One can lie to the entire world but even then, a mirror won't lie.
Right now I am still reading The Lovely Bones by Alice Sebold. I have just read to the part where Mr. Harvey, the murderer of Susie and many other women, is starting to have his memories of past murders catch up to him. Previously seen, Mr. Harvey seemed to be able to keep these memories at bay but now, he is no longer able to. This idea that the memories of things that he did that were buried for so long could still resurface, intrigued me and that is what I will be blogging about today. How, even if the entire world sees a lie, the hardest one to fool is one's own self.
Mr. Harvey did actually quite a good job with keeping memories of his murders away. Killing so many women yet still being able to continue living normally (or normal for him) for so long is rather "amazing" (in a bad way that is). Still though, after so many years of not minding the horrible things he did, those things have come back to haunt him. It is his own fault really, killing people and then also thinking that he could get away with it. In fact he did technically, but the truth was that his mind, did not. Now though, there's no turning back from this rewind of episodes in his mind that he most definitely deserves to watch.
I am always amazed at those who believe that they can lie to themselves. Or perhaps not amazed but amused. Of course, there are people who can accomplish this but a very large portion of the world cannot. I do not understand though the point of why one would lie to themselves. Just because one denies doing something or even successfully forgets it, that doesn't mean they didn't do it. Even if no one remembered an event, the mark it leaves will still be there. An action done cannot be erased for someone or "something" will always know of it no matter how well it is hidden.
It is actually very scary that some people have gotten to the point where they themselves cannot stand what they did. How strong a rage or hate must be to cause one to commit something so horrible that it is worth forgetting to the person them self. That it is so morally wrong that even their own mind would not approve of such actions. How is it possible that one can choose to do something that even they them self is disgusted with and wants to forget? And the worst part is that perhaps it isn't "how is it possible", but "why must it be".
I suppose that no one wants to live a life in the horrors of one's own actions so why some people still do or choose to will always be a mystery to me. What I do know though is that I will not be one of those people.
Wednesday, May 8, 2013
Tuesday, April 30, 2013
The Train of Grief
Grief is like a train that runs on and on. There are many stops where people can board, but none where they can step off.
I am reading a book called The Lovely Bones by Alice Sebold. It is a very emotional book that talks about the effect of the death of a 14 year old girl on the people around her. The book is narrated by the girl as she watches from heaven as the years pass by. A main point of the book focuses on the grief of her family and how, even after much time has passed, the impact of her death is still there. This idea of grief, on how it is actually never ending, is what I will be blogging about today.
The book started with the year of 1973 when the 14 year old girl, Susie Salmon, was murdered. Up to where I have read, the story has now moved to the year 1981 (or perhaps 1982). Through the narration of 8 years the people around Susie change drastically but through it all, grief still hangs over them. Susie's father who was perhaps affected the most, remains in a sensitive state where the slightest trigger can send him into misery. Susie's sister and brother who although seems better off than their father, still has to cope with the "aftermath" of her death and Susie's friends, can still be reminded of what had happened to her. Susie's mother also left the family to live by herself after her daughter's death. Though the characters act like they have moved on slightly, it is still very obvious in the book that the family has not moved on, and nor has Susie. She (though she was the one who died) is stuck "grieving" her own death. What I mean by this is that she too dwells in the past of being able to know what happens on earth even though it has already been 8 years since she arrived in heaven. She is obsessed with the events on earth and is therefore just as stuck as the rest of her family.
It amazed me how this was true, that even in 8 years, Susie and the people around her are still grieving. Some of the family members such as Susie's sister and brother, and Susie's friends, seem to have learned to enjoy the "ride" but they too, have not, and will not, be able to get off this "train". This though, is the same with anyone who's loved one dies. It is a one way ticket since the journey grief takes, is everlasting and though the pain may lessen, it never fully unlatches itself. The train only stops for the passenger, when they too "receive their own train".
For me, I'm not sure that I will ever be able to enjoy a ride on this train. To be able to take in the view of life rolling on out the windows and smile. Perhaps I would need to lighten my luggage but wouldn't be able to, being unable to throw away the self accusations of blame and the feelings of anger on why a person had to die, that were in my bag. Perhaps I would also never be able to accept that there is, for some reason, no service on this train, when I tried to dial the people that I missed the most. But most of all, I think what I would have the hardest time accepting, is knowing that I will have to board multiple trains while never leaving the ones I already rode.
Everyone has a reserved ticket since everyone must board one of these trains at some point in their life. It is an inevitable ride that depending on one's coping skills, can either be a prison or enjoyable. In fact, these trains are so "magnificent" that they can turn into an enjoyable ride even if it started out as a prison. It is the person's own choice though, for how they would like to ride this train.
Everything depends on the passenger for this train that is only, "all aboard".
Please feel free to comment.
I am reading a book called The Lovely Bones by Alice Sebold. It is a very emotional book that talks about the effect of the death of a 14 year old girl on the people around her. The book is narrated by the girl as she watches from heaven as the years pass by. A main point of the book focuses on the grief of her family and how, even after much time has passed, the impact of her death is still there. This idea of grief, on how it is actually never ending, is what I will be blogging about today.
The book started with the year of 1973 when the 14 year old girl, Susie Salmon, was murdered. Up to where I have read, the story has now moved to the year 1981 (or perhaps 1982). Through the narration of 8 years the people around Susie change drastically but through it all, grief still hangs over them. Susie's father who was perhaps affected the most, remains in a sensitive state where the slightest trigger can send him into misery. Susie's sister and brother who although seems better off than their father, still has to cope with the "aftermath" of her death and Susie's friends, can still be reminded of what had happened to her. Susie's mother also left the family to live by herself after her daughter's death. Though the characters act like they have moved on slightly, it is still very obvious in the book that the family has not moved on, and nor has Susie. She (though she was the one who died) is stuck "grieving" her own death. What I mean by this is that she too dwells in the past of being able to know what happens on earth even though it has already been 8 years since she arrived in heaven. She is obsessed with the events on earth and is therefore just as stuck as the rest of her family.
It amazed me how this was true, that even in 8 years, Susie and the people around her are still grieving. Some of the family members such as Susie's sister and brother, and Susie's friends, seem to have learned to enjoy the "ride" but they too, have not, and will not, be able to get off this "train". This though, is the same with anyone who's loved one dies. It is a one way ticket since the journey grief takes, is everlasting and though the pain may lessen, it never fully unlatches itself. The train only stops for the passenger, when they too "receive their own train".
For me, I'm not sure that I will ever be able to enjoy a ride on this train. To be able to take in the view of life rolling on out the windows and smile. Perhaps I would need to lighten my luggage but wouldn't be able to, being unable to throw away the self accusations of blame and the feelings of anger on why a person had to die, that were in my bag. Perhaps I would also never be able to accept that there is, for some reason, no service on this train, when I tried to dial the people that I missed the most. But most of all, I think what I would have the hardest time accepting, is knowing that I will have to board multiple trains while never leaving the ones I already rode.
Everyone has a reserved ticket since everyone must board one of these trains at some point in their life. It is an inevitable ride that depending on one's coping skills, can either be a prison or enjoyable. In fact, these trains are so "magnificent" that they can turn into an enjoyable ride even if it started out as a prison. It is the person's own choice though, for how they would like to ride this train.
Everything depends on the passenger for this train that is only, "all aboard".
Please feel free to comment.
Wednesday, March 13, 2013
Deceiving Hallucinations
Is the love that Romeo feels true, or merely a deceiving hallucination?
Reading the story of the famous lovers Romeo and Juliet, a large topic has come up over the depth of Romeo's feelings. In fact this debate has lead me to think that he is the most "intriguing" character in the book so far. Right now Romeo seems to me as either very love-struck or very desperate and impulsive and there is evidence on both of these sides of him. It is strange that one would be able to fall in love so quickly but even stranger is that I do believe that what he feels is true. Because of this, today I will be showing my point of view as to how it is not his eyes, his desperateness, or even completely the stars, that has brought him and Juliet together.
First of all, on the very first page of the play, there is already an important piece of evidence that he is truly (or has truly become) in love with Juliet. What I am referring to is the extremely straightforward line of the prologue, line 6: "A pair of star-crossed lovers take their life". Right there Shakespeare has already stated clearly that they are lovers. Not only that but if Romeo weren't truly in love with Juliet, why would he take his life? Even a lover isn't worth that price. If you agreed with the sentence before that I wrote in bold then you would be agreeing that even lovers aren't worth one's own life which would prove that Romeo loves Juliet so much that she isn't even the common lover, since he is so in love with her that her "death" is worth his suicide. If you disagreed then you would be agreeing that lovers are worth one's own life which would also mean that he died for her because of his love which would prove his sincerity. Either way, it would still show that his love is true.
Although many people would consider Romeo rash for his actions, there are times when things cannot be judged. An example would be line 100 of act 2, scene 4: "O, let us hence. I stand on sudden haste." This happens when the friar (Friar Lawrence) agrees to marry Romeo and Juliet and Romeo wants to hurry to get married. To many people it would make sense that Romeo would seem impulsive but being impulsive doesn't mean that his love isn't true. I'm not saying that he absolutely couldn't be loving Juliet because of her looks or the fact that he seems to think that he needs to love someone but then again, if that could be true, can't his love for Juliet be as well? Love is nothing but a word, a noun that has four letters, but the actions done because of it show the meaning of this emotion. I don't see how one can judge the actions of a person and say that their love isn't true if there is no such thing as a standard for love.
In conclusion, Romeo has a split personality. Not the type in the mind but as viewed in the book. I do not honestly find a big deal out of this "controversy" for I believe that if I read this story without judgemental views, I would be able to see the bigger picture of the play. The morals about hate and violence and things that could but weren't prevented. Why does it matter whether or not Romeo's love is true? People would still die, grief would still come and his love wouldn't have changed anything. Although I believe that he did love Juliet, if I found out that he didn't, it wouldn't matter much since the hate between the Capulets and Montagues would still be there whether love was present or not and the truth is that it is easier to ignore love than hate. It is the hate of these two families, the misunderstandings and unwillingness to forgive, that killed these two "lovers". And perhaps in the end, the reason why Romeo is to me, the most interesting character is because his "not-so-important" actions have made such an impact that people have forgotten the rest of the play.
So is it really him that has been deceived, or us?
Reading the story of the famous lovers Romeo and Juliet, a large topic has come up over the depth of Romeo's feelings. In fact this debate has lead me to think that he is the most "intriguing" character in the book so far. Right now Romeo seems to me as either very love-struck or very desperate and impulsive and there is evidence on both of these sides of him. It is strange that one would be able to fall in love so quickly but even stranger is that I do believe that what he feels is true. Because of this, today I will be showing my point of view as to how it is not his eyes, his desperateness, or even completely the stars, that has brought him and Juliet together.
First of all, on the very first page of the play, there is already an important piece of evidence that he is truly (or has truly become) in love with Juliet. What I am referring to is the extremely straightforward line of the prologue, line 6: "A pair of star-crossed lovers take their life". Right there Shakespeare has already stated clearly that they are lovers. Not only that but if Romeo weren't truly in love with Juliet, why would he take his life? Even a lover isn't worth that price. If you agreed with the sentence before that I wrote in bold then you would be agreeing that even lovers aren't worth one's own life which would prove that Romeo loves Juliet so much that she isn't even the common lover, since he is so in love with her that her "death" is worth his suicide. If you disagreed then you would be agreeing that lovers are worth one's own life which would also mean that he died for her because of his love which would prove his sincerity. Either way, it would still show that his love is true.
Although many people would consider Romeo rash for his actions, there are times when things cannot be judged. An example would be line 100 of act 2, scene 4: "O, let us hence. I stand on sudden haste." This happens when the friar (Friar Lawrence) agrees to marry Romeo and Juliet and Romeo wants to hurry to get married. To many people it would make sense that Romeo would seem impulsive but being impulsive doesn't mean that his love isn't true. I'm not saying that he absolutely couldn't be loving Juliet because of her looks or the fact that he seems to think that he needs to love someone but then again, if that could be true, can't his love for Juliet be as well? Love is nothing but a word, a noun that has four letters, but the actions done because of it show the meaning of this emotion. I don't see how one can judge the actions of a person and say that their love isn't true if there is no such thing as a standard for love.
In conclusion, Romeo has a split personality. Not the type in the mind but as viewed in the book. I do not honestly find a big deal out of this "controversy" for I believe that if I read this story without judgemental views, I would be able to see the bigger picture of the play. The morals about hate and violence and things that could but weren't prevented. Why does it matter whether or not Romeo's love is true? People would still die, grief would still come and his love wouldn't have changed anything. Although I believe that he did love Juliet, if I found out that he didn't, it wouldn't matter much since the hate between the Capulets and Montagues would still be there whether love was present or not and the truth is that it is easier to ignore love than hate. It is the hate of these two families, the misunderstandings and unwillingness to forgive, that killed these two "lovers". And perhaps in the end, the reason why Romeo is to me, the most interesting character is because his "not-so-important" actions have made such an impact that people have forgotten the rest of the play.
So is it really him that has been deceived, or us?
Thursday, March 7, 2013
The Truth About Roses
With petals so fair and a fragrance so sweet, still has its danger where its many thorns meet.
That is my interpretation of the theme "love", especially young love, in The Tragedy of Romeo and Juliet by William Shakespeare. Like the flower most commonly related to romance, "love" is very similar to the rose. Not only are they alike in their beauty, but their hidden dangers as well. As can be seen from different characters, love has many sides; it is deep and entrancing for Romeo, wild and free for Mercutio, and perhaps light and innocent for young Juliet. All these views reflect the attractive area of love but as the name of the play suggests, this story won't dwell long on love's petals. My blog post today will be about the many sides of love and its many, many, thorns.
Like the rose, love is very captivating and to many, may be the most beautiful thing in the world, but is it really? Of course, one side of love is very beautiful. With books, songs, poems, and even entire landmarks (ex. The Eiffel Tower) dedicated and centering around love, there is no doubt that this emotion has quite an impact on the world. And perhaps, when something becomes so powerful, it can become dangerous. It isn't a secret to readers that both Romeo and Juliet die in the story, and neither is the fact that love drove them to their graves, but unfortunately, to these two star-crossed lovers, it was. Indeed there are many sides of love in the story and they all show up and make a difference in the story line. Mercutio's wild freedom perspective is shown in the impulsive actions of Romeo and Juliet; Juliet's innocent view of love takes part to draw these two teenagers together, and finally, the depth of Romeo's opinion reveals itself in the desperate misery that took their lives.
In a way, like the petals of a rose, this choice of death over being separated is beautiful. On the other hand though, like the small pricks of thorns when being too close to the beauty of the rose, being too close to the enticing flower of love has made it so that it wasn't just the petals that were red, but the dagger of Romeo as well. Perhaps it was blind love that drove them together, charm and good looks, but would a pretty visage lead to suicide? Living a life with the direct of Cupid seems fun, until one realizes that the Cupid's arrow, is still an arrow.
It is sad to read the story of Romeo and Juliet and not feel helpless as their lives tick away without their knowledge. It is like watching a horror movie and seeing the monster behind the protagonist and not being able to warn him. Ironically, the silent killer in the story of Romeo and Juliet, is not a monster at all, but technically, an angel. Knowing that what these lovers cherished most, is what will lead them to their deaths is indeed, like the title, a tragedy.
Though the smell of roses is mesmerizing, if one leans in too far, they will indeed find its thorns and then, if still captured by the beauty of the flower and missing the proximity of the danger, one will most certainly get pricked.
Please feel free to comment.
That is my interpretation of the theme "love", especially young love, in The Tragedy of Romeo and Juliet by William Shakespeare. Like the flower most commonly related to romance, "love" is very similar to the rose. Not only are they alike in their beauty, but their hidden dangers as well. As can be seen from different characters, love has many sides; it is deep and entrancing for Romeo, wild and free for Mercutio, and perhaps light and innocent for young Juliet. All these views reflect the attractive area of love but as the name of the play suggests, this story won't dwell long on love's petals. My blog post today will be about the many sides of love and its many, many, thorns.
Like the rose, love is very captivating and to many, may be the most beautiful thing in the world, but is it really? Of course, one side of love is very beautiful. With books, songs, poems, and even entire landmarks (ex. The Eiffel Tower) dedicated and centering around love, there is no doubt that this emotion has quite an impact on the world. And perhaps, when something becomes so powerful, it can become dangerous. It isn't a secret to readers that both Romeo and Juliet die in the story, and neither is the fact that love drove them to their graves, but unfortunately, to these two star-crossed lovers, it was. Indeed there are many sides of love in the story and they all show up and make a difference in the story line. Mercutio's wild freedom perspective is shown in the impulsive actions of Romeo and Juliet; Juliet's innocent view of love takes part to draw these two teenagers together, and finally, the depth of Romeo's opinion reveals itself in the desperate misery that took their lives.
In a way, like the petals of a rose, this choice of death over being separated is beautiful. On the other hand though, like the small pricks of thorns when being too close to the beauty of the rose, being too close to the enticing flower of love has made it so that it wasn't just the petals that were red, but the dagger of Romeo as well. Perhaps it was blind love that drove them together, charm and good looks, but would a pretty visage lead to suicide? Living a life with the direct of Cupid seems fun, until one realizes that the Cupid's arrow, is still an arrow.
It is sad to read the story of Romeo and Juliet and not feel helpless as their lives tick away without their knowledge. It is like watching a horror movie and seeing the monster behind the protagonist and not being able to warn him. Ironically, the silent killer in the story of Romeo and Juliet, is not a monster at all, but technically, an angel. Knowing that what these lovers cherished most, is what will lead them to their deaths is indeed, like the title, a tragedy.
Though the smell of roses is mesmerizing, if one leans in too far, they will indeed find its thorns and then, if still captured by the beauty of the flower and missing the proximity of the danger, one will most certainly get pricked.
Please feel free to comment.
Tuesday, February 26, 2013
Where Love Cannot Tread
The article I read today called Gay Couples Face a Mixed Geography of Marriage by Kirk Johnson, was about the challenges same-sex couples faced in order to get married. With some states having same-sex marriages legal and others not, problems were seen in regards to the rights of same-sex couples. A gay couple in the article, Henry D. Johnston and Alex Irwin, talked about them living in a state where their marriage was not allowed, and said "How are things going to change if people aren’t there to help make them change?" They also talked about how they rejected marrying as a statement as well as "The minute we drive across the border it [the marriage if chosen to marry in another state] would become invalid and we’d be back to just being two guys who own a house together," indicating how a marriage wouldn't matter if it wasn't going to be recognized. In the article, it also talked about the issues gay/lesbian/transgender people faced in general with the phrase "To many younger people, though, what matters is down the block or in the school cafeteria, not across the border," which showed that the problems that these people faced were also in their everyday life and not just in political matters. Although some states have begun to allow same-sex marriages, there are still many (especially strongly conservative) states in the country that still deny these couples the right to marry.
With Johnson's choice of words being so depressing (such as "...where same-sex marriage remains, for now, an unlikely dream,") it was evident that the author was trying to get people to feel sympathy for these couples as well as perhaps disapproval or disagreement with the government. Although there was a slight bias with the perspectives of those who were against same-sex marriages missing, Johnson clearly showed his opinion by presenting a large amount of information about the unfairness (and probably disrespect as well) towards gay/lesbian/transgender people. The author also made this issue more relatable by adding in "The portrait, or caricature, of the American West in films like “Brokeback Mountain” has not entirely faded." Overall, it could be seen that Johnson was trying to get the readers to think about the unjust acts towards these same-sex couples. He tried to show how these couples struggled for their right to be together.
If "Romeo and Juliet" were not about two star crossed lovers consisting of a young girl and boy, but instead of a pair of star crossed gay/lesbian/transgender people, would there have been a difference? Would the tragic deaths of Juliet and Romeo remain the tragedy that they are? They should be, seeing that love has no restrictions and that all love is beautiful, but sadly, I'm not sure whether or not their deaths would have been seen in the same way. Perhaps people would have stopped reading on the prologue because of their disgust. I do not understand why it is that way, for it definitely shouldn't be, but even today, in modern time, people are being denied their right to one of the greatest gifts in life. If love were horrible, twisted, and dangerous, it would be a crime, but the love I've felt, or the love I feel right now for others, or the love that each and every one of us have embraced, it is not a crime. So why are people saying that this love that another person may feel, even through this wall of barriers, a world of disdain and challenges, words and looks of disgust, isn't right? People have no place to say that this love that has tried so hard to be treated equal, is not as important as the love people feel themselves.
Perhaps, until these couples who are truly no different than anyone else, get the respect that they deserve, they may truly be made "star crossed", not by the stars, but by the people who live around them.
Please feel free to comment.
Johnson, Kirk. "Gay Couples Face a Mixed Geography of Marriage." The New York Times 26 Feb. 2013. . 26 Feb. 2013 <http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/27/us/state-laws-on-gay-marriage-lead-to-disparities.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&hp>
With Johnson's choice of words being so depressing (such as "...where same-sex marriage remains, for now, an unlikely dream,") it was evident that the author was trying to get people to feel sympathy for these couples as well as perhaps disapproval or disagreement with the government. Although there was a slight bias with the perspectives of those who were against same-sex marriages missing, Johnson clearly showed his opinion by presenting a large amount of information about the unfairness (and probably disrespect as well) towards gay/lesbian/transgender people. The author also made this issue more relatable by adding in "The portrait, or caricature, of the American West in films like “Brokeback Mountain” has not entirely faded." Overall, it could be seen that Johnson was trying to get the readers to think about the unjust acts towards these same-sex couples. He tried to show how these couples struggled for their right to be together.
If "Romeo and Juliet" were not about two star crossed lovers consisting of a young girl and boy, but instead of a pair of star crossed gay/lesbian/transgender people, would there have been a difference? Would the tragic deaths of Juliet and Romeo remain the tragedy that they are? They should be, seeing that love has no restrictions and that all love is beautiful, but sadly, I'm not sure whether or not their deaths would have been seen in the same way. Perhaps people would have stopped reading on the prologue because of their disgust. I do not understand why it is that way, for it definitely shouldn't be, but even today, in modern time, people are being denied their right to one of the greatest gifts in life. If love were horrible, twisted, and dangerous, it would be a crime, but the love I've felt, or the love I feel right now for others, or the love that each and every one of us have embraced, it is not a crime. So why are people saying that this love that another person may feel, even through this wall of barriers, a world of disdain and challenges, words and looks of disgust, isn't right? People have no place to say that this love that has tried so hard to be treated equal, is not as important as the love people feel themselves.
Perhaps, until these couples who are truly no different than anyone else, get the respect that they deserve, they may truly be made "star crossed", not by the stars, but by the people who live around them.
Please feel free to comment.
Johnson, Kirk. "Gay Couples Face a Mixed Geography of Marriage." The New York Times 26 Feb. 2013. . 26 Feb. 2013 <http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/27/us/state-laws-on-gay-marriage-lead-to-disparities.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&hp>
Monday, February 18, 2013
A Ticket to Your Dreams (SPOILERS)
If you had a ticket to your dreams, would you follow it?
After finishing the book A Northern Light by Jennifer Donnelly, I was left with a debated thought in my mind. The book, based on a murder in 1906, ended with the main character Mattie, leaving her home to go to college in New York City. This left me confused or perhaps saddened by the fact that she left all her family behind without a true goodbye. Going to college was Mattie's dream throughout the book and was partially what the story revolved around but the ending seemed a bit depressing even though she achieved what she wanted all along. Thinking about whether or not I would do the same if I were her, this is what today's blog will be about.
Choosing between a future wanted for so long and leaving the only familiar past is a choice that seems impossible. Mattie did just that though, leaving behind her sisters, father, past fiance, childhood friend, home, and practically everything, to pursue a dream with no guarantees. For me, I would probably spend my entire life debating the two choices and at the end, would still have no idea what I should have chosen. That is because of the deadly word "if". If this...If that..., If people keep saying "if" to every choice, no answer would ever be come up with. Risk is everywhere, but to do something, it has to be taken. If a choice has no risk, it isn't worth choosing because the only reason there would be no risk, no "ifs", would be because the outcome of the choice would be as stagnant as if a choice was never given.
There is nothing wrong with thinking about "ifs" as long as those two letters don't stop someone from doing what they need to do. But what if those horrible "ifs" came true? Well, the truth is there isn't anything that can be done if something ends bad. It wouldn't be any one's fault and there would be no reason as to why it happened other than it just did. Of course, people could just forget about their dreams so there would be no "if" but what is life without overcoming "if"? People should stop thinking about "ifs" in a negative perspective and use them to help accomplish goals instead. There are always two sides, good and bad, but it is the person's choice of which way to think in and that strongly impacts the outcome of whichever choice they make.
No future is obvious (in general) but what is, is that if someone got stuck with ifs for every choice or challenge that met them in life, one sure thing will result: failure, and if one really wishes to meet no risks, failure certainly has none.
Please feel free to comment.
After finishing the book A Northern Light by Jennifer Donnelly, I was left with a debated thought in my mind. The book, based on a murder in 1906, ended with the main character Mattie, leaving her home to go to college in New York City. This left me confused or perhaps saddened by the fact that she left all her family behind without a true goodbye. Going to college was Mattie's dream throughout the book and was partially what the story revolved around but the ending seemed a bit depressing even though she achieved what she wanted all along. Thinking about whether or not I would do the same if I were her, this is what today's blog will be about.
Choosing between a future wanted for so long and leaving the only familiar past is a choice that seems impossible. Mattie did just that though, leaving behind her sisters, father, past fiance, childhood friend, home, and practically everything, to pursue a dream with no guarantees. For me, I would probably spend my entire life debating the two choices and at the end, would still have no idea what I should have chosen. That is because of the deadly word "if". If this...If that..., If people keep saying "if" to every choice, no answer would ever be come up with. Risk is everywhere, but to do something, it has to be taken. If a choice has no risk, it isn't worth choosing because the only reason there would be no risk, no "ifs", would be because the outcome of the choice would be as stagnant as if a choice was never given.
There is nothing wrong with thinking about "ifs" as long as those two letters don't stop someone from doing what they need to do. But what if those horrible "ifs" came true? Well, the truth is there isn't anything that can be done if something ends bad. It wouldn't be any one's fault and there would be no reason as to why it happened other than it just did. Of course, people could just forget about their dreams so there would be no "if" but what is life without overcoming "if"? People should stop thinking about "ifs" in a negative perspective and use them to help accomplish goals instead. There are always two sides, good and bad, but it is the person's choice of which way to think in and that strongly impacts the outcome of whichever choice they make.
No future is obvious (in general) but what is, is that if someone got stuck with ifs for every choice or challenge that met them in life, one sure thing will result: failure, and if one really wishes to meet no risks, failure certainly has none.
Please feel free to comment.
Tuesday, January 29, 2013
Yesterday Once More performed by the Carpenters
Yesterday Once More (lyric video but spelling in the video is not completely correct)
The song I wanted to share is called Yesterday Once More sung by the Carpenters and written by Richard Carpenter and John Bettis. The song mainly has the singer, Karen Carpenter, reminiscing about the songs that she used to listen to in the past and thinking about how her past compared to her present. It is quite an old song (I would think) but is still one of my favourites because of how beautifully written the lyrics and melody is/are. It is somewhat poetic in ways such as rhythm and rhyme (like the majority of songs) and perhaps has some onomatopoeia. Overall this song is just telling the listeners that some things never change and that moments should be cherished since times cannot be relived.
In the chorus, when the words "just like before, it's yesterday once more" are sung, it shows that some things, like how she feels about the songs that were her favourite songs in the past, do not change no matter how much time separates the moments. At the same time though, when Karen Carpenter sings " lookin' back on how it was in years gone by, and the good times that I had, makes today seem rather sad, so much has changed" the listener can hear the sadness in not only her voice, but in the lyrics as well. As the listener, I could understand that though some things don't change, time still moves on and no matter how similar, even the best moments cannot be revived from the past. The whole song is very smooth and the rhythm and words fit perfectly making the song poetic in ways that other ones may not be able to achieve. The song, like the name, is somewhat happy yet stained with sorrow just like how "Once More" is on a joyful note while "Yesterday" literally is the past and when a yesterday comes once more it is obvious that the person reliving that yesterday is either unhappy with or missing the past which in this case, is missing. Throughout the chorus that talks about the songs she listened to in the past, there is also a carefree feel to it, just like how when one is younger, there are usually less worries. This feeling can be heard from the words she uses which are more of sounds (onomatopoeia) (ex. "Every sha-la-la-la, every wo-o-wo-o still shines. Every shing-a-ling-a-ling that they're startin' to sing, so fine"). This too is a loss because the days of little worries, can no longer be retrieved.
This message is something that many people forget about in their lives. Though not all moments are worth reliving or cherishing, people should still keep in mind that the minute that just passed, or the day one just spent, won't reappear and will never be a "today" or "tomorrow" but instead, a "yesterday". In Yesterday Once More, though the songs Karen listened to may be found again, can the moments spent next to the radio and singing along be as well? (You have to hear the song to understand what I'm talking about). The pain that one may go through at times of hardship or the bitterness in times of emotional struggle, many may want to wipe those moments off completely but though the times won't come back, nor will the support from loved ones or the joy of overcoming those battles. The past doesn't come back and the future doesn't wait which leaves only the present to cherish as it slowly becomes the past as well.
Time doesn't stop for anyone so instead of frowning and hating life, why don't we smile and embrace the seconds that pass making every one worth living.
The song I wanted to share is called Yesterday Once More sung by the Carpenters and written by Richard Carpenter and John Bettis. The song mainly has the singer, Karen Carpenter, reminiscing about the songs that she used to listen to in the past and thinking about how her past compared to her present. It is quite an old song (I would think) but is still one of my favourites because of how beautifully written the lyrics and melody is/are. It is somewhat poetic in ways such as rhythm and rhyme (like the majority of songs) and perhaps has some onomatopoeia. Overall this song is just telling the listeners that some things never change and that moments should be cherished since times cannot be relived.
In the chorus, when the words "just like before, it's yesterday once more" are sung, it shows that some things, like how she feels about the songs that were her favourite songs in the past, do not change no matter how much time separates the moments. At the same time though, when Karen Carpenter sings " lookin' back on how it was in years gone by, and the good times that I had, makes today seem rather sad, so much has changed" the listener can hear the sadness in not only her voice, but in the lyrics as well. As the listener, I could understand that though some things don't change, time still moves on and no matter how similar, even the best moments cannot be revived from the past. The whole song is very smooth and the rhythm and words fit perfectly making the song poetic in ways that other ones may not be able to achieve. The song, like the name, is somewhat happy yet stained with sorrow just like how "Once More" is on a joyful note while "Yesterday" literally is the past and when a yesterday comes once more it is obvious that the person reliving that yesterday is either unhappy with or missing the past which in this case, is missing. Throughout the chorus that talks about the songs she listened to in the past, there is also a carefree feel to it, just like how when one is younger, there are usually less worries. This feeling can be heard from the words she uses which are more of sounds (onomatopoeia) (ex. "Every sha-la-la-la, every wo-o-wo-o still shines. Every shing-a-ling-a-ling that they're startin' to sing, so fine"). This too is a loss because the days of little worries, can no longer be retrieved.
This message is something that many people forget about in their lives. Though not all moments are worth reliving or cherishing, people should still keep in mind that the minute that just passed, or the day one just spent, won't reappear and will never be a "today" or "tomorrow" but instead, a "yesterday". In Yesterday Once More, though the songs Karen listened to may be found again, can the moments spent next to the radio and singing along be as well? (You have to hear the song to understand what I'm talking about). The pain that one may go through at times of hardship or the bitterness in times of emotional struggle, many may want to wipe those moments off completely but though the times won't come back, nor will the support from loved ones or the joy of overcoming those battles. The past doesn't come back and the future doesn't wait which leaves only the present to cherish as it slowly becomes the past as well.
Time doesn't stop for anyone so instead of frowning and hating life, why don't we smile and embrace the seconds that pass making every one worth living.
Tuesday, January 22, 2013
"I hope you're not just telling me what you think I want to hear"
Right now I have almost finished reading a book called Miss
Peregrine's Home for Peculiar Children by Ransom Riggs. It is about sixteen
year old Jacob who discovers the "world" of "peculiar
children" (children with strange abilities) which included his grandfather
who was killed in the beginning of the story. After befriending many of these
peculiar children and finding out that he is also a peculiar child, he is faced
with challenges not only for his well being but for the entire existence
of peculiars as well. What I'm writing about today is about a simple statement
said by Jacob's psychiatrist when he questions the honesty of some of Jacob's
words. My blog doesn't necessarily do with the situation of the piece of
dialogue but more of what the words say.
The piece of dialogue that is also my title for this blog says “I hope you're not just telling me what you think I want to hear” and it made me think about how often I (and I’m sure many other people as well) actually do that. How often it is that I tell people things that are perhaps partially true but mostly fabricated from facts that I think the listener would want to hear. In my opinion it’s not a good thing to do but I don’t consider it a bad thing either. Sometimes we hear about things and want to know more but the truth is that once you know something, you can’t forget it. Do we really always want to know what something may be even if it may hurt us? I’m not sure what I would choose for sometimes, no matter how naive it may seem, the things that sound good to our ears are way better than what may not. Still, even with the potential harm that the truth may be, should people still try to tell it or give it a chance to be listened to?
What I asked was an actual question and not a philosophical statement. I can’t choose, both for whether or not to give truths a chance or to tell them fully to others. As people, we have feelings but if they get in the way at times, should we dismiss them and say “GO FOR IT”? Maybe some of you might think so but for me, I would say not. My answer (or what is closest to an answer) for the question that I asked would be to accept our feelings and move on. Acknowledge that they may get hurt and then steel ourselves for what we need to hear.
Though I’m not sure that my answer is the best or good at all, I do believe that one cannot let their emotions get the better of them all the time. What are your opinions or answers as to whether or not one should listen to the truth or stay safe but in the depths of the unknown? Please comment!
Tuesday, January 15, 2013
The Struggles of Disabled Athletes That Exceed Their Disability.
Today I read an article Forging Path to Starting Line for Younger Disabled Athletes by Mary Pilon on the New York Times that
talked about disabled athletes trying to beat sports officials in the topic of
whether they could compete with able bodied athletes. There are many challenges
for these athletes, especially ones in school (which seems to be the focus
of this article) when it comes to competition such as accommodations, safety,
and also, the fairness of specific things (ex. wheelchair vs. average human
runner). For example, Ariz Mesa, a tennis player deaf since birth, felt
discrimination against her when her interpreter who told her the scores was
taken away, resulting in the loss of a tournament during her sophomore year. Though
some states have already ensured that disabled students are included in sports
and extracurricular activities, some sports officials still seem to be
conflicted and unsure. With regards to safety and accommodation, many coaches
have already begun to explore this new idea of accommodating and including
disabled students in different areas of sports (even contact sports) and though
this struggle has only just begun, the first steps have at least been taken.
Seeing that the author has used many ways to show the sides and struggles of disabled athletes, I would say that she is definitely trying to get people to understand why they (disabled people) too should be included in the sports that we can do with ease. There is one specific quote that she used that I think shows her point very clearly and it is said by a 17 year old girl who uses a wheelchair when people told her that she, using a wheelchair, had an advantage. She said "I just didn't get the fact that they [sports officials] were saying I had an advantage because I was in a wheelchair. How do I have an advantage because I can't use half of my body? It didn't make any sense to me". This quote showed the athlete's anger (and perhaps the anger of the author as well) that Pilon may have wanted the readers to feel. Overall I would believe that Pilon wanted the readers to think about the unfair and harsh circumstances that disabled athletes must face. Not only was playing the sport already more difficult than it would be for able bodied people but getting to play it is harder for them as well and that point is what the author, Mary Pilon, wanted the readers to think about.
After reading this article I felt a deeper understanding of the struggles that disabled people have to face. It is horrible that people discriminate against them while at other times, treat them like they have too many advantages to be equal. There is no advantage to being disabled and it should be painfully obvious how hard life is for them already so why can't people take the step to make it easier for them? I very much agree with the author for even with their disabilities, disabled people are the same as us and deserve the same privileges as we do. If sport is something we enjoy (and it is) then they should be able to enjoy it too.
What are your opinions? Please feel free to comment.
Pilon, Mary. "Forging Path to Starting Line for Younger Disabled Athletes." The New York Times 15 Jan 2013 : (online) http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/16/sports/disabled-athletes-suit-up-raising-questions-of-logistics-and-fairness.html?_r=0
Pilon, Mary. "Forging Path to Starting Line for Younger Disabled Athletes." The New York Times 15 Jan 2013 : (online) http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/16/sports/disabled-athletes-suit-up-raising-questions-of-logistics-and-fairness.html?_r=0
Tuesday, December 18, 2012
The Greatest Manipulator (spoilers)
Being manipulated can cause rage but rage itself is the greatest manipulator.
I finished reading To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee and it was an absolutely beautiful book with an incredibly deep story line of an even deeper message. Continuing from my last post, the African American man (named Tom Robinson) accused of rape is (basically) revealed as innocent but is still made guilty and got killed when he tried to escape to his family. The man who was the "victim's" father (his name was Bob Ewell), had actually beaten his daughter and blamed it on the African American man which costed both their lives. This happened when Bob Ewell became extremely angry at Atticus for almost proving that he had beaten his daughter and near the end of the book, attempted to kill Jem and Scout. While doing so, he broke Jem's left arm, and while struggling, fell on his own kitchen knife (that he planned to use for killing Jem and Scout), killing himself. So who is the real enemy?
Technically Bob Ewell would be but in a way, wasn't rage? If anger had not consumed him he would not have beat his daughter, he would not have hated Atticus or his family, and he wouldn't have attempted to kill Jem and Scout. Of course, this is still his fault for you cannot blame anger. It is purely an emotion but when one chooses to let anger be their drive, that becomes a fault of that person with deep consequences. It is hard though, shielding yourself from the temptations and want of rage, revenge, anger, and all those negative but powerful feelings. We have to stay strong though, and resist this want to get angry for anger can become a weakness and blind ourselves.
I am not a hypocrite so yes, I have been and still get extremely angry sometimes. So angry that all the reason and sense in my mind is replaced with hate and flames of fury. Can we see behind flames though? Can we see those trying to make us understand or those who care about us? Anger will only grow, infecting its victims with the destruction it can cause, like a wildfire destroying the trees and forests that were once serene. If one does not put out the flames, it will become an inferno that can only destroy, and when the day comes that the fire goes out, they will realize that the burns would be too severe to heal.
You never know what one may do when blinded by anger. Offend someone, injure someone, kill someone...kill themself. I don't want to know and nor do I wish for others to. It is alright to get angry, we are only human and anger is a part of us but what we do need to know is when to calm down and let things be.
Rage is the greatest manipulator but that doesn't mean that manipulators have to win.
Please feel free to comment and share your opinions or experiences.
I finished reading To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee and it was an absolutely beautiful book with an incredibly deep story line of an even deeper message. Continuing from my last post, the African American man (named Tom Robinson) accused of rape is (basically) revealed as innocent but is still made guilty and got killed when he tried to escape to his family. The man who was the "victim's" father (his name was Bob Ewell), had actually beaten his daughter and blamed it on the African American man which costed both their lives. This happened when Bob Ewell became extremely angry at Atticus for almost proving that he had beaten his daughter and near the end of the book, attempted to kill Jem and Scout. While doing so, he broke Jem's left arm, and while struggling, fell on his own kitchen knife (that he planned to use for killing Jem and Scout), killing himself. So who is the real enemy?
Technically Bob Ewell would be but in a way, wasn't rage? If anger had not consumed him he would not have beat his daughter, he would not have hated Atticus or his family, and he wouldn't have attempted to kill Jem and Scout. Of course, this is still his fault for you cannot blame anger. It is purely an emotion but when one chooses to let anger be their drive, that becomes a fault of that person with deep consequences. It is hard though, shielding yourself from the temptations and want of rage, revenge, anger, and all those negative but powerful feelings. We have to stay strong though, and resist this want to get angry for anger can become a weakness and blind ourselves.
I am not a hypocrite so yes, I have been and still get extremely angry sometimes. So angry that all the reason and sense in my mind is replaced with hate and flames of fury. Can we see behind flames though? Can we see those trying to make us understand or those who care about us? Anger will only grow, infecting its victims with the destruction it can cause, like a wildfire destroying the trees and forests that were once serene. If one does not put out the flames, it will become an inferno that can only destroy, and when the day comes that the fire goes out, they will realize that the burns would be too severe to heal.
You never know what one may do when blinded by anger. Offend someone, injure someone, kill someone...kill themself. I don't want to know and nor do I wish for others to. It is alright to get angry, we are only human and anger is a part of us but what we do need to know is when to calm down and let things be.
Rage is the greatest manipulator but that doesn't mean that manipulators have to win.
Please feel free to comment and share your opinions or experiences.
Tuesday, December 11, 2012
It makes me sick, it makes Dill sick, and doesn't it make you?
Today, as I was reading To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee, the emotions of three pages hit me like an avalanche. The book, set in a Southern town in the 1930s, revolved around a girl named Jean Louise (but usually called Scout), her older brother Jem (Jeremy), and (sometimes) their friend Dill. The father of the two siblings, Atticus, was a lawyer who in the book fought a case where his client, an African American man, was accused of rape (Atticus is the defendant). Many things, emotional and surprising, unraveled as the case and depth of it all, revealed itself. The three pages I'm writing about today occur when Dill and Scout exit the courtroom due to Dill feeling sick, after watching a long period of the trial.
In those pages, Dill, who was crying, talks a lot about feeling sick when the (white) prosecutor talked in an incredibly disrespectful way to the African American man accused of rape, even though the one accused was very mannerly. What struck me so powerfully were the words spoken to Dill about him crying and being sick, by Mr. Raymond, a man from their town . As he talked about how Dill would no longer cry about specific things when he grew older, these were his words (mind the language) "Cry about the simple hell people give other people- without even thinking. Cry about the hell white people give colored folks, without even stopping to think that they're people, too." I found these two sentences sadly true. Remembering that this book was published in the 1960s, I understood why Harper Lee's book included such a strong quote. One of the strongest I've ever heard in fact, and perhaps it was because she had written what the problem for over a hundred years was.
To be honest, it should be that she wrote the problem of a hundred years and counting. In my opinion, that quote in the book applies to all. Before people start being rude (or worse) to whatever something may be, they should think. They should acknowledge that though that person, or plant, or animal, or any living thing, isn't us, may not be someone/something we know, may not be at all related to us, that they STILL deserve respect. They still have feelings, emotions, joy, anger...pain, just like each and every one of us. Scientists may not be able to prove it but do we really need proof to live? Can't we for once, access the world with not only our brains, but our hearts as well?
It is the utter most self conceited and ignorant thing to say that we are superior because we are humans. It is just as bad when people say they are superior for more specific categories such as race, colour, etc. Nothing is superior and everything deserves respect, whether its a person or tree or even a bug. You may ask why a bug would deserve as much respect as humans but the question from me is why not? Respect does not discriminate, it is not selfish, nor is it cruel but unfortunately, those who are capable of showing respect, are also capable of doing all those things. Maybe that's why Dill was sick and maybe that's why I feel like that too.
I feel sick, Dill feels sick, and really, shouldn't we all?
Please feel free to comment
In those pages, Dill, who was crying, talks a lot about feeling sick when the (white) prosecutor talked in an incredibly disrespectful way to the African American man accused of rape, even though the one accused was very mannerly. What struck me so powerfully were the words spoken to Dill about him crying and being sick, by Mr. Raymond, a man from their town . As he talked about how Dill would no longer cry about specific things when he grew older, these were his words (mind the language) "Cry about the simple hell people give other people- without even thinking. Cry about the hell white people give colored folks, without even stopping to think that they're people, too." I found these two sentences sadly true. Remembering that this book was published in the 1960s, I understood why Harper Lee's book included such a strong quote. One of the strongest I've ever heard in fact, and perhaps it was because she had written what the problem for over a hundred years was.
To be honest, it should be that she wrote the problem of a hundred years and counting. In my opinion, that quote in the book applies to all. Before people start being rude (or worse) to whatever something may be, they should think. They should acknowledge that though that person, or plant, or animal, or any living thing, isn't us, may not be someone/something we know, may not be at all related to us, that they STILL deserve respect. They still have feelings, emotions, joy, anger...pain, just like each and every one of us. Scientists may not be able to prove it but do we really need proof to live? Can't we for once, access the world with not only our brains, but our hearts as well?
It is the utter most self conceited and ignorant thing to say that we are superior because we are humans. It is just as bad when people say they are superior for more specific categories such as race, colour, etc. Nothing is superior and everything deserves respect, whether its a person or tree or even a bug. You may ask why a bug would deserve as much respect as humans but the question from me is why not? Respect does not discriminate, it is not selfish, nor is it cruel but unfortunately, those who are capable of showing respect, are also capable of doing all those things. Maybe that's why Dill was sick and maybe that's why I feel like that too.
I feel sick, Dill feels sick, and really, shouldn't we all?
Please feel free to comment
Sunday, December 2, 2012
About to go too far...or already too far gone?
Over the week I read three picture books, "Freedom Summer" by Deborah Wiles about two friends, one white and one black, facing the challenges of racism, "The Lorax" by Dr. Seuss about cruelty to the environment, and "Fox" by Margaret Wild and Ron Brooks about the friendship between a maimed magpie and dog being tested to the limits by temptation. In all three of these books I found unfortunate truths for the reality of these "children's" books are quite evident. It hit me hardest though when I thought about how the situations of each book may have already passed the point of no return.
When I say point of no return I mean it as in things will never be erased. The pains and wrongdoings of people can never ever be erased. The cruelty done to African Americans will not suddenly vanish. The trees so brutally cut will never grow back, and as for Dog and Magpie in "Fox", the scars on their friendship won't ever go away. Even if things are mended, the "mending" can only fix the problem, not turn back time and make it non existing. What can people ever do to make things right again since the majority of things cannot become right but just less wrong. Of course, mistakes can help one learn and in "Fox", may actually strengthen the friendship between Magpie and Dog, being that Magpie decided to return to Dog knowing that she would have to face the guilt of her betraying him, but that does not mean that the trust between them will be as strong as it were before. The wounds will still be there and perhaps in moments may sting even more than when they were fresh.
Even more depressing is the fact that many are still doing such horrible things even if it already passed that point where things cannot be truly fixed. Emotions and hearts are not like machines where you can just fix it with some tools. We, as in all living things, are living but why can't this being of life be respected as it should always be? With the situations of the Truffula trees in "The Lorax", yes, the boy did get a seed, the last seed of all those trees but will the forests look the same as it were before it was all cut down? The animals will not come back and even if they did, their sufferings are irreversible. Don't people think before they act? Apparently we are the smartest of all animals, but I do not see how, for we cannot even see that doing something wrong cannot be undone and are the ones who have actually caused the greatest damage. Actually, we are the ones who are causing the greatest damage because people have not stopped. We are way passed the point of no return but do not even see that humans, as in ALL of us, are the cause for all these unnatural and horrendous issues that have blossomed into deaths, sufferings, and hearts that will forever have a long, jagged, and ugly crack. It seems that perhaps even the heart of our planet will one day be broken when it too can no longer stand such abuse.
While things cannot be erased, at least we can make the effort to have less things that cannot be so. Doing the pathetic action of making issues seem invisible is not one of those options. As for whether or not we are too far gone, yes we have gone too far but not so far gone that we cannot stop these actions if we really try.
Please feel free to comment.
When I say point of no return I mean it as in things will never be erased. The pains and wrongdoings of people can never ever be erased. The cruelty done to African Americans will not suddenly vanish. The trees so brutally cut will never grow back, and as for Dog and Magpie in "Fox", the scars on their friendship won't ever go away. Even if things are mended, the "mending" can only fix the problem, not turn back time and make it non existing. What can people ever do to make things right again since the majority of things cannot become right but just less wrong. Of course, mistakes can help one learn and in "Fox", may actually strengthen the friendship between Magpie and Dog, being that Magpie decided to return to Dog knowing that she would have to face the guilt of her betraying him, but that does not mean that the trust between them will be as strong as it were before. The wounds will still be there and perhaps in moments may sting even more than when they were fresh.
Even more depressing is the fact that many are still doing such horrible things even if it already passed that point where things cannot be truly fixed. Emotions and hearts are not like machines where you can just fix it with some tools. We, as in all living things, are living but why can't this being of life be respected as it should always be? With the situations of the Truffula trees in "The Lorax", yes, the boy did get a seed, the last seed of all those trees but will the forests look the same as it were before it was all cut down? The animals will not come back and even if they did, their sufferings are irreversible. Don't people think before they act? Apparently we are the smartest of all animals, but I do not see how, for we cannot even see that doing something wrong cannot be undone and are the ones who have actually caused the greatest damage. Actually, we are the ones who are causing the greatest damage because people have not stopped. We are way passed the point of no return but do not even see that humans, as in ALL of us, are the cause for all these unnatural and horrendous issues that have blossomed into deaths, sufferings, and hearts that will forever have a long, jagged, and ugly crack. It seems that perhaps even the heart of our planet will one day be broken when it too can no longer stand such abuse.
While things cannot be erased, at least we can make the effort to have less things that cannot be so. Doing the pathetic action of making issues seem invisible is not one of those options. As for whether or not we are too far gone, yes we have gone too far but not so far gone that we cannot stop these actions if we really try.
Please feel free to comment.
Sunday, November 25, 2012
A new Panem? (there are spoilers sorry)
What's worse? Panem, or that we could become it?
Over the week of Thanksgiving I read "The Hunger Games Trilogy" and all three books were very well written. The books are set in the nation of Panem, a place formed after the destruction of North America, which consists of twelve districts (plus one destroyed one) and a rich yet cruel Capitol. Katniss Everdeen, a 16 year old girl, becomes a tribute in one of the annual Hunger Games, a "reality show"/contest where two tributes from each district (Katniss is from the extremely poor district of 12) are chosen and must fight to the death until there is only one person left (who will be the winner). She battles more than other tributes though and is forced to encounter much more.
I really enjoyed reading these books but throughout this entire trilogy, an eerie sense of reality kept making its reappearance. It seemed as though Suzanne Collins may have glimpsed the future and was giving us a hint or perhaps more of a warning . It may seem funny that I say this but it is because we do have the potential to become the future Panem. The selfishness and evil that lies in some are the reasons that these books may become true. In fact some of it is already true. How you may ask? Well look at some of the communist countries. Or totalitarian as others say. The capitol of those countries are all rich and beautiful while people are starving and suffering in other parts. Maybe the part about the actual Hunger Games do not exist but who knows how long that will last? The measures taken to ensure power can go pretty far and the more people know, the more they would want freedom.
There was one specific line in the third book, Mockingjay that I couldn't seem to forget. It was when (SPOILER) a "children related to the powerful people of the Capitol" edition of the Hunger Games was suggested although the overthrow of the capitol prior to this suggestion was supposed to end the Hunger Games. Katniss upon hearing that said/thought that "Nothing has changed. Nothing will ever change now" and I found this line very true. What has changed? We all think that many good things have been done but why does it seem that no matter how much good there is in the world, it can never out do the bad? Of course, this doesn't mean to stop doing good deeds but will there ever be a time in the future where we can all be at peace? Or will Panem replace it instead? Wars rage, starvation and poverty kills, the rich always seem to win, nothing seems to have changed at all. There have been scientific advancements, new technologies and medicine, but what does that compare to that of the cruelty from hearts of our own? Dictators are still in "reign" as well as countries where there is no true freedom (communist/totalitarian, etc), and how different is it from that of Panem, where people can't even say there disapproval of the Capitol without risking their lives? It is all the same. Life in many places are The Hunger Games.
Do we really need to go to the point of actually destructing the world to know we've went too far? Actually, the real question is "how long will it take before these books become an obvious reality?" Can change for the good even happen anymore even though many say it is? I don't see a difference. I'm not some sort of pessimist but I honestly don't see a great difference between times that we've considered bad and modern day. I earnestly hope though that I am proven wrong.
Change is the only constant but that doesn't guarantee its for the good so lets all work our way to a better EARTH and not that of PANEM.
Please feel free to comment.
Over the week of Thanksgiving I read "The Hunger Games Trilogy" and all three books were very well written. The books are set in the nation of Panem, a place formed after the destruction of North America, which consists of twelve districts (plus one destroyed one) and a rich yet cruel Capitol. Katniss Everdeen, a 16 year old girl, becomes a tribute in one of the annual Hunger Games, a "reality show"/contest where two tributes from each district (Katniss is from the extremely poor district of 12) are chosen and must fight to the death until there is only one person left (who will be the winner). She battles more than other tributes though and is forced to encounter much more.
I really enjoyed reading these books but throughout this entire trilogy, an eerie sense of reality kept making its reappearance. It seemed as though Suzanne Collins may have glimpsed the future and was giving us a hint or perhaps more of a warning . It may seem funny that I say this but it is because we do have the potential to become the future Panem. The selfishness and evil that lies in some are the reasons that these books may become true. In fact some of it is already true. How you may ask? Well look at some of the communist countries. Or totalitarian as others say. The capitol of those countries are all rich and beautiful while people are starving and suffering in other parts. Maybe the part about the actual Hunger Games do not exist but who knows how long that will last? The measures taken to ensure power can go pretty far and the more people know, the more they would want freedom.
There was one specific line in the third book, Mockingjay that I couldn't seem to forget. It was when (SPOILER) a "children related to the powerful people of the Capitol" edition of the Hunger Games was suggested although the overthrow of the capitol prior to this suggestion was supposed to end the Hunger Games. Katniss upon hearing that said/thought that "Nothing has changed. Nothing will ever change now" and I found this line very true. What has changed? We all think that many good things have been done but why does it seem that no matter how much good there is in the world, it can never out do the bad? Of course, this doesn't mean to stop doing good deeds but will there ever be a time in the future where we can all be at peace? Or will Panem replace it instead? Wars rage, starvation and poverty kills, the rich always seem to win, nothing seems to have changed at all. There have been scientific advancements, new technologies and medicine, but what does that compare to that of the cruelty from hearts of our own? Dictators are still in "reign" as well as countries where there is no true freedom (communist/totalitarian, etc), and how different is it from that of Panem, where people can't even say there disapproval of the Capitol without risking their lives? It is all the same. Life in many places are The Hunger Games.
Do we really need to go to the point of actually destructing the world to know we've went too far? Actually, the real question is "how long will it take before these books become an obvious reality?" Can change for the good even happen anymore even though many say it is? I don't see a difference. I'm not some sort of pessimist but I honestly don't see a great difference between times that we've considered bad and modern day. I earnestly hope though that I am proven wrong.
Change is the only constant but that doesn't guarantee its for the good so lets all work our way to a better EARTH and not that of PANEM.
Please feel free to comment.
Saturday, October 13, 2012
To readers:
I will be posting my blogs on this url for a few weeks http://room116sold.blogspot.com/. They are all on the book "Sold" by Patricia McCormick. Will be writing back on this blog in around mid November.
Sunday, October 7, 2012
"Bitter Sweet" needs more sugar.
If what I know of life is "bitter sweet" then it definitely needs more sugar.
I have just started reading Hotel on the Corner of Bitter and Sweet written by Jamie Ford and even in this small bit that I have read, this book has really made me feel some strong emotions (especially the "bitter" ones). It is set in 1986 and starts with 56 year old Henry Lee (a Chinese American) standing in front of the Panama hotel ( "once the gateway to Seattle's Japantown" as quoted in the book) as the new owner uncovers the findings of belongings from Japanese families who were sent to internment camps during World War II. When the owner brings out a Japanese parasol as one of the belongings, Henry recounts the memories of him and Keiko, a Japanese girl in his childhood during the years of the war. After that the book jumps in and out of the years of the war (his childhood) and present day.
A lot of this book, talks about the war and the tensions between people (Japanese Americans and Americans) during those years. It is quite sad to think that from the faults of others, many can be judged with no reason but the fault of others. To me, I think that everyone deserves at least a chance and that it isn't fair when people don't give them one. Why should someone who have done nothing wrong be blamed for an issue that someone else had caused. There are always exceptions in the world and we should all acknowledge their existence. People are not items on a shelf and since we aren't we should not have labels, especially ones that are wrong. Whats the point of "profiles" if people have one created for others already? Why understand others if you already think you understand them? One cannot categorize another: oh you're this race or look, you must act like this, for nothing can truly define someone. I can't even define myself so why are there people who think they know who I am?
I have met many who say they know who someone else "is" and what they've gone through but the fact is that everything changes. In one second an entire life can change but really, no course is ever constant. Choices are not concrete, they're like strings, delicate and flexible, swaying each time a wind blows, and choices, are what makes one's path their own. Even if a list was given to us with every answer to every choice we were to make, that does not mean it would be followed. Sure, there are those who try to follow it but just because some do, that doesn't mean the rest of us will and we should not go into thinking that everyone would. Its a very difficult thing to do, trying to not think you understand someone but the only way to not do that is to actually try and understand others better. Surprises will come up and we should all just keep "understanding" to know that there is always more that we do not understand.
Some people will never understand why there is always more to understand and that's alright. If they can't understand us, understand them. There will always be people who make life more "bitter" but it doesn't have to be that way. Life isn't bitter. Its not sweet but it shouldn't be bitter. Something so precious as life can't be bitter and that's why many things, like the title of this book says, are bitter sweet. Bitter in some ways, sweet in others, it will all balance out in the end.
Life is made of bitter and sweet, but if this life as we know it is already bitter sweet, I think we could all help and add a bit more sugar.
Opinions are the mirrors of the world for they help us all reflect. Please feel welcome to add yours.
I have just started reading Hotel on the Corner of Bitter and Sweet written by Jamie Ford and even in this small bit that I have read, this book has really made me feel some strong emotions (especially the "bitter" ones). It is set in 1986 and starts with 56 year old Henry Lee (a Chinese American) standing in front of the Panama hotel ( "once the gateway to Seattle's Japantown" as quoted in the book) as the new owner uncovers the findings of belongings from Japanese families who were sent to internment camps during World War II. When the owner brings out a Japanese parasol as one of the belongings, Henry recounts the memories of him and Keiko, a Japanese girl in his childhood during the years of the war. After that the book jumps in and out of the years of the war (his childhood) and present day.
A lot of this book, talks about the war and the tensions between people (Japanese Americans and Americans) during those years. It is quite sad to think that from the faults of others, many can be judged with no reason but the fault of others. To me, I think that everyone deserves at least a chance and that it isn't fair when people don't give them one. Why should someone who have done nothing wrong be blamed for an issue that someone else had caused. There are always exceptions in the world and we should all acknowledge their existence. People are not items on a shelf and since we aren't we should not have labels, especially ones that are wrong. Whats the point of "profiles" if people have one created for others already? Why understand others if you already think you understand them? One cannot categorize another: oh you're this race or look, you must act like this, for nothing can truly define someone. I can't even define myself so why are there people who think they know who I am?
I have met many who say they know who someone else "is" and what they've gone through but the fact is that everything changes. In one second an entire life can change but really, no course is ever constant. Choices are not concrete, they're like strings, delicate and flexible, swaying each time a wind blows, and choices, are what makes one's path their own. Even if a list was given to us with every answer to every choice we were to make, that does not mean it would be followed. Sure, there are those who try to follow it but just because some do, that doesn't mean the rest of us will and we should not go into thinking that everyone would. Its a very difficult thing to do, trying to not think you understand someone but the only way to not do that is to actually try and understand others better. Surprises will come up and we should all just keep "understanding" to know that there is always more that we do not understand.
Some people will never understand why there is always more to understand and that's alright. If they can't understand us, understand them. There will always be people who make life more "bitter" but it doesn't have to be that way. Life isn't bitter. Its not sweet but it shouldn't be bitter. Something so precious as life can't be bitter and that's why many things, like the title of this book says, are bitter sweet. Bitter in some ways, sweet in others, it will all balance out in the end.
Life is made of bitter and sweet, but if this life as we know it is already bitter sweet, I think we could all help and add a bit more sugar.
Opinions are the mirrors of the world for they help us all reflect. Please feel welcome to add yours.
Monday, October 1, 2012
Aren't We All Blue?
If blue means gay and gay means different and we're all different aren't we all blue?
"Am I blue?" by Bruce Coville is a short story that I read that I find quite fascinating. It talks a lot about the prejudice towards gay people and focuses on how a boy named Vincent, who started from being ashamed/unhappy of who he might have been (that he might have been gay), to growing an understanding of why it didn't matter (or at least that's what I think he ended up understanding). This change in Vincent is what made me think about what this story really implied and that is what I want to share with you all today!
In the story, Vincent's fairy godfather (yes, he met his/a fairy godfather who would help him) made all the people who were gay, blue for a day. That way "...all the straights would have to stop imagining that they didn't know any gay people" (quoted from story). That quote is something that I find done too much - denial. People deny whatever truth they don't like everyday. Assumption- "You may be (gay), you may not. The point is, you're getting picked on because people think you are" (another quote from the story)- another thing that people do every day. Both these actions whether one is aware of it or not, can lead to serious consequences that one may regret only after they've done it.
Prejudice is also a big part of this story. People in this world have always had prejudice towards certain things that make some people so called "different". The topic of being gay or lesbian is one that pops up very often. Sometimes the prejudice can be very obvious, sometimes not. For example, when people say "oh its alright to be different" it sounds perfectly fine to the majority of us doesn't it? Well in my opinion, that phrase already has a prejudice and those who say it may not even understand why. What makes someone different? What gives us the right to label someone as dif-fer-ent? Truth is, you might as well label everyone you see as different. We are all different. Everything around us is different. If differences were not there, that, would be an issue. "Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind"-a quote by Dr. Seuss that I think is very true but is very much neglected in the world we live in. "Be yourself", a phrase commonly said, but is it really put into practice? Why do people still feel ashamed of who they are. No one should ever be unhappy with themselves as long as they have done their best,- and that includes their best of seeing the beauty of each and every one of us including their own. If they have done that then it shouldn't matter what others say. There will always be those who choose to see only the things that divide them from the rest (or others from the majority) but it doesn't matter, because no matter what reason it is that we were made the way we were, there is a reason, and that is all that counts.
We should all be proud of what we have accomplished and what we are capable of. We should all see that we are all different and yet still the same. You don't see gold being turned to steel, or jewels turned into dust, so why is it that we make our self so plain to achieve this so called "happiness"? If this is what true happiness is then I don't want it. I don't need it. I've changed myself too much that I regret it but I have already forgotten how to find the true "me". Hopefully you will all realize that trying to "blend" gives one no joy for I definitely got none.
Be proud to be the reason some people smile each day. We are all worth a chance and we should all strive to get it but if that chance is not worth us, don't waste what we already have. Be proud to be you, and definitely be proud to be "blue".
Feel free to comment.
"Am I blue?" by Bruce Coville is a short story that I read that I find quite fascinating. It talks a lot about the prejudice towards gay people and focuses on how a boy named Vincent, who started from being ashamed/unhappy of who he might have been (that he might have been gay), to growing an understanding of why it didn't matter (or at least that's what I think he ended up understanding). This change in Vincent is what made me think about what this story really implied and that is what I want to share with you all today!
In the story, Vincent's fairy godfather (yes, he met his/a fairy godfather who would help him) made all the people who were gay, blue for a day. That way "...all the straights would have to stop imagining that they didn't know any gay people" (quoted from story). That quote is something that I find done too much - denial. People deny whatever truth they don't like everyday. Assumption- "You may be (gay), you may not. The point is, you're getting picked on because people think you are" (another quote from the story)- another thing that people do every day. Both these actions whether one is aware of it or not, can lead to serious consequences that one may regret only after they've done it.
Prejudice is also a big part of this story. People in this world have always had prejudice towards certain things that make some people so called "different". The topic of being gay or lesbian is one that pops up very often. Sometimes the prejudice can be very obvious, sometimes not. For example, when people say "oh its alright to be different" it sounds perfectly fine to the majority of us doesn't it? Well in my opinion, that phrase already has a prejudice and those who say it may not even understand why. What makes someone different? What gives us the right to label someone as dif-fer-ent? Truth is, you might as well label everyone you see as different. We are all different. Everything around us is different. If differences were not there, that, would be an issue. "Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind"-a quote by Dr. Seuss that I think is very true but is very much neglected in the world we live in. "Be yourself", a phrase commonly said, but is it really put into practice? Why do people still feel ashamed of who they are. No one should ever be unhappy with themselves as long as they have done their best,- and that includes their best of seeing the beauty of each and every one of us including their own. If they have done that then it shouldn't matter what others say. There will always be those who choose to see only the things that divide them from the rest (or others from the majority) but it doesn't matter, because no matter what reason it is that we were made the way we were, there is a reason, and that is all that counts.
We should all be proud of what we have accomplished and what we are capable of. We should all see that we are all different and yet still the same. You don't see gold being turned to steel, or jewels turned into dust, so why is it that we make our self so plain to achieve this so called "happiness"? If this is what true happiness is then I don't want it. I don't need it. I've changed myself too much that I regret it but I have already forgotten how to find the true "me". Hopefully you will all realize that trying to "blend" gives one no joy for I definitely got none.
Be proud to be the reason some people smile each day. We are all worth a chance and we should all strive to get it but if that chance is not worth us, don't waste what we already have. Be proud to be you, and definitely be proud to be "blue".
Feel free to comment.
Friday, September 21, 2012
The Drummer Boy of Shiloh by Ray Bradbury
A few days (perhaps a week) ago I read a short story called "The Drummer Boy of Shiloh" written by Ray Bradbury. It was based on the battle of Shiloh in the American civil war and talked about a fourteen year old boy, the drummer boy, and what was happening the night before the battle (or more specifically, what he was thinking or going through the night before the battle). It was beautifully written, sentences so smooth they seemed linked by a thread and descriptions so real, it seemed as though every word was a picture or thought. The author explained each idea very clearly, which made me think about what the main idea might be.
For me I thought that the main idea or theme was the fact that it is alright to be scared, but that fear could be overcome if we try hard enough. I think that the theme is very true. Everyone on this planet has probably more than once been scared but, in order to move on, you have to overcome that fear.
Funny how the best lessons in life tend to come from books.
Fear is powerful. It can drive people crazy or to the point of insanity. In order to achieve a goal one has to find something stronger to grip on to and not give in to what one is scared of. Many things are stronger than fear. Inspiration, love, duty (such as the case of the drummer boy who accepted his fate or what he was destined to do and become), they are all examples but it is up to us to find which one and more importantly the reason we choose it.
It is an unfortunate matter, the fact that every time you want to reach a goal, something else just has to stand in the way, fear mostly likely being one of those "something else" things. Is it because of the unknown? Is that what fear is all about, the not knowing of what could happen? If you think about it, it tends to be that the majority of fears are of the things we don't know. The Salem witch trials for example, when people didn't know what the "witches" could or would do, they burned all those accused of being one. The drummer boy in the book, he didn't know what would happen to him on the battlefield the next day so he was scared (just like how anyone would be). Death, the "thing" many are afraid of most, why are we afraid of it? Is it because we do not know how our death would come or what would happen after our death? If everything had an answer would fear no longer exist (not including phobias which are completely different from what I've been saying)? For good or bad, that will never be true, but either way that doesn't mean that we should stop finding answers to the mysteries surrounding us. Only that way will things seem lighter as we strive our way up to the point we want to go. Fear, it will never truly go away, but facing it and staying strong will definitely help the journey we live for, seem brighter each day.
For me I thought that the main idea or theme was the fact that it is alright to be scared, but that fear could be overcome if we try hard enough. I think that the theme is very true. Everyone on this planet has probably more than once been scared but, in order to move on, you have to overcome that fear.
Funny how the best lessons in life tend to come from books.
Fear is powerful. It can drive people crazy or to the point of insanity. In order to achieve a goal one has to find something stronger to grip on to and not give in to what one is scared of. Many things are stronger than fear. Inspiration, love, duty (such as the case of the drummer boy who accepted his fate or what he was destined to do and become), they are all examples but it is up to us to find which one and more importantly the reason we choose it.
It is an unfortunate matter, the fact that every time you want to reach a goal, something else just has to stand in the way, fear mostly likely being one of those "something else" things. Is it because of the unknown? Is that what fear is all about, the not knowing of what could happen? If you think about it, it tends to be that the majority of fears are of the things we don't know. The Salem witch trials for example, when people didn't know what the "witches" could or would do, they burned all those accused of being one. The drummer boy in the book, he didn't know what would happen to him on the battlefield the next day so he was scared (just like how anyone would be). Death, the "thing" many are afraid of most, why are we afraid of it? Is it because we do not know how our death would come or what would happen after our death? If everything had an answer would fear no longer exist (not including phobias which are completely different from what I've been saying)? For good or bad, that will never be true, but either way that doesn't mean that we should stop finding answers to the mysteries surrounding us. Only that way will things seem lighter as we strive our way up to the point we want to go. Fear, it will never truly go away, but facing it and staying strong will definitely help the journey we live for, seem brighter each day.
Saturday, September 15, 2012
Let The Great World Spin by Colum Mccann
This book that I am currently reading is called Let The Great World Spin by Colum Mccann. I'm finding it pretty interesting especially since it starts with a person walking across a tight rope between the World Trade Center (note that this is 1974). Right now I have finished the first chapter and so far it talks about two brothers, born in Ireland, who have moved to New York and how they are dealing with life. Corrigan, the younger of the two brothers (by two years) is a person who is very dedicated to God and spends his life aiding others even to the expense of sacrificing his own needs. _______ (it is written in first person so I do not know his name yet since he is the person that goes I...) , the older one, dropped out of university and is now sort of drifting around (already in his thirties), not impressed with the way his brother lives (in a run down apartment with gangs and drunks everywhere) and wants to go back to Ireland.
I also think that one of the deepest things about this book is the title. Let The Great World Spin. Yep. That's about all we can do sometimes, just letting things unfold the way they're supposed to. In fact its amazing what the world has in store for us. Surprises, good or bad, happen every day. Can we control them? Sometimes. Is it fate? Who knows? All we do know is that we can only act upon the moments that have happened already. Perhaps that's where "that's life" comes from, and for the most part, it is.
This book, I find, is very real. Real as in how it connects with the way life works. For example, in the first chapter, Corrigan is struggling to remain the dedicated person he is but is also battling love, and feeling as though God had abandoned him, no longer listening to his prayers and thoughts. I find this real since it comes so often that you want one thing but don't want to lose the other, while at the same time knowing that you can't have both. It seems that he feels lost and frustrated, just like how every one of us feels when it comes to situations like that. Knowing that no matter how you choose, guilt will somehow catch up to you. Having one friend that hates the other, craving a job your parents disapprove, seeing the world in ways no one else does but not wanting to change yourself. Sometimes only words written on paper can assure us that we are not the only ones who can't seem to choose.
It always amazes me that no matter how much you love something, there will always be something you don't love about it. Ex. Corrigan, is so very much dedicated to God but doesn't like God's voice or "this logical God" (quoted from the book). You may love your purse but not like the price, love chocolate cake but not like the calories, love your mirror but not like what you see in it each morning. Nothing is a hundred percent GREAT, and that's okay since if it were that great, it wouldn't be real.
Tuesday, September 11, 2012
The Secret Life of Bees by Sue Monk Kidd
The book I am currently reading (but almost done) is "The Secret Life of Bees" by Sue Monk Kidd. So far,
(and again I'm almost done so basically its not just "so far" but almost the entire book) I like this book very much and it has definitely become one of my favourites.
This book is set in the 1960s in South Carolina, where a lot of racial discrimination is still thriving. Lily Owens, a girl living with her heartless and abusive father is constantly not as happy as one could be, due to her mother having passed when she was still at a young age, and the death to be said, was caused by her own accidental doing (a fight between Lily's parents caused her mother do pull out a gun but when it falls on the floor, Lily picks it up and it goes off, killing her mother). When her nanny (that is like a "second" mother to her), Rosaleen (who is an African American), gets thrown in jail by angering a few racist white men while trying to become a voter, Lily and Rosaleen escape to a small town named Tiburon, a town written on the back of a picture of a black Mary (later known as Black Madonna) that belonged to Lily's mother. Now on a "quest" to find out about her mother's past, they meet three sisters who own a honey business and although facing challenges, form a foundation of love and motherly care, finding out what truly matters the most in life.
A lot of the times while I read this book visualizations are what mostly came to mind, because of how well the author has described each setting. In fact (I'm not sure if this counts as a visualization or a connection but...) a lot of the times, again due to well descriptions, I can feel the emotions that Lily is feeling, feel the sorrow when knowing that her father really doesn't love her, feel the anger when she knows her mother did something unforgiving, even feel how beautiful the bond is between her and the Daughters of Mary are. There are times though that I made connections, for example when it talked about her smashing honey jars due to her anger, but finding out that being destructive doesn't help, I can connect to how I get agitated and yell at people when I am extremely unhappy but realize that that only makes me feel worse. Inferences are also made occasionally, such as: I infer that when someone reaches the age of 14, they become a lot more mature based on how she seems so much more mature or able to follow her true will, or even by a lot of other stories, even for example "The Drummer Boy of Shiloh" that we read two days ago.
Lastly I did sometimes make predictions but not that often since that is a reading skill that I do not commonly use. One prediction that I made was that Lily would end up meeting T-Ray again but that she wouldn't go with him back to her hometown. I predicted this because a good book doesn't usually leave something hanging, such as "will she ever have to face her dad again?" and also since, it being a heartwarming book (or at least I think it should be) I didn't think that it would have a miserable and depressing ending which would be, if she had to go back.
According to the last few pages the author has written (I read them early on to have a greater understanding of the book before I continued so I could see underlying messages), this novel is about "...mothers lost and found, love, conviction, and forgiveness, The Secret Life of Bees boldly explores life's wounds and reveals the deeper meaning of home and the redemptive simplicity of "choosing what matters", which I completely agree with and therefore I would DEFINITELY recommend this book to anyone who likes reading books that are truly worth while and will be remembered for life.
(and again I'm almost done so basically its not just "so far" but almost the entire book) I like this book very much and it has definitely become one of my favourites.
This book is set in the 1960s in South Carolina, where a lot of racial discrimination is still thriving. Lily Owens, a girl living with her heartless and abusive father is constantly not as happy as one could be, due to her mother having passed when she was still at a young age, and the death to be said, was caused by her own accidental doing (a fight between Lily's parents caused her mother do pull out a gun but when it falls on the floor, Lily picks it up and it goes off, killing her mother). When her nanny (that is like a "second" mother to her), Rosaleen (who is an African American), gets thrown in jail by angering a few racist white men while trying to become a voter, Lily and Rosaleen escape to a small town named Tiburon, a town written on the back of a picture of a black Mary (later known as Black Madonna) that belonged to Lily's mother. Now on a "quest" to find out about her mother's past, they meet three sisters who own a honey business and although facing challenges, form a foundation of love and motherly care, finding out what truly matters the most in life.
A lot of the times while I read this book visualizations are what mostly came to mind, because of how well the author has described each setting. In fact (I'm not sure if this counts as a visualization or a connection but...) a lot of the times, again due to well descriptions, I can feel the emotions that Lily is feeling, feel the sorrow when knowing that her father really doesn't love her, feel the anger when she knows her mother did something unforgiving, even feel how beautiful the bond is between her and the Daughters of Mary are. There are times though that I made connections, for example when it talked about her smashing honey jars due to her anger, but finding out that being destructive doesn't help, I can connect to how I get agitated and yell at people when I am extremely unhappy but realize that that only makes me feel worse. Inferences are also made occasionally, such as: I infer that when someone reaches the age of 14, they become a lot more mature based on how she seems so much more mature or able to follow her true will, or even by a lot of other stories, even for example "The Drummer Boy of Shiloh" that we read two days ago.
Lastly I did sometimes make predictions but not that often since that is a reading skill that I do not commonly use. One prediction that I made was that Lily would end up meeting T-Ray again but that she wouldn't go with him back to her hometown. I predicted this because a good book doesn't usually leave something hanging, such as "will she ever have to face her dad again?" and also since, it being a heartwarming book (or at least I think it should be) I didn't think that it would have a miserable and depressing ending which would be, if she had to go back.
According to the last few pages the author has written (I read them early on to have a greater understanding of the book before I continued so I could see underlying messages), this novel is about "...mothers lost and found, love, conviction, and forgiveness, The Secret Life of Bees boldly explores life's wounds and reveals the deeper meaning of home and the redemptive simplicity of "choosing what matters", which I completely agree with and therefore I would DEFINITELY recommend this book to anyone who likes reading books that are truly worth while and will be remembered for life.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)