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.
Thursday, November 29, 2012
Thursday, November 15, 2012
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.
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.
Thursday, November 8, 2012
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!
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!
Thursday, November 1, 2012
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?
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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)