Blog Reflection

Through blogging, I learned that as a reader, I tend to become conflicted on issues in books very easily. Although I start off with a clear opinion, as I start typing and referring back to the book, I often find myself mentally arguing with myself on the truth of my original opinion. As I usually include questions in my posts that relate the story to real life, at the end of most of my posts I will say that I don't know the answer to my own question, which, regardless of my original opinion, was always the truth all along. I realized that I enjoy asking questions that make me think but never find an answer despite the thinking (even though I believe everything does have a definite answer). From blogging, I benefited by learning to understand that not all questions can be answered by my original opinions, and even when I think deeper into the issue, I may still not have an answer. I also benefited by being able to write out my thoughts regardless of whether or not people actually read them. I am glad I had this blog because it was an outlet for my opinions and confused perspectives, and by blogging I could organize my thoughts and understand why I was confused or conflicted. Writing online is very different from writing in a notebook since when typing, I can change my ideas very quickly or add new ones, editing and organizing as I continue typing. While on paper, although I personally prefer the feeling of physically writing rather than typing, I cannot edit nor organize as quickly, and I also cannot change what is written as easily, leading me to forget what I wanted to write by the time I finish erasing a poorly constructed idea to make space for the new one. Writing online is liberating because it allows speed while writing, so I can free my thoughts and add them quickly to the post. However, it is limiting because it does not give the actual feeling of writing, so I would often prefer writing on paper to express thoughts rather than typing, as typing feels artificial. I think people are more real online since we can hide behind our computer screens to express our thoughts without the superficial judgement of expressing ideas in public and in person. No one can see what we look like, so people can truly only judge our quality with the quality of our thoughts expressed. We can express our opinions online without needing people to listen, so we are free to argue with ourselves, which would be strange if done in public. Online, people reading our blogs is a choice (not required), while in public, a listening audience is necessary (since it would be disrespectful if no one listened, and it would appear strange to talk to yourself without addressing an audience). I think that some teenagers abuse their freedom to be online, since they do not spend their time online productively or wisely. I don't think people type things they would never say to someone in person, since thoughts do not appear merely because one is online, they are simply expressed online, so it only requires a specific situation for those same thoughts to be spoken in person. This is not a good nor bad thing because these thoughts only show our class (or lack of), so it doesn't matter where they are expressed, since it makes no difference if they were there in the person's mind all along. I may continue blogging on a new blog in the future, since, as I've said before, it is an outlet to express my thoughts. I think everyone needs an outlet to express how they feel about aspects of life, whether it be a person or an online site. Blogs allow us to be free to comment on life itself, without a need for an audience, since the writer being his or her own audience is enough. If I were to create a new blog, it would be about the small events in life, and sometimes possibly, about books. It would describe the beauty of the small events in life, the ones we often miss as we rush towards what we believe will be the next "great" moment in our lives. 

Time passes too quickly, so blogs allow us to record the moments and thoughts in life that would otherwise be forgotten.

Snow Flower and the Secret Fan 5 *spoiler alert*

This will be my last post on Snow Flower and the Secret Fan, a concluding one, to express what I thought of the book at its end. Snow Flower passed away, and Lily realized with deep shame and regret that Snow Flower did not betray her after all, and that it was herself who misunderstood and mistreated her laotong. Although Lily did take care of Snow Flower at every moment after she found out about Snow Flower's fatal illness, she still felt regretful that while Snow Flower apologized to her despite the agonizing circumstances, Lily, even at the very end of Snow Flower's life, did not. The book moves on, and Lily is now an extremely old woman, who has outlived most of everyone she loved (including her laotong, her husband, and most of her sons). At the story's final paragraph, Lily thinks of Snow Flower's last words and hopes to see her in the after world, while wondering at how forgiving the after world truly is. She hopes Snow Flower can hear her, and most of all, forgive her. 

I thought of how in the end, perhaps fate did punish Lily after all for being so cruel to Snow Flower. For I believe that living to see everyone around you die is one of the worst punishments one can receive, especially when one's long life is spent on regretting irreversible mistakes. Then, if Lily already received her punishment, shouldn't she be able to spend a happy eternity with Snow Flower in the after world when she dies? Is fate really so unforgiving as to deny her the happy after life she should have with her beloved laotong? This question truly cannot be answered, since firstly this is a fictional story, and secondly, no one who is still living can tell what happens after death. It would be tragic though, if "life" did not exist after death, because then we would never be able to apologize to those we hurt in our lifetimes. Is this the punishment we receive for making stupid or cruel choices? That there is no after life so we have to carry the burden of regret for eternity? But, then again, if nothing happened after death, we would not be able to feel regret then would we? 

Regardless of what happens after death, everyone should still have the chance to apologize for our actions, so in cases like Lily's, it is very tragic since she never took the chance even though it was available, and it slipped from her grasp right before she realized her mistakes. Perhaps this is why we should always think before making impulsive and often negative actions, as we never know how it will affect others and if we will even have the chance to apologize. We should show our love towards loved ones rather than argue with them, so we won't be in a situation of extreme regret due to irreversible mistakes that were made much too late for apologies.   

Perhaps being unable to forgive yourself is the worst punishment of all.

Snow Flower and the Secret Fan 4 *spoiler alert*

When Her Life Ends, The Hatred Does Too


I am almost at the end of Snow Flower and the Secret Fan by Lisa See. Much has happened, and after a great misunderstanding between the two laotong, Lily openly humiliates Snow Flower and vows to never see her again. Her hatred for Snow Flower (as she believes Snow Flower betrayed her in the promise of being a faithful laotong) stays with her for many years until one day she is informed by Snow Flower's daughter that her laotong is gravely ill and will not live for much longer. Despite being deeply humiliated by Lily, Snow Flower still calls for her. Lily hurries to Snow Flower, and upon seeing her deathly pale laotong nearing death, her past hatred and grudges  wash away. She comforts Snow Flower, who is in great pain, and realizes (after finding a doctor to look at Snow Flower) that Snow Flower cannot be saved. 

It's tragic that only when it's nearly too late does Lily realize that she should not have hurt or despised her laotong for so many years. Only when she sees Snow Flower in such pain does she discover her love for her laotong again. Is this the ultimate consequence of hatred? That we end up regretting being so cruel to someone we should not have hated after all, but at the same time realize it is already much too late for apologies? Do we only regret our actions after it is much too late? 

It seems as though death and the lack of time left with Snow Flower for Lily was the final solution that ended the hatred she had for her, as unfair as this may seem. But perhaps it is in a way fair, because if nothing reminded us that many people in our lives should be treasured, despite possible disagreements and misunderstandings, what would keep us from being ignorant fools who never realize our mistakes? It is a pity though, that this reminder comes so late, as by the time we learn from our mistakes, we are often too late.

I think that although Snow Flower's fate is tragic, it may be for the best, for isn't it better for the laotongs to love each other again despite the brief time they have left together rather than for them to live long yet stay in a bitter relationship for the rest of their lives? Perhaps this is the price one must pay for love and friendship: the price of time. But is it worth it? I'm not sure. I believe that as long as one's life is meaningful, then its brevity is irrelevant and unimportant, but just how short is too short when it comes to life? How important is friendship in contrast to life? But then again, what is life without friendship? Perhaps the opinion of whether or not time is worth sacrificing for friendship is truly a matter of personal beliefs, and it is a question that cannot be answered simply or generally.

What may have seemed tragic may actually have been meaningful if we take the time to look again. 

Snow Flower and the Secret Fan 3 *spoiler alert*

Tragically Unexpected  


 Much time has passed (even the emperor has died, with the reign passed on to his son), and many things have been revealed. Life was not so perfect for Snow Flower after all, as it is revealed that she had many family issues, and that she did not actually live in a higher class than Lily. While Lily's fate went uphill with her perfectly bound feet and natural beauty, Snow Flower's went steeply down (although she had nicely bound feet and a beautiful face too) due to her family's embarrassingly and shamefully tragic past. Lily married into the best family in Tongkou (her county's best village) while Snow Flower married into the family of a butcher, which is regarded as terribly lowly as butchers were considered polluted due to the nature of their work. While Lily grew in wealth and status and gave birth to three sons and a daughter, Snow Flower lived in poor living conditions with a cunning and evil mother-in law and constantly suffered miscarriages (though she still managed to give birth to one sickly son, one strong son, and a daughter). A plague swept through the county, killing Lily's parents and her kind mother-in-law (leaving Lily in the position of the highest woman in the household). Though they still love each other, the laotongs' love has become less affectionate towards each other. Now at the age of thirty two, the women visit each other with Lily going over to Snow Flower's home. On her visit, the war between rebels and the country draw closer until they have to flee into the night. Now, Lily and Snow Flower's family are hiding in the mountains with other families, waiting for the chaos to end.

The things revealed in the book were, as my post's theme says, tragically unexpected. How did a poor farmer's daughter grow to be the wealthy and respected lady of Tongkou's highest ranking household? And how did the refined and elegant daughter of an originally high ranking household grow to see her family and future fall apart, then marry a person of the worst possible profession and suffer in polluted, what-would-be-considered lowly circumstances? It makes me think of how unexpected life is, how things can turn out to be the opposite of what was expected. It's ironic that the original girl of higher-standing grew to be a woman that stands lower than the girl who was originally much lower than her who grew to be a woman of unbelievably high social standing. It makes me think of how some things perhaps are meant to be for some people while other things are meant for others. No matter what social standing one may have started out on, if he/she is not meant to stay on that standing, he/she will not stay on that standing regardless of how impossible it may seem. Of course, this is just my view on the lives of Lily and Snow Flower (as I do believe in fate, but not necessarily god), and perhaps it had nothing to do with fate at all. Perhaps Snow Flower was simply unlucky while Lily happened to be lucky to have extremely high foot arches that led to her superior bound feet which then led to her rise in fortune. 

But, if things were indeed fated, then it would be quite unfair that some people are destined for harder lives than others. It would mean that nothing could change that person's less fortunate future, regardless of how hard that person strives to reach success. This topic reminds me of my group philosophical discussion on fatalism, and whether or not it is real. However, I don't think we discussed whether or not fate was fair. Then again, who can say if fate is "fair" if we don't even know what "fair" is in terms of fate. Or perhaps, fate doesn't even exist. If fate didn't exist, it would be even more tragic in the story as that would mean Snow Flower's life fell apart due to the bad decisions of her family. I think that Snow Flower may want to rather believe that fate is the reason for what happened as it is always better to blame a higher power (like fate)for your tragic circumstances than to accept that your own family's past actions is the reason for your present suffering. A truth like that would be very hard to accept, so it may be better to not accept it at all. 

BBC News' Outrage at Syrian rebel shown 'eating soldier's heart' Non-Fiction Blog Post

This article was about how a Syrian rebel was caught (in a video) apparently "taking a bite from the heart of a dead soldier".  It has been shocking to many people. The rebel, identified as Abu Sakkar, is a rather well known rebel from the city of Homs. The Human Rights Watch claims that this is a war crime, and it may be as the Syrian Coalition says he will be tried in court. This took place recently, in the war that still rages in Syria. Time Magazine said it has spoken to Sakkar, who confirmed that he had indeed bitten one of the soldier's organs, yet it is still unclear whether or not it was truly the heart, or another organ.

The author wants me to feel shock, disbelief, horror, and perhaps disgust. The author did not need to add much into the article for the reader to experience the  emotions, as the thought of biting an organ of another person is similar to the thought of cannibalism, and naturally, we pale at the thought of cannibalism. The author does use subtle phrases though, to plant the emotions into readers' minds. Such phrases include "taking a bite" as this phrase is often used casually and possibly positively, which in this case, that is neither casual nor positive, would be highly disturbing. The author also places others' reactions to the video into the article to propose to readers how they could/should feel about the subject. These reactions are all negative, such as describing how the video is gruesome and one of the worst ever seen by BBC's Jim Muir, or how the Human Rights Watch believes the subject to be "particularly disturbing".

I was shocked and slightly appalled by the subject of the article as removing  one's organ and biting it is cannibalistic and unnatural for the actions of people. Perhaps as people, we are disgusted by such actions as they seem too "animal-like" for us humans (although we are actually animals...). What drives people to act in such ways? War. War changes people, often for the worse. It's tragic, I believe, for perhaps the rebel would not have acted this way if his country was not war torn and with many societal issues (as all countries have at times of war). War is much more than just death and/or victory, as war has no victory, and there is no one in the war torn country that it doesn't affect. I believe that Sakkar's actions do not reflect merely the horror of his actions, but also the horror of war and its affect on those involved in it.

Putting him on trial will not change much, as the circumstances of Syria will probably not be greatly affected from one man's punishment.

The Tragedy of Romeo and Juliet- essay

The Consequences of Impetuosity


"For never was a story of more woe/ Than this of Juliet and her Romeo." (5.3.320-321) Perhaps this was true only because The Tragedy of Romeo and Juliet could have been prevented. Though some things may have been fated, the lovers' actions were not. So in the end, it was their own impetuosity that brought them to their untimely deaths. Their impetuous actions show that fate played no part in the tragedies that unfolded. As most of The Tragedy of Romeo and Juliet by William Shakespeare was a telling of impetuous actions and their consequences, we learn through Romeo and Juliet's impulsive actions and decisions that impetuosity often leads to dire results, so if they used rationality rather than impetuosity, perhaps there would be no tragedy for the play to tell.

The suicides of Romeo and Juliet were the acts of impetuosity that ended it all. For if they thought rationally before acting, they would not have died. They would have realized that life is too precious to waste, and that by killing themselves, they would make those around them, those who loved them, suffer as well. As Lady Capulet said, "My child, my only life," (4.5.24) it shows that there were people other than Romeo who loved Juliet, and Juliet failed to realize this when she chose impetuosity over rationality. And as Romeo said, "Here's to my love... Thus with a kiss I die," (5.3.119, 120) it shows that he too forgot about those who loved him and therefore would suffer if he died, as he thought of only Juliet when he made his impulsive decision. And in the end, it was those who loved Romeo and Juliet who truly suffered for the lovers' impetuosity. 

While the lovers' suicides marked their ends, it would not have come to be if not for Romeo's second main act of impulse. If Romeo did not seek revenge on Tybalt for killing Mercutio, he would not have killed him, and therefore would not have been banished. And if he was not banished, he would not have missed Friar Lawrence's letter (about Juliet) and therefore would not have believed Juliet's death was real. When he faced Tybalt to avenge Mercutio's death, he said, "And fire-eyed fury be my conduct now... Either thou or I, or both, must go with him" (3.1.129, 134). This shows that he let impulse take control of his actions before considering the consequences that would result from the death of Tybalt. By the time logic caught up with his actions, it was much too late.

 Despite Romeo and Juliet's continuous acts of impulse throughout the play, the course of tragedies truly came to be from their first few "blissful" and impulsive moments together, starting from the moment they met and fell in love. As the Chorus said, "Alike bewitchèd by the charm of looks," (2.0.6) Romeo and Juliet fell in love impulsively as they were drawn to each other's physical appearance. And since they fell for each other's looks, there was really only a very limited amount of true love involved, or perhaps none at all. They were too impetuous, as they agreed to marry each other after only one meeting. Romeo proposed to Juliet on impulse as after one meeting he already asked "Th' exchange of thy love's faithful vow for mine," (2.2.134) to Juliet. He acted irrationally, without considering the low probability of true love at first sight (as it is highly improbable that love can be "faithful" after just one meeting). Juliet was equally impulsive as Romeo when she accepted his proposal by saying, "I gave thee mine before thou didst request it," (2.2.135) (as it is senseless to say such seemingly sincere words when they have only just met). Their thoughts and fantasies of love made them impetuous which blocked all rationality. Their love was the root of the problem in the play since if they didn't fall in love they wouldn't have experienced all the tragedies in the play and therefore would not ultimately lose their lives.

The Tragedy of Romeo and Juliet did not have to be a tragedy if not for the lovers' impetuosity and lack of rational reasoning. Their impetuosity doomed them from the moment they fell in love, but they could have changed their fate if they thought rationally throughout the rest of the play. Unfortunately, though, they did not. This tragic play that ended with the deaths of the young lovers shows that there are almost always consequences with impetuosity and rash/impulsive decisions. Perhaps Shakespeare wanted to teach the audience through his play to always use rationality over impetuosity so we will not have to face tragic situations such as those in Romeo and Juliet. And perhaps The Tragedy of Romeo and Juliet is not only the greatest love story ever told, but also the story that we always can, and should, learn from.   

 

Snow Flower and the Secret Fan 2 *spoiler alert*

The Order of Fate 


 I have continued reading Snow Flower and the Secret Fan by Lisa See. Lily with her laotong (a sworn lifelong friend that is actually deeper than a regular sworn sister, although the relationship is similar) Snow Flower are now seventeen, and Lily is about to marry. They are both betrothed, they both have bound feet (Lily's are considered perfect so she is marrying into an upper class wealthy family in Snow Flower's village of Tongkou), and they have been very good friends over the years. Lily's cousin Beautiful Moon (who was like a sister to Lily since they lived together and were good friends and suffered the pain of footbinding together at the same time) was going to marry to an upper class family close to Lily's future family, so they were delighted that they were going to spend their lives together, however, Beautiful Moon died from a bee sting in the last chapter with Snow Flower and Lily being fifteen. This is all I have read so far.

It saddened me that Beautiful Moon died so tragically and so young. A quote from this part of the book stood out to me, as it said that with Lily's family being poor and all of a sudden needing to face numerous weddings (that are very expensive), it disrupted the balance of the universe so the gods killed Beautiful Moon to balance it back. "There is no life without death," it said, followed by , "This is the true meaning of yin and yang." I wondered if this was true. Do the skies really control the balance of the world? Do they add and take away lives to keep the universe's scale at a constant balance? This would be an interesting way to view life, for it means that death is meaningful, that we die to put the world back into balance. I wondered if the meaning of yin and yang was truly as the story told. Does life and death creating universal harmony and balance, constantly changing but at the same time constantly keeping equal weight on both sides of the scale? With life comes death, so I believe that when life occurs, death must too. While I type this post, someone dies, yet someone is also born. Is this fact simply coincidental to the belief that fate and gods control the universe or is it actually the truth that the skies are actually able to take away or add life simply to create balance? One could think that this shows how insignificant we are, as we are simply pieces of weight on fate's scale. But one could also think that we are important, for as I have said before, if we are not taken to the other side of the scale, how would the universe keep balance? The skies may depend on these little weights to manage something as great as the universe. I am not saying that gods must exist, but if I were to believe the theories and views of life from this book, this is how I would perceive it. And I do believe that greater powers exist, or, rather, I don't know if they exist but I want to believe they do since if they did not, the world truly would have no hope or significance and nor would life. 

Yin and Yang is balanced, equal, much like how life and death should be. I think Lily understands this, for even though she mourns her cousin's death, she does not believe that it was unfair. For, who's to decide whether life or death comes at a fair time or not (I am conflicted about this because family friends will always die too early in the eyes of loved ones, yet the death would seem to be worth it when seeing that it keeps universal balance)? How do we know whether someone was or wasn't meant to die? Lily accepts most things in life as part of a bigger picture, which prevents her from falling into the depths of anger and depression. I wonder though, if she has an opinion on fate and the gods, or does she simply accept that life is life, and that we are only game pieces on fate's board, that we are destined to walk one path, so what happens to us in life is out of our control.  

Snow Flower and the Secret Fan

Wrongs of the Ancient Society   


I have begun reading Snow Flower and the Secret Fan by Lisa See. It is about a girl named Lily, who lives in the Qing Dynasty. The story starts off with Lily being eighty years old and after a brief explanation of her life as an elderly who has lived too long and a reference to Snow Flower who is to be the second main character in the story (Snow Flower is like a "sworn sister" to Lily) the next chapter starts with Lily being a very young girl. Much like other cultures at the time, sons were more "precious" than daughters, and in Lily's family with numerous sisters, and two brothers (one six years older than her, and the other is still an infant), Lily is clearly not very "precious". All the daughters in the family seek their father's care and attention and compete for time to spend with the "treasured" Elder Brother. Lily will have her feet bound and it is explained that well-bound feet often led to a good match and a wealthy future while poorly-bound feet often lead to the contrary along with misfortune. This is all I have read so far.

It's shocking how many unfair traditions are revealed within a span of slightly more than two chapters. Firstly, the value of sons over daughters is tragic. I pitied Lily when she said that she felt important when her elder brother smiled or talked to her and she felt loved when her father sensed her sadness and therefore let her sit in his lap and held her like a pearl in his hand. It was tragic since such a simple gesture from her brother such as smiling meant so much more than what people nowadays interpret smiles from brothers. And the fact that she mentioned that at the specific moment when her father held her she was precious, was sad since doesn't that mean she isn't regarded as precious most of the rest of the time?

Another wrong is, obviously, the act of binding feet. Perhaps foot binding would not be so wrong if it, when done "well", did not bring good results regarding class, fortune, and husbands. I believe that it is wrong and unfair because such cruelty should not be regarded as "worth it" for the results afterward. Because, then, wouldn't foot binding be thought of as a privilege of sorts, rather than an act of cruelty? In this case, if I was a girl in Ancient China, perhaps I would actually rather have my feet bound "beautifully" in order to have a life of leisure, rather than have my feet not bound but live a life of hardship as servants, constantly being bought and sold. This statement sounds ridiculous and shocking, but is it really that strange when we add the consequences of unbound feet into the picture as well? No, I don't believe so, which is exactly the problem. When a family in Ancient China has money to bind feet, do the family members really have a choice of whether or not they should bind the  daughters' feet? I don't think they do, since in a way, the parents bind their daughters' feet in hopes that the daughters will live a happy and good life by "catching" a good husband through the "beauty" of their feet. I think this is actually a form of care. And for the daughters themselves, they don't have a choice either because firstly, it's not their decision, and secondly, is feet and walking more important than a good life? Of course one could argue that without the ability to walk, life has no purpose, but perhaps in the ancient society, those who don't need to walk are considered lucky since when they don't need to walk, they don't need to work. Again, one could argue that there is a difference between choosing not to walk, or not being able to. Then again, perhaps an argument for this situation is actually rather unnecessary since one can't truly argue about the past (as it already happened), and also, I still don't think the family would sacrifice the daughters' future for their pairs of feet so an argument probably wouldn't persuade them to doom their daughters' futures anyway.

In the end, I believe the ancient society carries many wrongs, like foot binding. But since one can't change the past, we must try to understand why people would get their feet bound and if there was really an option or argument to not bind feet when considering the consequences/disadvantages of doing so. Therefore, I still find the act of binding feet cruel, but I think that not only the daughters deserve pity, but the parents deserve understanding as well since no parent wants to see their children in pain, but in a way, they truly had no choice.

BBC News' Fame May 'Lead To A Shorter Life' Non-Fiction Blog Post

This article is about how performers (actors/actresses, singers, etc.) and sport stars die younger than those who have academic careers. The article says that "they may be paying a high price for their career". The author wants me to know about how performers and sports stars die earlier. According to the text, those who have performer/sport careers die at an average of 77 years of age.  Those who have academic careers however, have an average life span of about 82 years. Researchers say that the reason behind this is still unknown but perhaps it relates with stress. Performers/sport stars often have stress and this may be part of the reason behind the results of the study.

The author wants me to feel perhaps slightly shocked and/or curious. He/she says in the article that having a "glittering career" may lead to a shorter life. The word "glittering" is often positive so there is a  slight shock at the contrast of such a positive-sounding word in contrast with death, which to most people, is a negative thing. The author describes how the reason behind these results are unknown which naturally, causes curiosity since as people, we always seem to need an explanation/reason for everything. The contents of the article itself gives shock since successful performers and sports stars are often looked upon as idols and seem to live in a perfect life. We forget that nothing is ever perfect. The author uses this image that is implanted in people's minds to conflict with the article's contents to cause shock, curiosity, and maybe even confusion. He/she doesn't need to use many tricks to give readers these emotions since our minds beliefs are the causes of these feelings.

I felt slightly shocked since I too believed that fame is a positive thing so those who have fame should live a luxurious life. Shouldn't luxury play a part in a long life? I also thought about whether or not age really matters when one's life is successful. If a performer or sports star lives his/her life to the fullest with few regrets, should it matter that he/she lives several years less than those with other careers? And maybe if these performers/sport stars enjoyed life to the fullest, they wouldn't be living a shorter life. The root of the problem may be that these careers carry a great amount of stress, which causes many of life's issues. Perhaps the solution is to not let stress eat away at life.

If one's life is meaningful, and as long as it is not cut short tragically, one's age is only a number and nothing else.

Clockwork Prince *spoiler alert

Repetitive Themes



I am reading Clockwork Prince by Cassandra Clare. This is the sequel to Clockwork Angel, and they are part of The Infernal Devices series. In the first book, a girl named Tessa Gray was pulled into the world of demons, vampires, werewolves, and Nephilim Shadowhunters (angel and human "hybrids" who kill the demons). She met Will and Jem (both Shadowhunters and the story continued with mixed feelings, love, fighting, and shock of who the real enemy was. A love triangle developed and everyone felt, and in this book, still feels confused. So the sequel so far has only continued to talk about the obvious issues and the complicated relationship between Tessa, Will, and Jem. This is all I have read so far; this will be a short post since I haven't read much and don't really want to continue reading. 

Although I enjoyed Clockwork Angel, I am thinking that perhaps I will abandon Clockwork Prince. I think it is because the themes and characters of the story are too similar to the styles of other books that are highly popular. It is a repetitive plot and highly predictable. I don't particularly like the theme of vampires and demons of the like, nor do I tend to like books about half-angels. This isn't because I don't like the subjects themselves but more because I think such themes have been appearing constantly in books, perhaps too frequently. But, despite this, I could tolerate (and even liked) the first book of the series as the themes did not revolve around the typical themes as it does now in the second book. Such themes include a love triangle and a character not wanting to hurt the other but in the end quite possibly will. Perhaps I am wrong, but I think I can guess who Tessa will end up being with at the end of the series. 

It amazes me how repetitive particular themes have been in books right now. Is it the popularity of these themes that are driving authors to to write so frequently about them? Don't readers tire from the constant repetition of subjects and plots? I wonder what makes a theme suddenly popular, when it wasn't popular before? Does it only take one author and one best-selling book to create such a trend of themes in books? 

Perhaps I will continue reading the book to see if it really is as predictable as I assumed (because I may be wrong if I finish the entire series and the ending proves to be different than my predictions), or perhaps I might just return it and start another book.

 

To Kill A Mockingbird 3

Aren't We All Under The Same Sky? 



So far, in To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee, Atticus has left for a short while so Scout and Jem are under the supervision of Calpurnia, their cook/servant. One Sunday, Calpurnia decides to take them to her church, an African American church called First Purchase. There, most people respect them, except they encounter an African-American woman who declares that white people do not belong at an African-American church. Finally, after things settle down and church ends, Scout and Jem find out that Atticus' case is that his client (an African-American man) is being charged with rape, yet quite possibly is not actually guilty. 

In the argument between Calpurnia and the woman (Lulu) at church, a particular part of the dialogue stood out to me. After Lulu said: "...they got their church, we got our'n. It is our church, ain't it, Miss Cal?" Calpurnia replied by saying: "It's the same God, ain't it?" At this, I paused, for it sounded like such a strong sentence, as though a piece of moral values and truth was placed in the dialogue. I thought that what Calpurnia said was very true, even though I am not religious and therefore do not truly believe in God. Perhaps it is not so much to do with God as I thought that it had to do with us being the same. We all share something in common with everyone else. We are all of the same species, the same structure, and we all abide by the laws of life and nature. These laws, I believe, is that we all follow the same sequence of nature, we grow and we die. No specific type of race has a natural advantage over others, their is no race that lives particularly longer or are extremely smart or powerful. Even though our background and places of origin are different and may affect us, we are still quite alike. Are we not all living under the same sky? Do we not all eat and breathe and think? Who has the right to say one does not belong in a public place? No one should have such a right, regardless of race or colour.

It is tragic though, for no one is completely free of prejudice (at least I think). Do we really look/judge solely with our hearts and not with our eyes? I don't believe so, for looking with the heart usually only supports or balances our judgment of appearance, it does not provide the whole opinion. I usually don't believe those who say they have no prejudice, I think that they are either lying , or they are one of those people who are able to bring forth their heart's judgment before their eyes', or at least use inner judgment more than the judgment of appearance.

When will we rid ourselves of prejudice? But then again, is it completely necessary? Is it good enough to balance our eyes' judgment with our heart's? I'm not sure, but perhaps it is.

BBC News' Who, What, Why: What is 'ungoogleable'? Non-Fiction Blog Post

This article talks about "ungoogleability", why some people would or would not want to be "ungoogleable", and whether or not one can actually be completely "ungoogleable". The author wants me to know why some people would want to be "ungoogleable" or why others would not. As the author says: " To be ungoogleable might be a blessing or a curse." The author explains this by including examples of how some companies may want to be known on Google so customers may find them easily, while someone may want to be invisible on Google so his/her past will not affect his/her future (his/her past won't be available for the world to see). "Ungoogleability" means more privacy. The author explains that many things can be found on Google nowadays, and though some may be harder to find than others, with more thinking and time, one would most likely still find the answer, as said in the article: "...even supposedly ungoogleable things can usually be found. Most people use Google in haste. But a bit of thinking can often turn up the correct result."

The author wants me to feel/understand each of the situations (wanting to be ungoogleable and not wanting to be ungoogleable). He/she does so by adding details into his/her examples so the reader fully understands each problem. He/she also adds phrases such as "shooting itself in the foot" to give readers an even better understanding by relating to such well-known phrases. He/she also wants readers to understand  how "powerful" Google is, and how hard it is to truly stay invisible to Google. He/she makes readers believe Google is powerful and hard to stay invisible to, by adding personification. For example, the author says: "Trying to outwit Google's search capability has been popular for a while." By using the term "outwit" it implies that Google can think, and thinking is a very human action, an action that can usually only be performed by a living thing.   

I personally would want to be considerably ungoogleable. Perhaps not completely invisible, but as of right now, I wouldn't want the world to know who I am. I would become extremely annoyed if people could know about me without my permission as one would if he/she had information posted on the internet. It makes me feel that my identity is not in my hands. If I had a company though, I would not want to be invisible on Google at all. I think the author did well with helping me understand each situation and I agree with each situation as to why in some cases it's best to be ungoogleable and not ungoogleable in others. I do wonder though, is it possible to stay ungoogleable throughout one's life, or is "ungoogleable" simply a wish that will always be out of reach?

To Kill A Mockingbird 2

Is Love the Truly the Most Powerful?



I have finally continued reading To Kill A Mockingbird (as I was previously finishing Yeh Yeh's House) by Harper Lee. The problem is beginning to surface as the problem is worsening in the story. Scout's and Jem's father, Atticus, is taking a case (as he is a lawyer) involving Tom Robinson (an African American man) being his client as well as the person who is being charged. Since Scout and her family live in a Southern Alabama town at the time of extreme racism against African Americans, they are facing much criticism from the townspeople and even their relatives, as Atticus is helping a black man. Scout and Jem find it hard to control their rage when people talk badly about their father, but Atticus tells them to let it go as he knows that it will only get worse so getting angry and violent will not help. This is all I have read so far.

I found it strange how most of the people Atticus, Scout, and Jem knew as friends and family, turned against them because Atticus was defending a black man. Does the answer of whether or not someone should be helped depend on the person's colour rather than our own moral values? Apparently, at that time, the answer was yes. It was both saddening and enraging how Scout's relatives said Atticus ruined their family by helping a black man; this is not how people should speak about a family member in times of trouble! Shouldn't Scout's relatives, rather than criticize Atticus, encourage him that these harsh times will pass? What is the point of "family" when you can't even count on them to support you and encourage you to stay determined in times of physical/mental need?

Hate is just as, or perhaps more powerful, than love. Scout's relatives hate for African Americans ruined their love for her, Jem, and Atticus. I did not think this at first as I challenged myself with examples where love is greater than hate, for example, Romeo and Juliet. Their love ended their families' hate for each other. However, when I thought about it further, I realized that's not true (that love is more powerful), since hate was the reason why Romeo and Juliet died in the first place. I am still trying to prove my conclusion wrong, as the world would be such a dark and sad place if hate was the strongest power of all. 

Love may be strong, but, though I hope not, perhaps hate is stronger.

Daughter of Smoke and Bone

 Devils, Family, or Both?



 I have begun reading Daughter of Smoke and Bone by Laini Taylor. It is about seventeen-year old Karou, who is an art student in the city of Prague. She sketches the monstrous (literally) characters of her "stories" into her sketchbooks and her friends and classmates often "read" her sketchbooks and praise Karou for her wild imagination. Only Karou knows that the "stories" and her characters are real. She doesn't know much about her past, only that the chimaera (the monsters she sketch) have been the only family she has ever known. The chimaera have the power to give wishes (wishes come in solid forms such as beads and coins), yet they are not good beings. The main chimaera of the group is Brimstone (he has Ram horns and the eyes of a crocodile), the one who has always seemed like Karou's father, and he often sends her on errands to bring back teeth (for a reason still unknown, Brimstone collects teeth, and not for a hobby but for serious purposes). Regardless of the animal or person the teeth belonged to, or whether or not it was legal to take the teeth, she is always sent to retrieve them. Karou's errands may be close in distance or very far, yet distance is not too much of an issue as they have portals that transport them to all destinations. Black hand prints have been scorched into the doors of the portals by creatures that either are or are similar to, angels, because apparently Brimstone and the chimaera are devils. However, Karou does not know this yet. This is all I have read so far.

I am curious as to how Karou will react when/if she finds out what Brimstone and the chimaera are. Would she stay in denial? Would she defend her "family"? Or would she abandon them, too scared, shocked, and angered to return? I feel conflicted on whether I would want Karou to stand with her "family" or against them if she discovered the truth. I believe that wrongdoings should be acknowledged, that the person who committed the wrong should pay consequences, yet I also believe that one should stand for his/her family if his/her family has always stood up for him/her and cares for him/her. It does not make a difference whether or not there is a blood relationship because family doesn't have to be biologically related, which makes me want Karou to stand for her family even more, as she is not technically related to the chimaera, yet they still took care of her. However, obviously I can't say that just because they took care of Karou that they are good creatures, if they actually are devils, then they can't be truly good, can they? Can kindness and the warm sense of family come from the hearts of the evil? I think it could, yet would people feel more compassion towards those beings if those beings showed kindness? Or would it make no difference to anyone except for those who received the kindness of the evil? I believe that Karou should stand for her family, yet, the devil is evil so when I compare this situation with people who are evil, I find that I don't want other people to stand up for them. Is it because I don't believe that evil people can be kind? I'm not sure. It's strange how I seem to feel more compassion for the monsters in the book than for real people who committed extreme wrongs in real life. Do those people deserve compassion? I simply don't know.

 

Amber House

 Darkness Lies Within These Walls



I have started reading Amber House by Kelly Moore, Tucker Reed, and Larkin Reed. It is about a girl named Sarah Parsons who goes with her mother and five-year old autistic brother Sam (or Sammy) to Amber House, her mother's grand family home in Maryland, for her grandmother's funeral. After the funeral, Sarah meets Jackson, a boy whose grandmother was a great friend of her grandmother's. They plan to search for the famous diamonds that were lost by a sea Captain who was an ancestor of Sarah's, as these diamonds are rumoured to be hidden in Amber House. She also meets Senator Hathaway (a close friend of her mother's) and his son, Richard. Despite the book starting off lightly with Sarah exploring the mansion with Sam, and her only worries being that she might look stupid in front of Richard, it is obvious with the few hints in these first few chapters that Amber House is far from just beautiful.

Amber House is stunning in its elegance, and classic. I believe most mansions that are centuries old share these characteristics as well. However, if I were Sarah, I would not have wanted to stay at Amber House. I would not like the feeling of living in a house that is centuries old, sleeping in beds that hundreds of others have slept in, perhaps even died in, even if they were my ancestors. To live in such an old house seems very dark to me, I can't get past the very likely possibility that many deaths took place in the house, that if I were to live in such a house, I would be stepping in the footprints of people from the past, that each step in the house was stepped upon by people who are no longer alive, that each table, chair, and dresser was once touched by people of different lifetimes. Perhaps it is also the fact that because of the many deaths that may have took place in Amber House, the house may be, and probably is, haunted. It amazes me that Sarah doesn't want to leave Amber House even after Richard tells her that the house is, in fact, haunted. Sarah is too preoccupied and distracted to truly take notice of the strange things that happen while she stays at Amber House (like when she saw a a dark figure crouching in the shadows of bushes that then seems to only be an illusion of the moving leaves, or when she felt a wall of cold sadness when she stepped near the room of the Captain's "lunatic" wife). Even after she experiences clear visions of the house and its occupants in the past, she still seems oblivious to the darkness that, I think, seems to hover within Amber House.

In a way, this reminded me of my post on To Kill a Mockingbird, how they both have the characters living in simplicity at the beginning yet it is somehow evident that the peace will not stay. The authors of Amber House give hints to the readers that there are many dark secrets within the walls of Amber House. Hopefully, these secrets will be revealed as the story progresses.
 

Blog Review- Terri Thampan (Spoilers!)

Link to Terri's post: 
http://jaarb.blogspot.com/2012/10/the-secret-life-of-bees-spoiler-alerts.html

I really enjoyed reading Terri's post on The Secret Life of Bees by Sue Monk Kidd. I, too, have read the book and enjoyed it immensely (it is still one of my favourites). I agree with Terri, the book is indeed quite heart-warming, but also slightly heart-breaking (especially at the part of the discovery of May's suicide/death). I thought the book was written beautifully as each part of the story used enough description that I could truly visualize what happened around the main character, Lily. I agree with how Terri said that she was glad that it wasn't a "perfect", no real problem story (as those stories are too surreal to relate to). I remember that the story said that May felt others' pain. Again, I agree with Terri as feeling others' pain at such a time in history (when life was full of racism against African Americans) truly is too hard/painful of a burden to carry, especially since she could not share it with anyone, not even her twin sister, as her sister is dead. It was heart-breaking when May wrote in her suicide note telling her family to keep living. I thought of how impossible that seems when someone you love is dead. I thought of how painful May's burden must be if even death by drowning seems to be a better option than living. She is a very brave character, as only those who are brave have the courage to take their own life, and I think that she is a very important character in the story. I loved how Terri said that we should live life to the fullest, trying to correct the world, for I think this was one of the lessons of the book.

I like how she explained how Lily's image of her mother dropped from perfect after she learned the truth. I believe this is another reason why sometimes ignorance is bliss: when we don't know about the bad things in life, life seems perfect. I also liked how she explained why Lily's father was so cruel to her. I would not say that what T. Ray did was right for it surely was not, but he lost his true love and it broke him completely, so I think he deserves perhaps not pity, but like what Terri said, understanding.

I have read many posts by Terri but this one stood out to me because I read this book before and I wanted to see what she thought about the book and how her thoughts differed from mine. I never truly paid attention to how the racism in the story came from both whites and African Americans, so I am glad that Terri explained this point thoroughly. It also stood out to me because the post had many thoughts and details and is one of the longer posts she has written.

I liked how her post was written. Her summary was thorough but was not a retell and her thoughts on the book flowed well throughout her post. It was as though her thoughts on the book created the summary and I liked that a lot. Although her post was quite long, it was definitely worth reading and I did not feel bored as I sometimes do when reading lengthy texts. Perhaps this is because, again, her thoughts flowed well and blended with the facts about the story.

I really liked her last sentence: "It only takes some time to look for the lessons." I liked it because I felt that it was entirely true. After finishing the book, I did not immediately understand the life lessons taught in this book. Only after I thought about it more did I understand. The Secret Life of Bees is a book worth reading and I am glad that Terri enjoyed the book as much as I did.

 

Yeh Yeh`s House Non-Fiction Blog Post 3

I have been reading Yeh Yeh's House for quite some time now, and I am nearing the end of the book. Evelina has traveled on the Yangtze River to Changsha where she met her Aunt, her mother's sister. After spending a long time living in Changsha enjoying the company of her Aunt's family, she was surprised with airplane tickets to Beijing. So now she is in Beijing, at her Yeh Yeh's House. Although Evelina's trip to China revolved around her Yeh Yeh's house in Beijing, the main idea does not seem to be solely about her time there. Instead, the main idea seems to be about her journey around China that in the end leads her to not only Beijing and her Yeh Yeh's house, but also to her understanding of the simplicity/way of life in China, the stronger relationship between her and her mother (as her mother tells Evelina about her past), and her understanding of how she belonged and felt at peace in China but in America as well. I think her arrival in Beijing was what made her begin to understand her journey and experience in China, that it was not merely a trip. I think this is the main idea because the part about Evelina actually being in Beijing is quite short in comparison to the rest of the book. This main idea is still developing, as though she was beginning to understand the meaning of her trip only when it was almost at an end. This quote shows this: "The reminder that my mother and I were scheduled to fly home  from Shanghai came as a thunderbolt... There was something else in my reluctance to leave which I couldn't even explain to myself. Something still felt unfinished, unfulfilled, as if my having finally arrived had not yet sunk in, or that I had not comprehended what Yeh Yeh's house truly meant to me." 

I think that Evelina wants the readers to feel all the emotions she felt throughout her trip. This included curiosity, peace, amazement, frustration, sadness, and also understanding. She provoked the feeling of curiosity when she described observations and life lessons. She described how Americans focus on life and the perspective of life on themselves while the Chinese focused on  their country. This made me wonder if this was true, for although I am not American, I believe that most of North America has the same view on life. I thought of which one was better, to focus on oneself or to focus on one's country. Should their be a balance? Evelina gave peace to readers as she described China from the gorges by the Yangtze River to the Great Wall of China. Her description used many adjectives and thought provoking words helped to paint a mental image within readers' minds so they may experience the peace that she felt. She gave amazement much the same way she gave peace through her book, by describing in great detail what she saw throughout her trip, like a maze of rooms in a tea house, the antiquity of the Forbidden City, or the intricate details of the possessions of the royalty from Imperial Dynasties. She provoked frustration by describing how she felt when she could not go to Beijing due to a lack of airplane tickets and was forced to travel further away from Yeh Yeh's house. She used adjectives to describe her feelings exactly. She provoked sadness by creating a mental image as well as the fact that she was describing how she would someday lose her mother, a fate that all sons and daughters must face. This quote shows how she provoked sadness: " I looked over at my mother lying next to me. Viewing her through layers of gauzy mosquito netting as she lay in her shallow wooden bed, I saw her as a mummy resting in a crude sarcophagus. I was unnerved again by the awful truth that time was unrelenting, and my perception of it standing still was merely an illusion brought on by the soporific air of Changsha. I thought of the many times on this journey I had gazed at my sleeping mother, filled with sadness that we were running out of time together, both in terms of our stay in China and in our lives." She provoked understanding without actually trying to. It is only because she continuously tried to understand China, her mother, and herself, that the readers try to understand as well. 

I felt all the feelings Evelina felt, especially peace and amazement. It amazes me how her trip evolved into a lesson of life and acceptance; she truly did make the most out of her trip. I wonder if I will ever have a trip as meaningful as hers, and though I know I would like to, I believe that you must think deeply in order to be like Evelina. It probably took a large amount of note-taking for Evelina to remember such precise details, and I believe that many of us will lack the time and effort. Her trip was surely not one of only relaxation, it makes me wonder if she relaxed at all. It saddens me that perhaps the lesser known places that she went to like the temples and tea houses, may no longer be waiting for me when I choose to take a trip to China in the future. Perhaps this is why she wrote the book, so she could not only share the life lessons she learned in China, but to also share the sights she saw, the experiences she had, so that when the places she went to no longer exist, they will still live in her pages.

To Kill A Mockingbird

Temporary Simplicity


I have begun reading To Kill A Mockingbird by Harper Lee. I have only just started, therefore life in the book seems rather simple right now. The narrator is a girl named Jean Louise, but better known as Scout. Right now, she is almost six years old. She has an older brother named Jem, who, right now, is almost ten. They live with their father, Atticus, in the Southern town of Maycomb, Alabama. As I have said before, Scout and Jem's life right now is rather simple. Scout has started going to school and her teacher, Ms. Caroline, does not like her much as Scout already knows how to read quite well, which is in stark contrast to her classmates who cannot. This is all that has happened so far; this will be a short post because not much has happened in the story. 

 I know that their lives (Scout, Jem, and Atticus) will become very complicated (as this is quite a famous book and I have heard from others about how the simplicity does not continue for long), and it amazes me how life can change from simple to much too complicated within a period of time without once hinting that life will take an unexpected turn. The start of when life twists doesn't seem like a twist at all. It may seem like nothing changed and nothing will change. So when life seems to turn unexpectedly, it usually isn't unexpected but merely a build-up of events like a tidal wave. I find it quite tragic when people get swept away by the course of their lives, because when life itself is the ocean, where would you ever find a grip to steady yourself?  

The story is set in the past. Is it because Scout and Jem live in the past that life can be simple, even if it is only temporary? I believe so because I have never heard of a comfortably simple life in the present. All the gadgets that are supposed to make life simpler actually make life more complicated. Sometimes, I wish for the simple lives people like Scout and Jem seem to have, but, are their lives really that simple? Am I just seeing the surface of their lives and therefore am not seeing the complications? I'm not sure, but hopefully, I will find out.

Being Here 2

"In the Name of Love" 


I am still reading Being Here by Barry Jonsberg. Before, when the present Leah (an old woman)  told Carly about her life as a child, she spoke in third-person. But now, as she talks about herself at the age of twelve, she uses a first-person point of view (as though she is herself at twelve and she is living in the memory which she is telling Carly). It spoke about how her mother beat her with a leather belt and locked her in their barn for three days. Leah had tried to read the story her mother had been writing for seven years, the story that her mother said would be about a land so perfect where they could live and never want to leave. She was punished, yet, after she was freed from the barn they prayed and her mother cried saying that she loved Leah. Also, the story describes how Adam, Leah's imaginary friend, grew with her throughout the years and perhaps does not need Leah's imagination for him to exist. This confused Leah as an imaginary friend should only talk and dress and act in ways known to the creator of the imaginary friend. But when Adam met her in the barn where she was trapped, he dressed in clothes she never saw and talked with words she never heard. How was this possible? Even Leah did not, and still does not, know.

I thought about how impossible it is to have an imaginary friend that isn't completely imaginary. How could something you imagined take a life of its own? I cannot believe that imagination is so powerful that it can exist as something living by itself, with no one to continually add to the imagined thought, that it can change and develop by itself. This is why the book is so intriguing, because of the beautiful way it's written and because it involves imagination in a mature and mysterious (and slightly confusing) way so that each time I put my book down, I wonder "How was... possible?" It would be amazing yet also terrifying if imagination was a living, breathing thing, an always-changing thought capable of its own thoughts. If imagination did not have to be imagined by someone and could imagine itself, the world would have no boundaries, meaning that terror/fear and destruction would have no limits either. Life would be a nightmare.

I also wondered whether or not it is truly possible for someone to hurt another person so cruelly but in the name of love. Is it really a bitter punishment that is actually for the person's own good or just an excuse to avoid feeling the guilt of doing wrong? Surely there must be a point or line where punishment as a life lesson becomes just cruelty and not "loving" at all. I think that Leah's mother beating her is an example of this. She went over the point/line but made herself believe that she didn't so she wouldn't be devoured by the guilt that comes from torturing your own child. I greatly dislike it when people do bad things but claim it's for a good cause. Though those people may fool others, they cannot fool themselves forever. Someday, guilt will come crushing down. We should not use a good thing as an excuse to do the contrary and it angers me that some people do. How selfish are they? To make someone suffer unjustly is bad enough, but to claim the punishment he/she gave was for the better is even worse, as the person tries to spare him/herself completely from their own punishment: guilt and regret.

Even though physical pain may be blinding and unbearable, most of those pains will pass, but a great amount of guilt and regret will cause pain that lasts a lifetime. So, of course the people would want to spare themselves from it, as their punishment is the worst kind of pain.

Yeh Yeh's House Non-Fiction Blog Post 2

I am still reading Yeh Yeh's House by Evelina Chao as my non-fiction book. Right now, the main idea is that Evelina is finally in China, and although her original plan to go to Beijing has been delayed numerous times, she discovers that perhaps what she had been "searching for" (it isn't really clear what exactly Evelina is searching for, perhaps at that moment, even she did not know) and believed would find in Beijing, is actually in her own mother. This quote from the book shows her realization of this fact as she sees her mother sleeping in front of her: "Perhaps what I was searching for might not be in Beijing, among the ghosts or living relatives there, but much closer at hand. Lying right in front of me, in fact." She has described all the things she saw in China, both famous landmarks, and simple details from everyday life in 1987 China (She visited China in 1987, but wrote this book about her trip rather recently). She describes Shanghai: "In addition to the torrent of bicycle riders, the street was filled with people hammering metal, winding string, and sorting knobs, buttons, and nails into trays." These were small observations she made about the streets, but she also described famous Chinese landmarks as in this example, she describes the Terra-cotta Warriors: "Inside the trenches stood hundreds of human-like figures in various stages of restoration. The rounded domes of heads and shoulder caps jutted above the trench rims, poking up from the dirt like bleached bones... Subtle differences in hair treatment and dress ornament  signified varying ranks among the infantrymen, charioteers, officers, and generals... All had faces of the same race, the same kingdom, yet each was undeniably unique." 

I think Evelina wants readers to find the peace, beauty, and mystery she seems to find in ancient/historic places in China. I think that she also wants readers to think that her mother is a woman worthy of great respect. For my first point, I think this because she uses many descriptive words and imagery to describe ancient landmarks like temple-grounds. For example, in this quote, she describes her visit to a temple in Shanghai: "The only sounds were of sparrows squabbling over crumbs on the path, water lapping the edge of the lake. I stared at the temple, a painted wooden structure reaching up into the sky... The whole of this was reflected in the glass-like  surface of the lake, so that horizon and water merged to create a seamless image that looked symmetrical and immutable. This was antiquity, I thought, where all dimensions had lost their edges, where there was no sense of time passing. Here, earth and sky were one, and a century was as long as a day. I imagined myself like the image spread in water, as much a part of the past as the future, as much memory as expectation or hope." This quote gives a feeling of peace and mystery as well as power in a gentle way. Evelina describes her observations of China, both the good and the bad, yet, it seems as though the best of her observations come from historic places. Here is another example of her describing a historic teahouse and her feeling of peace: "The teahouse was made of varnished snakewood, made up of many separate but connected chambers... The interior was cool, open, and airy, so that refreshing breezes fanned through... I felt calm here." Again, Evelina uses descriptive words to paint images of her observations into readers' minds and she uses positive and peaceful words like "refreshing" to describe the feeling of peace. For my second point, she creates a feeling of  respect for her mother that encourages readers to respect her mother as well. She does so by describing intriguing scenarios of her mother with words that are detailed and "lock" together to create the general powerful emotion of the scenario. Here is an example as she describes her mother at the burial site of the Terra-cotta warriors: "my mother continued by herself down the slope to the farthest point jutting over the pit... I was struck by how my mother blended with the elements of the tomb, yet remained somehow distinct. She seemed to straddle both time and being, standing half in antiquity and the present, half as clay figure and woman. Poised on this cusp, she embodied all the mystery and power of the site, her stillness reflecting a life as powerful and individualistic as those represented by the clay warriors below. It seemed natural for her to preside over everything, like an empress." She conveys a powerful feeling of respect toward her mother by making comparisons of similarities between her mother and an empress or the ancient Terra-cotta warriors. 

I felt at peace, reading this book. I enjoyed her point of view on China and its landmarks both known and lesser-known. I could feel the crowded, bustling city of Shanghai that was both slightly disgusting (sadly) in its circumstances and also thrilling with the excitement of the city. I admired her deep thinking for as one may have seen the temple grounds as a mere lake with nature and a wooden building beside it, she saw it as a merging of time, a representation of herself. I also admired how she did not soften the negative parts of China, did not try to cover its many blemishes. Instead, she described it in detail, but without showing disgust, merely observation. I believe that China is beautiful, not just because I am Chinese, but because China is an ancient country with a history that is always in full bloom. Its many historical places are not only intriguing, but mysterious as the full history of it will never be fully uncovered. This does not conflict with my earlier statement, because although China's history is always in full bloom, it is as though it is the blooming of one flower, among an orchard of flowering trees. I have never been to China, but Evelina made it sound so beautiful with its many places to see, that I will be more willing to go in the future. Perhaps it is not only her that makes it sound beautiful, for maybe she is only speaking the truth.

Being Here

Tragically Imaginary


I have begun reading Being Here by Barry Jonsberg. It is about an old woman named Leah. One day, a sixteen-year old girl, Carly, visits her and asks if she may interview Leah for her history project on how life was like in the past. However, instead of telling Carly about life in the past in general, Leah tells about her own past, and her friend, Adam. She narrates her past in a thrid person point of view starting at when she was five and her father commited suicide. At his funeral, she met a boy, who she named Adam. Adam takes her to places in the books she reads; Adam becomes her friend. Despite how unrealistic Adam sounds (even Carly believes he was an imaginary friend), Leah claims he is real, and Leah is not crazy.

When Leah claimed that Adam was real, I grew confused. As the text says (starting with Carly speaking): " 'In the story, the boy, Adam?' she says. 'He's an imaginary friend, isn't he?'... 'Oh no,' I say. 'You don't understand. Adam wasn't imaginary. He was real.' " I did not understand how Adam could be real, as it is not possible to take people to fictional places from books. I think that perhaps Adam is imaginary, but their friendship was real.

I find it tragic, the imaginary Adam. Perhaps he would not exist if Leah's father did not commit suicide. Adam was an escape for Leah, as it was obvious in the story that although she was only five, she knew what was happening around her as she was wise beyond her years. I think that Adam gave her happiness and strength like a real friend would for it was never mentioned that she had any real friends. I cannot imagine how sad it must be to create an imaginary being, in order to escape from a tragic truth that lies in life, in reality. Although I think that having imaginary friends are normal for young children, I don't think that Leah made Adam for the typical reasons children make imaginary friends. Adam must have been perfect to Leah, a stark contrast to her deeply less than perfect life that came to be after her father's death.

The author describes his book as a "bittersweet story"  and a "compelling novel about love, faith and consequences." This confuses me further, as I do not know what "consequences" there could be with spending time with something that does not exist. Except, when he said that the book was also about love, it makes me wonder whether or not Leah falls in love with Adam, as that would be very unfortunate. To fall in love with something imaginary is a punishment by itself. Though the love may be real, to person you love is not. Perhaps those are the "consequences" the author talks about. It would not be surprising if she did love Adam, for he is perfect to her (or why would she imagine him?), and it must be hard to not love someone so perfect, especially someone so perfect who is also your best friend (I believe that Adam will become her good friend). It makes me wonder if Adam has ever faded away like most imaginary friends do as children grow up and make real ones. Does Leah, as an old woman with no family or children, still love Adam?

Gravity 2

As Powerful As We May Be, We Are Always Fearful


I have continued reading Gravity by Melissa West and so far, as Ari and Jackson try to find the strategy, Ari falls for Jackson and Jackson's feelings towards her are mutual. This is the only real change that has happened in the story. However, as Ari and Jackson's relationship deepens, they must keep it secret as people are fearful of the aliens and would never approve of someone falling in love with one.

As normal as their fear of aliens sound, it is not right. When I say this, I do not mean that the people should run to greet them and love them immediately, but I think that the aliens in the story should be judged as individuals, not as a whole. This is very similar to how we should treat people. I don't think anyone should have the benefit or punishment of being judged by their gender, colour, etc. In fact, we shouldn't even have these judgements on groups of people in the first place. Sadly, I think most of us have these judgements and assumptions already, and won't be able to change it because our society that will constantly influence us to believe such things.

Fear can destroy us.
 
In Ari's society, it is fear that caused the people to judge the aliens. It was the fear of the unknown. The unknown gives people fear because it means we know nothing of whatever is unknown, and all we do know is that it could hurt us, that it may not be something good. This is probably a natural instinct in humans, as we seem to always be afraid. Our fear has made us what we believe as the most "powerful" creatures on Earth. This is because by finding ways to conquer the unknown, the unknown will never get the chance to hurt us. We never "bother" to try and find what the unknown is, and instead, we make assumptions and simply decide those assumptions speak the truth.This is wrong. How many good things can one destroy if he/she believes they are not good? The answer is, a lot. The unfortunate truth is that we may have hurt many others, many things, because we assumed they were bad, and continued to live with that assumption. Ari would not have needed to hide her love for Jackson if she did not live in a society filled with fear. There would be no need to have a strategy to destroy all the aliens if they tried to know them, to understand them so they would no longer be an unknown. And even if the truth was found and it showed that the aliens were evil, then at least there would be no mystery left. If the aliens were destroyed for they were actually evil, then at least the people would not have to live in doubt and guilt as they would have if they never tried to find out about the aliens. But sadly, my previous statement is only a hope, as I am unsure if people would even feel guilt, would they ever doubt the justice of their actions? I don't believe they would.

 

Gravity

Ignorance is Bliss?

 
This will be a rather short post as I have only just begun to read this book. I am reading Gravity by Melissa West. It is about a girl named Ari Alexander. She lives in a futuristic society ruled by aliens that come each night to do the Taking (take antibodies from humans). The alien who takes her antibodies is the popular boy from her school, Jackson. Ari is shocked to find that Jackson is far from human but even more shocked when Jackson tells her that soon, aliens will declare war with humans and if they don't find the human's strategy for the upcoming war to give to the alien leader, all humans will die. If she finds and then gives their (the humans') strategy to the aliens, she will forever live as a traitor, but if she doesn't, she won't live at all.   

I thought Ari's situation was tragic. In the story, humans are not supposed to open their eyes when the aliens come to do the Taking, and because she accidentally did, she was forced into the situation. Others around her never opened their eyes, therefore thoughts of the war and the strategy do not plague them like they plague Ari. Their ignorance is their protection from the truth (the upcoming war), but should they be hidden from the truth?

I don't think anyone should have the luck to be ignorant to the problems around them. If everyone could see the problems around them, we could solve those problems so that the problems disappear not because we are ignorant, but because they no longer exist. Right now, many of us are ignorant, as I am sure I am as well (I don't know about all the suffering that goes on in the world). It's not fair to those who are suffering, those forced to step out of their ignorance, while we stand by them, oblivious to what is happening.

Ignorance is bliss, it truly is. If we don't know about the world's problems, then we would believe that the world does not have any, we would believe the world is perfect. 

Would you rather live in shame or not live at all? I would rather live in shame if I could keep my family and friends safe. Because in the end, I could be forgiven, but if I died along with everyone I loved because I was selfish, that can not be forgiven. 

 

Fairest

Cursed 

I am reading Fairest by Chanda Hahn. It is the sequel to Unenchanted in the Unfortunate Fairytale series. Mina Grimm is cursed. She is a descendant from the Brothers Grimm and the Grimm curse has passed onto her. It is said that the Brothers Grimm wrote their fairytales based on their experiences from their quests. The brothers had to solve these quests as they had made a bargain with the Fae, that if all the quests were completed, the Fae would have to leave the human world forever. The brothers did not finish all the quests, and whenever a Grimm doesn't finish, the quests (starting from the beginning again) will be passed on to the next Grimm. Finally, the curse fell on Mina, and to ensure that her little brother doesn't have to face these deadly quests (they are very similar to the fairytales written by the brothers, but they are missing the happy endings) she is determined to finish and survive. She has already completed a number of quests with the help from a magical book called the Grimoire, and a mysterious boy named Jared (whom she is easily irritated by). Mina despises the curse, but she refuses to tell her best friend Nan about it or Brody, the boy she likes, for if she did, as she had in Unenchanted, the curse would put them in danger, and after a main quest, they would never remember about the curse, or what happened while the quests took place, at all. 

I wonder how it would be like, to be cursed by fairytales. It seemed amusing to me at first, but as I continue to think about it, I believe experiencing real-life fairytales (all of them determined to prevent a happy ending) would be terrifying. For in fairytales, there are many things that would make no logical sense. And if I could not use logic to solve such fairytales, how would I solve them at all? 

I felt sorry for Mina, as her life is far from normal. But what amazes me is her character and personality. She does not seem like a heroic character at all. Perhaps it is the love for her young, mute brother that keeps her determined to survive. Her desperation to keep her loved ones safe made her brave. I like how she changes throughout the book, how she sometimes breaks down and wishes she could just run away. These flaws and desperate times make her easy to relate to, for everyone wants to run away from their problems sometimes. And despite her curse, she still tries to be a normal teenager with her best friend, and this is saddening for she carries such a burden while almost everyone around her truly defines the phrase "ignorance is bliss". I also like how sometimes, she becomes jealous of her friend's ignorance, and others' normal lives as the text says: "For once, Mina was a little jealous of Nan... She was jealous of Nan's ignorance. She didn't have a family curse hanging over her head and threatening to take away her life." as well as this: "Mina's fingers dug painfully into her text book and she quickly put her head down and kept moving through the hall, hoping he didn't see her staring at him. How was this fair? Why could everyone, even Jared carry on and have a normal life except for her." It's strange how some people wish for an adventure or quest to take place, while others, like Mina, would much rather not but don't have a choice as the quest is forced upon them.