Thursday, December 18, 2014

Book 4 Reflection


Literary Villain: Depression

            I’ll tell ya, that Charlie kid just won’t give up! Man oh man I’ve tried forever but he won’t surrender himself to my clutches. He refuses to just allow himself to be sad even though he’s always been an outcast and a loner. He actually found friends! Even before that I thought he’d crumble when his aunt died. He came close but he was never fully in my grasp. I felt short changed. I mean this kid was an easy target but I can’t get him. His own sister is insulting him to his face but he won’t give in. Kids fight with him at school, he just keeps on going. His best friend commits suicide for goodness sake and he cries of course but ultimately he continues to fight me every chance he gets. I know he can feel my presence. He talks about me in his letters to his secret friend. I seems like he’s always one half step ahead of me. I’ve even tried to get his friends. They all have dealt with their own demons at one point of another but they aren’t depressed. It’s like they form this group of misfits that are impermeable to me. I come so close but yet I’m so far.

Why Charlie Is a Modern Hero

1.      He survives a depressing time

Charlie may not have fought dragons or werewolves, but he did fight an enemy that can be equally as powerful: depression. Through the course of the novel and even the parts of his life not in the novel, Charlie fights on ongoing battle with depression. It may not always be apparent but the reader can sense that it’s there at certain points. “I don’t know what’s wrong with me but I’m getting scared.” (Chbosky 83) If he doesn’t know what’s wrong with him but he’s getting scared then that’s a sign of depression. It’s very clear that he has been fighting this battle for some time but he doesn’t know. He later goes on to say he misses his friend Michael and his Aunt Helen. Those people made Charlie feel good and now they are both dead. This sounds like a depressing situation.

2.      He teaches the reader a valuable lesson

Charlie teaches us a lot of lessons about life. In my opinion, the most valuable is that everyone is capable of loving somebody and finding happiness. For most of his life, Charlie lived as an outcast. He never had too many friends and the ones he did have ended up dying or breaking down mentally. That’s rough. When he finds his new friends Patrick and Sam, he is changed by their willingness to accept him. He never thought it possible that he could find such a loving group of people. He teaches us to keep an open mind.

 

Charlie is an incredibly likeable character because so many people can identify with him. His psychological issue and his need to find love are the same issues so many people deal with every day. His struggles and ordeals are a beautiful representation of how to keep an open heart and let love in. He teaches us that there is no shame in being an outcast and searching for a family that accepts you. He can basically do no wrong because of how innocent he is. It’s incredibly how likeable he is.

Charlie reminds me of The Grinch. Not because he is mean and savage, but because he was an outcast. He didn’t know how to accept love from people. Now he has found his friends and looks to them to help him recover from the death of his aunt and others he was close to. Much like how the Grinch was convinced he needed to remain an outcast until he learned that giving love to Whoville was much  more satisfying than trying to destroy it.

 

 

Tuesday, December 16, 2014

WISH LIST

Reading list:

THE LAND THAT TIME FORGOT: Edgar Rice Borroughs(BOOK 5!!)
The Heroes of Olympus Series(3 Books): By Rick Riordan
The Buy Side: Turney Duff
The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo: Stieg Larson
The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy: Douglas Adams
Animal Farm: George Orwell
Looking for Alaska: John Green
1984: George Orwell

Jeddingz's books

Room
4 of 5 stars
The overall plot was very insightful. I felt like a really knew jack even though he is obviously fictional. Most of the detail in the book was concise and essential to the plot.

goodreads.com

Tuesday, November 25, 2014

Book 3 listicle


Why Jurassic Park Is Commonly Misinterpreted

            Everybody know Jurassic Park as the Movie series where people try to create dinosaurs but end up getting eaten. While that is entertaining as ever, it’s also very unfortunate. Michael Crichton’s novel got the classic Hollywood treatment. Audiences don’t want to be filled with brilliant philosophy; they want blood. Here’s why the movie kind of spoiled the book:

1-They emotionally estranged the characters

The movie really cut down on the character detail. In the book, Crichton made sure that we got to know a character before they were ripped to pieces. In the movies, they skipped past the characterization and went straight to the mauling.  Doctor Wu was just a young bioengineer when he was hired by John Hammond to create dinosaurs. In the novel, we got to know his back story and his true intentions for creating dinosaurs. He wasn’t in it for the money… he wanted to make great scientific discoveries. I liked Doctor Wu and when he was eaten alive I felt sorry for him. In the movie, he just gets eaten without much introduction.

2- They let John Hammond live

John Hammond was an egotistical mastermind obsessed with making himself famous as the man who created dinosaurs. He cared nothing for the safety of his guests or his staff. All he wanted was to have a multi-billion dollar theme park where he could play god to prehistoric creatures. I the movie, Hammond was a bit more sensitive and obsessed with the wonder of his park. His character was still a bit reckless but all in all he seemed to be a pretty okay guy. The book Hammond was eaten by a pack of miniature velociraptors. He deserved to die for creating and abusing his park. Movie Hammond was allowed to live because they shifted his character to be more likable.

3- The movie changed the kids

In the book, Lex is waaaaaay younger than she was in the movie. In fact she actually was younger than Tim, her brother. This allowed for the reader to gain perspective on how horrible it would be to be lost in a prehistoric landscape if you were eight years old. In the movie, she’s just another screaming teenager.

4- The movie was incredibly action based

Very little did we hear about Doctor Ian Malcolm’s chaos theory. In the book, it was a beautifully crafted explanation for why the dinosaurs couldn’t be contained. It was only peaked at in the movie and the explanation was rather dumbed down. Of course, most people would rather watch the movie than read the book. The movie was based off of the action sequences. The part that made it a blockbuster were the parts were people got eaten. Not poor Doctor Malcolm’s chaos theory.

5- The dinosaurs were too violent

In the book, the dinosaurs ate people if they messed with their offspring. In the movie they just felt like killing. I mean this aspect of the book really doesn’t matter as much if it is changed. Sure it would be nice to know why they killed people but in the movie it’s not like anybody cares. They’re giant lizards with razor sharp teeth and claws. They might as well have been serial killers.

 

 

Monday, November 24, 2014

Post 5 memoir

Human beings don't have the power or the right to change history. Sorry not sorry but we only have the power to shape the future. It's not cool to change your past in order to try and make money. Like creating a fictional "Non- fiction" novel. That's such a joke. If you have to go back and change the facts to make them interesting enough to be in a story then the story isn't worth telling. Why not just publish it as a fictional piece and tell everybody it's based on your life or a historical event? That's the logical thing to do. Half- truths aren't okay. If everybody in the literary world started to beef up their stories and make themselves look like gods then there is no point in even reading a memoir. They're supposed to tell us the truth. Sure most people don't really care about whether or not some creative liberties are taken but when they find out that half your story is false then they start to get mad. Sure you might not want to have everything included in your book that actually happened but if your not glad to share it then I don't want to ere a lie in it's place. I understand that no story is ever told the same way twice, but when you start blatantly lying for your own benefit then it becomes dumb. But, it seems like everyone is doing it so I guess I'll go write a novel about how I single- handedly ended the Vietnam War in the 60s by using a laser gun that shot rainbows to make everybody love each other. 

Thursday, October 2, 2014

Movie Adaptation

The Wolf of Wall Street was a fantastic movie. Even though it was highly inappropriate, it was very well directed. Three specific scenes that deserved to be in the movie were the moment where Danny eats the goldfish, the moment where his wife get caught on camera, and when he crash lands his helicopter. The scene where Jordan's associate ,Danny, eats the goldfish is essential to the story because it shows how insane the atmosphere of their brokerage firm was. That was a key moment in the book as far as characterization and how ludicrous the office was. Another key scene is when his wife gets caught on camera while she's wearing minimal clothing. This may sound sketchy but it actually makes us realize how messed up Jordan's life is. The fact that she is pretty much naked while being captured on security tape is definitely a scene that portraits how crazy the relationships between he and his wife were. In fact she was doing it to make him jealous after he heated on her with another woman. A third scene that was deserving of a place in the movie was when Jordan almost crashes his helicopter. The fact that he is flying a helicopter while intoxicated makes the viewer immediately think that "this guy is freaking nuts." He is nuts and this scene definitely shows it.

Two specific parts that should have been cut were pretty much all the cursing in the entirety of the novel and the parts where they use hookers. I mean it actually did happen but the sheer vulgarity of it makes some scenes feel almost gross. Maybe they should have toned it down just a little and made it more of a James Bond type scene where we only see shadows doing dirty things. Curse words are meant to add meaning and force to a sentence. Sentences should not be made from solely curse words. They get overused so much that they mean nothing towards the end of the  novel.