Well, this will be the last blog post I have to write for the year 2010. Wow, I've read so many books, each so well-written, intriguing, and just amazing in their unique ways. But there's one series that really has impacted my writing and reading style/life greatly.
To start the year off, I was completely, totally obsessed with The Vampire Diaries by L.J Smith. I still am and I'm waiting for the next book in the series to come out next year. The way that she was so descriptive was, to me, amazing because trying to use very descriptive language in my writing always turns out boring or unnecessary to my story. It's the series in general that has impacted my style in the language arts. One thing I really learned from that series was that I'm a vampire; OK no, that's not true (umm... hehehe...).
As a writer, I learned that in fantasy, there's always some sort of interaction between humans and fantastical creatures. In the Vampire Diaries, that interaction is the base of the plot. I learned that the bad guy, or antagonist, is the person you'd least expect it to be. Just like any other story, for the most part, the main character ends up changing in some way, whether it's helpful to their society or not.
There has to be some sort of battle between good and evil throughout the book. In The Vampire Diaries, I used to think that the battle was between Stefan and Damon because Damon was always making Stefan and Elena suffer since he, too, loved Elena. But as I started to type up this post, I realized that no... he was never evil himself; it was his past and all of the painful experiences that he'd gone through that were evil themselves; he was just a victim of them, though he never wanted to admit it. This bring me to my next point.
Moments. As tiny as they can be, together they form an event in life and eventually a life itself. We all have those good moments and those bad moments. And there are those moments that one would rather not share with anyone. Reading the series as a writer, moments must have purpose in a book, especially in fantasy because that one moment can be the one that changes the course that one character's life veers off to. Like when Elena walked in to Stefan's room and found him feeding on a white dove (book 1). It was that moment when she realized that hey, Stefan is a vampire. If L.J Smith would've decided to have made Elena find out later, the book would've been written differently.
I would, of course, prefer to let the words of each page sink in as a reader because I enjoy the story more. God, Stefan and Damon are so attractive (but Damon more) in the actual T.V show, The Vampire Diaries (Thursdays @8pm on the CW11 *-*). Anyway, Stefan, as any other main character, has a rebellious side to him. But their stubbornness is what often leads them to their problems. You need to read the series to understand why Stefan is against drinking human blood but it's basically because he feels that he's taking someone else's life so he can get the energy he needs to sustain his life.
The biggest theme/idea I got from reading The Vampire Diaries was that there are times when trying to bring peace can lead up to creating war. I really hate turning on the T.V or reading the newspaper and constantly watching/reading the same thing; there's yet a war going on. War is caused by many reasons and in the end, it's the government that gains something from it. But is it necessary? I would love to say no because that's what I thought until I looked at the subject closer and realized that some wars are fought to bring peace to two different sides or to settle disputes that without war, would end up in massive chaos. In the end, the people don't have a voice if there's someone that's superior to them.
To conclude my final blog post for the year 2010 (that sounded nice) I want to tie up these ideas that I evolved throughout this post. L.J Smith is undoubtedly an author that I admire both as a writer and as a reader because her series, The Vampire Diaries is packed with ideas and words that combined... combined... combined what? Well combined, are amazing, awesome, wickedly great, descriptive, and outstanding. I have so much more to say about this series so I'm definitely going to write about it in my next post because they're really powerful ideas that I would prefer to write about separately.
Enjoy life, make new year's resolutions, make the holidays amazing because waking up early next year will be painful and just... chill. So yeah... watch the Vampire Diaries. =)
Monday, December 20, 2010
Monday, December 13, 2010
If Cruelty Can't Be Beautiful, Why Have Perspective?
If there's one thing that I dislike about the way the world is, it's that it's so cruel. I, as well as many others, feel that something must be done about cruelty because in our perspective, it's awful.
There's this small line that I came upon while I was reading Possessed by Kate Cann that I found quite thought provoking. The line was, Beauty is Cruel. Cruelty is Beautiful. I thought that this line was a bit disturbing at first due to the fact that many try to make this world a better place. Afterwards, I looked a bit deeper and I realized that my first reaction to this line was to be perturbed because I was taught that cruelty is just purely distasteful; I basically grew up feeling this way towards cruelty because the perspective of everyone surrounding me was just that; disturbing.
My reaction was both right and wrong. What made it right and wrong was that cruelty is just a matter of perspective, as are many other situations in life. For others, like whoever wrote this line, cruelty isn't awful; it's quite nice... quite beautiful. But according to them, what makes it beautiful? Is it because suffering, to them, is a pleasant sight, or is it because knowing that this world isn't perfect is a comfort?
Perspective makes up about 50% of our daily lives. Though what we think may seem unimportant to society, if no one had a say, how would we be living today? Would we still be "uncivilized"? Would "civilized" even be a word to describe a group of people? Though perspective is an immense part of how we live, who we're surrounded by builds a base for what we think.
So what really makes up one's perspective? To me, perspective is made up of what others have told me to believe but also, what I think about what they say and whether I agree with it or not. It's made up of what I've experienced and what I learned as a result of that experience.
I remember growing up laughing if a guy in class got pink construction paper but that's only because I had been shown that pink is a girl color. To be honest, I'm highly opposed to this statement; not that I'm emo but i prefer black over pink. What is it that made it bad if a guy liked pink? Why was it bad? It was because in others' perspective, pink was just a girl color so I went along with it.
Thinking deeper, I'm wondering, if we are all entitled to an opinion, why do many refuse to share it and decide to go along with what everyone else says? There's this certain fear that many have that if they think distinctively than those surrounding them, they'll be treated differently or they might think that what they have to say is wrong.
So I guess that beauty can be cruel; if you think it is than well, it is. Cruelty might just as well be beautiful if injustice is wrong. There's no "correct" answer and you don't have to believe what those surrounding you say if you don't believe it yourself. It's called perspective and everyone is entitled to one.
There's this small line that I came upon while I was reading Possessed by Kate Cann that I found quite thought provoking. The line was, Beauty is Cruel. Cruelty is Beautiful. I thought that this line was a bit disturbing at first due to the fact that many try to make this world a better place. Afterwards, I looked a bit deeper and I realized that my first reaction to this line was to be perturbed because I was taught that cruelty is just purely distasteful; I basically grew up feeling this way towards cruelty because the perspective of everyone surrounding me was just that; disturbing.
My reaction was both right and wrong. What made it right and wrong was that cruelty is just a matter of perspective, as are many other situations in life. For others, like whoever wrote this line, cruelty isn't awful; it's quite nice... quite beautiful. But according to them, what makes it beautiful? Is it because suffering, to them, is a pleasant sight, or is it because knowing that this world isn't perfect is a comfort?
Perspective makes up about 50% of our daily lives. Though what we think may seem unimportant to society, if no one had a say, how would we be living today? Would we still be "uncivilized"? Would "civilized" even be a word to describe a group of people? Though perspective is an immense part of how we live, who we're surrounded by builds a base for what we think.
So what really makes up one's perspective? To me, perspective is made up of what others have told me to believe but also, what I think about what they say and whether I agree with it or not. It's made up of what I've experienced and what I learned as a result of that experience.
I remember growing up laughing if a guy in class got pink construction paper but that's only because I had been shown that pink is a girl color. To be honest, I'm highly opposed to this statement; not that I'm emo but i prefer black over pink. What is it that made it bad if a guy liked pink? Why was it bad? It was because in others' perspective, pink was just a girl color so I went along with it.
Thinking deeper, I'm wondering, if we are all entitled to an opinion, why do many refuse to share it and decide to go along with what everyone else says? There's this certain fear that many have that if they think distinctively than those surrounding them, they'll be treated differently or they might think that what they have to say is wrong.
So I guess that beauty can be cruel; if you think it is than well, it is. Cruelty might just as well be beautiful if injustice is wrong. There's no "correct" answer and you don't have to believe what those surrounding you say if you don't believe it yourself. It's called perspective and everyone is entitled to one.
Monday, December 6, 2010
You Can't Trust the Directors of Movies that are Based on Books that Have Been Previously Written
Here I am, freezing and angry because they won't turn the heater up in this place cornered by 4 walls that I know of as my home. I'm still taking in the fact that I've now seen Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows twice; I've never done that with any other movie. Though I'm still trying to take in all of the details from the movie, I'm also going over the parts,in utter disappointment, that they took out or made less intense and thought-provoking as they were in the book.
I know that this isn't the first book that they've made into a movie and I know as well that it won't be the last one. But the thing with movies is that they tend to ruin the book and not just because they take some scenes that aren't important. Every scene, to me at least, in a book is well-written, for the most part, and has a purpose; if it wasn't meaningful then the author wouldn't have thought to write it in the book in the first place because it just wastes paper. In my opinion, removing scenes from a book when making a movie takes away purpose to the film.
When you're writing a book, you're basically taking ingredients and testing them and mixing them until you have created a whole new appetizing invention that needs every single ingredient in order to have that same savory flavor. When a director removes a scene from the book, he/she (I'll let you pick the gender of the director) is basically removing an ingredient, as diminutive as it may seem, that changes the course that the author's enticing invention takes.
Like in the part where Hedwig dies (tear, tear); in the book, J.K Rowling makes it so emotional that I really start to cry. Her use of words to express her death makes it more painful and truly makes me feel. Disappointingly, in the movie, we just see Hedwig being killed by a Death Eater's spell and she just falls from the sky. It was still really sad and heartbreaking (yes I am very emotional) but it didn't have the same power, actually seeing it, than it did with J.K Rowling's use of words.
Isn't a picture worth more than a thousand words? Then why why wasn't this scene as powerful as it could've been? I generally like the books that are turned into movies because I can see how director's see the story. Even though I enjoy watching movies that were based on books I've read, if it's a fantasy book, it destroys my imagination, turning my fragments of creativity into the pile of old books with torn pages that are mistaken with nothing but rubble.
This is the bad thing about watching the movie before reading the book; when you watch the movie first, you see how the directors want you to see, just to name a couple, Hogwarts or Terabithia. Actually reading the book first, declares your mind the creator of the world and you see the imaginary world and myriad of creatures how you feel like picturing them. The purpose of writing a book in which the world is fantastical, is so it represents a larger theme where you can add your own spices to it; the author just creates a base for this world.
You can't trust the directors of movies that are based on books that have been previously written. If you do trust them, you're an idiot... no, I'm just kidding but honestly, they can NOT be trusted. Don't be mistaken, I admire, respect, and thank the director that casted Rupert Grint (better known as Ron Weasley), Emma Watson (Hermione Granger), Daniel Radcliffe (Harry Potter), and Oliver and James Phelps (Fred and George!!!).
You might completely agree with me or you might contrast in opinion so comment if you'd like. Do you know of any other books that have been partially screwed by the movies?
I know that this isn't the first book that they've made into a movie and I know as well that it won't be the last one. But the thing with movies is that they tend to ruin the book and not just because they take some scenes that aren't important. Every scene, to me at least, in a book is well-written, for the most part, and has a purpose; if it wasn't meaningful then the author wouldn't have thought to write it in the book in the first place because it just wastes paper. In my opinion, removing scenes from a book when making a movie takes away purpose to the film.
When you're writing a book, you're basically taking ingredients and testing them and mixing them until you have created a whole new appetizing invention that needs every single ingredient in order to have that same savory flavor. When a director removes a scene from the book, he/she (I'll let you pick the gender of the director) is basically removing an ingredient, as diminutive as it may seem, that changes the course that the author's enticing invention takes.
Like in the part where Hedwig dies (tear, tear); in the book, J.K Rowling makes it so emotional that I really start to cry. Her use of words to express her death makes it more painful and truly makes me feel. Disappointingly, in the movie, we just see Hedwig being killed by a Death Eater's spell and she just falls from the sky. It was still really sad and heartbreaking (yes I am very emotional) but it didn't have the same power, actually seeing it, than it did with J.K Rowling's use of words.
Isn't a picture worth more than a thousand words? Then why why wasn't this scene as powerful as it could've been? I generally like the books that are turned into movies because I can see how director's see the story. Even though I enjoy watching movies that were based on books I've read, if it's a fantasy book, it destroys my imagination, turning my fragments of creativity into the pile of old books with torn pages that are mistaken with nothing but rubble.
This is the bad thing about watching the movie before reading the book; when you watch the movie first, you see how the directors want you to see, just to name a couple, Hogwarts or Terabithia. Actually reading the book first, declares your mind the creator of the world and you see the imaginary world and myriad of creatures how you feel like picturing them. The purpose of writing a book in which the world is fantastical, is so it represents a larger theme where you can add your own spices to it; the author just creates a base for this world.
You can't trust the directors of movies that are based on books that have been previously written. If you do trust them, you're an idiot... no, I'm just kidding but honestly, they can NOT be trusted. Don't be mistaken, I admire, respect, and thank the director that casted Rupert Grint (better known as Ron Weasley), Emma Watson (Hermione Granger), Daniel Radcliffe (Harry Potter), and Oliver and James Phelps (Fred and George!!!).
You might completely agree with me or you might contrast in opinion so comment if you'd like. Do you know of any other books that have been partially screwed by the movies?
Monday, November 29, 2010
Truth: When Hidden for Good Reasons Can Prove to Be Bad (*Spoiler Alert!*)
So here I am, typing up another blog post for ELA. Luckily, this one's for Harry Potter.
Harry Potter. Albus Dumbledore. Both are united by power being the great wizards they are and of pasts, so painful and horrific that, to others, is almost unimaginable. But that's where they're both separated; everyone knows about The Boy Who Lived but how many people really knew about Ariana or about the friendship between Dumbledore and Grindelwald before their epic duel?
Harry thought that he knew Dumbledore because he had confided in him and he had, in a way, been Harry's mentor. But when Rita Skeeter published everything about Ariana, Dumbledore's sister, Harry started to question him and that questioning only grew when he learned that Dumbledore and Grindelwald had been friends and that they had planned to control the muggle world. So in the end, I was only able to say that it seems that Harry hardly knew Dumbledore; Dumbledore had been the one that knew Harry really well.
In the end, something I started to wonder was, did Dumbledore really help Harry? Or was he trying to gain something by killing Voldemort? I had never doubted Dumbledore's care for Harry but I have started to wonder whether or not he thought about gaining something from Harry's victories.
Trust is something that you gain you don't just automatically have someone's trust. Trust is dangerous yet safe because placing your trust in the wrong person's hands can end up with you being killed. Yet there are also those that place their trust in what seem to be the wrong people but end up being unlikely heroes but their actions make them enemies to both good and evil.
If you don't know who I'm talking about then you should re-read Harry Potter 7. Severus Snape was in the Order of the Phoenix and he was also a Death Eater. If he was on both extremes, then which side was he truly on? In Harry Potter 3, he saved Harry from being attacked by lupin when he turned into a werewolf. He could've just let him die or was he thinking of his obligation as a teacher?
Dumbledore and Snape were both heroes but who was the greater hero? Dumbledore showed a lot more care and affection towards Harry but he made Harry feel like he never knew who he was. Snape shows no sign of care for Harry but yet he has protected Harry many times.
Truth. Snape never told Harry much. Dumbledore's decision in not telling Harry about his past when he was alive effected Harry greatly because he had to hear it from Rita Skeeter which, being a Harry Potter fan, completely sucks and is very sad. In my opinion, one must speak with truth personally as opposed to hearing it from someone else because other words that aren't yours penetrate your feelings more than if you said it up front.
Truth is, Dumbledore chose to make these decisions for reasons that are unknown to us and will probably never be answered. He wanted to prepare Harry for time came to confront Voldemort and by not giving him answers, I think he tried to teach Harry to solve his problems independently.
Oh snap!! Ok so one last comment. I just realized that Grindelwald and Dumbledore were the greatest wizards of their time when they confronted each other and in the end, Dumbledore won. Now history is repeating itself and like last time, good wins because Harry was able to defeat Dumbledore.
Harry Potter. Albus Dumbledore. Both are united by power being the great wizards they are and of pasts, so painful and horrific that, to others, is almost unimaginable. But that's where they're both separated; everyone knows about The Boy Who Lived but how many people really knew about Ariana or about the friendship between Dumbledore and Grindelwald before their epic duel?
Harry thought that he knew Dumbledore because he had confided in him and he had, in a way, been Harry's mentor. But when Rita Skeeter published everything about Ariana, Dumbledore's sister, Harry started to question him and that questioning only grew when he learned that Dumbledore and Grindelwald had been friends and that they had planned to control the muggle world. So in the end, I was only able to say that it seems that Harry hardly knew Dumbledore; Dumbledore had been the one that knew Harry really well.
In the end, something I started to wonder was, did Dumbledore really help Harry? Or was he trying to gain something by killing Voldemort? I had never doubted Dumbledore's care for Harry but I have started to wonder whether or not he thought about gaining something from Harry's victories.
Trust is something that you gain you don't just automatically have someone's trust. Trust is dangerous yet safe because placing your trust in the wrong person's hands can end up with you being killed. Yet there are also those that place their trust in what seem to be the wrong people but end up being unlikely heroes but their actions make them enemies to both good and evil.
If you don't know who I'm talking about then you should re-read Harry Potter 7. Severus Snape was in the Order of the Phoenix and he was also a Death Eater. If he was on both extremes, then which side was he truly on? In Harry Potter 3, he saved Harry from being attacked by lupin when he turned into a werewolf. He could've just let him die or was he thinking of his obligation as a teacher?
Dumbledore and Snape were both heroes but who was the greater hero? Dumbledore showed a lot more care and affection towards Harry but he made Harry feel like he never knew who he was. Snape shows no sign of care for Harry but yet he has protected Harry many times.
Truth. Snape never told Harry much. Dumbledore's decision in not telling Harry about his past when he was alive effected Harry greatly because he had to hear it from Rita Skeeter which, being a Harry Potter fan, completely sucks and is very sad. In my opinion, one must speak with truth personally as opposed to hearing it from someone else because other words that aren't yours penetrate your feelings more than if you said it up front.
Truth is, Dumbledore chose to make these decisions for reasons that are unknown to us and will probably never be answered. He wanted to prepare Harry for time came to confront Voldemort and by not giving him answers, I think he tried to teach Harry to solve his problems independently.
Oh snap!! Ok so one last comment. I just realized that Grindelwald and Dumbledore were the greatest wizards of their time when they confronted each other and in the end, Dumbledore won. Now history is repeating itself and like last time, good wins because Harry was able to defeat Dumbledore.
Monday, November 15, 2010
Hogwarts Was Never Created
Harry Potter. That first sentence says it all. It marks the beginning of a journey, the beginning of an era, it marks the beginning of a story that has, since the first book came out, captivated millions. But most importantly, it introduces us to Hogwarts, a school in which a really powerful wizard, known as Harry Potter, has been enrolled in that J.K Rowling discovered.
Yes, you heard right, J.K Rowling did NOT create Hogwarts, she discovered it. Hogwarts was always there but no one decided to write about it because being muggles, we didn't know that such things as magic were possible. This kinda reminds me of Bridge to Terabithia because I didn't know of Terabithia until Katherine Paterson helped Jess and Leslie open the doors to Terabithia for me.
Harry Potter. Now, who is Harry Potter? Laugh all you want but the answer to this question is more complicated than you think. It's a complicated question because there are, like, a billion answers to this question and all, for the most part, are true. It all depends on perspective. For example, if you're Harry's uncle, Vernon, you might say that Harry is a very troubled boy and that he's good for nothing... one of the worst of his lot. If you were Hermione or Ron, you might say that Harry is a really great, caring friend and that he can be somewhat of a troublemaker but that he's also courageous. But being him that we're talking about, Harry might say something like, "I'm just me".
Another reason why this is such a complicated question is because there are so many parts to this answer that not even J.K Rowling knows. You can attempt to fully answer this question but there's always many more questions that follow your explanation. It's practically impossible to not have a question.
What lured me into the Harry Potter series was the possibility that such a wizarding world like that could really exist. Even though I've read all 7 books in the series I haven't really learned everything I wish I could've about Hogwarts. I think it would be really helpful if there was a book by J.K Rowling just about Hogwarts then it will really help me understand Harry and Dumbledore as well as others a bit more (not that I ever really understood what went on in their minds).
Well, to conclude I would like to, once again, repeat what I first said: J.K Rowling did NOT create Hogwarts. Hogwarts has always existed since the day it was first founded (I temporarily forgot when in time this happened) but it was J.K Rowling that told us that it existed by writing her first Harry Potter book, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone. Ever since then Hogwarts has inspired her to continue to write such a well-known and well-written series that has caught the attention of many readers.
So do you agree with my logic? Can you prove me wrong? (Don't worry it's completely cool if you prove me wrong [not]). =)
Yes, you heard right, J.K Rowling did NOT create Hogwarts, she discovered it. Hogwarts was always there but no one decided to write about it because being muggles, we didn't know that such things as magic were possible. This kinda reminds me of Bridge to Terabithia because I didn't know of Terabithia until Katherine Paterson helped Jess and Leslie open the doors to Terabithia for me.
Harry Potter. Now, who is Harry Potter? Laugh all you want but the answer to this question is more complicated than you think. It's a complicated question because there are, like, a billion answers to this question and all, for the most part, are true. It all depends on perspective. For example, if you're Harry's uncle, Vernon, you might say that Harry is a very troubled boy and that he's good for nothing... one of the worst of his lot. If you were Hermione or Ron, you might say that Harry is a really great, caring friend and that he can be somewhat of a troublemaker but that he's also courageous. But being him that we're talking about, Harry might say something like, "I'm just me".
Another reason why this is such a complicated question is because there are so many parts to this answer that not even J.K Rowling knows. You can attempt to fully answer this question but there's always many more questions that follow your explanation. It's practically impossible to not have a question.
What lured me into the Harry Potter series was the possibility that such a wizarding world like that could really exist. Even though I've read all 7 books in the series I haven't really learned everything I wish I could've about Hogwarts. I think it would be really helpful if there was a book by J.K Rowling just about Hogwarts then it will really help me understand Harry and Dumbledore as well as others a bit more (not that I ever really understood what went on in their minds).
Well, to conclude I would like to, once again, repeat what I first said: J.K Rowling did NOT create Hogwarts. Hogwarts has always existed since the day it was first founded (I temporarily forgot when in time this happened) but it was J.K Rowling that told us that it existed by writing her first Harry Potter book, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone. Ever since then Hogwarts has inspired her to continue to write such a well-known and well-written series that has caught the attention of many readers.
So do you agree with my logic? Can you prove me wrong? (Don't worry it's completely cool if you prove me wrong [not]). =)
**Note: Harry Potter 7 in theaters in 4 days!!!**
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Remember Me
Well I'm kinda soaked (not because of the rain but because I just recently came out of the shower). I sit down on my soft yet painfully comfortable chair... and I breathe. I just take in everything that has happened to me from waking up late to jostling to get to my next class before my teacher stabs me with a pencil for being late... no, no I'm just kidding. From the end of yet another school day to my dance company rehersals (yes, I'm in dance company, isn't that like completely ah-mazin?! Yeah, I think so too). I then at the moment remember that I'm sitting down at home, on the computer, typing this sentence right now. I try to brainstorm what I should write about for today's blog post.
Remember Me by Christopher Pike really makes me feel like I'm as dead as Shari (except I didn't fall off a balcony and crack my head open... yay?) which pretty much means that no human being- living, that is, knows that I'm still here. The fact that Christopher Pike adds such elaborate detail makes me wonder if he's dead... which hopefully he isn't. I'm searching thorugh the pages of the book at an attempt to finda purposeful idea or theme.
Obviously, death is a theme that came up since I flipped open the book and let myself get lost in the story. But what is it about death that can make the world feel so safe but at the same time so vulnerable, so wrong, so... unjust?
Well there are over a billion reasons why death can be so unfair but one that stood out in the book was that well... we don't know how much time we have left to enjoy the fact that just being alive offers. We don't know when our time has run out, when our life has ended... when we're just another life that has passed on to the unkown. In the book, Shari Cooper, a girl with green eyes, blond hair, bangs, a brother named Jimmy, and most importantly, a girl that didn't know how wonderful it was to be alive until it was a bit too late hadn't planned on dying and no, she did not commit suicide like many think. But that's the thing, she was murdered. She was murdered without notice so she couldn't take the time to recall everything great that living offers.
There's one line that I feel is really important in the book. It's a thought that Shari had when she saw how not many people had gone to her funeral:
"We lost a few people on the short trip out to the lawns, about half, actually. I couldn't blame them. They had things to do. And what the hell, Shari had been a nice girl, but she hadn't been that nice. Oh, it was awful. It was true. I had done nothing in my life that was worth remembering. Why should they remember me?"
This paragraph was really important because well it made me realize that life itself can be cruel because we go around complaining about our lives when we should accept the fact that we actually have a life left to do really inspirational stuff.
So I couldn't really say much more because sadly, the inspiration has left my mind so I guess I'll stop writing. But before you leave this page just think... are you making your life worth living?
Remember Me by Christopher Pike really makes me feel like I'm as dead as Shari (except I didn't fall off a balcony and crack my head open... yay?) which pretty much means that no human being- living, that is, knows that I'm still here. The fact that Christopher Pike adds such elaborate detail makes me wonder if he's dead... which hopefully he isn't. I'm searching thorugh the pages of the book at an attempt to finda purposeful idea or theme.
Obviously, death is a theme that came up since I flipped open the book and let myself get lost in the story. But what is it about death that can make the world feel so safe but at the same time so vulnerable, so wrong, so... unjust?
Well there are over a billion reasons why death can be so unfair but one that stood out in the book was that well... we don't know how much time we have left to enjoy the fact that just being alive offers. We don't know when our time has run out, when our life has ended... when we're just another life that has passed on to the unkown. In the book, Shari Cooper, a girl with green eyes, blond hair, bangs, a brother named Jimmy, and most importantly, a girl that didn't know how wonderful it was to be alive until it was a bit too late hadn't planned on dying and no, she did not commit suicide like many think. But that's the thing, she was murdered. She was murdered without notice so she couldn't take the time to recall everything great that living offers.
There's one line that I feel is really important in the book. It's a thought that Shari had when she saw how not many people had gone to her funeral:
"We lost a few people on the short trip out to the lawns, about half, actually. I couldn't blame them. They had things to do. And what the hell, Shari had been a nice girl, but she hadn't been that nice. Oh, it was awful. It was true. I had done nothing in my life that was worth remembering. Why should they remember me?"
This paragraph was really important because well it made me realize that life itself can be cruel because we go around complaining about our lives when we should accept the fact that we actually have a life left to do really inspirational stuff.
So I couldn't really say much more because sadly, the inspiration has left my mind so I guess I'll stop writing. But before you leave this page just think... are you making your life worth living?
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
Remember Me by Christopher Pike
Well, just sitting here at my computer desk, writing yet another blog. I think that it's really interesting how the book starts with Shari explaining how she's dead and all; she starts by telling the readers the events that led up to her death.
One part that I found particularly interesting was the one in which her brother, Jimmy, talks to her about a dream he had. Here's the passage:
******Spoiler Alert!!******
"'We were in a strange place. It was like a world inside a flower. I know that sounds weird, but I don't know how else to describe it. Everything was glowing. We were in a wide-open space, like a field. and you were dressed exactly as you are now, in those jeans and that shirt. You had a balloon in your hand that you were trying to blow up. No, you had blown it up partway, and you wanted me to blow it up the rest of the way. You tried to give it to me. You had tied a string to it. But I didn't catch the string right or something, and it got away. We watched it float way up in the sky. Then you began to cry.' ... The breeze through the open window was getting chilly now. ' Why was I crying?' I asked. 'Because the balloon got away.'"
I really do feel that this dream is going to play a significant role throughout the book because it's about more than just the balloon drifting away; that balloon is a symbol, as well as the dream in general, that I have to unlock as I read continue to read the book.
Since, obviously, Shari dies in the book, I was thinking that the balloon could represent her life, both physically and emotionally, because she was trying to had her brother the balloon in his dream but he couldn't grasp it in time and it drifted up into the sky... into eternity.
The balloon getting away from her and her brother could possibly represent how her life was taken away and Jimmy & Shari just weren't able to save it. Jimmy also mentioned Shari having the balloon tied to a string almost as if she has her life, not neccissarily tied down but, well... in a way living life just to let each day pass.
You know what... scratch off that last bit I wrote. Shari is telling us her story through her perspective being dead. She wants to know who killed her an the motives to do so. That balloon couldv'e been caught if either one of them had a tight grip on it. By that I mean that maybe her life couldv'e been spared, couldv'e been saved, therefore, she couldv'e been alive at this point if she did something to avoid it. I mean I don't know how she died, since I'm not up to that part, but I could say that there has to be a reason why the balloon got away. We just have to look closer, think deeper, read this book through her eyes... through Shari's dead eyes.
One part that I found particularly interesting was the one in which her brother, Jimmy, talks to her about a dream he had. Here's the passage:
******Spoiler Alert!!******
"'We were in a strange place. It was like a world inside a flower. I know that sounds weird, but I don't know how else to describe it. Everything was glowing. We were in a wide-open space, like a field. and you were dressed exactly as you are now, in those jeans and that shirt. You had a balloon in your hand that you were trying to blow up. No, you had blown it up partway, and you wanted me to blow it up the rest of the way. You tried to give it to me. You had tied a string to it. But I didn't catch the string right or something, and it got away. We watched it float way up in the sky. Then you began to cry.' ... The breeze through the open window was getting chilly now. ' Why was I crying?' I asked. 'Because the balloon got away.'"
I really do feel that this dream is going to play a significant role throughout the book because it's about more than just the balloon drifting away; that balloon is a symbol, as well as the dream in general, that I have to unlock as I read continue to read the book.
Since, obviously, Shari dies in the book, I was thinking that the balloon could represent her life, both physically and emotionally, because she was trying to had her brother the balloon in his dream but he couldn't grasp it in time and it drifted up into the sky... into eternity.
The balloon getting away from her and her brother could possibly represent how her life was taken away and Jimmy & Shari just weren't able to save it. Jimmy also mentioned Shari having the balloon tied to a string almost as if she has her life, not neccissarily tied down but, well... in a way living life just to let each day pass.
You know what... scratch off that last bit I wrote. Shari is telling us her story through her perspective being dead. She wants to know who killed her an the motives to do so. That balloon couldv'e been caught if either one of them had a tight grip on it. By that I mean that maybe her life couldv'e been spared, couldv'e been saved, therefore, she couldv'e been alive at this point if she did something to avoid it. I mean I don't know how she died, since I'm not up to that part, but I could say that there has to be a reason why the balloon got away. We just have to look closer, think deeper, read this book through her eyes... through Shari's dead eyes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)