Blog Reflection

        This is my first year ever that I've had a blog and it has been an interesting experience for me. I learned a lot about myself as a reader by having this blog, I realized that I am better at thinking deeply about plot than I am about author's purpose or themes in the text. For example i would prefer to discuss what is happening in the story then to discuss what themes or messages the author put in the book.
        I benefited from this experience in a few ways. One way that i benefited from having a blog is that I can more easily keep track of my thinking when I read. For example, when I didn't have a blog to write my thoughts in, I would always have to look back at the book to remind myself what I read recently. But with a blog I can write down my thoughts and easily access my thoughts by looking at my previous posts.
        I think that people can be more real online or they can also make up personalities. If a person is happy with themselves and their personality, then the won't find the need to make up fake personalities and characters. But if a person isn't happy with themselves or their personalities, then they may find the need to make up characters online.
        I think that people definitely take advantage of being on the internet and people absolutely say things on the internet that they would never say to a person's face. I think people do this because anyone can seem threatening on the internet and it may seem like the internet can protect them so no harm will come to them so they can do anything.
        Overall, my experience using blogger has been a positive one. I have benefited from it on several ways, I learned things about my reading habits and about the habits of everyone on the internet, but despite all of these positive things I cannot see myself continuing this blog in the future because I really don't have want to have to be responsible for an ongoing project such as that.
     

Philosofamily Book: Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close by Jonathan Safran Foer

        Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close by Jonathan Safran Foer is a touching story about a boy named Oskar who lost his father in the World Trade Center attacks on September 11th 2001. As Oskar continues on throughout his life, he is having trouble getting over his father's death which is understandable. And Oskar begins to do everything that he can to still hold on to a little piece of his father. This raises the question: is it ethical to move on after someone you care about dies?

      When someone dies there are 5 stages of loss and grief. The first stage is denial and isolation when you refuse to accept that something like this could happen and you hide yourself from the rest of the world. The second stage is anger, this is when you begin to take out your frustrations on everything around you and you feel that what happened was unfair and it makes you hate everything. The third stage is bargaining and this is when you begin to think of the "what ifs" and you make promises to the world in exchange for what you want. The fourth stage is depression, and this is the stage where everything falls apart and it is impossible to be happy or to have anything make your life good. The final step is acceptance. People can look at acceptance in many different ways, they can see it as you realizing that all the other stages were irrational, or that you find that you want to move on. But moving on does not have to be the same thing as forgetting someone or something that happened. It just means that it is you not wanting to deny, be angry, bargain, or be depressed anymore. For example, for the people who died on September 11th like Oskar's father, we had our time that we were going through the stages of grief, but now people have continued to live out their lives and continued to be happy, but this doesn't meant that the people who died were forgotten, we still honor them and remember them in our hearts and we honor them every year on September 11th.

        So although this can still be challenged, I think that it is ethical to move on after suffering a loss because it allows you to be happy and you still remember what you are moving on from, because what you are really moving on from is not the person who passed, but the stages of grief that caused you pain. So in this sense, I believe that Oskar should be able to move on after his father's death, and so should anyone who suffers a loss.

Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close by Jonathan Safran Foer

        Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close by Jonathan Safran Foer is about a boy named Oskar, who's father died in the World Trade Center attacks on September 11th. Before Oskar's father died, he always gave Oskar riddles and mysteries to solve. And the night before he died, he told Oskar that there was a missing 6th borough of the city of New York. Oskar was unable to solve this mystery because his father died the very next day. Then, months after the attacks, Oskar finds what he believes to be a clue. It is a key that he found in a vase with the name "Black" on it. Because of this supposed clue, Oskar goes on a journey to find what this key unlocks because he believes it is another of his father's mysteries. I think that it has nothing to do with any mystery and Oskar is just creating this illusion, because he doesn't want to accept that his father is completely gone.

        One reason why I think that Oskar doesn't want to accept that his father is completely gone is because he is always mad at his mother whenever it appears that she is being happy or having fun because he believes that this is the same thing as forgetting his Dad or getting over him. For example when Oskar heard his mother laughing and joking around with her "friend" Ron, he said "why don't you miss dad?" and they ended up having a conversation in which Oskar said all of the things that you should never say to a widow that is still secretly grieving for her husband including "I wish it had been you instead", Another example of this is because Oskar suspects (most likely correctly) that Ron and his mother are in a romantic relationship. This incredibly hurts Oskar because he thinks that his mother is replacing his father and in a way this is. And he tries to make her promise to never fall in love again. This all shows that Oskar doesn't want to accept that his Dad is completely gone.

       Another reason why I think that Oskar doesn't want to accept that his Dad is completely gone is because he continues to do the things that he did with his Dad  but he makes no changes. it is really sad because he looks through the papers for mistakes and  he invents things by himself when he would only ever do these things with his father. The most depressing part is that these things don't always work when Oskar does them by himself but he continues anyway because he doesn't want to accept that his dad is really completely gone.
    Overall, it is obvious why Oskar doesn't want to accept that his dad is dead, and that is because he loved him and he never expected that he would have to deal with life without him, so he is having a hard time coping. And the only way he keeps himself from falling into total depression is by not accepting that his father is really gone.

Why is Shakespeare's writing shown in "Spanking Shakespeare"

        Shakespeare Shapiro is a very clumsy, antisocial, and sometimes stupid 18 year old boy. And "Spanking Shakespeare" is about all of his misfortunes that he encounters in his senior year of high school. And as we read about his misfortunes, we see that he is not very good at talking. And then we read some of his writing and it turns out that Shakespeare is actually very intelligent but he just can't convey this without writing. I think that the writing is present in this book in order to show the difference between  how clumsy and stupid Shakespeare seems to how he actually thinks.
        One example of this is when Shakespeare was trying to tell a girl named Celeste that he had a crush on her. And as I have described before, Shakespeare is not very good at talking, so as you might imagine, Shakespeare sort of messed up. He said "Uhhhhhhhhhhh... hi Celeste... ok bye". And that is it. But as soon as Shakespeare realized that he had messed up he began to write Celeste a letter. And this letter turned out to be so well written that Celeste asked Shakespeare out the very next day. This absolutely shows a huge difference between when Shakespeare Shapiro talks and when he writes.
        Another example of this is when Shakespeare is in class. As is shown throughout the entire book, Shakespeare when he is in class he is often bullied alot. And when he tried to stand up to a bully he ends up looking incredibly stupid. But then Shakespeare wrote that bully a note, and we don't know what exactly he said, but after the bully read that note, he never bothered Shakespeare again. As is clearly shown, Shakespeare's writing is much more convincing than his speech and it makes him seem much more intelligent then one would think after listening to him talk.
    Overall, I think that Shakespeare Shapiro's writing was included in this book in order to show an unknown side to the main character, and by knowing this specific trait about him, it allows the readers to get to know him better and thus feel more sympathy for him when reading about his troubles.

Critical Analysis of "Should Chimps Have Rights?" by Veronica Majerol

        In the article "Should Chimps Have Rights?" by Veronica Majerol, the author talks abput how a

group of people called the Nonhuman Rights Project (NhRP) is trying to change how the law views

chimps. According to the article, "The group says chimps have such a humanlike intelligence that

they should be recognized as 'legal persons'- a prerequisite for having rights". Throughout the article

the author generally provides just facts about how chimps are extremely similar to humans. For

example, the author talks about how a 26-year-old chimp named Tommy is a pet that lives in a

cement cage. And it is these types of captivities that supposedly caused the NhRP to move into

action. According to the article the NhRP has already started a petition in order to attempt to get

chimps the title of "legal persons". And although the author provides several facts about the matter,

the author only provides only information on how chimpanzees are incredibly intelligent and are very

similar to humans and this all suggests that these chimps should infact be given rights. Although this

is not clearly stated in the article, it is suggested by what information is included. I think that this is a

very clever strategy used by the author because she is able to maintain her neutrality but she is still

supporting the idea that chimpanzees should have rights.


        Overall I enjoyed reading the article because it provided a lot of really interesting information

despite all of the suggestions that point to one side of the article. As for the argument itself, although

this article was interesting, I still don't think that chimpanzees should be given rights because they are

not humans even if the article says that they are very close to human.

Romeo & Juliet Literary Essay

      One of the most famous plays of all time is Romeo and Juliet by William Shakespeare. We read this masterpiece in class and we discovered hidden crafts used by William Shakespeare. But Romeo and Juliet was written so long ago that all the crafts used by William Shakespeare are completely up to interpretation. Shakespeare could have hidden messages within his writing and we just haven't found it yet. But Shakespeare does have a lot of clear themes in his play "Romeo & Juliet". And Shakespeare didn't put these themes in his play for no reason. Because many of these themes connect to send messages, like the themes of destiny and death. I think that William Shakespeare put these two connecting themes in Romeo & Juliet for several reasons.
        One reason why William Shakespeare included the themes of destiny and death in Romeo and Juliet is because he wanted to show that we are all destined to die. For example in the prologue Shakespeare tells us the destiny of Romeo and Juliet and that destiny is their death. The prologue said, "A pair of star-cross'd lovers take their life;" (Prologue.6) And as we go through the entire play, it is always in the back of our minds that these two lovers are destined to die. Another example of this is act 1 scene 4 when Romeo is about to go into the Capulet party and he says "I fear too early, for my mind misgives some consequence yet hang in the stars shall bitterly begin his fearful date"(1.4.115). Romeo is saying that if he goes inside the party then destiny will make something bad happen to him. And this is exactly what happened, because Romeo died because he was in love with Juliet whom he met at the party. Another example of this is when Romeo killed in act 3 scene 1, and he gets exiled, he still has hope because he believes that destiny plans to bring him and Juliet back together. But as explained in the prologue, destiny caused him to come together in the end, but they end up dying. And when both Romeo and Juliet die, we all knew that this would happen because this was their destiny. And when Romeo says "then I defy you stars" (5.1.24) he is saying that he is going against what he thinks fate meant him to do: live without Juliet. And so Romeo kills himself and meets his real fate, death. And Shakespeare was trying to say that this is the fate of us all.
        Another reason why Shakespeare included the themes of destiny and death in Romeo and Juliet is to show that while we are alive, we should enjoy ourselves, because we will all die eventually. He shows this by first in the beginning, telling us what is going to happen in the end, and then throughout the entire play he shows Romeo and Juliet rushing their lives by meeting, getting married, and ultimately falling in love in just three days. This series of events can be viewed in different ways. Some people can say that if Romeo and Juliet didn't rush their love than they would have been still alive. This could been shown when Friar Lawrence warned them against moving too quickly and he said,"Wisely and slow; they stumble that run fast"(2.3.10). But, as the reader already knew, these two are already destined to die, so if the two lovers hadn't rushed their love, they may not have had the chance to spend that much time with each other. This may have been Shakespeare's way of showing us that we should live out our lives to the fullest and enjoy ourselves.
        Another reason why Shakespeare included the themes of destiny and death in Romeo and Juliet is to show that one can never know what destiny has in store for them because they can die at any time. William Shakespeare shows this in many ways. An example of this is when Romeo found put Juliet was supposedly dead. He expected his friend Balthazar to tell him that Juliet was all well but instead Balthazar tells him that Juliet is dead. He asks Balthazar " How fairs my Juliet? For nothing can be ill if she be well" (5.1.15-16). This shows that fate certainly did surprise Romeo and Juliet's "death" came at a very unexpected moment.
        As you can see, the themes of destiny and death are not just put in Romeo and Juliet for no reason. By putting these themes in this play, William Shakespeare was able to send several messages to both his audience and whoever stumbles upon his work. And if one can uncover so many messages from just two themes then it is highly possible that William Shakespeare has more messages in his masterpiece Romeo and Juliet that are still waiting to be uncovered.

What is wrong with Alice's Mom in "The God of Animals" by Aryn Kyle

        The book "The God of Animals" by Aryn Kyle is about a 12 year old girl who lives on a ranch in the west and all of the troubles she goes through. Her dad buys, sells, trains, and breeds horses while Alice works on the ranch with him. In the beginning of the book, Alice's best friend named Polly drowned in a canal. And the author describes how Alice's sister who was a champion in horse shows, left to run away will a man and she abandoned her family. As you can see, Alice faces a lot of hardships in her life, but one of the most mysterious and interesting hardship that Alice has to go through is the fact that her mother has not come out of her room in the house for all of Alice's life. But Alice doesn't actually know why her mother is like this. I think that her mother actual is sick with some dangerous disease like cancer.

        One reason why I think that Alice's mom has a dangerous disease is because she is always so weak. On page 56, Alice said, " My mother is always complaining that she is going to die any second" This suggests that Alice's mother knows that she has some some sort of weakness or disease that is dangerous because she believes that she can die from whatever it is that is wrong with her. Also she always needs assistance from Alice's dad. This suggests that she cannot accomplish certain tasks without help. All of this suggests that she may have a dangerous disease such as cancer.

        Another reason why I think that Alice's mom has a dangerous disease such as cancer is because she is always inside and she hasn't gone outside for as long as Alice has been alive. I think that this is because she is sensitive to the sun so she can't got outside. I believe this because whenever Alice describes her mother's room, she always states that the shades are closed and that the only light is the light from the television. Also when Alice is asked where her mother is, she always responds by saying something like "she's ill" or "she's not feeling well". And when she was especially pissed at a girl who asked where her mother was, she actually said "she has cancer okay?" I think that when she said this, she wasn't actually lying because she was furious when she said this.

        I think that the evidence in the text absolutely points to Alice's mom having cancer. I think that this is the reason that she is mysteriously staying inside all the time and why she is always in bed. Now readers can truly understand the extent of the hardships that Alice has to go through.

What is Miguel hiding in "We Were Here" by Matt De La Pena

        In the book "We Were Here" by Matt De La Pena, the main character Miguel is being brought to a home for troubled boys because he committed a crime that we don't know. And eventually Miguel escapes this group home with two friends, Mong and Rondell. And he goes on this big adventure to try and survive on his own without his family and without getting caught by the police. And throughout this entire adventure, we only get hints at what the crime he did was. And as Miguel is writing in a journal while he is on this journey, he still doesn't say exactly what he did, we just hear stories about his life before he committed the crimes like stories about his Mom or his brother Diego. But based on things that I've found in the book led me to a possible conclusion of what Miguel did. I think that Miguel killed his brother Diego.

        One reason that I think that the crime that Miguel committed was murder is because in one of the hints that he gave was when he relived the crime he committed in flashes. And when he did this he described himself getting beat up and falling to the floor with blood dripping down his head and with a knife i his hand. This suggests that he may have used this knife to defend himself against an attacker.  And as he explained in one of his descriptions of his brother, " Me and my brother Diego don't ever stop fighting. We beat the s*** out of eachother at every chance we get". I think that it is highly possible that this was one of these fights that escalated to Miguel having to defending himself with a knife and in turn he killed his brother.

         Another reason that I think that Miguel killed his brother Diego is because whenever he calls his house phone, his brother never answers the phone when Miguel specifically said, " Me and Diegeo would always race me and my mother to the phone to answer it because he said he sounded more 'professional' than the both of us together" If this is true then, why was it always Miguel's mother that answered the phone when Miguel called?

        Another reason that I think that Miguel killed his brother Diego is because of the way that everyone acts towards Miguel, including Miguel himself. When Miguel's mother dropped off Miguel off at the Juvie, she wouldn't even look at him. One can infer from this that she still cares about him enough to drive him there, so he may have been defending himself, but she also wouldn't talk to him so she obviously is struggling to decide whether to hate or forgive Miguel. Also Miguel always says that what he did was so bad that he can't even forgive himself.

       Overall I think that all of this evidence makes it a great possibility that my theory is correct, but I will never really know until Miguel opens up and says exactly what he did himself.

Literary Essay

        Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire is about a teen-age boy wizard who has many adventures with his friends Ron Weasley and Hermione Granger. In this world, there is magic, mythical creatures, and evil dark wizards like Harry's arch-enemy lord Voldemort. One kind of mythical creature is a house elf. House elves are elves that are the servants of wizards, they could also be considered slaves. And some wizards like Hermione believe that the enslavement of these creatures, while other wizards such as the Malfoys, an unfriendly wizard family that works for lord Voldemort, believe that house elves want to be enslaved and it is their purpose in life. But as these wizards argue over whether or not the elves should be free, we never get to hear what the elves actually think about their enslavement. J.K. Rowling often had someone's perspective missing in order to prove a point either about the characters or about issues in the real world. I believe that J.K. Rowling has the perspective of the house elves on this matter on purpose.

         One reason that I think the author did this is in order to represent how slaves were in real life. For example, in the 13 colonies, slaves were unallowed to speak when they were not given permission. Also when slavery was debated in the United States, liberals and conservatives argued about whether slavery should be abolished but the actual people who were enslaved had no political voice and so they could not give their own opinion, so their perspectives were missing much like that of the house elves.

         Another reason why I think the author did this is because, now that the perspective of the house elves is missing, this makes it so the perspectives and opinions of all of the other characters more important. In most situations that involve inhumane behavior, the perspective of the victim is obviously the most important. But now that the perspective of the victim is not available, readers will be forced to pick sides and have their own opinion about the subject. This makes reading this more interactive and interesting.

         Another reason why I think that the author did this is because she wanted to show how when people argue, they are so stubborn that they don't even care about what the person whose actual problem it is has to say. For example, when someone is getting bullied (like the house elves) by a bully (the Malfoys) and someone comes to stand up for them (Hermione), the people who are standing up for the victim can get so into the argument that the issue now seems like it is between the bully and them. This is how many fights can go and this is portrayed in the issue of the house elves' silence.

        Having the perspective of the house elves missing is in Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire for many reasons, and most likely for more than just representing how slavery was dealt with in the real world, giving the other characters more say and giving the readers a chance to have their own opinion about the subject, or demonstrating how many arguments evolve in real life. But finding how this issue can lead to deeper meanings and themes is just one more reason why reading Harry Potter is an enjoyable experience. 

Link to original post: www.hereabookthereabook.blogspot.com post name: Whose Perspective is missing in Harry Potter and The Goblet of Fire. 

 

 

My Response to an author's belief that homosexuality is wrong.

         "10 Reasons Why Homosexual "Marriage" is Wrong and Must be Opposed" by TFP Student Action talks about how they think that homosexual activity and marriage is wrong and gives 10 reasons why they believe so. First of all, I'm just going to let any reader know that I entirely oppose this article and I disagree with everything that the author says about homosexuality, but I chose it so that I could show the author's clear opinion and argue my own point.
         As you could most likely tell from the title, the main idea of the entire article is that gay marriage is wrong and the author comes up with 10 reasons why they think this. The first reason is very straight forward and it is " gay marriage is not marriage ". They explain that the "traditional" definition of marriage is the holy joining of a man and a woman and that "just calling something marriage, doesn't make it marriage". The next example the author gave of how homosexual marriage is wrong is that "it violates natural law". The author explains that it is only natural to have a man and a woman together, and no other way is natural. The third example that the author gave about why they believed that gay marriage is wrong is that "it denies a child either a father or a mother". The author explains that because the marriage would be between two people of the same sex, there couldn't be a father, and a mother. The next reason was that "it validates and promotes the homosexual lifestyle". The author explains that if homosexuality is legalized, then more people will be openly gay. The fifth reason was that "It turns moral wrong into a civil right", the author explains that activists are considering same-sex marriage to be a civil right when they shouldn't be. The sixth reason was that "it does not create a family but a natural sterile union" and the author also says that when two homosexual spouses want a child and adopt one, this does not create a family but a "living hell for the child". The seventh reason was that "it defeats the states purpose of benefitting marriage". The author continues to state that "homosexual marriage's primary purpose is the personal gratification of two individuals whose union is sterile by nature. The eighth reason was "it imposes it's acceptance on all society". The author explains that if same-sex marriage is legalized, then everyone would be forced to accept it. The ninth reason was "it is the cutting edge of the sexual revolution". The author explains that this is giving the sexual revolution (which the author believes is also immoral) more push and it is the biggest thing that they've asked for. The tenth and final reason that the author gave for why they believe homosexual marriage is wrong is that "it offends God". The author states that this is the "most important reason" and that God demonstrated this when he destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah.
       The author shows the clear prospective of a very religious individual. He/she obviously had strong feelings about this topic. He wants us to feel as passionate about this topic as he does, and this could work in both ways, we could either passionately agree with him/her or passionately disagree with him/her. He/she is very straight forward whenever he states his reasons, and he includes no opposing argument. All he does is state his opinion on the matter and move on. Perhaps this works to trick people into believing that since this is the only argument presented, it is the right one. He also keeps saying over and over that anything about homosexuality is a sin so you shouldn't listen to those who believe that it is ok are sinners so you shouldn't believe anything they say either. This might actually work on people that are really religious, or people who are just semi-religious.
       Finally I get to respond to this article! And I have a lot to say. But unfortunately the critical analysis rubric only asks for 1-2 sentences of response, so I will make it brief. But overall I am in complete disagreement with this author. They say they oppose arguments with arguments, but in the arguments they present their arguments, there is no real case based on fact and it is all just opinion. And the thing that bothers me the most is that all of the "arguments" are based on the fact that God was against gay rights but many people do not believe in the same god that is in question, and sometimes no god at all, and because of this, this argument would be completely invalid to any of these people. Instead of basing the arguments on religion, the author should explain why homosexuality is wrong ethically. Reading this article has only strengthened my belief that people should have the right to be homosexual and get married, and it also gives me many more things to add to my argument.
     

How Does Balance of Interest Affect Reading "Under The Black Flag'?

        Have you ever read a book that at one point was so boring that you wished you had never picked it up, but suddenly in the very next chapter you take everything back and you swear that it is the most exciting and thrilling piece of literature that has ever existed on this earth? This is the sort of feeling that you get from reading "Under The Black Flag" by David Cordingly. This book is about the actual history of pirates and then how our society envisioned pirates over time. The book talks about the average pirate, what they wear, how they commit piracy, their crew, and their vessel. And also talks about famous pirates such as Bartholomew Roberts, Captain Kidd, and of course Blackbeard. The thing that is so unique about this book is that Cordingly goes into extreme detail about every single topic that he discusses making it sometimes all the more interesting and sometimes all the more boring. Cordingly often uses diagrams of actual ships, live accounts, and quotes from journals to provide more useful facts. An example of one of these quotes is when he quotes the journal of one of Sir Francais Drake's crewmember's journal. The quote is we have been travelling for days without any sign of land, God save our souls". These quotes can sometimes be boring or exciting. But they offer a first person look at what the life of a pirate was like. Throughout the entire book, the author continues a pattern of something that the reader may find interesting and then something that the reader may find less interesting but is still important information. For example, chapter 9 titled "Sloops, Schooners, and Pirate Ships" This chapter may be interesting for some but in my experience it was quite boring although i did learn some interesting facts about pirate ships. I was quite ready to put the book down for a bit when suddenly I realized that the next chapter was titled "Hunting Down Pirates". This chapter was extremely interesting to me because it was about the falls of Bartholomew Roberts and Blackbeard after they were hunted down. Suddenly the previous boring chapter didn't matter as I was so immersed in this new one.
        Throughout the entire book, Cordingly tries to convince the readers that piracy was one of the key essential practices that helped to establish our world and societies today. You can tell that he is very fond and passionate about the topic. The author makes every pirate that he discusses seem like a genius in their own respect. He also makes every pirate seize or battle seem like a jedi battle from Star Wars with all of the epic music in the back ground. He does this by describing these battles in great detail. And throughout the entire book, it is this level of detail that makes this book awesome..

Blog Review

       I read Lillian's blog post about The Fault in Our Stars and I was really impressed. The book was about a girl named Hazel who has cancer and is  trying to live with her disease while she also has a strong connection to a girl in her own book that is in the same situation that she is in. Her post was very informative about the book and brought us deep into Lillian's thinking about the complicated characters in the book. She focused mostly on the unseen and hidden messages in the book instead of any obvious themes or messages that might have been easier to find. These things really show how good she is at interpreting and recognizing what the author was trying to do.

       One way that she does this is that she talks about how, even though a certain kind of carelessness would be expected in a girl like Hazel who has cancer, she thought that "secretly, Hazel really cares". She says that she can tell this by her strong connection to Anna ( the girl in Hazel's book ) because she also has cancer just like Hazel "although she never mentions feeling close to Anna, you can tell by the way she talks about the book and it's characters that she does feel close to her". This is just one way that she uses Hazel's behavior to show how she actually feels.

       Another way that Lillian interprets hidden content in this post is she discusses how Hazel really cares about her family. She again uses the way that Hazel cares about the book to show how she cares in real life. According to Lillian, this is because "she is obsessed with figuring out  what happens to Anna's parents after she dies". By interpreting this, Lillian shows that Hazel wants to know what happens to Anna's family so that she can a slight idea about what will happen to her family. This further shows the connection that Lillian found between Hazel and Anna and it helps us further understand the character. Lillian eventually comes to the conclusion that Hazel really does care but she doesn't show it because she doesn't want to hurt anyone that she cares about Lillian thinks that "When you pass, people are glad to have known you and yes, they will be sad, but it is part of human nature to miss people or things, without that we would be much more heartless and careless". I think that this was a deep and beautiful ending to this awesome post.

       As I'm sure I have expressed, I am extremely impressed with Lillian's writing and thinking in her most recent post. Her interpretation of the characters feelings, and of how she disagreed with the character and how she drew her conclusion on the issue was very professional and interesting, and it especially makes me want to read this book myself so I can draw my own conclusions about Hazel.

Her awesome post can be found at http://eternitylilli.blogspot.com/

      

Who is the Narrator in The Hobbit by J.R.R. Tolkien?

          The Hobbit by J.R.R. Tolkien is about a fantasy world in which elves, dwarves and dragons roam. The main character is named Bilbo Baggins and he is a creature called a hobbit. And along with the help of Gandalf a wizard, he decides to go on an adventure with 13 dwarves so that he can help them get back their gold. The reason this is an issue is that, Bilbo Baggins and the vast majority of hobbits are very peaceful and not fond of adventures, but as the adventure progresses, Bilbo realizes that he is not part of that majority any longer. We, the readers, are brought through this adventure by a narrator that always knows what is going and knows what is going to happen next. But we actually never know who this narrator is. We get a partly clear personality that has led me to believe that this mystery narrator is either Bilbo Baggins after all of his adventures or J.R.R. Tolkien himself.

          One reason that I think it might be Bilbo Baggins after he is retired and settled down is that this is the way that the movie "The Hobbit" ( part 1 ) depicted the narrator. In the beginning and end of the Movie, it shows old Bilbo Baggins writing a book called, "There and Back Again" which is another name for the book in discussion, The Hobbit!!! Also, the narrator talks as if they were actually there, which of course being the main character, Bilbo was. And finally, the narrator talks as if they were an old person telling a story, like possibly Bilbo telling Frodo ( the main character from The Lord of The Rings) a story. And when Tolkien wrote this book, he was only 45 years old, which is not particularly old.

         One reason that the narrator might be J.R.R. Tolkien is that when the narrator explains what a hobbit is , he says " they rather shy of Big People, as they call us" on page 4. The word us gives away that the narrator is infact a "Big Person" or human and not a Hobbit. And J.R.R. Tolkien was a human, although it is confusing because the narrator spoke as if hobbits existed within the world that he lives in, and there are no hobbits in the 20th century that Tolkien lived in. But this also brings up the question of how does Tolkien know what was going to happened? Well, it is possible that Tolkien (if he was living in Middle Earth) heard the story from someone else and then wrote this book, because it is supposed to seem like everything that occurred within it's pages were true and aactually happened.

      But overall, whether the narrator is Tolkien or Bilbo, it will not effect the story much because whoever the narrator is, does a good job at drawing the reader in, making them want to read more, and helping the reader understand what is happening. So in a way, the narrator could be anyone and it wouldn't matter.

Why Is There Perspective of Children in "What Does Marriage Mean?"?

                In the article "What Does Marriage Mean?" by Erika Lewis is about how many kids are
confused about gay marriage because their families taught them that it was wrong. She begins with a
scenario: there is a boy named Zane who has two moms and when everyone is talking about their
familes, he tells people. The other kid then begin a discussion of how "two moms can't get married"
because "my dad told me that's illegal". This causes Zane to feel confused and sad. Then the author
asks the question "Has something like this ever happened to you" and then says how it's alright to feel
confused because society has some backwards beliefs. She assures the readers that gay marriage is not illegal and should not be illegal. She then says that in order to understand what to do if you are in that situation, you have to understand why people are confused about gay marriage in the first place. She says people are confused because their family has passed down beliefs from the ages when everyone believed that gay marriage was wrong and the issue didn't really exist. But now that it is an issue and many people believe that gay people should the right to love one another and should be able to get married. It is because of these beliefs that many people are confused about whether gay marriage should be legal or not. "Many of these beliefs also come from religions that are against homosexuality" she explains. Her descriptions use less big vocabulary and the article seems to be targeting children as readers.

               The most interesting and compelling thing about Erika Lewis' writing was that it was meant for children. She might have done this because she believes that it is not a child's fault what they think because much of the topic, they don't understand. Also, a lot of these "beliefs" come from falsified information from their parents and their religion. It may also prove the point that if the kid didn't have his parents opinion to go off of, then they would make their own decisions based on their logic and judgment of right and wrong. In the article, the author obviously believes that gay people should have the same rights as everyone else. From this article, my belief that gays should have equal rights is now stronger and more supported.

Whose Perspective is Missing in Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire?

             This book in the Harry Potter series is about how Voldemort is returning to power and an unknown person put Harry's name in the goblet of fire, which entered him into the Triwizard Cup which is known as the most dangerous contest played by Hogwarts. People have even been known to die. But there are also smaller issues in the book.  As I discussed in my previous blog post, the issue of elf slavery and racism in Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire is clear As I said before, the argument used by those who were in favor of this slavery was that the elves liked being put to work, and  the argument used by the people that were against the slavery was that it was cruel and unjust and they didn't like it. But there is one perspective that is not given a very clear voice and that is the perspective of the elves themselves.

              For example, when Hermione argues with Ron about the slavery in the kitchen, the elves just serve them and say nothing. J.K. Rowling may have left out this perspective in order to let the reader  make their own choice in the and allow them to have their own opinion. Or maybe she left this out because it further represents exactly how the slavery issue was handled in the United States. For example, because they were enslaved, slaves were unable to speak their mind to the government, or to their masters. Instead we were left with those who were not slaves, arguing over other people's freedom.
           
            Now what happens to the other characters is that their arguments are more important. Because if the perspective of the elves was given, then the other opinions are not as important because the elves are the ones who are being enslaved. And in that kind of situation, the victims' perspectives are the most important. But without those details, the reader is forced to pick a side based on the arguments given by those who aren't slaves. And it makes it a tougher choice because characters that we know and love will have separate opinions and we are torn between siding with Hagrid or Hermione. Because of this, readers will not make their choice based on which characters think what, it is based on the arguments that they bring to the table in order to support their idea.

         In conclusion, the perspective of the elves is very unclear and overall missing. This may have been done in order to have the reader make their own opinion or to further represent how slavery was dealt with in the United States. But without this point of view, it beefs up the perspectives of the other characters and forces readers to pick a side. As can be seen, there is much more to the book than what is in the blurb.

What Complex or Difficult Things Are Happening in Harry Potter And the Goblet of Fire by J.K. Rowling

                 Harry Potter And The Goblet of Fire by J.K. Rowling has to be one of my favorite books in the Harry Potter series. If you don't know, Harry Potter is a young wizard who is famous for defeating the most  evil wizard of all time. This evil wizard is named Voldemort, and as he slowly regains power, he is after revenge. Voldemort in this book is finally about to regain power completely, and his followers called Death Eaters are returning to him. Harry has two best friends, Hermione and Ron. In this book Harry is entered into a dangerous competition in which the person that entered him hopes he will die. This person ends up being one of Voldemorts followers. But as Harry struggles to survive, I noticed that there are other things going on in the text that are more complex than they seem. These things generally represent racism and equality.

            One example of this is when Hermione starts a campaign for Elf rights. In the book, there are creatures called House Elves and they serve as slaves to wizard families. I found that these elves may represent those who are discriminated against in our world such as African Americans in the United States of America or Jews in Europe during World War II. Another thing to prove this is that the wizards are actually against the elves having equal rights much like Americans after the Civil War. For example on page 114 it says, "Even as Hermione began to plead with him, Hagrid still refused to sign up for S.P.E.W." Hagrid is a good friend of Harry's and he is fascinated by magical creatures such as House Elves, but the fact that he wouldn't help them to obtain equal rights still shows that he is infact racist against these creatures whether they fascinate him or not. And by showing this, you can now see how she represented the controversy that the issues of slavery and equal rights had.

           Another thing that really reveals a hidden message about racism is the antagonists. Voldemort's original goal was to rid the world of all people who aren't of pure magical descent. Before Harry defeated him, Voldemort led his Death Eaters on campaigns in which he terrorized Muggles ( regular people who aren't magic), Mudbloods ( those who are magic but have non-magic parents), and anyone who got in there way. Young readers don't really have to wonder why he did this, because all they have to know is that he was evil. But if you look deeper, the real reason that Voldemort treated these people this way was because he was racist! And if you look even further, Voldemort is a lot like Adolf Hitler, and the Death Eaters are a lot like the Nazis or the Ku Klux Klan. And since J.K. Rowling portrayed these people as the bad guys, you can clearly see that her view on racism was that it was bad. So a hidden message that I found is that racism is wrong and unjust.

              So despite the amazing stories that the Harry Potter books contain, there are also hidden messages about our world within the pages that are represented by symbolism and just the way she describes these symbols that eventually gave way to show that she was against racism. But a person wouldn't read these books once and say that the stories are about racism. Infact, they may not even notice that there was anything about this issue. And that is why when you can look closer at the text, you can find these hidden themes. I think it is amazing that J.K. Rowling could create such an amazing story and still include such a meaningful and interesting message, hidden within those hundreds of pages.

Argumentive Essay

           Our books are under attack. The same books that we enjoy to read in our free time whenever we have the chance are now going to be limited. We may never be able to read our favorite books again. A few years ago, a debate rose about whether or not young adult books that include gruesome, graphic, or dark issues and images should be under limited access to young adults and teenagers. Popular books like The Hunger Games by Suzanne Collins and Harry Potter by J.K. Rowling have been challenged. The argument of those who criticize these books is that these books are too dark and are bad for kids and young adults alike. But the truth is, access to young adult books with gruesome or dark content should be unlimited because teens and young adults can get valuable lessons and experience from these books.
         One way teens can get valuable experiences and lessons from YA books with dark and gruesome content is that they can connect the experiences of the characters in these books to that of their own lives and make changes based on the outcome of these issues in the books. For example, teens can learn what to do or not to do based on their insight in the book of any problems they are facing. An example of this is if a boy that wants to run away reads about another teen who ran away, reading the outcome of this other teens journey may give the real boy a glimpse into the future about the consequences of their actions. So what I am saying is, since teens can see possible consequences of something that they may have thought of doing, they may change their mind about these actions and find a different way to solve their problems rather than the bad ways described in these books. Another example of how if a teen relates to a character it will help them is if they relate to a character in a YA books who has the same problems as them, they may feel better about the problems that they are experiencing in their lives. For example, according to Meghan Cox Gurdon's article called "Darkness Too Visible", "If a teen has been abused, the logic follows, reading about another teen in the same straits will be comforting". This means that teens will learn the valuable lesson that they are not alone in their problems that they are facing in their lives. For example according to Why the Best Kids Books Are Witten in Blood by Sherman Alexie (who is also the author of the book, The Absolutely True Diary of A Part-Time Indian  which has been frequently challenged), "I write to give them weapons- in the form of words and ideas that will help them fight their monsters". The monsters that Sherman Alexie is discussing are the problems that the teens are facing in their lives.
        Another example of why access to YA books with gruesome or dark content is that teens who haven't experienced the issues described in these books can learn about them and prepare themselves should they occur in their lives. It really is the truth when I say that parents cant protect their kids forever because eventually kids and teens alike will have to learn about these issues in order to understand the world around them. For example going back to the quote I got from Sherman Alexie in my previous paragraph, these books can be used as "weapons", but not just for those who are currently facing these problems, but also for teens who have not experienced these problems, but may experience them in the future.
       But despite the valuable lessons and experience that readers can take from these books, there are still many people who believe that access to YA books should be limited. One of those people is Meghan Cox Gurdon who wrote the article "Darkness Too Visible". One of her reasons for why she thinks that access to YA books should be limited is explained when she says, "Yet it is also possible-indeed, likely- that books focusing on pathologies help normalize and, in the case of self-harm, may even spread their plausibility and likelihood to young people who might otherwise never have imagined such extreme measures". This means that young adults may think that what characters do is plausible and may even do these things. But what Gurdon and other critics of YA fiction don't realize is that if teens were to continue reading these books, they would soon learn the consequences of these "extreme measures" by reading their outcome in the book and this will down-right wipe out their "plausibility and likelihood". These critics also don't realize that the more gruesome and graphic a book is, the more likely it's message and or warning is to get across affectively to those who read it. And this will help teach readers, including teens, right from wrong in the issues described in YA fiction.
       So overall, it is clear that access to YA novels and books that may include disagreeable content that may arouse criticism, should still not be taken away from teens who, despite these dark and intense qualities, enjoy reading these books and learn valuable lessons along the way that they can use to help them throughout the rest of their lives. And despite criticism saying that these books may spread bad ideas into the minds of young readers, the truth is that these books do exactly the opposite by showing the flaws and bad outcomes of these bad ideas. We can't just let teens and kids go on without truly understanding the world around them, and that means that we need to keep access to YA  fiction open, and free.

Critical Analysis of Witch-Hunt: Mysteries of the Salem Witch Trials

         In the book Witch-Hunt: Mysteries of the Salem Witch Trials by Marc Aronson, Aronson writes a detailed description of the Salem witch trials as well as things that aren't clear about this strange time in Colonial America. Anderson begins with describing the Carrier trial and how the whole thing began. He begins much like a screenplay with just the people in the room's perspectives on what is going on. For example, in the first sentence of the book: "Judge: Abigail Williams, who hurts you?", it is just the people speaking and there is no interaction by the author at all. But throughout the rest of the book, Aronson adds his own personal perspective on the matters but stays away from any obvious bias. Although that it is true that he generally stays away from bias, sometimes the quotes that he chooses speak his opinion through them for example when he quotes Cotton Mather saying that "the devil can take many shapes and forms" and then later in the book when he quotes Mather now saying "The devil cannot take place of a person that is innocent before God", he is basically showing how he knows that the accusers and their supporters were wrong by having quotes that show their mistakes, in this case it is Cotton Mather contradicting himself. Another powerful tool that Aronson uses in order to deliver almost bias-less information is his use of perspective. His general perspective keeps switching so that at first we believe that person is a witch but as soon as we hear the other person's perspective, we aren't sure what to think. He allows us to form our own opinions by using logic without telling us what is right and wrong. But sometimes the reader can catch him saying some opinionated explanations of the situation. for example on page 142 he says in a response to an accusation of Mercy Lewis , "this is obviously just a scared girl trying to get over her peers". This can be seen as just a regular interpretation of the accusation but I think that it is Aronson trying to show how ridiculous the accusations were. Finally, Aronson summarizes the entire trials and where he got the information. He next comments on many other books and stories about the Salem witch trials including the famous works of the Viking Press "The Crucible". He explains how his information is the same and different from all of these pieces and states once and for all that "The Salem witch trials will forever remain a mystery".
         I learned so much about the Salem witch trials from this book than I could have ever known had I not read it. Before I read this, the only information I knew about the trials was from visiting Salem and from "The Crucible" that Aronson proved to be inaccurate. My opinion that the people hanged were not witches is now stronger than ever now that I know pretty much the entire story of the Salem witch trials. But some questions still remain in order to have a solid conclusion about the trials. Why did the girls accuse their neighbors and relatives? Why did the judges use spectral evidence as enough to sentence someone to death? How did the trials begin in the first place. And why?

Why the Best Kid Books Are Written in Blood by Sherman Alexie

        "Why the Best Kids Books Are Written in Blood" by Sherman Alexie tells readers about how censoring YA books will do more harm than good because many teens have already encountered these issues in their loves. And another thing that this article tells readers about is that YA fiction can have positive effects on teens because they can gain valuable experience that can be used as a "weapon" against these dark things in their lives. Alexie includes many quotes and perspectives of both critics of YA fiction, and teens who actually enjoy these books. He  also includes many personal connections between himself and teens. For example he said, "When I think of the poverty-stricken, sexually and physically abused, self-loathing Native American teenager I was, I can only wish, immodestly that I'd been given the opportunity to read "The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian"".  He is connecting himself to teens in real life with these problems who may read YA books. He also constantly criticizes Meghan Cox Gurdon, a critic of YA fiction, whenever quotes her, and always has a response ready for all of her arguments.
   
          Throughout the entire text, Alexie tries to convince the readers that the criticisms of YA fiction are incorrect and that teens don't need protecting from these problems, they need tools or weapons to help solve these problems, and also that a YA book is an example of one of these tools because teens can learn from it. Through the whole passage, Alexie makes us feel bad for the teens who have been victims  of the same  issues in YA fiction, so that  we will be on their side. But when he quotes Meghan Cox Gurdon, he makes it seem as if she is ignorant and that she doesn't understand the teens problems and point of view. This may be because in Ms.Gurdon's article, the teen perspective was absent from the entire passage.  An example of how Alexie makes it seem like Gurdon is ignorant is when he said, "Does Gurdon honestly believe that a sexually explicit YA novel will traumatize a teen mother?" He also goes on  to name more examples of how the issues in YA books will not bother teens that have already encountered these things in real life. The way he words these rhetorical questions makes it so that Gurdon can't really respond to defend herself. And Alexie also goes on to attack Gurdon's views on who should be the "gatekeepers". He quotes librarians in order to get across the point that they as well as writers are not responsible for the censorship of these books, and those who are actually responsible are the parents. By using these quotes, he is able to freeze her blame of writers and librarians for not helping to make sure kids don't read books that are too explicit for them. Overall, Alexies use of quotes make his arguments stronger because in a sense it is not just him arguing, but a group of the people he quoted behind him as well.

         Overall, I agree with Sherman Alexie's ideas which include, that teens don't need protection from things that they either have already experienced or may experience in their future because they have to learn about these things someday, and what they really need is tools or weapons to use to fight these things. I also agree with him when he says Gurdon is incorrect about some of her views, but I don't think she is completely stupid, but I just don't agree with her opinion. Also on the subject of "gatekeepers" I sort of think that teens should sometimes serve as their own gatekeepers because teens know what they can and can't take in a book, and if they begin to not like the book they can stop reading it. "Why the Best Kid Books Are Written in Blood" by Sherman Alexie is a great article that clearly conveys it's opinion and makes it sort of hard to disagree with it. My opinion that teens should be able to read whatever they want is still the same, but now I too have the opinion that YA books can have positive effects on teens. And I still haven't been convinced that these books can't have negative effects on teens, but right now because of this article, I still feel that these books have more positive effects than negative ones.
        

Faithful Elephants byYukio Tsuchiya

                    In class, we read the passage "Faithful Elephants: A True Story of Animals, People, and War" by Yukio Tsuchiya. It was a touching and tragic story that was about how  three elephants in a zoo in Tokyo had to be put to death because of the war that Japan was in. Because poisoning and injecting didn't work, the only option was to starve the elephants to death. I believe that symbolism plays a large role in this story by helping the reader find the authors purpose and hidden messages within the text.
                           
                   A huge example of symbols in the book are the elephants themselves. I think that the elephants symbolize all of the innocent people that were affected by the war but they didn't do anything wrong. The elephants had done nothing wrong and they were so innocent that they couldn't understand why they were not being fed. Another symbol that involves the elephants is their bonsai trick. The elephants did this because people liked it so when the elephants stopped getting food, they assumed that all they had to do was their bonsai trick and they would get food. The text said "surely their friend would reward them with food and water as he used to do". This quote shows again hoe innocent the elephants were because they thought that the bonsai trick would help. I believe that the bonsai trick might represent the innocent people's efforts to end the war.

                 Another example of symbolism  in the story is when the author described the dropping bombs as rain. He said, "Bombs were dropped on Tokyo day and night like falling rain. I think that this means that the war is coming down hard and fast, just like the falling of rain. Also when it is raining it is usually dark and gray outside so this could also represent how gloomy it was because of the war.

                Another example of a symbol in the story is the cherry blossoms. I think that this symbol is actually connected to the symbol of the bombs falling like rain because like the bombs, the cherry blossoms are falling. But instead of being described as rain-like, they are compared to snow. This symbol is mentioned twice, once at the very beginning of the passage and one at the very end. First of all, I think that the cherry blossoms might represent spring, because when they are mentioned in the beginning it may represent a rebirth of the zoo after the war because spring can represent rebirth. This is also because in this new zoo there are three new elephants to replace the old ones.

                So when the cherry blossoms are compared to that of snowflakes I think it represents how the situation has calmed down, because as I said before, the rain is falling down hard but snowflakes drift softly and calmly. It could also be that the war had frozen over like a frozen over rain droplet is a snowflake. So I think these to things symbolize how the situation has changed.

                Overall, "Faithful Elephants" by Yukio Tcuchiya is a tragic and wonderful tale supported by all of the symbols the author added to make the story more interesting. These symbols including the elephants, the bonsai trick, the falling bombs, and the cherry blossoms, were very well written. All these symbols helped the story be more than just words on paper, they helped "Faithful Elephants" a place in our hearts as well,.

.