of recreating her memory in a way that I, as the reader, felt like I was with her. At times I felt as if I were her, and at other times I felt as if I were a ghost floating above the scene and watching it unfold. I loved her voice through-out the piece.
The ending was a toss-up for me. I loved that it was real and that it stayed true to her memory, but as I read through the last chapter (which explained what happened after that summer) I couldn't help but think that if this had been a non-fiction piece it would have happened differently. In reading the ending I gathered that she was satisfied with how her story continued, and I happy with the ending, regardless of the fact that it didn't follow my "whirl-wind idea" of romance and love.
Tuesday I began reading the book The Lovely Bones by Alice Sebold. I've seen the movie (although I'd always planned on reading the book first). Typically once I've seen a movie I cannot read the book it's based off of unless I read the book once beforehand. With this book I am very happy to report that this has not been the case! Three days and 100 pages into the book and I am absolutely captivated! (And really, it's only two days of reading because I didn't get a chance to read at all yesterday.) I can't wait to finish and let you know how I feel about the rest of the book, but let me say, once you pick it up you won't want to put it down!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)