Yeh Yeh's House Non-fiction Blog Post

I am reading Yeh Yeh's House by Evelina Chao. This memoir, is about Evelina's trip to China with her mother at the time of the Cultural Revolution. However, so far, Evelina has only explained her relationship with her deceased grandfather (Yeh Yeh) and how she missed her last chance to see him (this is the reason why she chose to visit China with her mother after his death). Evelina had never met her grandfather in person, for they had communicated only through letters. Evelina explains how she pursued a musical career, for that was what was most important to her, as the text says: "I knew to be clear at last... I was going to play music, no matter what, for the rest of my life... music was my sanctuary as well as my way out." She also explains that she breaks promise after promise about visiting her grandfather (who, at the time, was still alive), although she knew her grandfather's health (mentally and physically) was beginning to decline. The following quote from the book shows that she admits this: "I promise I'll try to go next spring,' I said. It was something I had said so often that it sounded hollow even to my own ears." But the reason she broke her promises was because of her career for she thought it was more important at the time than her grandfather, as said in the text: "my pursuit of my career prevented me from going to see Yeh Yeh before he died."

I think Evelina wants readers to mostly feel anger, disbelief, and understanding towards her. She wants us to feel angry and disbelief because she chose her career over her family. But she also wants us to understand why she did, by explaining her passion for music and to be a musician. To provoke anger and disbelief, she uses small details that build up into a complex issue that is also the implicit main idea. For example, she uses the words from her grandfather's letter: "Sung Lien, come see me soon, before it is too late." Then she uses simple adjectives to describe her deep love for playing the violin: "I discovered a little wooden case in which there was a half-sized violin... It was the happiest moment of my life,"she uses the word "happiest" to describe the moment she got her violin, and although it is no complex adjective, it still shows the simplicity but also complex love she has for music. Then she describes how she broke her promises to see her grandfather (this is a quote I have previously stated): "I promise I'll try to go next spring,' I said. It was something I had said so often that it sounded hollow even to my own ears." These details build up to make readers feel angry at why Evelina still did not go visit her grandfather because of her love for music, despite her grandfather's pleas. However, she uses the same technique to help readers understand that she does care about her grandfather as the text said:"I heard the phone ringing. It was my mother. 'Yeh Yeh is dead' I began to sob." When she said that she began to sob readers understand that she did not break her promises because she did not love her grandfather, but simply because her career seemed more important at the time, and she would never have known that her grandfather would die (of suicide). She uses simplicity(simple words and adjectives) to describe her complex situations, she uses simple words to provoke emotion from the readers. She does not need to use other techniques such as imagery because her quotes from her grandfather's letters, and her personal experiences are enough to imply implicit ideas. However, she uses occasional shocking facts about the Cultural Revolution to shock and sadden readers and to help them understand what was going on in China and why her grandfather commit suicide.

Overall, I think that although I too originally resisted Evelina because of her choices, readers should try to understand why she made the choices she did. I believe that no one can predict the future, so it is reasonable that Evelina would believe her career was more important at the time for she probably wouldn't think her grandfather would commit suicide (as she was unclear of how her grandfather suffered in the Cultural Revolution). Readers should not judge her and her memoir because of a choice that surely even Evelina regrets making. For it is evident that Evelina truly did, and probably still does, love her grandfather. 

Yeh Yeh's House 2

Achieving Dreams and the Sacrifices Involved in Achieving Them

I have continued reading Yeh Yeh's House by Evelina Chao. I read about the sacrifices Evelina made to achieve her dream which was to be a violinist. While reading, I thought of whether or not achieving dreams are worth the sacrifices. This post is similar to my previous post, for they are both about the "weight" and value of certain things as compared to others.

Evelina's dream was to become a violinist as the text said: "I was going to play music, no matter what, for the rest of my life... music was my sanctuary as well as my way out." To achieve her dream, she chose to sacrifice her chance to visit her grandfather. When I read this, I tried to determine which of the two I found more important, and as I have said in my last post, to me, family is always the most important. However, I cannot say that Evelina was wrong to choose her career over her grandfather. When I say this, I do not mean that her grandfather is worth less than Evelina's career, instead, I am saying that sometimes we have no choice but to make such sacrifices. At the time, Evelina probably thought that her career and her studies at The Julliard School (a talent university in New York) was more important and worth the sacrifice. 

I feel guilty and conflicted, but I know that when I am older, I will probably have to make a sacrifice like the one Evelina did. This is because sometimes, no matter how important what needs to be sacrificed is, it will still be sacrificed in order to keep the other. There are many reasons why something important would still be sacrificed, for some things (regardless of its value) simply won't work out (timing, cost, personal issues, etc.), and others might be important but at the moment is less important than what is on the other side of the "scale". I hope that I will never have to choose between my family and my career, but I know that is probably wishful thinking because there are simply too many scenarios where such a choice would have to be made.

I think that when it comes to dreams vs important sacrifices, it really depends on how much the dream means to you and how many serious problems would occur without the important sacrifice. For me, I would rather stay safe than try to achieve a dream that needs many important sacrifices. Because if I sacrifice all the important things, then realize I don't want to pursue my dream anymore, it would be much too late. 

I think that people make sacrifices that shouldn't have been made because they miscalculate how important the sacrifice is. Or they may have had a temporary desperation to achieve that specific dream, therefore forgot to determine the value of the sacrifice. I could say that Evelina should not have chose her dream over her family (as she repeatedly does), but it would be unfair because no one knows the future. Evelina would never have thought her grandfather would die (for in the book it was said that her grandfather always maintained good health), especially not from suicide. This again goes back to my last post, how I said that some things/people/places are taken for granted and their importance is not realized until it is too late. Evelina probably thought that since her grandfather had good health, he would probably still have many years ahead of him, therefore she could push back her trip to China since she still had many years to visit him. However, life is life, things come unexpectedly, some good, some not, and her grandfather's death was unexpected but not good. 

So in the end, there truly is no right choice, it all depends on the person and their situation.

 

Yeh Yeh's House

When do you find yourself resisting the text? What does your resistance say about you or the text? 

I have started reading Yeh Yeh's House by Evelina Chao. It is a memoir about Evelina's trip to China with her mother and about how this trip leads to Evelina's discovery and understanding of herself and her mother. Evelina's trip takes place at the time of the Cultural Revolution in China. She decides to visit China because of her grandfather (in Chinese, "Yeh Yeh" means grandfather), however, it is not because she wants to visit her grandfather in a happy family reunion, but rather the opposite, for her grandfather is dead. And even though I have not reached the part of the book yet, in the front flap of the book, it says that her grandfather did not die of old age, but instead, he had committed suicide (Even though I did not read this part in the book yet, I wanted to include this piece of information in my blog, for it is needed to show why I resisted the text). Her grandfather had committed suicide after many futile pleas through letters to Evelina, pleading with her for her to visit him. But it was too much for him (the Cultural Revolution), and perhaps, he saw no other way of escape, and no reason to live on.

I deeply resisted the text when Evelina canceled her original plans for a trip to China (her original trip was planned before her grandfather's death) merely because she had to practice in her String Quartet. When the text said: "In the spring, when I tell my String Quartet I mean to go to China, their eyes pin me to the wall. 'What about London?' they shrill, reminding me of our plans to study with the Amadeus Quartet. 'Where's your commitment?'... I call my  mother to tell her I won't be going to China with her this time." I felt disbelief and intense anger. How could Evelina care about her career more than her family despite knowing how desperate her grandfather was for her to visit him? 

I think I resisted the text so much because it felt both foreign and familiar (and I do not think Evelina purposefully tried to make me, or any reader, feel resistance at all). I never had the chance to know my grandfather for he died long before I was born. However, I had the chance to "know him" in a way, as my father would tell me all about my grandfather. And if he was alive, I know I would have liked him a lot. But no matter how much information I know about him, it will never be the same as knowing him in person. My grandfather's love is something I will never have. Knowing him is farther than foreign, it is impossible. But the text was familiar because it was foreign. It made me think about how much I would appreciate having my grandfather. And while Evelina has her grandfather, she's still taking him for granted, thinking that he will always be there. Does she think his pleas are meaningless? Did her grandfather have to commit suicide for her to realize how crushed and desperate he was? Does one have to experience loss to realize nothing should be taken for granted? 

My resistance either says that Evelina is selfish , or simply doesn't know to how appreciate what she has before it's gone. Or it may say that I am naive. I do not think that it is the first one, for she still seems to love her grandfather a lot. However, I can't decide if it is the second or third one, perhaps it is both. She doesn't realize how much pain her grandfather is in, she doesn't understand his desperation. Evelina assumes her grandfather will be able to get through the Cultural Revolution with no problems, but obviously, she is very wrong. It may say that I'm naive because I shouldn't judge how important Evelina's career is to her. Even if I think family will forever be higher on the list of my priorities, it may not be the same for her. Maybe it is because she doesn't understand loss, that she takes her loved ones for granted. I do not have a career yet, so I will not understand the importance of employment. But I'm sure that even when I do, I will still  put my family first.

Catching Fire

What really difficult or complex things are happening in the text?    

I am in the middle of Catching Fire by Suzanne Collins. It is the sequel to The Hunger Games. It is about what happens after Katniss returns home from the Hunger Games, about how there are uprisings in different districts that threaten to overthrow the government of Panem. 

There are many ways to view the surface problems of this book. So instead of viewing the problems through the eyes of Katniss, I will view the problems that are seen (and unseen) by The Capitol (the government of Panem).

In the book, the surface problem seen by the Capitol is that there are uprisings in the districts, creating chaos and violence. However, this problem would not be as serious if it did not spread like wildfire (as the text said: "President Snow is right. A spark could be enough to set them ablaze" the "them" refers to the districts), for these uprisings are triggering other uprisings in other districts. The Capitol has a reason to view this as a problem, because all of these uprisings threaten the safety of the Capitol. These uprisings were the results of the rage that built up over the years within the citizens due to the suffering these citizens endured. The citizens have had enough, too much resentment for the Capitol had been built up, and they were simply waiting for the right time to strike. And when Katniss won the Hunger Games through a possibly rebellious move, it gave these citizens the perfect opportunity to rebel against the Capitol. 

As I have said, the uprisings came to be because the citizens hated the Capitol too much, and they hated them because they suffered too much. But why did they suffer? They suffered because the Capitol made sure they would, in order to "remind" them that the Capitol is still in control. However, I don't think the Capitol made them suffer because they simply wanted them to. I think they did it because they were afraid of what the districts could accomplish if the districts came together to overthrow the government (as they are now). Perhaps they thought torturing and scaring the citizens of Panem was the only way to ensure power stayed with the Capitol, for they thought it would make the citizens afraid to take action. But instead, it only brought hatred for the Capitol, hatred that lead to this chaos.

But that is not the root of the problem. For there would have been no fear of an uprising if there wasn't one before. And indeed, there was one, such a large uprising that it turned into a war, and though the Capitol won, the war still brought mass destruction (including the loss of the entire District Thirteen). This is why the Capitol made the districts suffer after the war, to try to destroy the bravery of the people, so they wouldn't be brave enough to start another uprising and possibly another war. The reason for the first uprising was also due to the built-up rage of the people, the hatred they had for the Capitol. This shows that the Capitol was never a good government in the first place. The root of the problem came from the Capitol itself.

The Capitol probably doesn't know this, or they would have been kinder to the people of Panem after the war instead of making them suffer. The Capitol never realized the fault was their own. None of the present uprisings would have took place if the Capitol actually knew how to govern Panem well. This is the root of many real-life problems. We never realize that perhaps it is ourselves who need to change and improve, rather than everyone else. If we knew this since the beginning, many conflicts that changed history would never have took place. We should all consider this before deciding others should change.

Falling

Dream Comes True, or Nightmare Becomes Reality? 


  I have begun reading Falling by Amber Jaeger. It is about Bixby (short for Bianca), a girl who has seen tragedy after tragedy in her life. One of these tragedies, is the death of her brother Linc (short for Lincoln), in a fatal car accident. One night, after many unsuccessful ones, she is able to travel to "Nightmare Town" once again ("Nightmare Town" is what she calls the town she visits each night in her dreams. She knows everyone in the town, and everyone knows her, as well as the fact that she is dreaming when she visits them.). She is puzzled when she meets Jordan, a boy who is not from Nightmare Town (for everyone in her dreams are from the town), and even more puzzled when he promises to help her get Linc back, as long as she keeps her "promise". Though Bixby doubts it will work, she agrees, believing that a dream can do no harm. The boy chains her wrists, and tells her to wake up. When she does, she finds out that Linc really is back, completely unharmed. She also realizes that her hands are still chained, though no one else can see them, and that she did not ask Jordan what "promise" she had to keep.

  When I read about how she went to Nightmare Town each night, I thought how this was similar to the book Coraline by Neil Gaiman. Coraline visited the Other World in the night, and this seemed similar to Bixby visiting Nightmare Town. And it seems, after Bixby was chained, that perhaps Falling is similar to Coraline because the other worlds Bixby and Coraline visit, are both mysterious and not all good. I thought this especially when I read the phrase on the front cover of Falling: "When the lines between dreams and reality dissapear, wishes can become nightmares."

  Another similarity is that both Bixby and Coraline don't sense a problem when they visit their other worlds at first. It is only later that they realize that maybe it wasn't a good idea. This next quote from the book shows how Bixby doubts there are problems and only realizes that there are when it's too late: " I sighed, wondering what it would really hurt to play along...'This is a dream,' he agreed. 'So what's the harm?'...'Alright' I said slowly...He smiled and gave my wrists a squeeze. I felt a burst of heat and when he took his hands away, each wrist had a thin seamless bangle around it. I pulled at one, then the other, unable to pull them off. As I moved my hands I could faintly see a gauzy chain linking the two together...'What is this?' I asked, cold dread coming over me."

  If I had to choose between visiting a mysterious dream-town/land each night, or simply sleeping peacefully, I would choose the latter. I don't think it's worth the risk of being trapped or tricked in a world that doesn't exist. Not everything is what it seems, so as I've said in my title, a dream come true, especially one that seems much too good to be true, usually is, and perhaps it is a nightmare waiting to happen. 

  This doesn't only apply to dreams, for if it did, surely it wouldn't be of much use in real life. But this applies to real life too, again, not everything is always as it seems, what looks like a good thing isn't always good. And what seems like a bad thing, isn't always bad. We can never judge too simply of what goes on around us.

Picture The Dead

Would You Rather...?


  I have started reading Picture The Dead by Adele Griffin and Lisa Brown. I have only just started, and so far, I have read about a girl named Jennie who lives in the time of the American Civil War. Her brother died, and she found out that the boy she loves, has died too.

  Although I have only read very little, this passage captured my attention the most: "That would be too much luck, perhaps, but I'm not sure that I'm strong enough for less. Another loss would be unbearable. And we are never given more than we can bear, are we?" As I read this, I thought how wrong she was when she thought of the last sentence. Many people are given much more than they can bear, much, much, more. To prove my point, if people weren't given more than they can bear, there would surely be no more, or at least less, suicides. For, why would someone want to take their own life unless life itself became unbearable? This is a sad truth, and I don't think it ever will, or even can be changed.

  When I read the part where it said: "Another loss would be unbearable", I thought back to the book The Lovely Bones by Alice Seabold, and how I wrote my blog post saying that the death of Susie is hard on her (of course), but also on those who loved her. I am stuck debating now, on Jennie's situation, just as I did on Susie's. Would you rather be the one who died, or those who deeply loved the one who died? I cannot answer this question myself, for I don't know which is better or worse. Leaving those you love, and possibly dying a painful death, is quite painful (emotionally/mentally). But knowing that you never had the chance to say "good-bye" or "I love you" to a deceased loved one hurts too, especially "knowing" that there might have been a way to prevent your loved one's death (even if there wasn't a way, you would still feel like maybe there was). In war, the chance of dying and finding out your loved one is dead, is much higher. Fathers, sons, brothers, husbands, (and now in modern times, Mothers, daughters, sisters, and wives as well), many of them died fighting. I always feel sad when I think of the soldiers who died in war, for their family must have been, like Jennie, in deep sorrow. I do not know what I would do if someone I loved such a my family member, died. This is probably how Jennie feels too, except in the story someone she loved is already dead, and now that she has to face another death, she is in deep despair, shock, and possibly disbelief (as the text says: "he squares me in the eye, and in one look I know the worst. Will is not coming back. Blood rushes to my head; I might faint. I lean back against a pillar and take slow sips of air.").
 
  So in the end, I have no conclusion of the answer to my question, for as I have said before, I truly do not know.  Sometimes I wonder if I can be neither, but I know it is not possible, for it is only a matter of time.


Feel free to comment or even answer my question!

The Hunger Games

Could We Really Have a Hunger Games in the Future? 

  I have just started reading The Hunger Games by Suzanne Collins. So far, I have read that this story takes place in the future. It takes place in the country that North America turned into, called Panem. Panem has one Capitol, and around it are twelve districts. Katniss Everdeen lives in one of the less wealthy districts, District 12. Each year, two "tributes" from twelve to eighteen years old (one boy and one girl), are sent from each district to participate in The Hunger Games, a competition where tributes fight one another in a wild arena to the death. It is said that The Hunger Games "is the Capitol's way of reminding us how totally we are at their mercy. How little chance we would stand of surviving another rebellion," the "we" represents the district, for in the story it was said that originally there were thirteen districts, and that these districts once tried to overthrow the Capitol, but lost, resulting in not only defeat, but the loss of District Thirteen as well. In the story, Katniss volunteers to be tribute, in order to save her sister from going, and that is all I have  read so far.

   When I read about how The Hunger Games came to be, I thought it was shocking how selfish the Capitol is. How they sacrifice children in such a brutal way, simply to show that they have power and control. In the book, it states how the Capitol threatens these Districts: "Whatever words they use, the real message is clear. 'Look how we take your children and sacrifice them and there's nothing you can do. If you lift a finger, we will destroy every last one of you. Just as we did in District Thirteen." I think that it is extremely tragic how these tributes die for such a ridiculous cause, that they are used for entertainment to show the power and lack of mercy of the Capitol. However, what shocks me more, is that the idea of The Hunger Games is not that hard to grasp, and worse, not that hard to find it unbelievable. In fact, the idea that in the future, there may be events like The Hunger Games, is not that strange, for the human race is very selfish, and our selfishness is not getting better, but possibly getting worse. 

 In the past, events similar to The Hunger Games have existed. For example, in ancient Rome, the Colosseum held shows where gladiators fought each other to the death, and these were very popular to ancients Romans. In the Salem Witch Trials, women accused of witchcraft were executed and punished publicly in front of crowds, in a way, also a form of entertainment. 

  So if we (as in all humans in general)  could be so merciless, selfish, and cruel in the past, why not in the future? Because so far, I have not yet found a reason to prove that we, as a whole, have become more kind as time has passed. I do not hope that The Hunger Games will take place in the future, but... how can we be certain that it won't?   

Long Lankin 2

A Hidden Conflict


Currently, I am still reading Long Lankin by Lindsey Barraclough. More information was revealed in the book about Long Lankin and his past. The "curse" that plagues his victims (after their "death") was also revealed. So far, Cora and Roger have found out that Mimi will quite possibly (and most likely) be Long Lankin's next victim, so they must find a way to destroy or stop Long Lankin before he hunts Mimi down. 

While reading, I noticed a few things about Cora. Firstly, she loves her sister (Mimi) dearly, secondly, she is terrified of Long Lankin (much like everyone else in the story). Usually, this would not be extremely special, however, in the story Mimi is destined to be the next victim of Long Lankin. Therefore, if no one saves her, she will suffer the same fate as the other victims of his. Throughout the book, it has been obvious that Cora would do anything to keep her sister safe, as said in the text (the quote is said by Cora):"I'll get you home, Mimi,' I whispered. 'Honest. Soon as Auntie gets back, I'll tell her we're going, even if I've got to carry you all the way to London myself. I'll look after you, keep you safe." This proves that in order for Cora to keep Mimi safe, she must conquer what seems like an impossibility, she must overcome her fear of Long Lankin.

I found that in almost every story, especially mystery/horror/adventure books such as this one, tend to carry a conflict that's always between the main character and him/herself. It is usually about how the main character overcomes his/her fears/worries in order to acheive his or her goal. In Long Lankin, Cora must overcome her fears of the monster in order to protect her sister. There is always a struggle within the characters of these stories. And these struggles are the less obvious, but always present, struggles of the characters/storyline.

I think that authors like to do this because it represents how many of us feel everyday in real life. We are always battling against ourselves, always conflicted between decisions. We always seem, even subconsciously, to debate within ourselves what is right or wrong. I think that if one never pauses to question him/herself, he or she would be too confident to succeed in life. No one is always right, so the only reason why someone would never question him/herself  is that he or she actually thinks he/she is always right. And that by itself would already prove that he/she is wrong.

Everyone has their fears and doubts, but sometimes in order to succeed, we must overcome those fears, much like how characters in books do. Except usually, reading about how to overcome fears, is a lot easier than doing it.

Long Lankin

  "Long Lankin" by Lindsey Barraclough is about four children. They are Cora and her little sister Mimi, and two village boys who become their friends, Roger and his younger brother Peter. Cora and Mimi have moved to Bryers Guerdon from London. They meet Roger and Peter, and soon become friends. But as they explore Bryers Guerdon, they discover that the town has a dark past involving a mysterious, and murderous creature.  Cora and Roger must find the truth about Bryers Guerdon...before it is too late.

  Even though I am still reading this book, I have already found it highly intriguing and unique. This book is written mainly in the perspective of Cora and Roger. I found that using two perspectives for this story was very effective. It made the story more interesting because in doing so, there is a first person and third person. For example, the book said (this is Cora narrating): "There was no way out. My legs began to tremble... Suddenly I realized Roger was holding me up. My knees had given way. I had sunk halfway to the floor. 'It's gone! It's gone!' croaked Roger," the first part, was first person. But when Roger spoke, it was third person (because it was in Cora's perspective). So for me, I liked this a lot, I enjoy third person and first person stories, and in this one, both was incorporated very well. Also, because it is in Cora's and Roger's perspective, when something chilling and terrifying happens in the story, I can see both Cora's and Roger's fear. This is a scary book, so when two perspectives of fear are shown, the horror is even more effective.

  Another interesting thing about the book is how it is based on an old and somewhat haunting folk song. I think it is very difficult to write a 455 page book based on the few lyrics of the song. I think the author is very talented for being able to do so.

  However, there are two things in the book that amaze me the most. Firstly, Cora's, Mimi's, Roger's, and Peter's age are rarely (perhaps never) mentioned in the book, nor is the appearance of the characters. I am guessing that Cora and Roger is about 13-14 years old (based on their behavior in the book). In the story, all that I can base Cora and Mimi's appearance is the small figures of them on the cover of the book as well as this sentence from the story (Cora is narrating): "I see no likeness to myself at all, dark haired and dark eyed as I am, but in almost every face I see Mimi's pale eyes, Mimi's mouth, and her fluffy fair hair."

  The  other thing that amazes me is how little Long Lankin (the beast) actually appears in the story. It's appearances are very rare, even though the entire story revolves around it. I am actually quite thankful for this because Long Lankin is actually quite chilling, as the text said: "Moving slowly, creeping along the ground, it approaches a bright patch of moonlight by the wire fence. It is shaped like a long tall man, yet it crawls like an animal... I see a bony face like a skull. It looks at me from the dark orbits of its eyes and opens its jaws wide, showing me long, pointed yellow teeth that flicker behind the old shifting glass like the flames of candles." And perhaps the horror of Long Lankin in the story, is partially based on the mystery revolving around it, for it is so rarely seen.

  When a book is unique in so many different ways, it is usually not forgotten easily. And very few books are as unique as this one. Therefore I do not think I will forget about this book for a long time.

The Lovely Bones

Would you Let Go? 

  
  I have finished reading The Lovely Bones by Alice Seabold. It is about a girl named Susie Salmon who was murdered when she was 14. The story continues as Susie watches her family from heaven, and knows that in order to move on (for her to move on to true heaven, and for her family to move on with life), they must all learn to let go. 

 If I were Susie, I don't know if I could, or would, ever let go. 

   I love my family, and surely I am not the only one. So when the book said : "If this were heaven...I would feel only joy..." but then said: "You can have that...Simply put, you have to give up on Earth," I felt conflicted between which I would choose: pure and endless joy, or, Earth and seeing my family. If I were Susie, I would have said exactly what she said next, for she said: "This seemed impossible to me." And for me, it did.

  When the book said: " I was done yearning for them, needing them to yearn for me. Though I still would. Though they still would. Always." I thought that this was how I would feel when I died. Mostly the "Though I still would...Always" part. Since no matter how long one has been away from their family, it does not mean his/her love for their family will die, even if he/she is already dead. It saddens me, how Susie will yearn for her family for so long (for she may have to wait quite a while before she is reunited with her whole family), and also how Susie's family will yearn for her, despite knowing she's never coming back.

  If heaven meant true happiness, and true happiness for me meant being with my family, then how would I ever be able to go to "true heaven" without them? Since without them, it wouldn't be my true heaven. And because I know many people love their families as well, I wonder if their true heaven includes their family too. So, if Susie's heaven was what heaven is actually like (a temporary heaven where one can watch Earth, and a true heaven where one will find endless joy, but can only enter after giving up Earth), would anyone go to their "true heaven" without waiting for their families?

  In the story, letting go is not just for Susie. For her family must learn to let go as well.  This is just as seemingly impossible as  it is for Susie letting go of her family. Sometimes even more difficult (for eg. Susie can see her family, but her family cannot see her). But  also, when the text said: "She's never coming home," I thought this was another reason why Susie's death was harder on her family. When you are dead, you're dead, it cannot be changed for it is a fact. But when you know someone you loved is never returning home, and you never had the chance to say good-bye, it haunts you. You will always wonder (or at least wonder for a long time): maybe it wouldn't have happened if... Even if you know that it's not your fault, that nothing could have been done (for no one knows what will happen in the future), it will still haunt you.

  So overall, letting go always seems impossible. And I will not tell you to "still try" for when I die, I may not try at all. I don't know if I would ever want to let go of my family until I could be with them again. Being with my family and reliving happy times spent with them in the past is part of my true heaven. Without them, pure happiness would not exist for me. So my last question is: If you could let go, would you?


Please feel free to comment or add your opinion!

  

Am I Blue?

The Truth Seen in Blue

We assume too much, and judge too quickly.

  "Am I Blue?" by Bruce Coville is about Vincent, a possibly gay high school student who is being bullied by others because of his possible homosexuality. After meeting his fairy godfather, he is allowed three wishes. One of them, he uses to allow everyone in the world to see the gay people around them. For all the gay people in the world would turn blue for a day.

  I think this is a tragic story, not because of its content, but because it speaks the truth. When the story said: "Can't tell without the spell...Straights are helpless at it. They're always assuming someone is or isn't for all the wrong reasons," I thought this was true. The phrase Don't judge a book by its cover is something many of us("us" as in the world) say, but few of us do. Perhaps it is human nature, but as a whole(all humans), I do not think we accept "different" well. I have met many people where the world is set in black and white(there is only right or wrong, yes or no, etc.), there is no grey. Many of us think that normal is good, "different" is strange, and strange is bad. But strange is not always bad, and are we always perfectly normal? No. We all have our quirks.  But many people are also hypocrites. For many, their differences make them unique, but the differences of others, like homosexuality, make the strange. So when the story said: "But most of them,"(them meaning gay people),"are in hiding because they're afraid they'll get treated the way you did about an hour ago,"(This was Vincent's fairy godfather speaking to Vincent, who was bullied about an hour ago in the story), I know this too is true. It is a known fact that for many people, gay is considered "nontraditional". Therefore many gay people would hide their homosexuality in order to be considered "normal". Sometimes, gay people are treated(and judged) unfairly because of their differences. Who doesn't want to be treated equally, who doesn't want to be "normal"? This is why I think so many gay people have gone into hiding, so they can be "normal" too.

  When the story said: "So all the straights would have to stop imagining that they didn't know any gay people," and when it also said: "Everybody knows gay people, they just think they don't," I thought this was also true. However I didn't understand why we would deny knowing gay people. There is nothing wrong with being straight, nor is there anything wrong with being gay. So how did we (we as in straights) come to be so non-accepting to actually refuse the fact that we may know gay people, or may even be friends, neighbors, etc., with them? Do all gay people really have to turn blue for a day for us to acknowledge this fact?

  For me, the truth in blue is not that there are many gay people around us. We(again, we as in the world) are very non-accepting, and this is not just towards gay people. We do not have to be gay, to accept those who are. We do not have to be of a specific ethnicity,  to accept those who are. We do not have to be anything in particular, to accept those who are. If everyone could accept the differences of others, many problems in our society would come to an end. And this, I think, is the truth seen in blue.


Please feel free to comment!

The Drummer Boy of Shiloh

  The Drummer Boy of Shiloh by Ray Bradbury is about Joby, the young drummer boy in the Battle of Shiloh. It's about how Joby finds the confidence to go on. It takes place on the night before the battle, on a spring night, amidst blossoming peach trees.

   I thought that the setting was very important in this story, for it carried the theme.

  The story takes place on a Spring night(as the story says: "In the April night..."). I think this represents peace, for I find Spring nights very peaceful. For though Spring days are lively, I think Spring nights are quiet as though all the new life of Spring is at peace, at rest before another lively morning/day. Spring nights (and mostly Spring itself) are not too cold, nor too hot. In many ways, Spring is much like Autumn. This is in contrast to the panic and unrest taking place within the minds of the soldiers (as the story says: "nervous expectation and unable to sleep for romantic dreams of battles yet unfought..."). To me, this makes the lack of peace more evident in the story, for despite the peaceful environment/surroundings, the soldiers are still unable to rest peacefully.

  I also thought that the peach blossoms played a significant role in representing the theme of the story as well. When I imagine peach blossoms, I think of innocence and youth, how the blossom is not yet a peach, not yet ready to be picked. This represents the state of the majority of the soldiers in the story. For they are innocent because of their youth and inexperience to battle. I think that the soldiers' innocence is good and bad. Good because the soldiers are not yet scarred from the horrors of war, but bad because that would mean they don't know what's ahead of them, and therefore will not be prepared. They are inexperienced as the story says: "It's going to be a crazy time said the general...we should all turn tail and train four months..."

  I think that the peach blossoms also represent Joby. A peach blossom is the state of a peach before it actually becomes a peach. And in the story, Joby is in the state of a boy before he becomes a man/soldier. In the story he finds his confidence to become a true soldier. The peach blossoms represent Joby because in the beginning he is a young, confidence-lacking boy, and throughout the story, "blossoms" into a confident man/soldier.

  Overall, I think the setting of a story is always important. For it usually has to have a significance in order for the story to take place there. It may be the cause of (or related) to the problem(s). Or it may(like this one) represent the theme and characters themselves. 

A Separate Peace

  A Separate Peace by John Knowles is about the friendship between the two main characters Phineas(Finny) and Gene. They are room-mates at their prep-school. Gene is a quiet, intellectual introvert while Finny is an athletic, care free extrovert. And though Gene and Finny are complete opposites, they still share a great friendship. However, over time Gene becomes envious of Phineas and tries to out-do his friend. Gene becomes increasingly jealous, so one day when they were about to dive into a river on the top branch of the tallest tree in their school grounds, he jounces the branch (from sheer impulse)causing Finny to fall off the tree and shatter his leg. Finny is devastated when he learns that he will never be able to compete/participate in sports again. And Gene, knowing that it is all his fault, feels incredibly guilty. The rest of the story tells how Gene copes with his guilt, and how Phineas battles his emotions knowing that his best friend shattered not only his leg, but his future and his dreams.

 Both Gene and Finny change throughout the story. Throughout the book Gene encounters envy, remorse, and guilt, but overall, he is mostly battling against himself. Both characters endure much pain in the story. Phineas changes from care-free and positive to trying to be care-free and positive. He tries to resist change. He tries to stay as the happy and outgoing Finny he once was. He tries to resist being bitter and angry. He also makes ongoing attempts to keep his friendship with Gene, despite what has happened between them. But both Phineas and Gene understand acceptance and forgiveness in the end.

 This book is unique because it is in Gene's point of view, and at times the reader may dislike Gene a lot because of what he did, it is unique because Gene is the flawed character while Phineas is the exact opposite. I think it is almost impossible for anyone to be like Phineas, to appreciate friendship so much despite the pain it brought. But even though it seems impossible, I think everyone should try.