Guilt

I finished reading Looking for Alaska by John Green. It was a book about a skinny college student in the south named Miles "Pudge" Halter who makes friends with Chip "Colonel", Takumi, and Alaska. There are some major spoilers in this book and I'll try not to spoil them but Alaska is a very interesting character. Let's just say something happens to her in the book that really affects everyone. That might reveal too much but this post will be a basic analysis of the character Alaska. A claim? I'll claim that she's interesting. It's been a while since I've read the book so I apologize for this stupid post but I need it.

She seems like your typical college student but she communicates rather philosophically. She does not speak very eloquently though. That's what's interesting about her. She's been through a lot. Her mother died when she was young. This traumatized her and put her into a weird state if guilt where she was living in a state of perpetual guilt. This I think made her a deeper person that made her think more, thus resulting in the philosophical words and what not. She has a very weird relationship with Pudge because she does have a boyfriend who is not him, and she is rather loyal to him. However, she does seem to like Pudge as well. This disloyalty I believe lead to the event that changed a lot of things near the middle of the book. Her guilt constantly kept building up until that thing happened. You're probably thinking suicide, that may or may not be it. But all together Alaska Young has a lot of guilt built up.

This post was very bad, and I apologize for it. Alaska has a lot of guilt because she makes mistakes and does not forget them. This is a bad quality that I think can exists in all of us. How we tend to remember bad things more than good things. If we save 100 people and leave behind 1 we'll think about that 1 person we left behind to die our entire life. Like that guy in social studies who got the medal of honor who saved like 75 people and left behind like 15 and he feels like a murderer. It's a very strange quality that can cause massive guilt and self destruction and regret for the rest of a life. It's devastating.

Not Much Change

Our class watched the movie "Stand By Me" directed by some guy I'm too lazy  to look up their name for. In the movie it's a story of a bunch of kids who go off on a journey to find a dead body. They do this to be heroes in the town for finding a body before the police could. I didn't really notice to much of a change in many of the characters. Sure some of them seemed different, but they would have acted that way before had they been in better mood. I thought they would contrast the earlier side of the movie with the later side of the movie, but I guess not.

What I mean is, just look at Gordi, for example. At the beginning he's an aspiring writer and happy kid. At the end he's all serious and stuff. I don't however, think he was permanently scarred by this trip. The reason he pointed the gun at that jerk guy with the stubble whose name I have forgotten was probably just because he was in a horrible mood and he had a gun so.... Bad mood + obnoxious person + gun = Death threats. It's a simple equation. The reason he didn't stand up to him before is because he knew he had no chance when it came to a fight. Now he has a loaded gun, and could send that jerk kid, let's call him  Jimmeth, he could send Jimmeth to the same place that dead kid was, slightly behind where Gordi was standing before he threatened to kill Jimmeth.

How did Teddy DuChamp change? HAH!

Chris Chambers didn't change that much, yet debatably a little. He did seem more vulnerable at the end of the play, but it might be because us learning more about what goes on in his mind so he could have been vulnerable before and have us not having known, heck he even showed it when he was in a fight with Jimmeth near the beginning of the move before they even head out on their massive journey/trek thing.

Vern Whatshisname? He was kinda just there. As you, the only person reading this, and the only person who will read this, Ms. Robbins, said, he's kinda just comedic relief. He seemed the same at the end of the movie that he did at the beginning unless I'm being a uncultured heathen and can't see the obvious changes in Vern's deep and immersive character. But it's late and I'm tired, so for the case of this Blog Post, Vern's just there for comedic relief.

So I don't understand how they supposedly "changed" when their characters emotions and feelings seem to remain the same generally throughout the film, except for learning a bit about some of the characters. I would apply some of the things we did for the conclusion today in this conclusion, but I still have no clue how to relate this to the real world. I-I'm just stuck. Sorry. I really am. I'll say how people are not how the appear to be a lot of the time, and through out the period of 2 hours and rough experiences a lot of the insides of that person (their brain) comes out. So the moral of the story is, Don't book a judge by it's cover.
(did you notice that?) Don't judge a book by it's cover is what I mean to say.

Oh Mercutio, you Joker

In the little humble play called Romeo and Juliet by William Shakespeare, Romeo the son of the Montague family falls in love with the daughter of a rival family, the Capulet's. This daughter's name is Juliet. The Capulet's and the Montague's both despise each other for some reason, but that's not important. What is important is that they are as angry as ever at each other irrationally and are starting to piss off the guy who runs Verona, the Prince. The Prince has a relative named Mercutio, who is Romeo's best friend. This however does not cut the Montague's any slack. This fighting is causing commotion in Verona, and the Prince needs to calm it down. Mercutio is an extremely joking character. He loves to have fun, and treats life like a joke or a big comedy act. Being adventurous, reckless, and foolish. Why is that though does his family life have anything to do with it?

We know very little about Mercutio's background. All we know is that he is the relative of the guy who runs Verona, so he's probably very rich. But, what's he doing? Hanging out with a teenage boy from a family that is causing trouble in a city his brother is managing. Why? He could be doing much more!

We need to understand why people try and make jokes first before we start here. People tell jokes to either get positive attention from people. They try to lighten the mood, They try to feel better about themselves. What if Mercutio was so sad about not being in charge of the city, that he started becoming a Joker? What if the reason why he's so rambunctious and arguably obnoxious was because he was trying to get over being a smaller person in that whole family? These are all inferences but they will have to do because as I said earlier very few details were provided.

What if Mercutio just decided to be a clown on his on decision? What he had no problems at home and he was fine. Then he would have a small excuse for being a troublemaker. If this was the case it might be Mercutio abusing his wealth to play practical joke upon people of Verona. To be able to attend many parties and celebrations. To be able to avoid labor, and bad things and were able to have a spoiled sense of perpetual happiness that would cause his naughtiness? 

Tell me what you think!

Not the Real You

I am currently in the process of reading a little play, you might've heard of it, called Romeo and Juliet by William Shakespeare. It's a story about two teenagers from two families that hate each other that "fall deeply in love" and kill themselves upon finding out they can never be together, Romeo dies because he thinks Juliet is actually dead (she's pretending to be dead so she won't marry someone else.) Then Juliet dies for realsies
the second time because Romeo is dead. So before you go wailing on me saying "WHAT THE HECK, SPOILER ALERT MUCH?" They say all this stuff during the prologue of the play. But you may have noticed my snarky quotation marks when I said that they fell in love. Why did I do that, you may ask. I'll answer it in a post, this post.

Let's be honest considering today's media and display of the American teenager youth, it's hard to take love very seriously anymore. It seems like a joke. You can see people making out on the stairs and have John the security guard yell at them to get a room they giggle and go into the playground, and two days later break up saying that they're ex-[boy/girl]friend is the most evil person on the planet. Teenager are teenagers, and teenagers will always be teenagers and always were teenagers. So what are the chances that they wouldn't have broke up at some point in the next month? Rather dismal.

Teenagers are associated with being rash and immature and a false feeling of superiority and condescendingness that comes along with the new responsibility, yet not taking it and suffering from it too. So some teenagers feel like they take care of themselves, are proud of it, but don't do anything for themselves. The point is, teens don't make good decisions. Why? BECAUSE TEENAGERS ARE FRICKING CRAZY. They'r- *ahem* WE'RE hormonal meat bags trying to adjust to this whole "real world" thing. A stage in our life where we feel the urge to take on more responsibility than we should. To grow up too fast. Love is something that honestly at this stage, is still a bit too far away.

Love turns you into something you're not. In the first stage of a relationship the two people involved are obsessed with their significant other, they cannot get their mind off of them. So obviously they seem madly in love. Then side affects of spending too much time thinking about someone kicks in, and they hate each other. It's how love and life works.

Underground

So I went to the New York Times website and I found this article that was slightly relevant to what I am currently learning in social studies so I figured it would be easier to work with a topic I understood. It is an article called "Children Toil in India's Mines, Despite Legal Bans" reported by Sruthi Gottipati reporting from Khliehriat, and Niharika Mandhana from New Delhi. The idea is is that there are Children who are working in Mines even though the law says they can't. This is because in times of poverty families need children to have jobs too to support their families. It is a very dangerous job, many people die. It is important that people can make money, but it is also important to protect the rights of children.

I really don't know what the author wants us to think. I think they want us to think that they should work in the mines. I think this because they got a lot of reports from people who are for keeping the children working, such as the children's parents. Even the children themselves. It may be sad, but I do agree with them. I feel horrible for saying these children should continue to work in the mines with a little piece of social ability of stability here, but you know. You gotta do what you gotta do. I don't "gotta do" anything, which makes me feel even worse.

I now realize this blogpost is quickly turning into a rant of self hate, we should turn that around. I really think that it sucks that these children have to work just to eat. They're kids, working is for adults, when you have responsibility. Responsibility you gain from having knowledge, which is what you gain from experience which is what you gain from aging. But it's a necessary movement in a countries history. Who worked in all the American Mines for outrageously low wages? Children. Where's America now? AT THE TOP BABY! WOO! So hopefully something good will come from this bad situation. I realize how unsubstantial this post was. Wow, I am not proud of it. *sigh* I'll try to make better ones. I promise.

Generic Title

I am currently in the process of reading V for Vendetta by Allan Moore and David Lloyd. In the story it shows a dystopian world where there was a generic 'war' that occurred sometime in between 1985 and 1990. This was probably what would've happened to Britain if the Cold War had been pushed off the edge and turned into a full blown war. Britain is ruled by a generic leader named, oddly enough, "The Leader." There is a very mysterious man who is obsessed with the letter "V" who fights The Leader's oppression. He calls him self, oddly enough, "V." Notice how I used the term generic in there? I used it for a reason. I used it because those characters are generic, and I think the author put them like that for a reason. To highlight parts of them and to dull others. I will explain what I mean, but I noticed an authors craft in purposefully generalizing two of the main characters. I think it was used to create difference from a stereotype in their actions, and not in their name, or in their look. To make the story stick with you where it counts.

The Leader is doing some rather weird things, at this point in the book actually he is uh... *SPOILER WARNING* *SPOILER WARNING* *SPOILER WARNING *SPOILER WARNING* *SPOILER WARNING* Dead. But before he was killed he was starting to feel compassion for "V." Which puzzles me since "V" was trying to kill The Leader. Maybe it's a case of Stockholm's Syndrome. (When a captive of a hostage situation falls in love with their kidnapper.) I highly doubt that though. That's not complicated enough for these as I see outstanding writers. Or writer,I just don't know which one's which. I do think it's that "V" is the only one who pays attention to him at all. To more as just a feared leader. To something different. I think this ignorance of the danger "V" presented to him finally killed him.*SPOILERS DONE YOU CAN COME BACK NOW**SPOILERS ARE DONE YOU CAN COME BACK NOW*

How is "V" different you ask? In many respects, he's not. A seemingly young (or at least fit) protagonist. Someone who is masked and is mysterious, a seemingly superhuman individual. A lot of protagonists are like this. Why? Because it is less of a person, and more of an idea. A superhero spreading good on a bad world. So generic, but such a good set up, it's been used before. Batman, Ezio Auditore, the list goes on. The thing that makes "V" different though. Is his beautiful and poetic Language. It makes him all the more mysterious as you try to decipher what he is saying. He speaks in metaphors and in puzzles and deciphering his text is half the fun of what I've had in the book. (Ok not really, but you get the point.)

Try and list examples of a generic protagonist with a twist in the comments below!

A Little Bad in Us

So, the song I used for the blog post this week was "Ain't no Rest for the Wicked" by Cage the Elephant. It's a song where a guy's just walking along a street, when a prostitute approaches him. He then asks the prostitute why she does what she does. She replies,
"Oh, there ain't no rest for the wicked, 
Money don't grow on trees, 
I got bills to pay, 
I got mouths to feed, 
There ain't nothing in this world for free.
Oh no I can't slow down, 
I can't hold back
Though you know, I wish, I could, 
Oh no there ain't no rest for the wicked, 
Until we close our eyes for good."

Then he keeps walking along the road and he gets robbed. he asks the robber why he decides to live that kind of life. The Robber replies the same thing that the Prostitute replies. Then he gets home and he sees on television a news story about a preacher that was arrested for stealing money from the church. He then says he isn't surprised, since he had seen people so so many bad things, that there's a little bad in all of us.
Now he says,
"Oh, there ain't no rest for the wicked, 
Money don't grow on trees, 
We got bills to pay, 
We got mouths to feed, 
There ain't nothing in this world for free.
Oh no we can't slow down, 
We can't hold back
Though you know, we wish, we could, 
Oh no there ain't no rest for the wicked, 
Until we close our eyes for good."

This is the first craft move I noticed first listening to this song. I think it means that we can be wicked just as those other people. Like the prostitute or the robber. I say this because instead of saying "I got bills to pay"
it says "We got bills to pay" Since the priest was not talking, It's the band saying that they are "wicked."  This song really it realistic and I think an overall message It's trying to share is that the world is a very "wicked" place. So much corruption and violence.

I think the overall message this song is trying to share is that the world is a very "wicked" place. That it's filled with corruption and people doing bad things just to get by. People who would other wise be completely guilt free and completely innocent. It's like they lose they're innocence because they can't live on being good anymore. It's a scary and very real truth. Sometimes you just can't live on your ethics. You have to do something you do not want to do. Now, a peace of evidence I have is that before the song goes into the last chorus, it says, "but even now I can't say much because I know we're all the same, yes we all have to satisfy, those kinds of thrills." This is saying that no one is different, there is a bad side to all of us. No exceptions. It's only our responsibility to keep that side down. To keep it from coming out. To keep it hidden, or you'll end up like one of the people in the song. So basically the song is saying,

"Stay safe, kids!"