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.