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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)