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.
Thursday, December 15, 2011
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)