The Things They Carried

Hi everyone! So I know I haven't written for awhile, but since I am done with first semester of this school year, I have a bit of a break. Hopefully, I can spend this time catching you guys up on all of the books I have read. So today I will be reviewing "The Things They Carried" by Tim O'Brien. Here we go!

Characters: Tim O'Brien: protagonist of the story/ member of the Alpha Company/ budding writer
Lt. Jimmy Cross: commanding officer of the Alpha Company/ haunted by the casualties that have been results of his own poor decision making/ in love with a girl named Martha
Norman Bowker: soldier who tried to save Kiowa from drowning in a waste field/ haunted by the death of Kiowa/ commits suicide
Kiowa: native American who is the spiritual leader of the Alpha Company/ is very close to Tim O'Brien/ helps comfort O'Brien after he kills his first soldier
Rat Kiley: doctor of the Alpha Company/ begins to succumb to the gore of the war/ shoots himself in the foot in order to leave the war

The Plot: "The Things They Carried" has no distinct plot that can be followed. It does not really flow chronologically or logically. Instead, "The Things They Carried" is a series of short stories that detail experiences Tim O'Brien has had during the war. However, all of these stories are made up, and the characters are entirely fictional. While the stories may have some basis in reality, O'Brien himself has insisted that these stories are fictional. Each story is used to illustrate a particular lesson or aspect of war that O'Brien wants the general public to understand. This can be confusing because the author is named "Tim O'Brien" and there is a character in the story, also a writer, named "Tim O'Brien". Confusing right? However, Tim O'Brien insists that the character Tim O'Brien is not him. The stories deal mainly with the transformation of the main characters and how war has changed them as people and how they view the society that put them there. "The Things They Carried" provides an in depth, clear look at what these men went through in Vietnam and how they were fundamentally changed and damaged beyond repair.

Okay, I am going to do something a little bit different with this blog. I am going to do the "Things I Disliked" section first, because there is something I just really want to say and then move into the "Things I Liked" section.

What I Didn't Like: I had a really hard time with one of the central ideas of "The Things The Carried". O'Brien says time and time again, that it doesn't matter if the stories are true, what only matters is how they make you feel. I understand that sometimes a story can not really live up to the emotion that you felt in that moment, and that it cannot encompass all you want to say. My grandfather served in the Vietnam War, and I love hearing his war stories when he tells them or lets me read his personal accounts of what happened in Vietnam. Part of what I love is that I know these things happened. I know that these soldiers showed real courage, real love and real compassion in a place where there is just war and death. The pin points of light that you see in all the dark are what remind you that there is good in humanity. But when O'Brien says that the truth doesn't matter, I disagree. The truth is all that matters. You could be portraying something that isn't real, giving us a vision that doesn't exist. His point was to create a novel that showed us all of the complexities of war, and made us a feel a certain way. I understand that he created stories, based in fact, that made the reader understand what these men went through. But to say that the truth is totally irrelevant is a dishonor to the men who fought there. Their stories, their true stories, deserve to be told even if the feeling they evoke is not the particular one O'Brien chose.

What I Liked: Even though based on the previous section, it may seem as if I didn't like the novel, I really did enjoy it. I understood O'Brien's purpose in creating his own stories which could trigger the exact emotion he intended, I just had a hard time with the idea that the truth is not important. However, there were several other stories that I found particularly moving. The first, was the story of Norman Bowker. He has returned from Vietnam and cannot find a job. He finds himself, literally traveling in circles as he thinks about the death of Kiowa whom he was unable to save from drowning in a field of waste. Bowker cannot move on from the death and cannot deal with the grief of seeing his friends die in his arms. He eventually kills himself. This story illustrates all of the problems soldiers faced after the war. No one could understand them, they were alienated from friends and family and could not deal with their grief. They were driven into madness by the deaths of their friends and they lived with their pain alone. This idea can also be seen in the injury of Tim O'Brien. O'Brien is shot, and is taken to a hospital to rest up. However, he feels this awful disjoint where he cannot even live a peaceful life because he actually misses the war. He can no longer fit into regular life and finds himself constantly trying to find his way back to the Company. I asked my grandfather about this, seeing as he served in the war, and he said it was different for him. He was what they call a "career soldier" meaning that he continued to serve even after Vietnam. He says it helped him deal with no longer being part of war, while still having his company to understand his pain and grief. One of my favorite stories is when O'Brien goes back to the field where Kiowa died, and he cannot find any trace of the field where the horror occurred. Instead, he finds a clean river, and he swims in and put an item of Kiowa's in the water. O'Brien's daughter who is with him, cannot understand what he is doing and cannot comprehend the extent of the demons which are still haunting her father. This reminds us all that no matter how much we think we know, no matter how much we think we understand, we cannot ever understand the horrors that these men went through. As O'Brien is leaving he looks across the river and sees a Vietnamese man and the two nod at each other. The daughter comments that the man looks angry, and O'Brien corrects her saying "It's all over now". These stories just stay with you. I don't know how, I don't know why, but I remember these stories very clearly. O'Brien has created this story that touches you as a reader with every story. I found myself often thinking of my grandfather and wondering if he went through the same things these characters went through. I loved this story because these soldiers, even though fictional, were so real. They were not perfect, and often terrible soldiers. They were not super human. They were men who were thrown into a world they didn't really understand. I related to these men and cried as they cried, mourned their struggles, and saw the transformation that they underwent. Each of these characters were capable of real cruelty as they had to adapt to a world that distorted all they knew. We discussed this book in class, and some of my classmates thought that by O'Brien showing this cruelty he was saying that the soldiers became totally broken and could no longer feel the suffering of others. I couldn't disagree more. I thought O'Brien was showing that these men couldn't afford kindness, or compassion and had to lock those parts away or they would succumb to the pain. This book was very dark and at times, so depressing that I had a hard time reading. However, just like real soldiers, this book had moments of humor that brought light to this dark world. One of the soldiers is so terrified of the dentist he faints on the spot. In order to prove his own bravery, he sneaks into the dentist's tent in the middle of the night and forces the dentist to remove a perfectly good tooth to prove his own bravery. It is stories like these that remind us that these men are human who didn't lose their humanity or their compassion.

Overall: 9 out of 10. I still find the truth to be important, but I understand why it is not always necessary. O'Brien was concerned with what we felt, not what was true.

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).