1984

Hi everyone! Did you miss me? Do you even remember who I am? I am so so sorry it has been months since I have written a book review: I am so busy with college applications, school work, etc. On the bright side, I have read several great books that I can review now that I have a little down time. So for today's blog, we have one of, if not the most, famous science fiction novels of all time 1984, written by George Orwell. Away we go and remember BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU.

Characters: Winston Smith: protagonist of the novel/ is a member of the Outer Party/ begins to question the regime of the Party and Big Brother
Julia: Winston's lover/ a member of the Outer Party/ described by Winston as "only a rebel from the waist down"
O'Brien: prominent member of the Inner Party/ Winston's "contact" with the Brotherhood/ is responsible for trapping Julia and Winston

The Plot: Big Brother is watching you. Everyday, every minute, every second. In the police state of Oceania, totalitarian government comes in the form of Big Brother, the Hitler-like embodiment of the Party (the name of the government). Enter Winston Smith, member of the Outer Party who has recently committed an act of rebellion: buying a diary. In this diary he begins to write his hatred for Big Brother, his confusion about the system, and his desire to be free of this terrible world. Winston struggles to uncover the secrets of his past, but finds his search to be futile, as the past is continually erased and altered by Big Brother in order to suit his message. Winston's inner turmoil then turns into outward rebellion, as he begins an illegal affair with Julia, and begins to join the group of secret resistance called the Brotherhood. Winston eventually discovers that he has no where to go, no one to turn to, and the vicious totalitarian government of Oceania is and always will be eternal.

What I liked: This is one of those novels where you come away thinking: "My God, *insert author here* is a brilliant, revolutionary, genius". So, my God, George Orwell is a brilliant, revolutionary, genius. This in my mind, is a pretty much flawless novel. In this novel, Orwell explores many different ideas about freedom, the importance of the past, the importance of language, and totalitarian power, while weaving them seamlessly into this central story of Winston Smith's fight against the Party. One of the most interesting sections for me, is actually one of the most hated. 1984 is actually broken up into three different "books" or sections, and book II involves Winston reading the manual of the Brotherhood. The manual contains the writings of Emmanuel Goldstein, leader of the rebel group the Brotherhood. These chapters are disguised as Winston's writings but are actually the chapters where Orwell can rant outright against totalitarian government. Many literary critics find these chapters disjointed, and non essential to the overall message of the novel. However, I found these chapters to be a fascinating look at the man who actually wrote the novel. Here, the brilliance of Orwell and the ridiculousness of the Party' system become blatantly apparent. These chapters I likened to the moment in Hamlet when Hamlet totally unloads on his mother. Hamlet has been trying to sneakily enact his revenge against his uncle, but then his mother puts him over the edge and he completely losing his mind, ranting at the confused queen. Orwell, kind of felt like Hamlet. He had kind of danced around the problem, but he never actually got to air his feelings outright, and he finally had the chance. As a reader, I think it is more personal opinion than anything, but I personally enjoyed it. 1984 is also one of the most creatively complex novels that I have read. Orwell created this entire world in which the reader is immersed. There is "thought crime", "double think", the "thought police", "Newspeak", and all of these concepts which create this very real and frightening society. One of the great things Orwell did was make Winston a very dynamic, passionate character. He was this complex character who was paranoid, irritated, ashamed, fearful, angry, and happy all at the same time. SPOILERS AHEAD: This made it all the more shocking when Winston is vaporized at the end of the novel, and we have a final chapter inside his vaporized self and we are reading these dead thoughts of this brainwashed man. Later on in the novel, O'Brien, my favorite character, plays a more central role. Book III is devoted entirely to Winston's capture and subsequent "rehabilitation" in the Ministry of Love (yes, this is meant to be ironic) by O'Brien. O'Brien was a great "bad guy"; he was totally brilliant and he represented and explained all of the twisted logic behind the party. I tore threw the last few chapters. Throughout the novel, Winston desperately looks for clues about the past because his job is to destroy the parts of the past that don't fit with Big Brother's vision. Winston discovers, eventually, that he who controls the past, controls the future. I found this to be a fascinating concept. I hadn't really thought about that before, and this idea that people can be almost driven mad by these two different accounts of what the world was like is intense. We as readers come to the realization that the only reason we know what the past is is because some told us what it was. We never saw the past, and it could be totally changed without our knowledge. The concept is frightening and enthralling at the same time. Seriously, this book was utterly brilliant.

What I didn't like: I can't think of anything, probably because Orwell is brilliant.

Overall: 10 out of 10. So many other authors have tried to replicate this fantastic book. There is a reason this one is the most famous: can't beat the original.

Anthem

I'm back! I'm sure you didn't think I would remember to blog again, but I did. So for my blog I am reviewing one of the first books I read in freshman year English called "Anthem", written by Ayn Rand in 1937. Here we go!

Characters: Equality 7-2521: main hero of the story/ wants to be a scholar/ discovers electricity
Liberty 5-3000: Equality's love interest/ follows Equality out of the city/ is named the "Golden One" by Equality
*These are honestly the only two characters worth mentioning, for reasons that will become clear later*

The Plot: Equality lives in a world completely different from our own. The World Council, created in a time years in the future from ours, forces people to remove all of their individualism and conform with the rest of society. People are assigned a name and a number, and everything is decided for them. Their jobs, their "mates", and what they do during their day-to-day lives. However, Equality is not like the rest of society. He questions, he discovers and he wants to learn. When he is passed over for the chance to be a Scholar, Equality spends his time conducting his own experiments and trying to rediscover the secrets of the past. Throughout the novel, Equality goes on a journey of self-discovery to not only uncover the things the World Council has hidden from the world, but also what it means to be human.

What I liked: This was a very different book. I haven't read anything like Anthem to this day. To my surprise, I actually really enjoyed the premise of the story and how the author, Ayn Rand, executed the story. Equality's society is focused on a collective unity, not individualistic tendencies. This means that when we read Equality's account of events, he uses words like "we", and "us" to describe what he does, even if he is the only one doing something. The word "I" was not to be used, and if you were caught using the word "I" you would be burned at the stake. Rand created a world that was not only oppressive, but ruthless as well. The set up was completely believable because she put in details of the everyday oppression that Equality and the others went through. I haven't read 1984, but from what I have heard, I feel like this was written in a sort of similar way. With "Anthem" I felt like Rand was less concerned with the details of what the landscape of Equality's world looked like, as opposed to the emotional turmoil that went on inside Equality. He feels guilty for wanting to discover and learn because he was taught that that means he was "going against the state". He and another talented man named International 4-8818 (who is a brilliant artist) are assigned the most mundane of jobs, trash collection. This job shows how these repressed men try and let their talent shine (Equality through secret experimentation in tunnels and International with secret drawings) yet still feel as if they are betraying the state. Until the end, Equality couldn't even comprehend that the government wasn't acting in their best interests. I enjoyed that this was written as a sort of journal or diary. I felt like it matched the tone of the story: not filled with overarching metaphors (until the end at least), just hard and to the point, reflecting the hard and mundane life of the people in Anthem. The end had a bit of fun symbolism I enjoyed. Just to prevent any spoilers, I'll just say that Equality and Liberty reference a bit of Greek mythology to finish off the story.

What I didn't like: To be honest, I wasn't a huge fan of Liberty. Maybe it was just because she wasn't really involved in the story enough at the beginning for me to really "get" her. I just didn't feel any sort of connection with her at all. I think what might have been cool is if Ayn Rand did alternating chapters between Liberty and Equality. I think it would have been interesting to have a male and female side of the society the two lived in. But that's just the reader in me wanting to know even more about the world a story is set in.

Overall: 9 out of 10. Didn't give it full marks only because I didn't really connect with Liberty as a character.

Things Fall Apart

Hey everyone! So this is the first of two blogs that I am doing today. I have to do two blogs in order to reach my goal of fifty by the end of the summer! This is another flashback book that I read in English II called "Things Fall Apart", written by Chinua Achebe. Well without further ado, away we go!

Characters: Okonkwo: leader of the African village of Umuofia/ one of the best and most famous wrestlers in the tribe/ lives in fear of ending up like his father
Nwoye: Okonkwo's eldest son/ son that Okonkwo is ashamed of/ leaves the tribe and converts to Christianity
Obierika: friend of Okonkwo/ helps Okonkwo while he is in exile/ is thrown into prison with Okonkwo when Okonkwo returns to the village
Uchendu: takes in Okonkwo when he is exiled/ tries to help Okonkwo be more accepting of the white people who have entered the African villages/ is Okonkwo's uncle
Ikemefuna: boy from a neighboring village who lives with Okonkwo/ is very close with Nwoye/ is killed by Okonkwo

The Plot: Okonkwo's world was as close to perfect as it could get. He was one of the clan leaders of the village, a champion wrestler, and one of the most well-respected and rich men in the village. Most importantly, he was absolutely nothing like his father, a weak drunkard. But all that changes when Okonkwo accidentally shoots a villager during one of the village's festivals. Sent into exile with his entire family, Okonkwo returns to Umuofia to find it overrun with the white man. Infuriated by the spread of Christianity, his son's conversion and the village's lack of resistance, Okonkwo finds his world completely changed and not for the better. What follows is Okonkwo's fall from the peak of his power until he is reduced to the mere shell of a man.

What I liked: I am really kind of split on this story. I liked half of it. After Okonkwo is exiled and returns to Umuofia, the story really picks up pace and I was hooked. I felt like the second half really depicted the conflict that went on as the entire way of life of Africa was completely turned upside down. I felt like the characters got better, particularly Mr. Brown, Reverend Smith and the District Commissioner, who all gave the story a bit more interest. I felt like this part of the story had an actual plot, with conflicts that I felt were more real and meaningful. The back half of the story was fast-paced, and I had never really read anything like it before. I hadn't read anything about the colonization of Africa from the perspective of the tribes that were conquered, so it was very interesting for me to read about it. However, I wish more of the story had focused on this, rather than the beginning, which I will get to in a second. I could almost ignore how much I disliked Okonkwo in the second half of the story because Okonkwo's anger fit in more with this section. Before the second half, I felt like Okonkwo was angry at nothing: now this rebel without a cause had found a cause. His anger felt more justified, so as a reader, I felt more justified putting up with him.

What I didn't like: I did not enjoy Okonkwo as the main character. I found him arrogant, violent, condescending, unforgiving, and cold. I particularly did not enjoy the scene where he beat his wives and shot a gun at one of them. He was even so stubborn, so afraid of ending up like his father, that he killed his own son because the other clan leaders asked him to. He was not accepting of his oldest son Nwoye, and disowned him after he converted to Christianity. I found it hard to side with, or root for such an unlikeable character, and I hoped his exile might have taught him something, but it didn't. Instead, he was just as bad as when he started. While I understood his fear that he would end up like his father, I didn't understand the lengths he went to in order to prevent that from happening. I also found the first half of the book before Okonkwo goes into exile particularly dull. Nothing really happened, just festivals, and arguments, and planting of yams. I had a hard time staying interested in the book and might have even put it down. The combination of the grating Okonkwo and the dull storyline is enough to turn anybody off. I also found the story to be unclear and confusing in places, with many characters rotating in and out, many of them in my mind, unneeded. Not only that, but these characters had such a small role, that you were almost expecting them to come back later, so you were still looking for them the rest of the book. There were some characters that were introduced for only a paragraph or two. Also, I couldn't for the longest time figure out what village they were in: Achebe was very unclear as to where they actually were, and since Okonkwo often traveled from village to village, I had a hard time figuring out if events were taking place at the home village, or in another close village.

Overall: 5 out of 10. I gave it half the points because I liked half of it.

To Kill a Mockingbird

Hi everyone! Summer is almost over with only a few days left until school starts and I am still three blogs shy of my goal of fifty blogs. This summer has gone by so fast! I can't believe that I am going to be a senior! This book is another "flashback" book that I read a few years ago for school. This book I read for freshman year English and I am sure everyone who is reading my blog has heard of it: "To Kill a Mockingbird" by Harper Lee. Well without anymore delay, away we go.

Characters: Scout Finch: six year old girl/ spends lots of time with her brother Jem/ is the narrator of To Kill a Mockingbird
Jem Finch: Scout's older brother/ gets into a lot of mischief with Scout and Dill/ is greatly affected by Tom Robinson's trial
Atticus Finch: father of Scout and Jem/ lawyer of Tom Robinson/ one of the few "color blind" people in the town
Tom Robinson: a black man convicted of raping a white woman/ is actually innocent/ hires Atticus Finch to be his lawyer
Boo Radley: reclusive neighbor of Jem and Scout/ occasionally provides help to the children/ is forced to live alone inside his house because of the evil rumors about him

The Plot: As a six year old growing up in Maycomb, Alabama, Scout doesn't have many worries. Running around with her brother Jem and friend Dill, Scout just concerns herself with day-to-day mischief and hunting for the reclusive Boo Radley who lives next door. All that changes when her father, Atticus Finch, one of the town's most respected lawyers takes on the case of a black man on trial for rape. Her world is flipped upside down as Scout begins to see that the world is not always as simple, or as harmless as she once thought. Scout discovers that not all people are as brave as her brother or as kind and moral as her father, which both scares and surprises her. Told through the thoughts of a six year old girl, Harper Lee creates a world which shows young Scout losing her innocence about the world in a very abrupt, and permanent way.

What I liked: I am about to go on a rant for a few sentences so if you want to skip this you can. I am going to talk about something that drives me absolutely crazy, but this isn't really essential to the critique. So here it goes: I absolutely hate hate hate hate it when a book like "To Kill a Mockingbird" or "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn" is banned and considered a bad influence because it uses the "n" word. I hate it even more when someone decides that it is a good idea to change a book like "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn" and get rid of the "n" word entirely. Let me just say that I am well aware of the particular nastiness of that word and I will never, ever use it. But people did use the word and it is unfair to eliminate that word from an author's story. Mark Twain and Harper Lee are trying to create a story which shows a time where racism was prominent and you cannot just obliterate that word from their tales. The word was used and it is silly to think that we should just get rid of it. Now that being said, I don't think you should read these books until you are able to understand what the word means now and what it meant then; you need to be able to handle these books and the issues they discuss. But just because a book may be offensive, doesn't mean you should ban it or change it. You not only dishonor the writer but you dishonor the people who made the sacrifices to change our world. We need to tell the whole truth of what it was like and we cannot leave out parts because it is "too offensive". That is all I have to say about that, and now we can return to the book! I really like this book on so many levels. One of things that captured me the most about To Kill a Mockingbird was that Harper Lee really gave us a living, breathing town. The story had issues which plague every town: class stratification, racism, poverty, crime, and just general day-to-day struggles. It made Maycomb a very real place which we as readers feel connected to. We felt the divide in the town over Tom Robinson's case in no small part to Harper Lee's beautiful writing. She gave us one of the most famous literary characters of all time: Atticus Finch. His archetype has been repeated and replicated over hundreds of different stories but nothing beats the original. He was strong in all the ways that the rest of the town was weak and he continually surprised our narrator Scout with his kindness, and the fact that he was a surprisingly good shot (this is a significant scene so I won't really explain that much to avoid giving anything away). I loved the fact that Harper Lee chose a young Scout to be the narrator because Scout's progressive loss of innocence was a fundamental part of the story. Scout's path to "enlightenment" kind of followed the same path of Maycomb's enlightenment about the impurity of their town and the justice system. I am not afraid to admit that I am absolutely terrible at picking out "symbols" when I am reading. If you have read my review of "The Scarlet Letter" you know that I couldn't understand the symbolism in that book to save my life. While I have gotten better at it with time, I still feel like I miss a great deal. With To Kill a Mockingbird I didn't feel that way: I understood the symbols and I found the deeper message in the writing. That's one of the great things about this book. I honestly feel that anyone, provided they have some historical context, could pick up the book and just "get" the story. Any person can read this book and learn something, can take a lesson, can see something about humanity as a whole. Maybe it is the simplicity of a little girl as a narrator or the clear moral compass of Atticus Finch but as a reader every little thing, every detail that Lee wants us to see is perfectly clear. Some books are great, but ultimately forgettable, but To Kill a Mockingbird will never be forgettable.

What I didn't like: To be honest, I felt it was a little slow to start with, but it definitely made up for it in the end. I think the reason for the sort of slow start was that Lee wanted to firmly establish the characters before she jumped into the trial.

Overall: 10 out 10. It is a literary classic; how could I rate it any other way?

Night

Hi everyone! So today I am reviewing a book that I read for my sophomore English class which a lot of you have probably heard of. It was on Oprah's Favorite Books List and its author won a Nobel Peace Prize. If you guessed "Night" by Elie Wiesel you win...nothing Sorry about the lack of prize. But anyway, I hope you enjoy my review because here we go!

Characters: Eliezer "Elie" Wiesel: narrator of Night/ orthodox Jew in Hungary / is a devout student of the Kabbalah and the Jewish religion
Shlomo Wiesel: Elie's father/ owner of a successful business in the Jewish community
*These are really the only two "main" characters. There are a variety of other characters who come and go to serve a variety of literary purposes, but Elie and Shlomo are the only real constants.*

The Plot: Elie Wiesel is a boy who is about to undergo an experience far beyond his maturity level. He lives in what is now Hungary, loves to study the Torah and the Kabbalah and is devoted to his friends and family. However, his life is about to change forever. As winter begins, Elie and his family, along with the rest of the Hungary Jews, are moved into a Ghetto in the city. However, they don't stay there for long, and are soon moved to the concentration camp of Auschwitz. As soon as they arrive, Elie and his father Shlomo are separated from Elie's mother and sisters. He never sees them again. Elie then embarks on a journey that will change every fiber of his being and lead him to question everything he once believed in. His experiences leave just a shell of the person he once was and his faith shattered. This isn't a historical fiction novel, this is a memoir of the very real experiences of the author Elie Wiesel from over fifty years ago.

What I liked: This book is not for the faint of heart. I am glad that I didn't read it until a few years ago because I don't think I was ready for such a powerful book. For me, the horror of Night goes far beyond the grotesque actions of the Nazis: for me, I found the implications of the memoir to be even more shocking than the novel itself. Night makes you question humanity and humanity's actions. How could people, real, living, breathing humans, with families and lives commit the atrocities we see in this book? How could anyone let this happen? And the question that plagues Elie the most: is there a God? And if so, what did Elie do to deserve this hell? I don't know the answers to any of these questions, but that isn't the point. Night was one of the first books that made me really think about humanity as a whole. This book is far more than just a story about the horrors committed by the Nazis. While those stories are some of the most important to tell, Wiesel brought us into his mind and showed us how his faith and humanity were lost for a time. Wiesel was one of the most honest narrators I have ever read because these were his own experiences, his own thoughts. His thoughts, at times, were cowardly and selfish, not brave and kind. It would have been easy for Wiesel to paint himself in a positive light, but he didn't. Wiesel showed us how even he at times turned selfish because that is what he needed to survive. He showed us how the Jews in Auschwitz turned on each other because they all were filled with the same desire to live. There was one scene where I actually felt a little sick where all of the prisoners were forced to run to a new camp by the Nazis because the old camp was liberated by the Russians. Rabbi Eliahou is abandoned by his son when his son thinks that Eliahou won't make it. He decided that his own life was more valuable than his father's. It was sad and gut wrenching and horrifying not only because of the choice the son made but because he was forced to make that choice. As readers, we cannot even imagine what Elie went through and Night brought this world to life. I liked that the story was told in a very personal way because I felt an even greater connection to Elie and the Jews in the concentration camps. On a little bit of a lighter note, I felt like the relationship between Elie and his father Shlomo paralleled that of Amir and Baba in "The Kite Runner". Both of the fathers were successful businessmen who didn't completely understand their sons but they were brought closer by common experiences. The relationship between Elie and his father was one of the only signs of hope and love in Night.

What I didn't like: This isn't so much as a complaint, as it is a piece of advice. This is a very difficult book to read, not intellectually but emotionally. I am not sure if I was ready to read such a horrific, sickening book. You need to be sure you are ready for Night before you begin to read.

Overall: 9 out of 10. I can't give it full points because I can't say I thoroughly enjoyed it. I just couldn't stomach all of it.

Forty Studies that Changed Psychology

Hi there everyone! So today I am reviewing a book that I had to read for my AP Psychology class called "Forty Studies that Changed Psychology: Explorations into the History of Psychological Research", written by Robert Hock. Well without further ado, away we go!

Characters: "Forty Studies" isn't a novel so to speak - it is actually a collection of short case studies about some of the most influential and controversial psychological studies. So I guess you could say that the main "characters" are in fact the psychologists and their teams that conduct these experiments.

The Plot: Again, this doesn't really apply. So instead of doing "the plot" I will give you a sort of breakdown on the types of studies that are covered in the book. Forty Studies is advertised as a sort of beginners guide to psychology. However, the only thing "beginner" about it is that they cover most of the studies beginners learn about. As a reader, you are thrown right into the middle of the studies and Hock certainly didn't hold back. I read the sixth edition of this highly popular book, which has stayed so popular because it has pulled the best studies out of the psychology field. These studies all fall into ten subcategories, which make up ten chapters: biology and human behavior; perception and consciousness; learning and conditioning; intelligence, cognition, and memory; human development; emotion and motivation; personality; psychopathology; psychotherapy; and social psychology. Each chapter has four cases which gives the reader an idea of the distinctive "flavors" of these chapters and of psychology overall.

What I liked and what I didn't like: (I am going to combine these two categories because I am having a hard time breaking it apart) I am going to be totally honest, I didn't agree with all of the studies that were in this book. Some of them, I thought were total codswallop. For example, the study by Bouchard and Lykken which "proved" that people are the way they are because of their genes. That makes it seem to me that we are predetermined to be a certain way, and I don't know if that's true. While I think it is completely possible, and realistic, that genes account for some of our behavior, I believe I am in charge of who I am, not my genes. I didn't like that these studies weren't all completely proven; for some there was more than a little bit of reasonable doubt: there was outright disbelief by some psychologists. Those questions that I had in my mind made it difficult at times to truly appreciate and enjoy the book. However, these issues that I had with the book had more to do with the field of psychology, rather than any particular issue with Hock's writing. I can say this though: while I was reading I was never bored. Each study was totally unique, and even if I didn't really enjoy reading all of them, I was honestly interested in reading all of them. What I particularly enjoyed about Hock's book was the same thing that totally drove me crazy; he included studies that many psychologists disagree with. Hock gave me- a soon to be psychology student -an accurate look at the studies which have shaped the face of psychology, for better or for worse. Hock's book itself was an unbiased look at each study, which was necessary particularly because of the shaky nature of some psychological research. Hock's perspective allowed me as a reader to form my own opinion, because each study had a section where other psychologists expressed their criticisms with the study. Very few studies had no criticisms. I hadn't really thought of psychology as a real "science" until reading this book, but it showed me how even psychologists, whose experiments are very different from that of the "hard scientists" have their own challenges which any scientist must face. I am very happy to have read this book because it gave anyone who is being introduced to psychology a great overview of the subject. Also, Hock had a sort of dry humor that occasionally came out when reading, but it was infrequent and often short. This is not a book for light reading! If I had to make a suggestion to a reader, I would say that you should just page through the book and read the cases that interest you: I had to read them all because of my class, but there definitely were ones that I would have skipped.

Overall: 7 out of 10. Very good psychology introductory book. I won't give it a higher rating because this isn't a book that is going to teach you a lesson, or captivate you with it's characters: it is just an easy to read, introductory, psychology textbook (so to speak).

The Help

Hi everyone! Today I am excited to be reviewing a book that I recently finished called "The Help" which was written by Katheryn Stockett. (I am sure you have probably heard of it: it's a national bestseller and it has been made into a movie which is set to come out on August 10th.) I want to just say this before I review the book. The Help has been subject to some controversy from many different sources, the greatest of which is that Katheryn Stockett was the "wrong author" for this story. There has been strong criticism that this book is just another "white story" and that this is proof that contemporary African American writers are continually denied the opportunity to write about the Civil Rights Movement and other troubled times. I honestly don't really know how I feel about that argument. I am certainly not a naive person; I know discrimination does exist and is a strong part of society even today, and I believe that there could be a better, more accurate story out there. At the same time, I don't think this is Katheryn Stockett's fault, and I am only here to review the book she wrote. The book itself, at least for my purposes, is what is important, not the controversy surrounding it.

The Characters: Skeeter Phelan: recent graduate of college/ wants to be a journalist/ convinces the maids to give information about their experiences as "the help"
Minny Jackson: maid of Celia/ one of the best cooks in Jackson/ is known for having a smart mouth
Aibileen Clark: maid of Elizabeth/ best friend of Minny/ lost her son in an accident at his work
Hilly Holbrook: one of Skeeter's friends/ has a petition to force the black maids to have their own bathroom outside the house/ tries to prevent Minny from getting a job in Jackson

The Plot: In Jackson, Mississippi there are two distinct groups, blacks and whites, separated by the harsh and awful Jim Crow laws. Oppressed and discriminated against, many black women are forced to take jobs as simple housekeepers to rich white families. Aibileen Clark and Minny Jackson are two of these women. Two very different ladies, Aibileen and Minny have survived dozens of homes and raised dozens of white children. While not content with their lives, Aibileen and Minny have almost grown to accept their fate. But when Hilly Holbrook, one of the most powerful women in Jackson, tries to create a petition that would force "the help" to use a bathroom outside of the house, Aibileen finds that her anger was not so far beneath the surface after all. So when Skeeter Phelan, a young college graduate, approaches Aibileen and asks her help in writing a story about the black housekeepers, Aibileen's "no" quickly turns into a "yes". What transpires is a powerful story about the divisions that are put up between the races and a group of women dedicated to show the injustices that are in our world.

What I liked: I finished this book in a day. Admittedly, some parts are a little blurry because I read the book so fast. I just had to finish. I can't remember the last time I got so hooked into a book. For me, The Help showed us a world where racism was very much alive and out in the open, a world where the subtle nastiness towards African Americans wasn't so subtle, a world where the KKK ran rampant, and a world where blacks were afraid to speak out in fear of the repercussions. This is now one of my favorite books. This story had everything I liked to see in a story: the most important of which was strong, complex female characters. You have Aibileen who desperately loves the white children she takes care of because they fill the gaping whole that was left by her son's death. You have Minny who talks back to her white bosses, who is the picture of confidence and sass, yet is abused by her alcoholic husband at home. And you have Skeeter who is completely ostracized by her community and has to deal with her mother dying of cancer. These people, these women were real, and had real problems and that is why I loved them. The Help pulled in so many complex issues and the complex relationships between blacks and whites. What I remember in particular is Aibileen thinking about how odd it is that they, as the black maids, essentially raise the white children, but then as the white children grow up, they become just as racist as their parents. This painful experience for the maids is exemplified by Aibileen leaving her job before the kids got too old because she couldn't bear to see them turn out like their parents. I loved all of the characters in the book, even the devilish Hilly because she symbolized perfectly all that was wrong with Jackson. Each person contributed a small piece to how friendship between blacks and whites was thwarted and discouraged at every turn, and how despite that, friendships prevail. My favorite dynamic was the one between Minny and Celia. Celia, who is Minny's boss through most of the novel, wasn't a particularly classy individual, and was regarded by the women of Jackson as "white trash" but she was a fighter, who for a time had lost her way. Minny helped her find her way back. These women and their situations were real in the eyes of the reader because we know that these issues still exist. We felt the pain of these maids as they pushed against every barrier that was put in their path. Stockett created characters which reflect all of the good and bad inside of the United States and all of the issues we still struggle with today. She made a book that was worth remembering, and worth rereading. Sometimes books become classics because they have grand symbols, or complex language, but some books, like The Help, become classics because they have a story that is worth telling, and characters that are important enough to do it.

What I didn't like: Nothing

Overall: 10 out of 10. I just hope that the movie can do this book justice.

The Devil in the White City

Hi there everyone! So today I am reviewing a book that I had to read for AP Human Geography entitled "The Devil in the White City" which is written by Erik Larson. I have not only recently read it, but I have also written an essay and done a "creative project" with it, so I feel pretty confident that I have a very good understanding of this slightly strange book. Well, away we go!

Characters: Daniel Burnham: leading figure of the World's Colombian Exposition/ one of the most prominent architects in Chicago/ started the "City Beautiful" project
H.H. Holmes: one of America's most notorious serial killers/ creator of the "Murder house" in one of Chicago's burrows/ most often killed his victims in a gas chamber
Fredrick Olmstead: designed Central Park/ head landscaping architect of the World's Colombian Exposition/ frequently suffers from ailing health

The Plot: The Devil in the White City is really a story with two plots. The first "plot" tells the story of Daniel Burnham and his legion of architects who set out to create the greatest World's Fair America has ever known. Burnham and the other aritects do this in response to Paris's impressive World's Fair, and work to top this magnificent feat. Faced with an impossibly close deadline, and obstacles at every turn, Burnham and his team begin to wonder if the fair will ever get finished at all. On the other side of the Chicago, a very different man reigns. While Daniel Burnham and his "White City" represent all that is good in Chicago, H.H. Holmes represents the deep, dark, underbelly of the Chicago slums. A ruthless serial killer, Holmes lures most of his victims into a Murder Castle where he disposes of them with no traces to be found. Full of hope for a great fair, the people of Chicago don't realize that they are harboring a man who will become one of the most famous mass murderers in the history of the United States, until it is too late.

What I liked: Let me just start out by saying that I thought this book was absolutely flawless. I don't normally read a book where I could find no faults, but for this one, I have absolutely no criticisms. First, I was overwhelmed by the sheer volume of research that Larson did to make "The Devil in the White City" absolutely perfect. Every quote that was in this book came from the private journals, public statements, or correspondence of these remarkable historical figures. It would have been very easy to just make up the dialogue of these figures, or make up the arguments that they had, and even to make up events. But Larson did none of that: every single action was supported by real quotes that these historical figures once said. These quotes by themselves gave us as readers a very personal glimpse into what these people were like. I believe that a piece of writing can tell you more about a person than you might think, particularly when the writing is casual, where there is no intention to impress, or sound a certain way. Beyond just the things you say, writing can show us HOW you say them, what words you use, when can tell you a variety of things from education level to hometowns. I absolutely loved all of these quotes which gave me as a reader, a very unique look into the mind of these historical figures, even the minds that were a bit more uncomfortable to look into (H. H. Holmes). I have also never read a story like this before. Such a sharp juxtaposition between two worlds isn't normally written about in such a way. but these two worlds instead of fighting against each other for the reader's attention in the book, seemed to flow seamlessly together to create a beautifully written novel. The detail in these two worlds gave the reader this true image of what Chicago was like in 1893: the good and the bad. The best and the worst of Chicago. Burnham and Holmes. It is easy to write about history and leave out the parts that are convenient for your purpose: like if you are writing to shock people, leave out the good deeds, or if you are writing to glorify, leave out the bad parts. Larson left nothing out: he showed us all of Chicago's perfection, all its imperfection and made Chicago 1893 a real place, not a figment of one. I have also found the World's Fair a fascinating subject; with so much creative explosion and cultural mingling, it must have been a truly amazing place to visit. It was said in "The Devil in the White City" that it would take two whole weeks to see it all. I loved the subject matter, but I could see how some people could find the endless plot of construction a little dull. However, I don't think anyone could find Holmes's portion of the book slow. It had a relentless pace, not unlike Holmes himself. It was absolutely chilling to read the very words Holmes wrote in his memoirs about himself. But I had never read anything like that before, and it was an interesting albeit, disturbing experience.

What I didn't like: Nothing.

Overall: 10 out of 10. This goes down as one of my favorite books of all time. What a flawless and complicated read. I was never bored.

The Appeal

Hi everyone! So today, I am reviewing a book that I finished a few weeks ago entitled: "The Appeal". It is by a rather famous author named John Grisham. He is not only, a very prominent writer, but several movies have been made based off his books. Here we go!

Characters: Wes and Mary Grace Payton: prosecuting lawyers in the Crane Chemical Case/ parents of two young children/ win $38 million in putative damages off the Crane Case
Carl Trudeau: owner of Crane Chemical Company/ responsible for the dumping of toxic materials into the water/is a multi-billionaire
Barry Reinhart: hired by Trudeau to make sure Crane wins the appeal/ specializes in getting the "right people" elected/ plans to unseat justice Shelia McCarthy
Ron Fisk: Reinhart's political pawn/ designed to be an advocate for big business/ ends up making the deciding decision on the appeal case of Crane chemical

The Plot: In a small town in Mississippi, the people know that the water is bad. Not only is it bad, but it is cancerous. Their only hope is a wrongful death lawsuit filed by Jeannette Baker against Crane Chemical Company asking to receive compensation for the deaths of her husband and young son. The town hopes that if Jeannette wins, the water may be ultimately cleaned up and the town's health restored. Against all odds, Baker and her two hardened, hometown lawyers, Wes and Mary Grace Payton, win the suit and a total $41 million in damages. While this is where the story would seem to end, it is actually where the story just starts to pick up. Infuriated that these back country justices robbed him of millions, Carl Trudea, owner of Crane, decides that there can be no uncertainties during this appeal. So he decides to hedge his bets: he hires Barry Reinhart, a so-called "election specialist" to help make sure the appeal results in the "appropriate" result. Reinhart's strategy? Create the perfect justice candidate out of the virtually unknown Ron Fisk and fund him by big business and Christian interest groups and pit him against Shelia McCarthy, a more liberal appeal court justice. Then all Reinhart has to do is make sure Fisk votes with Crane during the appeal. In a furious race to keep McCarthy on the court, the Paytons and the other attorneys in Mississippi will begin to wonder: are big businesses finally meddling in the court systems of this small town?

What I liked: Before I start, I wanted to note something interesting. This is my first John Grisham novel, and right off the bat I liked it very much. But what was interesting is that when I went to Amazon.com to get a picture for the post, I was surprised to see that "The Appeal" only had two and a half stars (out of 5). I found this shocking. I am not sure if that is a reflection on the fact that this is the first Grisham novel I have read and it is not, admittedly, one of his more famous ones, or if it has to do with the fact that I often differ from the Amazon rating. Case in point, "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo" is closer to four stars on Amazon, but I would probably give it no higher than one. So this is just my sort of disclaimer that Grisham may have written far better novels and this may not be his best work. That being said, if this isn't his best work it is still very good. I have never read a novel like this before which is rather surprising. Politics are an unpleasant fascination for me. Politicians and big business interactions can be corrupt and sometimes even disturbing (in a sense that companies have so much influence over our "freely elected" government) yet at the same time, I love learning about politics and still have genuine hope for the system. So for me, the subject matter was truly interesting. While I found the huge amounts of money and bribery to get Fisk support disturbing, it was astonishing to learn how much influence these groups have. I sort of felt the sensation you get when you look at something disgusting and want to look away but you just can't. One of the things I liked about Grisham's writing style was the general lack of fluff: it was direct, and to the point, with the characters developed enough to keep you interested. One of the things I noted when I looked through the Amazon reviews was that an astonishing number of people thought the characters were not well developed. While I understand that their complexity was not something to write home about, I feel like it wasn't so much about the characters, as the interaction of the characters together. It was about big business versus the hometown, not Trudeau versus the Paytons. They simply represented something on a much larger scale. Also, the book certainly kept me guessing: I found the ending surprising and almost a little frustrating (but in a good way). By the way, my dad said that all John Grisham novels have happy endings: readers out there can you comment on this? Because the novel I read (spoiler ahead) did not have a very happy ending.

What I didn't like: This is not an attack on Grisham: I totally understand why he wrote the character the way he was written but I am still furious. Ron Fisk was a complete idiot (sorry but that is the only word that works here). He allowed himself to be wooed by these businessmen and it never occurred to him, he had no inclination whatsoever, to question why in the world these men were funding him! He never thought about the repercussions of his actions and he never thought about what he was doing. Fisk was almost like a kid who jumps into the pool without looking, and without thought of the kid who he jumps on. He didn't seem to have any moral fiber, and when it just seemed like he would get some, he backed up again and proved yet again, what a chicken he was.

Overall: 8 out of 10. I guess I didn't give it higher because there was no "wow" factor like I was expecting out of a John Grisham novel. But I will definitely pick up another Grisham novel in the future.

The Unthinkable Thoughts of Jacob Greene

Hi everyone! So today I am reviewing a book that I read a few weeks ago called The Unthinkable Thoughts of Jacob Greene, which was written by Joshua Braff. So without further ado, here is my review!

Characters: Jacob Greene: younger brother of Asher/ is very good at reading Hebrew/ suffers from a learning disability
Asher Greene: older brother of Asher/ an exemplary artist/ is constantly fighting with his father Abram
Abram Greene: self-absorbed father of Jacob and Asher/ married to Claire/ has serious anger management issues

The Plot: Jacob Greene is a young boy growing up in New Jersey in the 1970s in a repressive Jewish household. Forced to endure not only hours of strict Hebrew school, as soon as Jacob returns home, the worst of his day begins. Jacob's father Abram is obsessed with perfection in his children and he considers everyone in his family, in some shape or form, to be a complete failure. Belligerent, belittling, and cruel, Jacob and his older brother Asher long to escape the world they have lived in for so long. The deep divisions between the family become even more apparent as Jacob's mother Claire returns to school to get her Ph.D. and becomes even more distant from the family. Alone and confused as Asher begins to drift away from him, Jacob starts to wonder if his life will ever get better.

What I liked: I absolutely loved the relationship between Asher and Jacob. The two boys had only each other to rely on, and that reliance created a beautiful and realistic relationship. What particularly struck me about the Asher-Jacob dynamic was that it had both light and dark. There were times when Jacob and Asher fought like normal siblings, where Asher would lock Jacob out of his room, refuse to talk to him, or yell at him like an older brother. But when it mattered most, we as readers knew that Asher was going to come bursting in to save the day. For example, when Jacob is writing thank you notes to the people who sent him Bar Mitzvah gifts, Abram becomes frustrated that Jacob's notes are not perfect, and do not have flawless grammar. Abram becomes so enraged and reaches the point where he is almost physically abusing Jacob when Asher rushes into the room and starts to defend Jacob. Now, a few hours ago, Asher was completely ignoring Jacob. It was this kind of love, that no matter how irritated Asher was he was going to help Jacob, that you really connected to as a reader. It always bugs me when characters and relationships are one dimensional. Jacob and Asher had many levels to their relationship: friends, brothers, occasional partners in crime, and sometimes annoying siblings that live down the hall. But that complexity is so important when you are reading, otherwise the story just gets dull. Second, I found the character of Jacob's and Asher's father, Abram, totally and completely frightening. There are characters in stories that you love to hate, the best example for me being Professor Severus Snape in Harry Potter, but Abram just honestly gave me chills of fear. He was an awful father to his children, by not only acting verbally abusive, but acting as an insolent toddler who didn't get his McDonald's happy meal toy when something did not go his way. He spat, he shrieked, he threatened, he yelled, he cursed, but never in any of the pages did he show true love to any of his children. Jacob, Asher, and Claire's struggle to break out of his vicious hold was awful to watch, and I cheered aloud when Claire told Abram she wanted a divorce. I cheered when Asher got into Rhode Island College on scholarship, and he could finally get away from his evil father. But I was terrified for Jacob, who was now left on his own. Braff's biggest strength was his dynamic, strong characters that no matter how polarizing, always drew you in. Braff also managed to have a strong and witty sense of humor that was present in Jacob's commentary of events, which was nice to see. Otherwise, the story would have been too heavy and too dark.

What I didn't like: Okay, I thought the end scene was really weird, and slightly awkward. I don't really want to spoil the end, but it was not really my favorite scene. I thought it was strange, and kind of uncomfortable, which I guess was the point...but still I felt like it was a bizare addition to the end of the story. I also thought the whole story line with the babysitter was odd as well. These parts just seemed forced, and kind of peculiar, in comparison with what was a well-written, easy flowing story.

Overall: 7 out of 10. I liked the family dynamic, but the story was slow in some places, and there were some awkward writing moments. But overall it was a decent read.

A Tree Grows In Brooklyn

Hi everyone! Well today I have decided to take a break from my intense Harry Potter marathon to write a quick blog. I am doing this Harry Potter marathon as a sort of lead up to the final Harry Potter movie, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2. By the way, my Harry Potter marathon consists of reading every single Harry Potter book and then watching all of the movies. So far I have gotten through "Goblet of Fire" and am reading, for probably the thousandth time, "Order of the Phoenix" (books four and five respectively if you are not familiar with the series. If that is the case, I highly suggest you sprint to the nearest bookstore and save yourself from this serious literary and culture deprivation. I am being totally serious). Anyways, today I am going to review a book that I read while I was at the beach with my family called "A Tree Grows in Brooklyn" written by Betty Smith. And away we go!

Characters: Francie Nolan: fiercely independent/ an avid reader/ desperately wants to finish high school and get into college
Cornelious "Neely" Nolan: Francie's brother/ is Mama's favorite child/ does not want to go to school unlike Francie
Katie Nolan: Francie and Neely's mother/ a hardworking woman who works two jobs to support her family/ has been married to Johnny for over a decade
Johnny Nolan: Francie and Neely's father/ works as a "singing waiter"/ relates more to Francie than Neely
*As a note, this book probably had the greatest amount of characters out of any book I have read. There are a wide variety of characters that could go here, but for simplicity sake I have just included the characters that are truly essential to the story*

The Plot: Francie Nolan has one goal in life: get as much knowledge as possible. She wants to get an education, no matter what it takes. However, that is not so easy when you live in Brooklyn, New York at the turn of the 20th century. Money is so tight in Brooklyn homes, that children are forced to leave school at an early age to support the family and get jobs. Francie's family could only afford for one child to go to school (they needed the other child to earn wages) and against the wishes of both Neely and Francie, Katie picked Neely. Francie however, still really wanted to go to school and would not take no for an answer. She enrolled in summer school and began to study at night to prepare for the college entrance exams. However, Francie begins to lose her idealistic nature as she grows up: the world deals her cruel hand after cruel hand starting with losing her hero, her father, to sickness and his own drunk habits. As her disillusionment grows, Francie begins to question the world around her not only because of how outsiders treat her, but how everyone treats each other because they are from Brooklyn.

What I liked: This was, by far, one of my favorite books that I have read. My mom, who reads my blog every time I have a new post, commented on how obvious it is that I love strong female characters. Francie is another one of those strong female characters, except for at one point which I will get to later. She was stubborn, at times fiercely independent, and had a thirst for knowledge that was very similar to my own. She loved her family and specifically her brother unconditionally, even when her mother treated her second-rate to Neely. I also loved Francie's relationship with her father. Granted, Francie's father was not the most reliable of people and he put a lot of unnecessary strain on the Nolan family but he loved Francie unconditionally. The family dynamic in "A Tree Grows in Brooklyn" was really the sole focus of the story and I loved the interaction between all of the family members. The family dynamic between Katie and her sisters Sissy and Evy was lovely and they, along with the Nolan family, presented this sharp contrast against the seemingly fragmented families around them. Second, I don't think I have ever read a book that had such rich imagery and detail. I felt like I was actual in Brooklyn, walking the streets with Francie. It was unapologetic, and sometimes harsh, but it offered an unfiltered view of Brooklyn at that time. However, I don't want it to sound like Smith was painting this landscape of a place that was filled with desolation and despair. On the contrary - she was able to pull from the seeming chaos and poverty to create a place that in its own way had beauty too. There is a scene near the end of the book where Francie is marveling over just how much she loves Brooklyn and how she is afraid of how she will see it when she grows up. She is afraid that she will lose the ability to see the beauty in the crooked streets and chaos. This love for a city and love for a place really hit home with me. Cities have this almost magnetic draw, at least for me, and I was able to feel that same love for a place when Smith writes. Some people may think that "A Tree Grows in Brooklyn" is slow, and in places it is. But these lulls fit in with the story of Francie's life and it allowed the reader to get immersed in the details and immersed in this life in Brooklyn. Finally, the book had a reasonably happy ending which I liked. I was reasonably happy because it was not a "Twilight ending" (meaning that Smith did not choose to end her novel as Stephanie Meyers does with everyone getting exactly everything they ever wanted with no sacrifice and disappointment and a lot of over the top happiness to go around. Can you tell I am not a "Twihard"? I cannot believe I just used that word). Instead, Smith left us with not only a feeling of sadness but a feeling of hope for Francie and the future to come. And really, that is all we can ask for.

What I didn't like: Okay, this part actually drove me crazy. Why in the world would Francie lose her head over a guy (Lee) that she knew for only a week, who was not only leaving the country to go to war, but was also engaged. I don't have a problem with her liking him, but she acted like she was in love with him, completely losing her head. It was also for just a week. Totally out of character. Also, I didn't really understand Katie Nolan's crazy reasoning for why she liked Neely better than Francie. Katie said that she liked Neely better because Francie was "weak" (at least at first) and Neely was exactly like her husband Johnny but she could mold him to be better. She even made Neely go to high school when he did not want to go and refused to allow Francie to go to high school even though she actually wanted to attend. I did not really understand where she was coming from or where her logic was at at all.

Overall: 9 out of 10. I am not taking off points because Francie lost her head, but rather because I didn't always enjoy the Neely-Francie-Katie dynamic. But overall, I absolutely loved this book.

Their Eyes Were Watching God

Hey blogosphere! I'm back! I know, you did not expect me for another month or two, but I decided to be proactive while I wait until I can eat lunch. Today, I am reviewing the last of my AP Language novels, "Their Eyes Were Watching God" by Zora Neale Hurston. Away we go!

Characters: Janie Crawford: heroine of the story/ is married three times/ is looking for more out of her marriage than just security
Logan Killicks: Janie's first husband/ wants to have Janie do a lot of work around the house/ is much older than Janie
Joe Starks: Janie's second husband/ dies a decade after he married Janie/ wants to control Janie and keep her as a trophy wife
Tea Cake: Janie's last husband/ moves to the Everglades with Janie/ teaches Janie how to shoot a gun

The Plot: Janie Crawford isn't looking for just security in a relationship: she is looking for something more. But her grandmother, out of fear that Janie will end up just like her mother, marries Janie off to an old man (Logan Killicks). Janie fears her chances to find true love are lost forever. Only months after her first marriage, Janie runs off with Joe Starks in the hopes that she can create a new life, one where there will be mutual love and respect between both husband and wife. Instead, she becomes Joe's trophy wife and is belittled and mistreated by him. Over a decade later, Joe dies and Janie fears that she will never know true love and happiness. But Tea Cake, a man of almost no money and importance comes into her life and changes everything. Through all her relationships, Janie goes on the journey of self discovery until she finally reaches the point she had only dreamed of: true independence.

What I liked: I really liked this book. First, I want to talk about the format of "Their Eyes Were Watching God". (From now on I'm just going to refer to the book as "Eyes") The book is written in this sort of free-flowing dialogue with this distinctive, flavorful dialect. I believe that this dialect gives "Eyes" its heart and soul. It gives the novel a greater substance than most novels. Novels like "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn" and "Eyes" have rich dialect that take the reader into a time and place quite different from their own. However, there are moments where we get into the character's minds for long passages where the dialect completely disappears and a more educated narrator tells us Janie's thoughts. For example, we learn what Janie is thinking when she is "coping" with Joe's death. I used quotes around coping because Janie isn't really too sad about it. Anyways, Janie talks about the "veil" which separates the grief she projects to the outside world from the actual relief that she feels inside. These moments give a sort of clarity to what goes on in the characters minds that can be occasionally lost through the dialect, which can be challenging at times. Also, the Janie of the story would not be able to provide this beautiful allusion; the narrator of Janie's thoughts can. I also really liked that as a woman, I can relate to this story. Not so much the married three times part, thankfully, but the self-discovery and independence that Janie yearns and searches for. I identified with Janie because she was never satisfied with an average life; she wanted extraordinary and that drive really resonated with me. With both Logan and Joe she had a "safe" position in life but that was not good enough for her. She looked to find something greater in both her relationships and life. She looked to find her voice, and her spirit. That journey was the reason why I rooted for Janie so hard; I wanted to have her find herself like every person should. I also loved the ending. *SPOILERS AHEAD* Janie ends up shooting Tea Cake when he becomes infested with rabies and tries to kill her. Tea Cake dying was kind of a blah moment for me because he was not really my favorite character, more on that in a moment, but how Janie was finally able to assert herself and no longer truly live in submission to her husband. Also, the way that she stood up in court and defended her love for Tea Cake was a beautifully written ending, in my opinion. Lastly, Mrs. Turner was a truly awful character, and I am so glad that she was included. Mrs. Turner is a black woman that likes to spend time with Janie because she is "whiter" than the other blacks. (Janie is half white and half black). It was awful to see how she put Janie up on a pedestal because she was half white and vehemently hated her own race because they were "too black". It was such an awful portion of the book but it was so essential to see the struggles that Janie and others like her go through.

What I didn't like: Tea Cake was not my favorite character. He gambled a lot, he tried to "protect" Janie, and then he ended up hitting Janie to show Mrs. Turner that Janie was still his. I was not a fan. He just did not behave in a way that made sense for Janie to idolize him like she did. It also was completely out of character for him to hit Janie. I don't believe that he would actually do that if Tea Cake and Janie were real characters. Tea Cake adored Janie. He wouldn't hit her. Ever.

Overall: 8 out of 10. It would be higher but Tea Cake hitting Janie made me mad. Overall, beautifully written book by Zora Neale Hurston.

The Scarlet Letter

Hi everyone! Well it has really been a while. In my defense, I have been busy what with homework. But that's all behind me because now it's summer!!! No more school work. Just kidding, like I could get that lucky. Apparently, the summer assignments for my classes are MASSIVE, but at least there are a lot of books on the summer lists. Better for blogging right? But as kind of a flashback, I am doing a book that I read in AP Language last year, called "The Scarlet Letter". Maybe you've heard of it (wink wink). Apparently it's an "American Classic" and let's just say I do not share that opinion. I digress! Let's start at the beginning shall we?

Characters: Hester Prynne: bearer of the "Scarlet Letter"/ mother of Pearl/ is ostracized by the Puritan society that she lives in
Arthur Dimmesdale: minister of the Puritan church/ is much loved by the community/ is the father of Pearl
Roger Chillingworth: Hester's husband/ is much older than Hester/ aims to enact his revenge on whomever is Pearl's father

The Plot: In the rigorous Puritan society of New England, Hester Prynne has committed the most serious of offenses. An adulterer, she is now forced to wear a red "A" for the rest of her days and is henceforth shunned from Puritain society. Hester is told that her punishment will be easier if she speaks the name of her conspirator, but she refuses to give up the identity of her lover. Her lover, is none other than the beloved minister Arthur Dimmesdale who has become consumed by guilt over his and Hester's actions. As Hester is ostracized, Dimmesdale seeks solace in his friend and doctor Roger Chillingworth. However, Chillingworth is no friend of Dimmesdale's: Chillingworth is really Hester's husband and he looks to enact his revenge upon Dimmesdale. In a "thrilling" tale about the true meaning of sin, Hester struggles to find her place in a world that constantly works to reduce her to nothing.

What I didn't like: I know that I usually start off with "What I liked" but honestly, I cannot exactly stomach it at this point. If you notice, I put "thrilling" in quotes when I was talking about the plot of Hawthorne's "classic". Personally, I found "The Scarlet Letter" to be one of the most awful books I've read. I honestly hated it. Now let me clarify what I am about to say here. I do not hate historical fiction. I actually love it. I do not hate Old English. I actually love it, particularly when it is written as beautifully as Shakespeare. I do not hate colonial history. I just hated "The Scarlett Letter". First, there were only three characters, and this god-awful book was about two hundred pages long. Yes, there were other side characters but the book mainly revolved around the interaction between Dimmesdale, Hester, and Chillingworth. I suppose you could consider Pearl, the daughter of Hester and Dimmesdale, a "character", but I have not-for reasons I'll explain in a minute. I felt like the story was grossly stretched out and in places unnecessarily long. Every scene that Hawthorne wrote was loaded with so much symbolism and hidden meanings that I was overwhelmed and did not really see what was important. There were some constant, all encompassing themes, such as the concept of sin, but I was so sick of them because there were no other characters. There should be supporting characters and subplots in any book, like in "The Kite Runner." In "The Kite Runner", there were many other side stories beside the central struggle that Amir goes through. There was the interaction between Amir and his father, Amir's adaptation to his new life in America, and Amir's interaction with his wife. Hawthorne had no side stories, nothing to provide a break from what I thought was a dull rambling story to begin with. I also did not really understand some of the characters actions, in particular Hester. She did not strike me as a particularly strong heroine. She, granted, took her punishment well and bravely, but I felt like her interaction with Pearl was strange. She spent most of her time wondering if Pearl was a fairy. This is why I did not really count Pearl as a character. She seemed, to everyone in the story and to me as well, as sort of...off. She was used by Hawthorne to portray that the innocence of children lets them perceive the truth of matters, rather than what they are told to see. Fine. I like that, I understand that idea. But why did Pearl have to keep being portrayed as this monster or fairy by Hester? I felt like Pearl as a character was very flat. Either she was a fairy or an all-seeing child who clearly understood complex matters. I was not a fan of that idea. Also, Dimmesdale is the weakest fatherly character that Hawthorne could have possibly come up with. I was actually cheering for Chillingworth to kill him off. But that doesn't make me dislike Hawthorne as a writer, Dimmesdale served a particular literary purpose, I think to serve as a foil for Hester. They are totally opposite, as Dimmesdale is weak and afraid and Hester is strong and brave. But what I did not enjoy about "The Scarlet Letter" was the structuring of the language. Here I am not talking about complexity: I love Shakespeare and old texts like "A Modest Proposal" by Jonathan Swift. (By the way, "A Modest Proposal" is an absolutely hilarious piece about what the Irish should do to save their country. One of my favorite pieces). But to me, Hawthorne's language did not have this beauty. It was stuffy, and over worked; I felt like there was too much going on. Honestly, by the end I was just sick of the entire novel. The constant discussing about "sin" and "fate" honestly made my head hurt. I was quite ready for the book to be over.

What I liked: This will be pretty short. But in all honesty, even though the characters drove me nuts, I loved how they were very well developed. Besides Pearl, I thought the struggles that Hester and Dimmesdale went through and their own emotional spectrum was very real and believeable. I felt like these were real people, not caricatures of Puritan society.

Overall: 3 out of 10, glad the book is over with. Nathanial Hawthorne, I was sadly disappointed.

Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone

Hey strangers! Well it's Spring Break here, so I figured I would write a quick blog because of all my free time. When I was trying to decide what blog to write, I figured I would just stick with my current Harry Potter trend. Let me explain: yesterday I watched the Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part I movie, and today I have been playing my Lego Harry Potter video game. Yes, my life is awesome. Anyways, I figured I would do a review about the book that started it all, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone! And away we go.

Characters: Harry Potter aka "The Boy Who Lived"/ the son of Lily and James Potter who were murdered by Voldemort/a new arival at Hogwarts
Ron Weasley: Harry's best friend/ one of seven children/ is very gifted at wizard's chess
Hermione Granger: a muggle born first year who is also in Gryffindor/ the most talented first year in the entire school/ originally doesn't have very many friends

The Plot: Harry Potter has always wanted to be special. Orphaned by his parents, neglected by his aunt and uncle, and humiliated by his cousin Dudley, Harry hopes that one day he will leave and never come back. That day comes sooner than he thinks. When mysterious letters keep arriving addressed to him, Harry can hardly believe that this is the chance he has been waiting for. But when his aunt and uncle hide the letters, Harry is afraid that he will never get to read them. But when the half-giant Hagrid finally rescues and gives Harry his letter, he can hardly believe what he reads. He is a wizard, and he is going to attend Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry. Once there, Harry teams up with Hermione Granger, a brilliant student, and Ron Weasley, Harry's loyal best friend, to figure out what exactly is in the third floor corridor. As forces battle them at every turn, Harry, Ron, and Hermione will embark on a course of events that will eventually lead them to Harry's parents' killer, Lord Voldemort himself.

What I liked: I am just going to come out and say it. I love Harry Potter. It can do no wrong in my eyes. I would even go so far as to say that I have a hard time understanding why anyone could not love the book. First, it is so funny. Harry Potter is witty, clever, laugh-out-loud funny and you never know when or where the humor will get you. Ron Weasley's older twin brothers Fred and George are the most mischievous, hilarious pair in the entire novel. While their role in Sorcerer's Stone was largely limited, they become more and more prevalent as the Weasley family quickly becomes Harry's true family. Second, this book is one of those novels that anyone can pick up, read, and relate to. I feel like that is a quality that is largely undervalued in literature. Books are so set in certain categories: there are very few novels that can transcend barriers and can appeal to anyone. For example, Pride and Prejudice. I absolutely adore the book, but I cannot talk to my brother about Pride and Prejudice. He would probably ignore me. But we can talk about Harry Potter. We both love the books (even if he wouldn't admit it) and we can talk about them with each other. It even works with people who are not in my generation. My mom and my grandparents have read Harry Potter and they love the books as much as I do. Third, this is one of, if not the most creative book I have ever read. Seriously who thinks up Quidditch? (For those who don't know it's basically the wizarding world's sport where teams fly around on broomsticks trying to throw the quaffle in three gold rings while a keeper defends the hoops. Bludgers fly around trying to knock the players off their brooms, while Beaters try and hit the bludgers at the other team. Finally, the seekers try and catch the fast moving snitch which ends the game and awards your team 250 points). Now who in the world would come up with that? Sorcerer's Stone is like a labyrinth. For every layer that you go deeper into this novel there are more complex characters, places, plot lines and wizarding things that draw you in. This world has captured my heart in a way that no other book has since. Harry Potter really was a part of my childhood. I have read every book at least five or six times, and sometimes I will just take them out and read my favorite parts. The last movie will be coming out soon and with that Harry Potter is over and that makes me sadder than I should probably admit. Specifically to this book though, I absolutely love the final "levels" that Harry, Ron, and Hermione have to go through in order to find the Sorcerer's Stone. It not only accentuates each of their talents but it shows the cooperation and bond they have that will span all seven of the novels.

What I didn't like: See above sentence 3 in "What I Liked"

Overall: 100000 out of 10. Gryffindor for life. This will be one of the books that I will make my children read.

The Grapes of Wrath

Wow I'm sorry to say that it has been almost a month since I last wrote on my blog! I feel bad, but hey, all that matters is that I'm here now. Part of the reason it has taken so long is because I am reviewing the books I read in AP English (because I don't have time to read anything else). But the book I am about to review is about 500 pages long. So readers be warned: this one is not for the faint of heart: it takes true dedication! So without further ado, here is my review of The Grapes of Wrath written by John Steinbeck.

The Plot: Tom Joad has just finished his prison sentence and wants to rejoin his family. Eager to put his past behind him, he hopes that he will be able to continue out his existence in peaceful relaxation. But in the two years that he has been in prison, much has changed. In the heart of the Dust Bowl, the Joad family was pushed off the family farm and is now homeless and without work. Desperate, the Joad family decides to move to California in a last ditch attempt to find a chance at prosperity. They join the millions of other migrants who have been kicked off their farms, making the journey to the promised land of California. The journey will test them more than they could have ever imagined. Stricken by poverty, causalities and sickness at every turn, the Joad family will continue to ask themselves if there is any way they will ever find a permanent home again.

Characters: Tom Joad: recently released inmate/ oldest child of the Joad family/ is the toughest of the Joad men.
Ma Joad: the true center of the household/ keeps the family together on the trip to California/ tries to keep the spirit up of the family
Al Joad: Tom's younger brother/ a very good mechanic/ is described as "tom cattin'" around
Casy: a former preacher/ likes to think about how everyone is part of the "greater soul/ in the end helps Tom to realize what he should be doing with his life

What I liked: I have to credit this first statement to my Aunt Joanne: she said that after she read Grapes of Wrath she remembers thinking that it was great literature. For me, that perfectly describes the feeling I had while reading this book. I am lucky enough to be studying about the same period in AP Us History, so I understand the context of what Steinbeck was writing. It allowed me to grasp this whole other dimension of Steinbeck's writing. The context I gained allowed me to appreciate not only the struggles of the Joad family but also the atrocities committed on a grander scale. What I really loved is that I had never read any book like this before in my life: I had never read anything about this period, with this story line, or even these concepts. That is what I enjoyed the most. I gained insight into a time of true peril. There was so much apocalyptic imagery in this novel. Filled with riots, floods, fires, and death, this book seemed like it was telling us the story of the end of the world. I can only imagine the pain of the people who actually lived through that time. This book was also divided up very differently. Steinbeck actually had two stories, of a sort, going on at one time. He had the story of the Joad family one chapter, and then the next chapter would show the story of the Joads in a greater context. In these chapters, you heard nothing about the Joads: rather it expanded upon the scenarios which had just befallen the Joads and showed how this was not an isolated incident. Rather, it was a part of the collective whole. On the actual story of the Joads, I thought that this poor family had to deal with the worst of circumstances. SPOILER ALERT: 3 + people die, 2 people leave, some are abandoned, some get sick, and some come out of this experience with a very different view of the world. My favorite characters were Tom and Casy. I liked Ma and Pa as well because each wanted to keep the family together no matter what, which I thought was important.

What I didn't like: Rosasharn is the worst character ever. I hated her. She was so whiny, had such a distorted outlook on the situation, and just complained the entire time. I also found her "transformation" at the end a bit unsettling. Also, I didn't like the ending. I found it to be rather anti-climatic. I understand it was symbolic and what not, but the book had been full of symbols for 400 pages. I think we as readers should get a bit of a reward for sticking with the novel so far. And by reward I mean an ending which actually leaves the reader feeling a sense of closure, good or bad. This just felt like there was a chapter missing.

Overall: 9.5 out of 10. The ending I just cannot get over no matter how much I work around it.

A Study in Scarlet

Hey blogosphere! So I am back to blogging because I finished my homework and I have some time to kill before my brother's basketball game...GO GRIZZLIES WOOT WOOT! But anyways I decided to review one of my favorite books of all time, A Study in Scarlet, by my favorite author of all time, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. A Study in Scarlet is the first Sherlock Holmes novel written by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle and it is one of my favorites! As a side note, if you like Sherlock Holmes check out the BBC show titled "Holmes" which is a modern take on the Sherlock Holmes stories. Brilliant, clever, and witty, "Holmes" is the epitome of good television. The only bummer is that the producers only make three episodes at a time so I have to wait until next year for the new set of episodes! Also the movie Sherlock Holmes with Robert Downey Jr. is a good one to watch but with one glaring defect. Holmes has a love interest in this movie but Holmes (in the real writings) doesn't have love interests seeing as he is "married to his work".

Characters: Sherlock Holmes: brilliant detective/ is in need of a roommate/ is a master at the science of deduction
John Watson: an ex-military doctor/ comes back to London after the end of his service during the war/ decides to be a roommate with Sherlock Holmes
Detective Inspector Lestrade: grudgingly asks for Holmes help/ tends to have Holmes meddle in his cases/ works actively with Holmes and Watson on this particular case

The Plot: John Watson is finally back in London. After several years serving as a military doctor, Watson has returned to his home in the hopes of opening his own practice. However, his attempts to do so are put on hold when he discovers that his new roommate, Mr. Sherlock Holmes, is a "consulting detective". Mr. Holmes soon informs Watson that as the "only one" (consulting detective) in the world that he is often asked by the police for his assistance on cases where the police are incompetent (which in his esteemed opinion is always). Watson doesn't expect to see Holmes in action very soon but when a mysterious man ends up dead in an abandoned house with the word "Rache" written next to his body, Watson decides to come along. As his awe of Holmes grows, Watson begins to discover more about the man who would become a literary legend.

What I liked: I have officially decided that Sir Arthur Conan Doyle is my favorite author of all time. He created the most brilliant, witty, and darkly humorous character of any genre or generation in Sherlock Holmes. While as a reader you are in awe of Holmes, what you should really be in awe of is Sir Conan Doyle. He created this maze of circumstances that leave you with no idea what will come next. He can weave a story that is so thick with intrigue and mystery that you are, like Watson, completely in the dark as to the final solution of this great puzzle but are enjoying the ride so much you couldn't care less. Sherlock Holmes is an icon in the mystery world. His character represents the brilliance that we long to see in ourselves. In my forensics class when we learn about the "power of observation", all I can think about is Sherlock Holmes. I also love Watson as a character. I like that Sir Arthur Conan Doyle didn't make Watson afraid of Holmes or threatened by him. Instead of being a character that conflicts with Holmes, which Watson does sometimes don't get me wrong, he is more of a foil to Holmes. They are perfect together. It's like peanut butter and jelly. Each one by itself is great but together they are unstoppable. I had always wanted to read Sherlock Holmes but I had no idea that I would love these stories as much as I did. I am absolutely sure that I will never read a mystery story that captures the mind like the Sherlock Holmes stories do. A Study in Scarlet is the perfect opening to any serious reading of Sherlock Holmes. It gives you a taste of Holmes's brilliance and Sir Doyle's writing style. This book has one of my favorite passages of any book. Holmes is explaining to Watson why he (Holmes) doesn't know "pointless facts" such as why the Earth revolves around the sun. Holmes compares the mind to a vast library and that he has specific books he needs to get to in order to do his job and any useless information will simply prevent him from getting there. This really resonated with me mostly because I think it is so true. For school especially I jam my mind with useless facts in order to do well on tests. I want to be a curator of a museum when I grow up. In order to do that job effectively, do I really have to know how to find the inverse of a function? Of course not. It's this simple, yet brilliant logic that resonates with the readers of Sherlock Holmes. Holmes's deductions that he makes based off people at first seem implausible. The reader wonders if Holmes is making it up. But then Sir Conan Doyle shows us the "path to enlightenment" if you will: he shows us the simple solution that so escaped our previous attentions. One side note, I love that Holmes is an imperfect character. If you have read any of my blog reviews so far, I love multi-dimensional characters. I think this is because we as humans are not perfect so why should the characters in stories be? The greatest heroes of the ancient legends all had an Achilles Heel or some sort of flaw that makes them imperfect and relatable. Holmes's is that he has a drug problem. He says it is because when he is bored he has to find something to do. While I don't condone drug use at all, I like that Holmes is imperfect. It annoys me when modern day Holmes adaptations release a Sherlock Holmes story where he is some fuddy-duddy character that doesn't have Holmes's darkness. By doing so, you remove a part of the Holmes persona that is essential for the true Holmes experience. That is an experience you don't want to miss.

What I didn't like: That it wasn't longer. I could read Sherlock Holmes for hours.

Overall: 10 out of 10. The only group of books that I love as much as this is the Harry Potter series.

The Great Gatsby

Hey everyone! So I was doing my homework, minding my own business, being very productive when I discovered that I had a weekly for PreCalculus to do. So in my head I go "A weekly? No Problemo!" Wrong...very, very wrong. I seem to have hit a dead end and I have literally no idea how to proceed. So while I was an utter failure at my PreCalculus homework, I figured I would do something productive with my time and write a blog. For this blog I decided to review a book we just finished up in APENG (Advanced Placement English), an American classic, The Great Gatsby by F. Scott Fitzgerald.

Characters: Nick Carraway: recently moved to New York City/ is a cousin of Daisy/ lives next door to Jay Gatsby
Jay Gatsby: in love with Daisy/ is extremely mysterious/ seems to be some kind of mobster
Daisy Buchanan: married to Tom/ she used to know Gatsby when she was younger/ is extremely flighty
Tom Buchanan: is cheating on Daisy with Myrtle/ is a very jealous, self-absorbed man/ has "old money"

The Plot: New York City in the heart of the Roaring Twenties was a very different place than today. In the middle of Prohibition and at the end of World War I, morality seemed to have left New York City and the time for celebration and living without care seems to have arrived. At least that is what Nick Carraway, a new addition to New York City from the Midwest, thinks. After encountering cousin Daisy (who lives in the fashionable, "old money" center East Egg), Nick begins to adjust to his life on West Egg the place where the up-and-coming live. There he meets Jay Gatsby, a man with not only a few secrets but with a secret plan that no one could have guessed. As Nick delves further and further into New York's society he begins to see sins from lust to gluttony to greed and vanity, of the people of New York and how strangely artificial these times seem.

What I liked: This book completely took me back to the Twenties. The Great Gatsby completely captured a time and as a reader, I felt like I was completely in the story. If you have read my blog before, you will know that I love historical fiction. I thought I had read good historical fiction before, but I hadn't seen the epitome of historical fiction until I read The Great Gatsby. It is almost indescribable how this book makes you feel. The book was written almost superficially: there was almost no real character development, everyone was fake and their activities were pointless. In any other book, it would have killed any chance of a plot or a decent read. But in The Great Gatsby it fills you with the feeling of emptiness that is associated with that time. As a reader you feel almost hollow and desperate for an escape. I felt almost trapped in this novel, like I was thrown down into a well and was clawing at something real to try and pull my way up. Fitzgerald took me as a reader and put me in Nick's body. Throughout the novel you can see the progression of how Nick feels increasingly trapped in New York society. He is caught between East and West Egg, between Daisy and Gatsby and between Tom and Myrtle. He ultimately realizes that he doesn't belong there and we as a reader feel this progression. I can tell you one thing: I'm glad I don't live in the twenties. People say America today is superficial but I believe that nothing could be as bad as the Twenties. On another note: I absolutely loved Gatsby's character. Fitzgerald made him the most lovable character possible, in my mind. First: he made Gatsby be wealthy by his own merits. Americans love a success story, especially one where the hero works his way from the bottom up. It, essentially, represents everything we believe in. Second: Gatsby had this hope which he clung to even though his whole world was falling apart and we can admire that as readers. Third: he would still do anything for the woman he loved even though she treated him awfully. And finally: Gatsby was a bootlegger. This part may not make sense to you so give me a chance to explain. I think there is a little part of everyone that appreciates the mobsters or the people with absolute power. You respect them because they are so tough, so strong, and that they have this larger-than-life persona. For example, in my U.S. history class my teacher Mr. Jones asked us why we could remember the industrial giants of the time like John D. Rockefeller, Andrew Carnegie and J.P. Morgan but we couldn't remember the names of the founders of unions? Unions were considered to be the "good guys": they combated the injustices of big businesses like the United States Steel Corporation and United States Oil but we still cannot remember their names? They don't capture the imagination like Rockefeller, Carnegie and Morgan do. I believe this is because in a weird way, we love imperfection. We want our characters and people to be less than perfect but we admire their power as well. That's why Gatsby is the perfect character and that is why he makes the story: his imperfection has such perfection that we are instantly drawn to him and we cannot look away until the end.

What I didn't like: I'm just going to come out and say this...I wanted to punch Daisy in the face. I know that is very irrational because Daisy is a character in a book and not a real human being, but seriously. She was willing to let Gatsby take the fall for her crime(not going to say the crime here but if you want to know read the book) and then she ran off with Tom. Her whole persona was flighty, irritating, self-absorbed, inconsiderate, irrational, and a complete and utter mess. I understand why F. Scott Fitzgerald wanted to do this but she almost made me stop reading. It's no wonder that when we had to write an alternate ending in English class, I had Daisy die in prison after Gatsby dumps her, Tom and Myrtle die alone, and Gatsby and Nick moving away from New York City and continuing to make millions. And another thing: I don't understand the purpose of the first chapter. It is not only, unessential for reading the novel, but it confused me so much that it set a bad tone with me as a reader. It took me a few chapters before I was starting to enjoy the book again. Finally, I didn't really understand the significance of Jordan as a character. She didn't add anything to the story and her presence just seemed forced and unneeded.

Overall: 9 out of 10. I had to take off a point because of Daisy but I won't soon forget the feeling The Great Gatsby left me with.