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.

They Poured Fire on Us From the Sky

Wow I am really being productive this New Year! Two blogs in two weekends! I am good! I have taken a break from studying from my finals in order to deliver this lovely blog to you. For this blog, I decided to review "They Poured Fire on Us From the Sky: The true story of three Lost Boys from Sudan" by Benson Deng, Alephonsion Deng, and Benjamin Ajak with Judy A. Bernstein. I actually got this book last year when I was busy writing my survivor paper for English II. In the paper, I had to write about three survivors, from three different sources and what they had to use to survive. For one of my sources, I decided to use this book. I ended up reading only half of it because that was all I needed to write the paper. So this morning, I picked up this book and finished it, and then decided to review it before the Steelers-Ravens game. BLACK AND YELLOW LET'S GO! But anyways, here is my review of They Poured Fire on Us From the Sky by Benson and Alphonsion Deng and Benjamin Ajak with Judy A. Bernstein.

Characters: Benson: One of the Lost Boys of Sudan/from Dinka/is the oldest of the three narrators
Alepho: Another Lost Boy/he is the younger brother of Benson/is very sick throughout the entire novel
Benjamin: the final Lost Boy who narrates the novel/he is the cousin of Benson and Alepho/has a terrible injury in his leg where a splinter, the size of his hand,
entered his knee

The Plot: Benjamin, Alepho, and Benson each lived the life of the average African boy. They stayed with one of their father's wives, hunted animals, and worked towards becoming a man. In Sudan, that was their life, and that was all they grew to expect. Little did they know that they would become men much sooner than they thought. All that changes when the Murahiliin, a group that is a part of the Second Sudanese War, attack their village. Forced to flee for their lives, Benjamin and Benson run into the African deserts at the ages of five and nine. Seven year old Alepho flees shortly after. What started as a journey to reunite with their family, this novel follows the lives of three incredibly young narrators as they face starvation, dehydration, murder, war, genocide and torture at every turn. Traveling thousands of miles in the hopes of reuniting with one another, the question on all three of these boys' minds is: will we ever be safe again?

What I liked: Oh my God. Words cannot even describe what these boys went through. For me, this was very difficult to read. This world that I had a privilege of reading about was so very unlike my own that it was almost disconcerting. Alpheo, Benjamin, and Benson lived in a world of poverty even before war descended on their village. This took place in the late '80s and the early '90s, yet these boys had fathers who had multiple wives, lived without water or even brick and mortar houses. They Poured Fire on Us From the Sky (from now on I'm writing this as TPF) offered a personal account of life in Africa for the majority of the population. While Sudan is definitely more war-torn than other nations in Africa, the conditions don't vary drastically from nation to nation. There is one, very disgusting part at the beginning of the book which I won't talk about here but let's just say it puts into perspective how little education people receive in these countries. Then the war begins, and Alepho, Benjamin and Benson are literally left to fend for themselves in the middle of Africa. They lose complete contact with each other multiple times, and they never see their parents again. They walk for thousands of miles, are tossed from refugee camp to refugee camp avoiding soldiers from both waring groups which will enslave them, force them to work in the military, or kill them. Each battles sickness, injury, violence, and the constant pain that comes without having food or water for weeks at a time. The survival skills these boys employ and their desire to live was striking. However, the most powerful survival skill of all, was hope. Faced with impossible conditions, each retained the hope that they would find their family again. Alepho, Benjamin, and Benson were all under ten years of age when these events started but the events are presented as clear as if they occurred yesterday. This book was so well written and presented through the simple eyes of three children, you had a clear visual of the awful world they were forced to live in. I think the hardest part of the book for me was reading about the conditions in the refugee camps. Children were literally starving, fighting for water, women and girls were raped if they gathered fire wood after hours and the UN wasn't properly managing food, supplies, or medicine. Lice and diarrhea ran rampant and you were lucky if those were the only diseases you caught. Nothing was being done. It makes you question why we do the things we do. I am referring here to government. We sometimes get so caught up in our own lives and interests that we lose sight of the plights of others. I don't want to be that kind of person, and this book has made me realize that sometimes you need to look beyond what you need. I felt an almost unreasonable anger when I read this book. I wanted to know why the United States didn't do more. Throughout this book, the Lost Boys talk about the U.S. and how great it is, and when we send any help it is considered amazing and great. However, as a reader, you become painfully aware of how little we really did. These boys, all of Sudan, and all of the poor suppressed look to the U.S. as a symbol of hope and I think we as a nation lose sight of that sometimes. We allow our fear, and the size of a problem sometimes deter us from what truly matters. People would probably tell me that it is far more complicated than I can understand because I am just a high school girl, and that the affairs of government are more complex than I can comprehend. Maybe so. Maybe that is why I question why we involved ourselves so completely in a War with Iraq when there was already one starting in Sudan. Yes, I know we thought they had nuclear weapons and I know that their dictator was crazy, but why can't we focus on helping the people of Sudan? Why can't we focus on fixing wars instead of starting them? Why can't we try to help the Alephos and the Benjamins and the Bensons of this world. Perhaps it is naive to think that we can fix their problems. But I live here, and I was brought up to believe that the U.S. is the home of the brave and that we are great because we are American. And throughout the whole book, I got this feeling that maybe we had lost sight of that. We have lost sight of the fact that we have been, welcome or not, given this right of being a protector, and it is time we become that type of leader these people need us to be.

What I didn't like: Occasionally, I lost track of the book because it switches narrators so often. But that would be it.

Overall: 9 out of 10, not perfect because of the narrator switching issue. I am so, so lucky to live in the place I do, with the people I do, in the land I do. Americans and I should never lose sight of the fact that we are privileged beyond belief, and we should help those who are not as privileged as ourselves.

The Kite Runner

Happy New Year everyone! Well seeing as I finished my homework a little early today (weird right?) I decided to write on my blog before I worked on my brief for the Youth and Government Conference. So much nerdiness, so little time. But anyways, I decided to review a book that I read a few years ago which a few of you might have heard of, called "The Kite Runner." That was an understatement, a rhetorical technique which I just did an assignment on! I guess Mr. Aldridge was right, I do use rhetorical strategies during my daily life. The Kite Runner is an International Bestselling book and is critically acclaimed. Unfortunately, I read this book years ago, so my memories are a little fuzzy. Bear with me though as we bulldoze through this and so without further ado I shall review The Kite Runner written by Khaled Hosseini.

Characters: Amir: lives with his father in Afghanistan/leaves Afghanistan to live in California/loves to fly kites
Hassan: servant to Amir's father/Amir's best friend/loves to run after the flown kites
Assef: the most hated boy in Amir and Hassan's neighborhood/rapes Hassan/joins the Taliban after they rise to power
Baba: Amir's father/a man of prominence who is forced to move to California/is forced to work low paying jobs and dies of cancer
Rahim Kahn: Baba's business partner/the man Amir considers to be a father/convinces Amir "to make things right"
Sohrab: son of Hassan/is captured by the Taliban in Afghanistan/is desperately trying to survive

The Plot: Amir and Hassan were best friends despite their differences. Amir was cowardly, Hassan was strong. Amir was good at flying kites, Hassan was good at chasing after them. Amir was a Pashtun boy while Hassan was a Hazara, the shunned ethnic minority. Amir could read while Hassan could not. The boys watched movies together and were always supposed to be best friends. Until one night after a kite runner competition, something happens to Hassan, something too terrible to even be acknowledged by Hassan. But Amir saw what happened and said nothing, and did not try and stop Assef from hurting Hassan. He was too afraid. Eaten up by guilt, Amir frames Hassan for stealing to force him to leave his father's employment so Amir will never have to see Hassan again. But when the Soviet Union takes over Afghanistan, Amir and his father flee first to Pakistan, then to California. There, the two men make their lives in a new world. But Amir cannot escape Hassan and almost twenty years later, Amir gets what he has been waiting his whole life for: a chance to make amends.

What I liked/What I didn't like: I am going to do the same thing here as I did for Catch 22 where I combine all of my thoughts into one big section just because it was so long ago that I read it, it helps to let it flow all out at once. First off, let me just say that I don't usually cry in books. I have certainly felt sad while reading the book and I have certainly empathized with the characters but I don't usually cry. I cried twice while reading this book. Three if you count the end which was more of a happy tears welling up in eyes. The first was when Hassan gets raped by Assef, Amir does nothing and Hassan carries on even though both he and Amir know what happened. The fact that those events could happen to someone, was completely heart-wrenching, and that Amir did nothing was too much to stomach. The second time I cried was when Sohrab stops speaking to Amir (for reasons which become clear if you read the book). The third and final time, which was a happy welling up of tears is when Amir and Sohrab have a moment of understanding. This book was powerful for so many reasons. Not only did it portray a time that was horrendous, frightening, and terrifying, it gave you characters that were full of light and darkness. Look at the narrator, Amir. Amir was loved by his father, but it was tough love. He was immature, selfish and inconsiderate and that is why he failed Hassan when he needed him most. I hated Amir for doing this to Hassan, the constant taking him for granted and not telling his father when Hassan gets raped by Assef. In Amir's quest to save Hassan's son Sohrab, Amir finally is, in a sense, able to repent for his sins. This book was about life coming full circle and how you never really leave your past behind and while I think Amir's life has come full circle, saving Sohrab didn't really save Hassan, rather it lessened Amir's guilt. I believe though that Hassan would have gladly traded his life for being saved than let his son's life be spent in a living hell. That may not make any sense but I guess I think that Amir is still repenting, and still should repent for the great injustice he caused Hassan. But, wow this was a great story. The writing was beautiful and I learned more about Afghanistan culture than I ever had before. This book gave me a window into a time and place that made me glad I live where I live with the people I do. But even through all the darkness present in this book, there was an underlying sense of love for a country, and for the common people who lived there regardless of the leaders. That was truly magical. I loved the ending as well. I feel like any other way than how Khaled Hosseini ended it would have ruined the book. I am not going to tell you the ending because I want you to read it for yourself. When I read this book, I hadn't really expanded my literary horizons. I have read a lot of fiction, which is fine, but didn't really, for the most part, challenge me or give me a true literary experience. The Kite Runner expanded my literary horizons and because of this book I am still expanding them today. Because now, I want to read another book as rich as this and generic fiction just won't do, and it won't satisfy me. I am looking for more books like this one.

Overall: 10 out of 10. Thank you Khaled Hosseini for waking me up.

Stardust

Back again! I am on a roll with the blogging. I am making up for my blog slacking-ness I'm telling you. Anyways, I am reviewing a book that I finished reading a little while ago because I had actually already seen the movie and was curious how the two compared. I tend to do this a lot. If I have seen the movie, I'll want to read the book and vice versa. Usually it's the other way around but anyways, without further ado Stardust by Neil Gaiman.

Characters: Tristran Thorn: hopelessly in love with Victoria Forester/goes hunting for a falling star/is not entirely human
Yvaine: actually a fallen star/is very annoyed that Tristran has captured her/wants desperately to return back to the sky
The Witch-Queen: one of three extremely powerful witches/hunts Yvaine in order to harness her power/wishes to become young again
Lord Septimus: wishes to become the next ruler of Stormhold/has killed off most of his brothers/is the one who gets closest to becoming the next king

The Plot: Tristran Thorn is becoming desperate. He has tried everything to win the attentions of Victoria Forester (not a major character but has an important role in the beginning) but to no avail. Then one night as he walks Victoria home, Tristran watches a star fall from the sky. Victoria tells Tristran that if he brings her the star that she will marry him. Tristran travels across the Wall (Tristran lives in a town where there is a "Wall" and once you cross this "Wall" you enter a wrold of magic and faeries) in his village and into the strange land beyond where unbeknownst to him, he was born years earlier. When he manages to locate the star, to his surprise the fallen star isn't a rock: its a human. A human with quite a temper. Annoyed that she has been captured by the likes of Tristran Thorn, Yvaine attempts to escape Tristran's clutches. However, danger lurks at every turn as one of the oldest witch-queens in the land across the Wall pursues them relentlessly, in the hopes of capturing Yvaine and using her to create eternal youth. Also, Lord Septimus wants to find the amulet of Stormhold, which will make him King, even if that involves killing anyone who gets in his way.

What I liked: It is such a cute premise for a story. I thought it was really original how Tristran goes looking for a fallen star to give to his "sweetheart" Victoria. I use the word "sweetheart" in quotes here because Victoria merely tolerates Tristran's presence. But I thought the overall setup of the novel was cute and all of the characters had distinctive personalities that made the book a quick, entertaining read.

What I didn't like: I think I made the mistake of viewing the book and the movie out of order. Honestly, I liked the movie so much better that I had a hard time enjoying Stardust. Now, I am not one of those people that instantly likes the books better or instantly likes the movies better. Harry Potter? Awesome movies and books but books are still better sorry Warner Brothers. The Lightning Thief and Inkheart? No comparison. Sherlock Holmes? Stories are literary genius and while I love the movie, falls short of the book. Twilight? Both awful, and I enjoy torturing myself with watching the movies when they come out. The point is that I am not one of those people who gets freaked out about preserving the artistic integrity of a book. I think that you need to change a story to make it your own because you can never live up to the original words that people fell in love with. That being said, you cannot drift too far or you will alienate your viewing group. But I felt like the Stardust movie took a book that had potential, and turned it into something that was far better than what was originally written. Stardust (movie version) had so much more humor from the secretly gay ship captain, to the hilarious ghosts commentating on their brothers' deaths, there were so many other cute moments that I feel like Gaiman could have reached. All the elements were in place, the ghosts were present and the ship captain, I just felt...sad I guess that those little details weren't there because that is why I fell in love with the story. But I can forgive Neil Gaiman for that. I cannot forgive him for the ending. The witch-queen just decided that she was going to give up hunting Yvaine. Really? That is not only 1. completely out of character and 2. builds you up to this climax that doesn't really exist. You feel almost like you missed some crucial chapter, and just skipped to the feel-good wrap up at the end. Also, Tristran doesn't really choose Yvaine at the end. Victoria tells Tristran she loves someone else and that she'll marry him but she really doesn't want to, and Tristran wises up and decides not to marry her. He doesn't realize she manipulated him and used him and had no intention of being with him until she tells him. "Oh uh well I guess I'll just marry Yvaine then uh cause I'm afraid of being alone." says Tristran. (Not really but that's what I imagine him saying). Seriously, such an awful ending that I wanted to tell Neil Gaiman to just watch the movie and get ideas for how to fix it.

Overall: 4 out of 10. Missed a lot of attempts for humor and a terrible ending bring this score down but the cute premise and somewhat lovable characters save this book.