Last year in my AP Lit class, we were forced to do a research paper, powerpoint/speech, poster, and another secondary advertisement for our year end research project. All I can say is that it was better that our first semester project (mine ended up being a 24 page research paper over F. Scott Fitzgerald's The Great Gatsby and This Side of Paradise. Not fun.) I can also say that I swept the competition and scored extra credit with my superb choice of short story (style and symbolism wise), artistically original poster, and scrumptious white elephant shaped sugar cookies. I killed it.
My short story was "Hills Like White Elephants" by Ernest Hemingway. I originally picked it because Mr. Jankowski, my previous English teacher, said something about how short it was. If you know anything about me, I'm all about doing less work than I need, so I obviously pounced on the 3 page short story. It was perfection.
During the course of the researching, I read the short story maybe a 100 times. I don't know, that's probably an exaggeration, but just go with it. Anyway, I've become very emotionally attached to it. It is truly an amazing story; symbolic, metaphorical, deep, and interesting. I highly, highly recommend everyone to read it and figure out what it means to them.
Why am I writing about this now? you may ask. Well, let's just say the story isn't exactly about hills or white elephants. It's about abortion and with all that's going on recently with Richard Mourdock and all the other politicians, I thought it would be an interesting topic to post about. A link will be posted below. Read it, get from it what you want or let yourself. Read with an open mind because it's truly a fantastic story. If you don't like the controversy, read it for the style and symbolism. Hemingway has a writing style that could knock anyone's socks off. (Iceberg Theory anyone? Anyone? Bueller? No? There's my research paper persona coming out. Oh boy.)
"Hills Like White Elephants" by Ernest Hemingway
Monday, October 29, 2012
Friday, October 26, 2012
The Creme de la Creme
What we're loving nomination....
Drum roll please...
Congratulations, http://ihaveallthesoulsineed.blogspot.com/ !
Drum roll please...
Congratulations, http://ihaveallthesoulsineed.blogspot.com/ !
Monday, October 22, 2012
Back On the Shelf
This is in response to my previous post... I decided to give John Green a chance to redeem himself, and he did, except for one tiny thing. The fruit being analyzed was The Fault in Our Stars. Here we go..
I really, really liked this book. I think that female protagonists suit Green much better than males. Our lovable lady is Hazel, a 16 year old with terminal cancer in her thyroid and lungs. At support group she meets Augustus, 17, handsome, charming, suave, honest, and cancer free. A lovely romance ensues.
Here's my touch ups to the previous post:
1. Predictability. This was predictable, but not in the same way. There was a plot twist that I saw, but I talked myself out of. I though: John would never do that, he must have a heart somewhere! Right?! Yeah... I was wrong. Prepare yourself for tears, Kleenex to the right, trash can to the left. get some icing/cake/ice cream to eat away the pain.
2. The women. I loved Hazel from the beginning as we both have the (tragic or redeeming) character flaw of not sugar coating things. I pride myself on my ability to be honest, even when honesty isn't wanted, just like Hazel. She's accepted her fate and knows what's coming to her, never once beating around the bush, a quality that I greatly admire. Hazel contradicts issue number 2. Hazel isn't unpredictable, self destructive, or borderline psychotic, she just wants to die in peace and leave the least amount of rubble in her wake as she can. She's beautiful.
3. Whining. As it is a cancer book, you would expect there to be a lot of whining, but there really isn't. Hazel's honest, matter-of-fact nature doesn't really leave room for much of it. I also think there's less whining because the protagonist is a female (WOMEN POWER). When coming from a male perspective it just seems whiny because you don't expect it from a male while you would from a female. (I don't know if that made sense. Pretend like it did...) Green should stick to female protagonists in my opinion.
I also felt like Green might have had a pow wow with Sarah Dessen because it had an eerie Dessen feel to it. Sad, lonely girl meets eccentric boy who brightens up her life. I like Dessen every once and a while as a guilty pleasure read, so I ain't even mad.
My only problems. The ending. I could not be more disappointed with the ending. The whole time you're building up excitement for it to end mid-sentence like it does in Hazel's favorite book An Imperial Afflicion, but no. my dreams were crushed.
I also don't believe in character redemption, I think it's lame and a cop out for the reader to have a sense of satisfaction with all the characters. Peter Van Houten (the author of AIA) was great and then he was ruined with a sob story background that made him likable. It seemed forced and like Green wanted Hazel to be at peace with all the people in her life which doesn't happen in real life. This real story suddenly became cardboard. Disappointing.
I really, really liked this book. I think that female protagonists suit Green much better than males. Our lovable lady is Hazel, a 16 year old with terminal cancer in her thyroid and lungs. At support group she meets Augustus, 17, handsome, charming, suave, honest, and cancer free. A lovely romance ensues.
Here's my touch ups to the previous post:
1. Predictability. This was predictable, but not in the same way. There was a plot twist that I saw, but I talked myself out of. I though: John would never do that, he must have a heart somewhere! Right?! Yeah... I was wrong. Prepare yourself for tears, Kleenex to the right, trash can to the left. get some icing/cake/ice cream to eat away the pain.
2. The women. I loved Hazel from the beginning as we both have the (tragic or redeeming) character flaw of not sugar coating things. I pride myself on my ability to be honest, even when honesty isn't wanted, just like Hazel. She's accepted her fate and knows what's coming to her, never once beating around the bush, a quality that I greatly admire. Hazel contradicts issue number 2. Hazel isn't unpredictable, self destructive, or borderline psychotic, she just wants to die in peace and leave the least amount of rubble in her wake as she can. She's beautiful.
3. Whining. As it is a cancer book, you would expect there to be a lot of whining, but there really isn't. Hazel's honest, matter-of-fact nature doesn't really leave room for much of it. I also think there's less whining because the protagonist is a female (WOMEN POWER). When coming from a male perspective it just seems whiny because you don't expect it from a male while you would from a female. (I don't know if that made sense. Pretend like it did...) Green should stick to female protagonists in my opinion.
I also felt like Green might have had a pow wow with Sarah Dessen because it had an eerie Dessen feel to it. Sad, lonely girl meets eccentric boy who brightens up her life. I like Dessen every once and a while as a guilty pleasure read, so I ain't even mad.
My only problems. The ending. I could not be more disappointed with the ending. The whole time you're building up excitement for it to end mid-sentence like it does in Hazel's favorite book An Imperial Afflicion, but no. my dreams were crushed.
I also don't believe in character redemption, I think it's lame and a cop out for the reader to have a sense of satisfaction with all the characters. Peter Van Houten (the author of AIA) was great and then he was ruined with a sob story background that made him likable. It seemed forced and like Green wanted Hazel to be at peace with all the people in her life which doesn't happen in real life. This real story suddenly became cardboard. Disappointing.
Monday, October 15, 2012
Off the Shelf
I realized something after reading some of the blogs from others in my class. My blog posts are really super long. I'll try to cut down to make them more readable.
I have a bone to pick with John Green. He's the wonderful writer of one of my favorite books, Looking for Alaska, he is the wisdom bearing occasional speaker/writer on NPR's All Things Considered, and has borne many other fruits like Paper Towns, the Fault in Our Stars, and An Abundance of Katherines. I've read Looking for Alaska, Paper Towns, and the beginning of An Abundance of Katherines, so therefore I shall proclaim myself somewhat of an expert on John Green novels.
He's a great writer, his books filled with emotion and heart, but there are some issues I have with his books that I simply cannot ignore. This ranting list has been brought on by An Abundance of Katherines. I picked up the book the other day and I only made it to chapter four. I couldn't handle it; so begins the formation of a mental list of problems I have with John Green. This is the Jenny Craig version.
Here we go:
1. Predictability. I feel like Green has dug himself into a deep hole of typecasts. In the three books I've read, the protagonist has been a wimpy, overly intelligent teenage boy who is infatuated with an unattainable and overly glorified girl. They have an unrealistic, whirl-wind romance and it doesn't work. It never works.
Why doesn't it work?
Because a man is writing the story and to avoid being overly maudlin he opts out and tries to be "realistic" for the first time in the book.... What? Green leads you to believe that love is wonderful and good and then he slaps it in your face yelling "PSYCH! PLOT TWIST! BET YA DIDN'T SEE THAT COMING!" What he doesn't know is that we did see it coming, we saw it from across the Barnes and Noble before we even picked up the book.
2. The women. Green's perception of the teenage girl/young woman really irks me. They're written as elusive, impossible, fiercely independent and honestly, borderline psychotic. They're so self destructive. I don't know if John has been in some destructive relationships or if that's how men perceive women, but that is wrong on so many levels. Never have I ever met a girl like the girls in a John Green novel.
The women are so crazy that they're almost the antagonists. I take that back, they are the antagonists. They're traps, illusions, mirages, here to save these nerdy boys from their sad, sad lives, but a boy like that could never possibly please a girl that high maintenance so they're left high and dry, whining until Green puts them out of their misery. Leading me to my third and final point...
3. The whining. I have never read a book with more whining. It's ridiculous. The wimps whine about the wonderfully whimsical and waggish women who win them over wholeheartedly, while waging war on their wholesome, white-bread waking life. With a wink. I had to add the wink part in, if there were to be one action to describe the women in these books it would be wink. You just need to read them, then you would know what I'm talking about.
The boys complain about everything, their bodies, their intelligence, their friends, their (generally) non-existent love lives... etc. The list goes on forever. This is why I stopped reading An Abundance of Katherines; I couldn't handle the whining.
I love John Green, I really do, but even the best have faults in their stars (so punny, knee slapper.) And honestly, I think it might be partially my fault. Maybe I expect too much, maybe I like female protagonists more, or maybe I'm like the girls in the story (I REALLY hope I'm not though) and I can't judge it correctly. Whatever the reason, it doesn't matter. I'll continue to read his books in hope that they'll break out of the matrix, take the blue pill or would taking the red one be more appropriate in this situation? Whatever. You get the gist.
This didn't really end up being short... Sorry. What can I say, I'm a maverick when it comes to rants.
I have a bone to pick with John Green. He's the wonderful writer of one of my favorite books, Looking for Alaska, he is the wisdom bearing occasional speaker/writer on NPR's All Things Considered, and has borne many other fruits like Paper Towns, the Fault in Our Stars, and An Abundance of Katherines. I've read Looking for Alaska, Paper Towns, and the beginning of An Abundance of Katherines, so therefore I shall proclaim myself somewhat of an expert on John Green novels.
He's a great writer, his books filled with emotion and heart, but there are some issues I have with his books that I simply cannot ignore. This ranting list has been brought on by An Abundance of Katherines. I picked up the book the other day and I only made it to chapter four. I couldn't handle it; so begins the formation of a mental list of problems I have with John Green. This is the Jenny Craig version.
Here we go:
1. Predictability. I feel like Green has dug himself into a deep hole of typecasts. In the three books I've read, the protagonist has been a wimpy, overly intelligent teenage boy who is infatuated with an unattainable and overly glorified girl. They have an unrealistic, whirl-wind romance and it doesn't work. It never works.
Why doesn't it work?
Because a man is writing the story and to avoid being overly maudlin he opts out and tries to be "realistic" for the first time in the book.... What? Green leads you to believe that love is wonderful and good and then he slaps it in your face yelling "PSYCH! PLOT TWIST! BET YA DIDN'T SEE THAT COMING!" What he doesn't know is that we did see it coming, we saw it from across the Barnes and Noble before we even picked up the book.
2. The women. Green's perception of the teenage girl/young woman really irks me. They're written as elusive, impossible, fiercely independent and honestly, borderline psychotic. They're so self destructive. I don't know if John has been in some destructive relationships or if that's how men perceive women, but that is wrong on so many levels. Never have I ever met a girl like the girls in a John Green novel.
The women are so crazy that they're almost the antagonists. I take that back, they are the antagonists. They're traps, illusions, mirages, here to save these nerdy boys from their sad, sad lives, but a boy like that could never possibly please a girl that high maintenance so they're left high and dry, whining until Green puts them out of their misery. Leading me to my third and final point...
3. The whining. I have never read a book with more whining. It's ridiculous. The wimps whine about the wonderfully whimsical and waggish women who win them over wholeheartedly, while waging war on their wholesome, white-bread waking life. With a wink. I had to add the wink part in, if there were to be one action to describe the women in these books it would be wink. You just need to read them, then you would know what I'm talking about.
The boys complain about everything, their bodies, their intelligence, their friends, their (generally) non-existent love lives... etc. The list goes on forever. This is why I stopped reading An Abundance of Katherines; I couldn't handle the whining.
I love John Green, I really do, but even the best have faults in their stars (so punny, knee slapper.) And honestly, I think it might be partially my fault. Maybe I expect too much, maybe I like female protagonists more, or maybe I'm like the girls in the story (I REALLY hope I'm not though) and I can't judge it correctly. Whatever the reason, it doesn't matter. I'll continue to read his books in hope that they'll break out of the matrix, take the blue pill or would taking the red one be more appropriate in this situation? Whatever. You get the gist.
This didn't really end up being short... Sorry. What can I say, I'm a maverick when it comes to rants.
Thursday, September 20, 2012
On the Shelf
I love rereading books. Books are almost better the second time around, you can catch all of the details you didn't get the first time and you know what's coming, so you're not so overcome with emotion when something dramatic happens. When you're crying, you generally start to skip things and miss important details, at least I do.
The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian is one to read. And reread. And rereread.
It's the tale of Junior, a dirt poor Native American teen, riddled with medical, emotional, and every other type of problems. After being expelled from his reservation high school, Junior is faced with a choice, and he chooses the lesser of two evils and decides to go to the all white high school in a neighboring town. A school filled with white kids that are filled with hope and money and the only other Indian is the school mascot.
Junior's journey is chronicled with wit, joy, tears, and hilarious cartoons that he draws throughout the story. How can a teen overcome grief, first love, poverty, and trying to fit in all while being marked by as a traitor by his tribe and trying to get good grades in a place that he doesn't belong?
Some might say friendship, that's how he gets along. That is the biggest cliché I've ever heard. It's partially true, the new friends he makes help him keep his head above water, but they never really understand his situation. After all, they have futures and things to look forward to while Junior's future is looking bleak.
After winning the basketball game against his former school, Junior reflects on the impact of the win:
Okay so maybe my white teammate had problems, serious problems, but none of their problems were life threatening.
But I looked over at the Wellpinit Redskins, at Rowdy [his old best friend from the reservation].
I knew that two or three of those Indians might not have eaten brekafast that morning.
No food in the house. ...
I knew that none of them were going to college. Not one of them.
I don't think Junior gets his strength from his friends, his dwindling family, or his teachers, but from himself. This is also a giant cliché, but it's true. Junior knows that he could do something if he wanted to, make a better life for himself. He could get out. He also knows that he deserves it, which is the hardest for most people to grasp. Everyone deserves it.
This blog post has been brought to you by the letter "C" for Cliché, Campy, and Corny
The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian is one to read. And reread. And rereread.
It's the tale of Junior, a dirt poor Native American teen, riddled with medical, emotional, and every other type of problems. After being expelled from his reservation high school, Junior is faced with a choice, and he chooses the lesser of two evils and decides to go to the all white high school in a neighboring town. A school filled with white kids that are filled with hope and money and the only other Indian is the school mascot.
Junior's journey is chronicled with wit, joy, tears, and hilarious cartoons that he draws throughout the story. How can a teen overcome grief, first love, poverty, and trying to fit in all while being marked by as a traitor by his tribe and trying to get good grades in a place that he doesn't belong?
Some might say friendship, that's how he gets along. That is the biggest cliché I've ever heard. It's partially true, the new friends he makes help him keep his head above water, but they never really understand his situation. After all, they have futures and things to look forward to while Junior's future is looking bleak.
After winning the basketball game against his former school, Junior reflects on the impact of the win:
Okay so maybe my white teammate had problems, serious problems, but none of their problems were life threatening.
But I looked over at the Wellpinit Redskins, at Rowdy [his old best friend from the reservation].
I knew that two or three of those Indians might not have eaten brekafast that morning.
No food in the house. ...
I knew that none of them were going to college. Not one of them.
I don't think Junior gets his strength from his friends, his dwindling family, or his teachers, but from himself. This is also a giant cliché, but it's true. Junior knows that he could do something if he wanted to, make a better life for himself. He could get out. He also knows that he deserves it, which is the hardest for most people to grasp. Everyone deserves it.
This blog post has been brought to you by the letter "C" for Cliché, Campy, and Corny
Thursday, September 13, 2012
On the Shelf
“Was I ever crazy? Maybe. Or maybe life is… Crazy isn't being broken or swallowing a dark secret. It’s you or me amplified. If you ever told a lie and enjoyed it. If you ever wished you could be a child forever."
-Girl, Interrupted
Girl, Interrupted is my favorite movie. Angelina Jolie, Winona Ryder, Whoopie Goldberg. It's sensational to me, but most people think it's weird and don't like it. It scares some people, but not in a horror way, but a worrying way, like because I'm emotionally attached to this movie, I'll suddenly want to kill myself or I'll go crazy and go to a psych ward. Like being crazy is contagious.
Is it?
Backing up... Girl, Interrupted is a 1993 memoir written by Susanna Kaysen, a woman who in 1967 at the age of 18 was sent to a psychiatric facility for two years after trying to kill herself (to her, the attempted suicide was metaphorical, she was trying to kill an aspect of her personality.) She didn't find out what illness kept her there until 25 years later. Borderline Personality Disorder was the final diagnosis.
As I'm reading, I completely rationalize with her, which scares me more than a little. She's a completely rational, extremely intelligent woman. How can she possibly be crazy? I notice that I have some of the same tendencies as she did. Her process of thinking is scary similar to my own process of thought.
Am I crazy?
This is the constant question in my head though out my reading. I want to say, "Obviously not. I'm a normal person," but I know deep down I am. We all are, aren't we.
Kaysen says, “Was insanity just a matter of dropping the act?”
Is it?
She recounts her experiences in the working world after her release. She could tell people were questioning their own sanity while talking to her. They saw her normalcy and wondered about their own state of mind.
"A person who doesn't talk to herself or stare off into nothingness is therefore more alarming than a person who does. Someone who acts 'normal' raises the uncomfortable question, What's the difference between that person and me?... If you're crazy, then I'm crazy..."
-Girl, Interrupted
Girl, Interrupted is my favorite movie. Angelina Jolie, Winona Ryder, Whoopie Goldberg. It's sensational to me, but most people think it's weird and don't like it. It scares some people, but not in a horror way, but a worrying way, like because I'm emotionally attached to this movie, I'll suddenly want to kill myself or I'll go crazy and go to a psych ward. Like being crazy is contagious.
Is it?
Backing up... Girl, Interrupted is a 1993 memoir written by Susanna Kaysen, a woman who in 1967 at the age of 18 was sent to a psychiatric facility for two years after trying to kill herself (to her, the attempted suicide was metaphorical, she was trying to kill an aspect of her personality.) She didn't find out what illness kept her there until 25 years later. Borderline Personality Disorder was the final diagnosis.
As I'm reading, I completely rationalize with her, which scares me more than a little. She's a completely rational, extremely intelligent woman. How can she possibly be crazy? I notice that I have some of the same tendencies as she did. Her process of thinking is scary similar to my own process of thought.
Am I crazy?
This is the constant question in my head though out my reading. I want to say, "Obviously not. I'm a normal person," but I know deep down I am. We all are, aren't we.
Kaysen says, “Was insanity just a matter of dropping the act?”
Is it?
She recounts her experiences in the working world after her release. She could tell people were questioning their own sanity while talking to her. They saw her normalcy and wondered about their own state of mind.
"A person who doesn't talk to herself or stare off into nothingness is therefore more alarming than a person who does. Someone who acts 'normal' raises the uncomfortable question, What's the difference between that person and me?... If you're crazy, then I'm crazy..."
We're all crazy. There's a thin line. Sanity is mostly chemical, a malfunction in the brain between neurons and neurotransmitters. Right?
How can we differentiate between the sane and the crazy when the lines become more blurred everyday. "Crazy" people run countries and religious groups and are influential people, but are they really crazy?
What's the definition? Is it the ability to be rational or rationalize actions. Susanna Kaysen is perfectly capable of rationalizing her actions. She's a fully functional, health adult, she's written best selling books. How did she earn two years in a loony bin?
It makes you wonder about the lines we draw. Sanity isn't black and white. It's all grey.
Insanity can be contagious after all.
Thursday, September 6, 2012
On the Shelf
He stared at me. "She liked you, boy."
The intensity of his voice and eyes made me blink.
"Yes," I said.
"She did it for you, you know."
"What?"
"Gave up her self, for a while there. She loved you that much. What an incredibly lucky kid you were."
I could now look at him. "I know."
He shook his head with wistful sadness. "No, you don't. You can't know yet. Maybe someday..."
-Stargirl, Jerry Spinelli
I took on a new book over Labor Day weekend. It's one of those books that's been sitting on my sister's shelf (my ultimate source for books) for ages. I knew it was good, but I just never read it. I though I knew what it was about, and I mostly did, but I wasn't prepared for how much I really loved it.
It was Stargirl by Jerry Spinelli.
Stargirl is the tale of a junior in high school, Leo Borlock, and the girl who steals his heart. She's the new girl in school, a previously home-schooled sophomore, and she's anything but ordinary. Susan "Stargirl" Caraway is her name. She changes her name every once in a while, she plays the ukulele, she wears sweeping pioneer skirts, she carries a pet rat around with her, she is kind, sweet, and selfless. Absolutely selfless.
Dropping her in the Mica High student body is like dropping a fish in desert. She couldn't be more out of place in the sea of conformity. The other students don't know what to do, so they worship her. They worship her until they don't. She's shunned by the entire school, except for Leo. He only wants to be with her, but he can't handle the pressure of going against the grain, so he forces her to do the one thing that can destroy her: normalcy. She conforms and they still don't accept her.
Stargirl's transformation into the normal teen "Susan" is completely devastating. Watching the pilot light on the furnace of her originality makes you want to shake Leo and show him what he's really doing: stifling her, drowning her in the sea of conformity. All because he couldn't deal with the consequences of being with an outcast.
Everyone's blind in this book. Leo blinded by selfishness and his need to be accepted. Stargirl blinded by love, selflessness, and her driving want to make everyone be truly happy. The entire school is blinded by their social expectations, their psychological need to fit the "norm" like a sad, boring puzzle pieces.
Stargirl is a symbol for selflessness and individuality. I want to strive to be like her, we all should. If everyone was like Stargirl the world would be a place of loving, creativity, maturity, and honestly, spiritual awareness. We wouldn't all conform to one type of "Stargirl" because there is no one type of "Stargirl." The world would flourish.
As usual, I'm probably reading too far into things, but that's just me. I'm taking away something special from this. Something as special as thinking that you might have heard a Moa.
We did not know what to make of her. In our minds we tried to pin her to a corkboard like a butterfly, but the pin merely went through and away she flew.
Friday, August 31, 2012
Nuts and Bolts
10 Important Questions:
1. Is it one magazine for one etymology class or do all classes share a magazine?
2. How much of a time commitment is this thing?
3. How are we going to attract people?
4. Will it run like a student newspaper? (i.e. The Spartana)
5. Is this in class or out of class?
6. How will writers be chosen?
7. What content is appropriate?
8. How will the leader be chosen?
9. Do we need administration/teacher approval before posts?
10. What happens next semester?
Things I would read about, even though other people probably wouldn't:
http://www.flavorwire.com/322863/10-contemporary-politicians-favorite-books
http://www.buzzfeed.com/tinyloud/10-penguin-classics-you-wont-see-752e
http://www.theparisreview.org/interviews/4933/the-art-of-fiction-no-13-dorothy-parker
1. Is it one magazine for one etymology class or do all classes share a magazine?
2. How much of a time commitment is this thing?
3. How are we going to attract people?
4. Will it run like a student newspaper? (i.e. The Spartana)
5. Is this in class or out of class?
6. How will writers be chosen?
7. What content is appropriate?
8. How will the leader be chosen?
9. Do we need administration/teacher approval before posts?
10. What happens next semester?
Things I would read about, even though other people probably wouldn't:
http://www.flavorwire.com/322863/10-contemporary-politicians-favorite-books
http://www.buzzfeed.com/tinyloud/10-penguin-classics-you-wont-see-752e
http://www.theparisreview.org/interviews/4933/the-art-of-fiction-no-13-dorothy-parker
Thursday, August 30, 2012
On the Shelf, On the CD
I didn't/don't really know what to write about for this blog because I don't know if there are any requirements, so I'll just wing it. Sorry if the following doesn't make any sense. Ready... Go!
Right now the current CD in my car is a musical. Shudder if you must, but try to repress it, it's a goody. A rather unknown (in comparison to the big ones like Les Mis), but cool, modern, a completely devastating. It's Jason Robert Brown's The Last Five Years. It's the story of the meeting, marriage, infidelity, and divorce of a young couple, Jamie and Cathy, a writer and a struggling stage actress.
The construction of the musical is unconventional, to say the least. There are only two cast members (Jamie and Cathy) for starters. Secondly, they're only on stage together for one song. The story goes in reverse chronological order for Cathy and chronologically for Jaime, meeting in the middle for their marriage proposal/wedding. The result is absolutely beautiful and heartbreaking. I'll admit that I've cried a few times listening (pathetic, I know.)
I hate Jamie. I want to punch him in the face and call him various obscenities. I am almost completely unable to rationalize his actions, but how is it that I completely support and can wholeheartedly justify Edna, from The Awakening, "cheating" on her husband?
Isn't cheating, cheating? Why should I view one relationship with contempt, but defend another? Didn't Edna's husband provide her with all she ever needed: love, money, a home, a beautiful family? Cathy did the same, didn't she? She was a faithful, loving wife, trying to balance her dreams and her tempted husband.
Maybe I only side with women. Maybe I'm the crazy one for being able to justify any type of infidelity. Maybe I'm looking too far into situations pertaining to fictional characters.
Probably the last, but that's just me.
Monday, August 27, 2012
On the Shelf
When I first happened upon Dendrophilia and Other Social Taboos (Reader Discretion is Advised, Profanity), I was literally hooked. Dani Burlison is a force, in a good way.
I read four columns and chose the least profane.
It was also the most relatable. Bad Feminist made me proud to be a female. Dani rants and raves about females and their catty tendencies. As they would say in the movie 'Mean Girls', "girl on girl crime." Then Tina Fey would continue to ask if anyone had ever been personally victimized by Regina George...
Burlison defines what being a feminist should be the way I would define a feminist. A feminist is not a woman that's independent, financially and emotionally, securing a high paid position, or listening to more girl bands than your friends, it's being compassionate to your fellow females, instead of constantly trying to one up each other. Celebrating victories together, not judging and being jealous and catty because you wish you did that instead. Not to say that women should, as Burlison puts it, "constantly engage in group hand massages or continuously stroking and braiding fresh-picked wild flowers into each other’s hair in public." Just to have each other's backs and stop "comparing and dismissing."
It's the least we deserve.
I read four columns and chose the least profane.
It was also the most relatable. Bad Feminist made me proud to be a female. Dani rants and raves about females and their catty tendencies. As they would say in the movie 'Mean Girls', "girl on girl crime." Then Tina Fey would continue to ask if anyone had ever been personally victimized by Regina George...
Burlison defines what being a feminist should be the way I would define a feminist. A feminist is not a woman that's independent, financially and emotionally, securing a high paid position, or listening to more girl bands than your friends, it's being compassionate to your fellow females, instead of constantly trying to one up each other. Celebrating victories together, not judging and being jealous and catty because you wish you did that instead. Not to say that women should, as Burlison puts it, "constantly engage in group hand massages or continuously stroking and braiding fresh-picked wild flowers into each other’s hair in public." Just to have each other's backs and stop "comparing and dismissing."
It's the least we deserve.
Thursday, August 23, 2012
On the Shelf
Reading
In the middle of the summer I was a friend's house and I noticed that she had three copies of one book on her shelves. I asked her and she basically forced me to take a copy, and since she is my gateway to all things cultural, I took it. The book was The Awakening by Kate Chopin. It's regarded as a classic by many, a daring, feminist statement for it's time in 1899. An obedient wife gone rogue, I guess you could say.
I started reading during the summer, but life got the best of me and the book was left to dust, like so many books slowly fading away into literary obscurity in my "Unfinished Book Graveyard." This made me a little sad because I really did like the book, I just never got back to it. Etymology was my saving grace.
The Awakening is not a book I would typically pick up on my rounds at Barnes and Noble; I'm not usually one for the chronicle of a turn of the century housewife. I'm glad I have it though. It came into my life at a good time. I'm trying to answer the same questions as the heroine, Edna, only with my future and not my husband like her.
When is settling okay and when is enough, enough? When should I put aside my wants and settle on a good, but lesser option? Settling isn't being defeated or taking the easy way out, it's figuring that some things are more important. Edna didn't see that.
The most interesting thing about this book is the inscription inside. The copy was given to my friend by our mutual ex-vocal coach, a woman who decided not to "settle" with her husband and two children and up and left them after having an affair. The inscription reads:
Thanks for the gift of this book to me. My life experience wants you to remember the following:
Seek slowly the one you wish to love forever... and work hard to make it work. If it doesn't work out, seek slowly again, but work for perfection.
I may not follow her example, but I'll take her advice.
I'm still not done with the book, but the ending has been spoiled for me. I'll finish it to prove a point and make myself happy. Checking two things off my goals list.
Excerpt: "Her husband seemed to her now like a person whom she had married without love as an excuse."
In the middle of the summer I was a friend's house and I noticed that she had three copies of one book on her shelves. I asked her and she basically forced me to take a copy, and since she is my gateway to all things cultural, I took it. The book was The Awakening by Kate Chopin. It's regarded as a classic by many, a daring, feminist statement for it's time in 1899. An obedient wife gone rogue, I guess you could say.
I started reading during the summer, but life got the best of me and the book was left to dust, like so many books slowly fading away into literary obscurity in my "Unfinished Book Graveyard." This made me a little sad because I really did like the book, I just never got back to it. Etymology was my saving grace.
The Awakening is not a book I would typically pick up on my rounds at Barnes and Noble; I'm not usually one for the chronicle of a turn of the century housewife. I'm glad I have it though. It came into my life at a good time. I'm trying to answer the same questions as the heroine, Edna, only with my future and not my husband like her.
When is settling okay and when is enough, enough? When should I put aside my wants and settle on a good, but lesser option? Settling isn't being defeated or taking the easy way out, it's figuring that some things are more important. Edna didn't see that.
The most interesting thing about this book is the inscription inside. The copy was given to my friend by our mutual ex-vocal coach, a woman who decided not to "settle" with her husband and two children and up and left them after having an affair. The inscription reads:
Thanks for the gift of this book to me. My life experience wants you to remember the following:
Seek slowly the one you wish to love forever... and work hard to make it work. If it doesn't work out, seek slowly again, but work for perfection.
I may not follow her example, but I'll take her advice.
I'm still not done with the book, but the ending has been spoiled for me. I'll finish it to prove a point and make myself happy. Checking two things off my goals list.
Excerpt: "Her husband seemed to her now like a person whom she had married without love as an excuse."
Sunday, August 19, 2012
An introduction
As a kid, reading was an uphill battle for me. When my
sister and mom tried to get me to read the Harry
Potter series, I refused and said I would just watch the movie. And as much
as I hate it, I need to credit it for my reading revival; I need to thank the Twilight Saga. The Twilight books got me to read again.
As a reader, I’m energetic; ready to dive into any new book.
This gift is also a curse, leading me to easily stray from books the moment I
get bored and pick up a new one. I need to be constantly intrigued. My pile of unfinished books is growing by the
day. I know it’s sad. And I know what you’re thinking, “Don’t you want to know
what happens, how can you just abandon the story?!” The answer is no. If a book
loses my attention, I don’t care. If I cared about them, they wouldn’t have
lost my attention. It’s a cruel world.
The assignment of setting a “goal” for my reading has always
been unbelievably difficult for me. What does that even mean? When I was
younger, I guess it would’ve been read a book over 300 pages, improve my lexile
score, pretending I like historical non-fiction… something along those lines.
Today, I don’t know what I would make as a goal. I guess to like what I’m
reading, only read what interests me and maybe finish a book, even if it
doesn’t interest me. Push through the boredom and finish a book that has lost
my attention. I suppose that’s my ultimate “goal” for myself.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)