End of the year Blog Post

Some ways I benefited as a reader from doing blogs posts was that I read more. I knew that every week I had to do a blog post, so that encouraged me to read further and further into my book to come up with a more meaningful post. I also made more connections with my book to others, and did this regularly in all my books. Writing a blog made me practice these skills more than in other previous years. I benefitted from this experience by learning how to really write about a book, and to learn the skills needed. Skills such as making connections, using past experiences, and looking deeper at the characters and plot of a book. Some blog posts would be mainly focused on a character, some on a plot, or quote or an idea in the book. This helped me write better posts, and strengthened me as a writer.
I think writing online is different than writing in a notebook. I now type a lot faster than I write, which allows me to write more online. Oftentimes when I'm writing in a notebook and I don't get to write down all the ideas I have, but online I can. This shows how writing online can be liberating, because it allows people to write as much as they want. I think it is true that people write things they would never say or write in notebook. Even though online is more public than a notebook, people often see it as the opposite. The fact that every 8th grader had a blog allowed us to connect more, and read each other's thought. This allowed us to be connected in a way that's different then previous years because we can see what we are reading, and thinking in books. Books were also recommended and friends could see what they were reading, which encouraged more reading.
I think some people do abuse the writes of technology. Many people find it easier to text someone something, than tell it to there face. Whole friendships can be formed over the internet or text messages, which do not reflect the real person. Second of all, the internet is probably the most public thing in the world. All our messages and posts on Facebook are recorded somewhere, not just erased. Collage officials will check the Facebook pages of people they want to accept to make sure they're the right person. This proves what you post on social-netoworking sites are not safe at all. On the popular app Snapchat, which many of my friends use, it says a message/picture will be deleted. In fact, the picture is not deleted, and by paying money you can find all your old Snapchats.
I don't think I will keep up my blog in the summer and next year. I will be busy with high school and the summer, which will take up my time. I also correctly assume that most of my peers will not resume their blogs, which was a main reason I blogged.(To read other people's post). Even thought I approve of using blogs and acknowledge the helpfulness of them, they were rather tiresome. This factor cannot be avoided, and I can remember several times when my classmates said they didn't blog because they didn't "feel like it."If I was to create another blog, I would probably make it a journal. This idea interests me, and seems like a fun thing to do. I would journal my travels, and not my average day.(So my journal would NOT be; I ate a sandwich today. It was good. Then I went to sleep). Instead it would be more description, and exciting moments of me visiting exotic places. I might not do this however, because of laziness.
All in all, I approve of the nature of blogs. Although sometimes it was tiring, and I complained about doing them, they were a vital part of ELA. It improved my writing and analyzing skills, and connected me with my friends over books.

Blog Post on Animal Farm

My philosophy group and I are currently reading Animal Farm by George Orwell. It tells the story of animals over throwing their cruel human masters, and creating a new life for themselves. They are fair and honest, and proclaim that all animals are equal. But as the book goes on, this question is brought up; are all animals equal?
We humans do not see every animal as equal. Think about it, we kills pigs for food, but keep dogs as beloved pets. We eat hundreds of chickens every day, and we think it a sin to kill other animals. In Animal Farm, all animals have been mistreated. Old Major, a wise pig tells the blood-stained story of farm animals lives. They are worked until they have no strength left, and then they are killed. They are living only to work, and not for pleasure. Although this book was written when animal right laws were pretty much non-existant, this till rings true today. Thousands of animals are killed, for not only food but for clothing and many other human needs. How do we make decisions about life and death?
In Animal Farm, it is clearly marked by intelligence. The pigs, the smartest animals on the farm make the rules and decide what to do. The other animals, portrayed as mostly stupid animals, blindly follow along and rarely show any free will in their decisions. This easily leads the pigs to exploit them, for example tricking them to believe that pigs can only have the apples and milk, and saying that only pigs can sleep in beds. The least intelligent animals, the sheep are brainwashed to agree with all the pigs sayings. They are so dim they have no opinion of anything, and will easily be to rally for a pigs cause. The other animals, not clearly quite so dumb but still unable to formulate what they really want. This leads them too agreeing with the pigs.
If humans use the same method to determine life and death, will we turn out like the pigs? Should someone be allowed to live because they are smarter than another member of their species? Of course I'm not talking about small things such as who can do this math problem, but in ways of manipulating people. Say if you took people from the ancient past, who knew nothing of politics and then told them this is what is true, and others are wrong, is that right? Some people would say yes, others no. You are not physically forcing them to believe in something, but it is not at their own free will. The sheep in Animal Farm are brainwashed animals, they have no will of their own. Political leaders use ignorance of the people to their own advantage every day. By ignoring crucial facts that would harm their campaign, they are blinding voters. Yet, no one would fully vote for them if they knew the truth.
So back to my old question, why should some animals be spared, and not others? Animals like monkeys, chimpanzees, dolphins and others are almost as intelligent as us humans. For this reason, we do not needlessly slaughter as we do to others, such as deer and mice. But some animals like pigs, who are smarter than pigs are killed. Why should this be? This is a deep question, and I won't delve far into this.
So, in Animal Farm I found myself looking at many modern politics today. Manipulating the ignorant public, hiding facts and crucial bits of information that would cause the animals to doubt, and the general idea that intelligence means higher in power. In the real world, these policies are true, and happen everyday. Yet Animal Farm was written in 1946, so was George Orwell's prediction of the future true, and what are the consequences?

Non-Fiction Blog Post

I recently read an article about animal-rights activists releasing animals that were used for scientific testing. The main idea of the article was the releasing of the animals, and people's reaction to the releasing. Some details are how the activist have planned this attack on Facebook, and posted pictures of themselves. The animal-right activists made a siege on the lab, where they camped out there and stated they would not leave without animals. Meanwhile, several people protested outside. In the end, they left with 100 animals out of 800, which are mostly genetically modified mice and rabbits. Some of the mice removed were "delicate mutants", and would die easily outside of a laboratory. The reaction of many people was bad too. The activists had switched the animals in the cages, so the experiments were ruined. One person said they saw,"some research students crying in the disrupted facility." The people who had been working there had lost almost three years of their work learning about psychiatric diseases. These connect to the main idea because it shows how the activists worked, and it showed the devastating affect it had on the people working there.
I think the author wants us to feel bad for the people working in the lab. All their work was destroyed, and this was their total job. Many important things could have been found out because of the research done there, and now it is all destroyed. One main example is in the very title of the article itself. It says,"Animal-Rights activists wreak havoc in Milan laboratory". The words wreak and havoc show that the author wants us to be feel bad. She also included the example of the people crying over their wrecked work, and not so much information on the activist's reasons for what they did. These all combine to show how the author, Alison Abbot, wanted us to feel bad for the people working in the laboratory's.
My thinking has been changed because I have always thought most animals in testing were treated cruelly. I was not completely against the idea of animal testing, since I did not know much about it. Now I realize that animal testing like this may not be completely ethical, but it is necessary and helpful for finding out diseases. Research like this could find us cures to otherwise incurable diseases, and could also let us find more about ourselves. For all the people working in the facility when the activists destroyed it, I feel really bad. Some of these experiments were very important, not only to them but to the world. The activists were too extreme, and by taking the animals out of their environment they are endangering their lives. Even thought I don't 100% agree with all the motives of animal testing, I do believe that the activist were wrong in what they did.
This is the link to the article: Animal-Rights Activists wreak havoc in Milan laboratory

Blog Post on Tess of the D'Urbevilles

I am reading Tess of the D'Urbevilles, which so far I think is a very interesting book. My mother wanted me to read this, because she named me after the protagonist of the the book, Tess. So far in the book nothing much has happened, but there has been a lot of description of the characters. Three characters I want to describe are Mr. Durbeyville, Tess's father, Mrs. Durbeyville Tess's mother, and Tess herself.
Mr. Durbeyville Tess's father wants the best for himself and his family. So far in the book he was worked very hard to keep his struggling family well, because they have many children. He is shown planting and farming, and working very hard. He wants to he best for his family, but he is a very simple and honest man. However, he sometimes lets his benefits get the best of him, when he decided to go to a pub instead of going home. This shows that he sometimes forgets about his duty as a father. But, I think he is sorry for his mistakes. One sign that shows Mr. Durbeyville wants the best for everyone is when he finds out that his family is related to an ancient bloodline, the D'Ubervilles, who were once very rich and famous. Once he hears this news he is very excited, and immediately urges Tess to visit one of the survivors of the D'Urbeville family. I think this shows that he is overacting a bit, and not thinking about the concerns of Tess. If I were Tess, I would be pretty scared of going to an ancient relative, especially one that once held a lot of power. Even though Mr. Durbeyville means well, he sometimes misses the big picture of these situations.
Mrs. Durbeyville is also described as a loving mother, who cares all in the world for her children.  She is always working hard, and is very forgiving. All she has in the world are her children, and that is why she has such a strong bond with them. She knows that they will continue her family and care for her when she is sick and old. She also connects with her family more than her husband, and she understands Tess's anxiety about moving to a new place. Mrs. Durbeyville is full of wisdom, and I think she will continue mentoring Tess throughout the book.
Tess, the final character to describe, is loving and kind. At many times is she described as pretty in comparison to her other country friends.  She is said to go far, and I thinks he will considered she is the main character in the book. I can connect to Tess in more ways than we share the same way, she is sensitive and caring to humans and animals alike. When she accidentally crashed the families carriage and injures their horse, Tess is sad for a long time and deeply regrets her choice. She is nervous about moving to a new place, but she will still do it. Despite all her fears, Tess knows what is right for her family, and she will do what is right for them, and not just for her.
In all, all three of the Dubeyvilles are kind characters, who both receive and give their kindness in different manners. They all are poor country folk, but with dreams and ideas as full as the rich. The author is trying to tell us that it doesn't matter your social class, everyone is kind.

Blog Post on Uglies Series

I am at the very end of Specials, a book that I read quite a long time ago. It is the story of Tally, and her life as a special, and her saving the world, well again. I think that Specials differs from the previous two books in the serious because for the first time Tally is confident with herself, and no longer feels weaker than everyone else. I thought the author, Scott Westefield did a good job describing Tally through her life. In the first book, Uglies, Tally is very innocent and blinded. She knows not about Special Circumstances, who she will later become, and she is convinced that being Pretty is the right thing to do. In the second book, Pretties Tally is pretty-minded through part of the book, and in the other part she is trying to save her friends while at the same time trying to figure out who she is.
But in Specials, she knows who she is and that person is someone strong, and knows what is right and wrong. She has strong beliefs of her own now and can maker choices and plans for herself. In the other books she was always confused whether the choice she was making was the right one, and what the consequences were going to be. In Specials she knows that every choice she will make will have consequences, and that waiting for someone to make the right choice with sometimes make it too late. When she decides to go into Special Circumstances, she is not only risking her life but the future of everyone else. She could have made someone else make the choice for her, but she did it herself choosing she has become a stronger character,
Tally has also clearly developed in her thoughts as well. As an ugly, her brain is "normal"and no machines have tampered with het thoughts. Yet in that society anyone who has not had the operation to become pretty is seen as ugly, so Tally sees herself as worthless. When she meets her friends Shay, and they travel to the Smoke, her mind is changed and she realizes how horrible the city is. As a Pretty, her mind is again tampered with and she forgets everything that happened to her, so she is almost a different person. Yet through it all, Tally carried her beliefs and ideals no matter what the doctors did with her brain.

Romeo and Juliet Essay

Romeo and Juliet Essay

In Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet, Romeo and Juliet aren’t the luckiest characters. Despite being “star-crossed lovers” (Prologue.6), they are on opposite sides of their world. Separated by a family feud, they are the last people the families think will be together. But their love for each other has no bounds, even with the hate from their families driving them apart. In Romeo and Juliet, rivalry causes Romeo and Juliet to be separated, but yet is the force and end of their love.

            Romeo and Juliet are born into two different households, who have hated each other for many years. The Capulet’s and Montagues are similar, as said in the prologue. “Two households, both alike in dignity”(Prologue.1) and yet they are blazing with fury at each other almost every time they meet. Their reason is not clear-cut too, and is only mentioned twice in the play, the prologue and the Prince’s first speech. The Prince says,” Three civil brawls bred of an airy word.” (1.1.91). This means their feud started over an insult, which turned into an everlasting grudge. The character Tybalt shows this grudge more strongly than any other character. I pictured him as a match; you just need a little spark to set him alight. Tybalt, who is a kinsman to the Capulets, who might not have been involved in the feud since the beginning, is the angriest of them all. Tybalt says,” What, drawn and talk of peace? I hate the word/ As I hate hell, all Montagues, and thee!” (1.1.71-72) The fact that Tybalt hates peace so strongly is extreme, he is a violent character and it seems to me he could never love the Montagues, even after the feud is over. A character like that involved in Romeo and Juliet’s love, a character who hates Montagues and loves death, is someone who will be out to kill Romeo.

            Romeo and Juliet throughout the play make unreasonable decisions that lead to the end of their love. Romeo would rather die than be separated, and he was thinking impulsively.  Love at that young age usually does not last long, young people are less calm and focused in their lives, and often don’t act reasonably to the benefit of others.  Romeo and Juliet being unreasonable can be seen in Act 2 Scene 2, also known as the “Balcony Scene.” Romeo says,” And, but thou love me, let them find me here/My life were better ended by their hate” (2.2.81-82).  I interpreted that as Romeo saying he doesn’t want this love to be a secret if it means they cannot be together. He doesn’t want Juliet to have to hide him. Again, the rivalry between the families is clear in Juliet’s mind, when she begins doubting their love when Romeo first arrives. Juliet starts out with wisdom, and she might have had firsthand experience of feeling or seeing Tybalt’s hate. Juliet becomes unreasonable as the play goes on, and becomes at some points even more desperate than Romeo. This is shown when Juliet is at Friar Lawrence’s cell, and says she would rather die than marry Paris.

            The play quickly turns dark in Act 3, when Romeo’s banishment and Tybalt’s death angers everyone, and is the downfall of the story. When Lord and Lady Capulet see that Tybalt is dead, they are furious and hate Romeo. If not for the Prince, Romeo might have been slaughtered. Now Romeo and Juliet’s love is on the brink of an abyss, and they are doomed. When Juliet hears this news, she has mixed feelings. She at first hates Romeo, saying “A damned Saint, an honorable villain” (3.2.85). She clearly sees how Romeo’s actions have hurt everyone. I thought the words Juliet used to describe Romeo were interesting; she did not call him all evil things, but instead said how he was a good thing, but “damned.” I think this shows Juliet does not fully hate him. The Capulet’s feud with the Montagues has flared up again, and the fact that Romeo is not dead is making the feud even deeper. However, Juliet soon changes her mind, now saying, “Romeo is banished. To speak that word/is father, mother, Tybolt, Romeo, Juliet/All slain, all dead” (3.2.133-135). I thought this line was crazy, the idea that in Juliet’s mind Romeo banished is the equivalent of five people dead! Romeo has similar reactions when he is in Friar Lawrence’s cell when he hears the news. “Tis torture and not mercy. Heaven is here/ where Juliet lives, and every cat and dog/ and little mouse, every unworthy thing/ Live here in heaven and may look on her/ But Romeo cannot” (3.3.31-35). Romeo is again reminded of the feud and rivalry that exists between the families, that everything but a Montague can look on Juliet.

In conclusion, Romeo and Juliet’s love had a high chance that it would not end well. With their family feud, and the impulsiveness of youth, their love was proven to be not successful. Yet, the moments when they were together were the happiest moments in the play. The rivalry between their families made their love strong. In movies and such when people say, “it’s a Romeo and Juliet love story,” I think it’s not always true. Romeo and Juliet’s love was not going to last, as mentioned in the prologue. But because of its end, Romeo and Juliet’s love is known as one of the strongest in history.            

Blog Post on Emma

I am just recently starting Emma by Jane Austen, and so far not much has happened. I noticed that Emma's character is already very prominent and I think that is what the author intended. Even from the first line of the book,"Emma Woodhouse, handsome, clever, and rich, with a comfortable home and happy disposition, seemed to unite the best blessings of existence; and had lived nearly twenty-one years in the world with very little to distress or vex her." From the very first line of the book, I can already tell what kind of character. Usually characters that are described as "rich" and pretty are usually the shallow characters. This narrator is casting her into a great light, almost as if she is someone we should look up on. And this is clearly an opinionated statement, because we the reader don't even know what Emma looks like, or what her personality is.
So far in the book Emma has been sad because her governess, Miss Taylor has recently gotten married and has moved out. I find this to be a little childish on Emma's part, because at twenty years old you should not have to depend on people that much. People have lives of their own, and Emma shouldn't hold someone back. I think this relates to the quote I mentioned because it say Emma has very little to distress her. If someone has had a very calm life, and has been protected from the outside world, then it would make sense that little things would distress them. So, because Emma hasn't been exposed to the dangers in life, she might be naive about many things.
Even though Emma might be childish about some things, she is a very clever person. She makes "matches" with people whom she thinks they might marry. Her father scolds her for doing this saying,"it's not right to meddle in other peoples affairs." I think her father is right, and this might be a moment where Emma is being too clever. It is not fair to predict things about people that are that extreme, and she might be hurting people unknowingly. Again, this relates to my idea that Emma is unconscious of other people, and their feelings because she has been living a pretty happy life. Without many people around her, she might not be that empathetic.
Overall, Emma is a complicated character. She is smart and bright, yet is sometimes unknowingly of people's thoughts and feelings. Even though she has rich, and lives all alone expect for her father, she is  still a nice person. I think as the book goes on, I will be able to see deeper into Emma's personality and her reason for "meddling" with other people.

Blog Post on Ripley Underground

I am about halfway through Ripley Underground and I think it is really good. A while ago I read the first book, The Talented Mr. Ripley and thought it was excellent. In this blog post I wanted to talk about the similarities and differences between Ripley in both books.
In The Talented Mr. Ripley, Ripley is unsure who he is in the world. He doesn't know who he wants to be yet, and is a freelancer without a home or job. But, in Ripley Underground he knows what he wants. He has a beautiful mansion in France, and is married with lots of money. He looks back on his other days as signs of how weak he was. He is more relaxed and is not as worried about police or detectives as he was in the first book. However, there is a five years difference between the two books, and it is clear he knows who he is. I noticed throughout the book too, that Tom did some things that the old Tom Ripley would also do. One example is when he passes a homeless man on the street he offers him a cigarette, something the new polished Ripley wouldn't do. Another example is when he imitates a painter named Derwatt, who killed himself in Greece, but Tom has to pretend he is still alive. In almost all of the talented Mr. Ripley, he imitates a man called Dickie Greenleaf. I think that Tom Ripley loves to imitate people seriously, and that consciously or unconsciously notices small things about people. He notices things such as a ring on someone's finger saying their married, little things that normal people wouldn't notice.
Some of the differences between the new and old Tom Ripley is what he thinks of art and fine things. In the Talented Mr. Ripley, he would hardly care for a good painting or wine. In this book, he lives a life of luxury, and I think this has also taught him about the morality of people. In the first book, he was more crazed, and when he got angry there was no stoping him. In this second book, Tom Ripley has more restraint and he realizes that killing people isn't always the answer. There is a Detective called Waston and he is investigating Tom Ripley about the disappearance of a man called Murchison.(Who Tom had killed.) I was expecting Tom Ripley to kill Waston, or at least considering harming him, but instead he made up answers and played along.
I think all these similarities and differences show how Tom Ripley has grown as a character, whether in good or bad ways. Like I said at the end of the Talented Mr. Ripley blog post, some people never get caught. I think at that time I was seeing Tom Ripley as more of a bad guy, but now I realize that some times, he is just desperate.

Blog Post on Doctor Who And Philosophy

The overall main idea of the book Doctor Who And Philosophy is discussing the idea's that the TV series conveys. They talk of the controversial issues that arise in Doctor Who, but not just about Doctor Who in general. The book mentions time travel, both the possibility and how time travel would be possible, and because the doctor can regenerate, they talked about regeneration and how it would be possible. This was written by many different people, and each had different opinions. One writer, Greg Littmann believed that regeneration is when the physical aspects of a person might stay the same or change, but the mental aspects of a person change the much. He says,"If you looked at The Doctor, he might look the same. But really is that how you identify someone? He might look the same, but his personality is different." This shows that the Doctor changes after each regeneration, even though he is the same person on the outside and in the way he behaves. In terms of time travel, there are many different theories. Many people believe that time is always occurring, and so that time travel would just be like stepping from one place to another, without disturbing anything. There are many other theories too, saying that time travel could erase your existence, such as killing your grandfather in the past, would you be born?
The authors use craft moves by connecting what their chapters are about to their own lives. They talk about how they discovered Doctor Who and what it means to them before starting to talk about the scientific info and facts. In the beginning of the book it says,"whatever doctor that abducted you into the world of Doctor Who". This creates a humorous tone that invites readers to continue reading the book. I think the authors want readers to think deeper about Doctor Who, and not just about the characters, but how Doctor Who is made up. They want us to explore possibilities and think about a side of Doctor Who most viewers have never seen. They want us to feel intrigued by the massive world of Doctor Who.
What I will take away from this book will not only be more information about Doctor Who, but how much I have learned about science fiction. Not only did I learn more about time travel and regeneration, but I can apply this to science fiction shows I watch. Now when I watch an episode of Doctor Who, I will be able to understand the themes that pop up. My thinking has been changed by growing larger, and being mistaken in the idea that their is not much to know about the philosophy of Doctor Who. Many of the passages I didn't mention were also very interesting, such as what we consider something "horror", how something is called "beautiful", and how we define species. This is not alone about Doctor Who, and I think that someone who didn't even watch the show could still find this a very good read. Some more things I want to know is what the characters in Doctor Who think, besides the Doctor, because the book was more focused on outside knowledge. All in all, I thought it was a great book and would recommend it to anybody, whether they watched Doctor Who or not.

Blog Post on Dracula Part Two

I just finished Dracula and I noticed some of my ideas from my earlier blog post had carried over and some had not. I had discussed in my previous blog post on how before we knew Dracula was evil, could we tell? As the book goes on, we begin to realize there maybe darker things in play, when Mina (Jonathan's wife) friend is acting very strangely. But it isn't until very late in the book when the characters realize that Dracula is a vampire.
And now, when Dracula is described, he is nothing like he first was. This is a quote from when the characters first meet Dracula, "his eyes held hatred beyond what anyone could imagine, he was the very creature of loathing and hate." This is very different from what he is described earlier, as being normal. Dracula is now pictured of a scary, bloodthirsty monster, one that is absolutely terrifying. The book has grown very darker too, because there are more scary elements. This is a quote from a night of a very bad storm, and a group of people are seeing a ship in the waters struggling to fight the storm. "And as the spotlight (from a lighthouse) looked upon the ship, we realized that the man on the steering wheel was dead and lashed to the wheel." This is quite chilling, in my opinion, because to see a corpse seemingly steering a ship would scare me. This shows how much darker the book has gotten since the beginning.
The characters have changed very much too. Jonathan Harker, who started a practical businessman, is now a shell of his former self, and is very scared and scarred by what he has been through.  Mina, his wife was once very silly, is now a very strong women who is determined to bring down Dracula at all costs. The way everyone works together reminds of modern times, when groups of kids and adults work together to fight a monster. I think this shows some of the lasting effects Dracula has on the real world.
And when they finally defeat Dracula, there is not peace at first. They lost many people to Dracula, and they feel that the past will never really leave them. As the characters changed and developed they grew stronger and wiser, but also got exposed to some of the worst things in life.  I think they made the right choice, because in the end they saved the world from a very horrible threat.

Blog Post on Dracula

I am have just started reading Dracula, and I find it a very interesting book. I have decided to focus on one of the characters in the book, a very obvious choice, Count Dracula. Although I am not that far in the book, I have decided to ask an imposing question. How do we classify characters in a book as good or bad, based not on their actions and personality but on how we see them in the book?
Obviously, everyone knows that before we even meet Dracula we know he is a vampire, and that he is evil. But imagine reading this book without this prior knowledge, would we be able to tell he was "evil"? I looked closely through the text and noticed a few things. When Jonathan (a business man who comes to visit Dracula to help him deal with paperwork for he has just bought a house) first meets Dracula, we can tell he is a strange man. Jonathan describes him as lean and tall, dressed all in black. He also described more of his finer points, with me having my past experiences identify as clues he is a vampire, "His mouth was fixed and rather cruel-looking, his ears were pale and extremely pointed." These remind me of other descriptions of vampires from past series. Now, this relates to the question I said before, Dracula's personality and description do not suggest anything out of the ordinary. However, this part of the book has a very tense tone, one that might suggest it is leading towards action. I feel that even someone reading this book for the first time would get a sense that something was amiss.
Dracula personality is described as courteous and gracious, Dracula being very welcome to Jonathan who has traveled very far. Even though Jonathan has a sense that something may be wrong, Dracula's calm nature exterminates those suspicions. As Jonathan stays longer in Dracula's castle, his uncomfortable feelings do not arise, for Dracula is very kind to him. But me as the reader, see this as weird and that something has been wrong.There has been little action in the book for a long time now, and that usually means when the next action occurs it will be big. Although, Dracula has not done anything wrong, nor has the way he has been described suggest he has done anything wrong.
Furthermore, I made an inference that the author (Bram Stoker) made Dracula seem scary before he had done anything bad. This makes me realize that we judge characters more on how the author sets them up rather than how they behave. As I also mentioned in my question, Dracula has not done anything bad, but because of our knowledge of this book and that anxious tense mood of the story we might start to guess he is in fact, abnormal. I think that this was on purpose to show how later in the book how evil Count Dracula is. My last idea is this reminds me of what we did in class on author's purpose and craft, because the author purposely created this tone to let readers in on what would be the evilest and worst character in the book, using the craft of a very dark and scary tone.

Blog Post on Child Poverty

I recently read an article about child poverty in the United States. The main idea of the article was that child poverty is a big issue in the US, and that children are the poorest age group. The author talked about how child poverty is an issue that needs to be resolved immediately and actions are already being taken to prevent child poverty. Some facts and details the author included are,"14 States saw statistically significant increases in their child poverty rates." She wants us to realize that child poverty is all over the US and that it is increasing at a very high rate. Some other facts and details she included are,"16.1 million children are poor" and,"with more than seven million children living in extreme poverty". The author uses these facts to convey the large amount of children that are in poverty and how enormous child poverty is. The author also includes the name of the states that have 25% or higher child poverty rate, in which there are more than 13 states. This connects to the main idea because the main idea is that child poverty exists in the US at a very high rate and needs to be stopped through action.
I think the author wants us to feel bad for the children living in poverty and to want to try and help. When she mentioned all the states that had high percentages of child poverty, I think people who lived in the states that were named would want to take action and lower their child poverty in their state. One direct quote is,"These shameful child poverty levels call for urgent and persistent action." As I read this sentence I felt pretty ashamed too  Adults should be able to care for her kids, and the author did a good job using facts and her opinion to make a plea for a lower poverty rate for children in all of the United States.
Some things I will take away from this article is how big child poverty is of a issue. I knew very little of the facts, and because I am a teenager I feel this issue relates to me a lot. New York wasn't on the list of states with a 25% or higher of child poverty, and this makes me happy because it shows how our city has been doing a good job dealing with kids in poverty. I think we could do more, however. We could have fundraisers for homeless shelters and have programs that deal with kids that may not be able to afford after school activities.  Some other things I want to know are, what can we the kids do to help? This article did a good job fully explaining the issue, but left the ending open-ended. I think that people understand and are very concerned about this issue, but don't know how to help. Indeed, it is something very difficult to help, because if you don't a kid in poverty, what could you do? I think this issue needs more recognition in government because it is very important. Plus, the kids today are our future. Don't you want to make sure they have a future?

Blog Post on The Talented Mr. Ripley (Spoilers!)

I just read a really great book, called The Talented Mr. Ripley and I thought it was one of the best books I have read. It is about a man Tom Ripley, who travels to Italy to persuade a friends to move back to the states. He ends up getting jealous of his friend and kills him, and then takes over his identity.
I thought Tom(Mr. Ripley) was the most interesting character in the book.  He seems normal and cool and collected, but he would kill a man. He is not like a normal "psycho path" he has lived a normal life and is usually very happy. But the smallest things can make him so angry. He hates unfairness, and I think he has to take out his anger that way. Not to be too mean or anything, but the author clearly shows there are a few loose screws for Tom. He once dressed up in his friends Dickie's clothes, and pretended to act like him. (Later taking his whole identity.) He wants to be someone else. Some part of his brain is so rejected by him he manages to pretend he is someone else completely. Even though he is faking, and he is acting, he also believes himself. That he, Tom is his friend. He even makes an effort to talk like him, to move his face like him, this is something he is completely obsessed with.
Tom's job before he went to Italy was forging people's signatures to gain their money from checks, a path to ensure him to break the law. But the thought of killing another being did not come into his head at all. That's what scared me. He was a normal man, just sitting on the beach, when he had the idea he was going to kill his friend and he did. There was no plotting, no deciding whether this was right or not. This scared because you never know when he is going to attack, never going to snap. Some of the world's worst criminals are like that, which makes them the most dangerous. They will be normal one day, killers the next.
And he doesn't stop with his friend Dickie either. After assuming the identity of Dickie, he moves to Rome and pretends to live life as Dickie would. Sending letters to Dickie's girlfriend, wearing his clothes, his rings, leaving behind Tom Ripley as if he never existed. Tom ends up killing Freddie too, Dickie's friend, when Freddie finds out that he is just pretending to be Dickie. The thing is, throughout all these murders, Tom is so uncaring, he hardly seems to realize he is a murderer.
At the end of the book, he almost murders again too. He is staying with his girlfriend Marge and she is annoying him very much. And then out of nowhere he is imagining killing her. It is all so planned out in his head, what he would say to the police, what he would say to Marge's father. This stood out to be because it didn't show a change. Even at the end of the book, when Tom has been through countless police, he will still murder. The author tried to show that some characters might not change their ways, even having been through so much. In fact I think he did change, but not for the better, he became worse and worse.
And the funny thing is, he never got caught for any of the murders. He will probably live his life happily and free from the police. I think the author meant this to show that not everyone gets what they deserves, and not everyone gets punished.

Blog Post on Black Beauty

I am almost done with Black Beauty and it is the story of a horse named Black Beauty, and the series of owners he goes through and life experiences. I personally loved Black Beauty and I feel that it was a very well-written book.
Black Beauty the horse was a very interesting character.  He was always willing and ready to please, and had the same personality of a human. All the horses could talk to each other and they were like humans in that respect, they had feelings and wants and needs, and I think Anna Sewell ( the author) wanted us to realize we are not so different from the animals around us. A very kind lady quotes this in the book and it reminds when we studied how the author puts his or her voice into the book. I think Anna Sewell put her own opinions and thoughts into the mouths of the character and that is how she carries her ideas across. Like I was saying the quote is, "just because horses can't express themselves the way we can, that does not make them dumb, they still feel pain as much as we do." This quote and many others sound like something the author would see, and it helps carry across the idea that animals should be treated equally.
Black beauty goes to a lot of different homes where he is treated very bad. This makes me think of the time period (late 1800s) where there was almost no animal rights, and people could treat there animals in most anyway they wanted. Black Beauty does go to some good homes though, where people are mindful of how they treat their animals. I think this is one of the reasons people still read this book today, there are many sad moments in the book that show how cruel people were. Black Beauty's friends Ginger, gets sold as a cab horse and tells Black Beauty later in in the book, "I wish I would fall down at my work and die rather than continue living." This quote makes me very sad and it reminds me of other books when characters say similar things, and I notice that is doesn't sound weird that it comes from the mouth of a horse rather than a human.
In all, I really like this book and I am excited for the ending. I hope that Black Beauty does eventually go to a good home, because he deserves one. When someone has been so good and kind and patient their whole life, they deserve to have a good peaceful end to their life, and Black Beauty definitely deserves one.

Non-fiction blog Post

I recently read an article that was on cyber-bulling and internet security, and how kids are becoming less protected online. Kids as young as 10 years old are chatting with complete strangers and can be talking to anybody with a computer. The article says, "many kids find it easier to chat with someone and bully them, rather than talk to them face to face." I think this means that kids have the guts to do things online they could never do in person. Over a computer screen, lies are a lot easier to be told.
Sharing pictures can that should be private is also a problem too, with kids leaving their facebooks open for friends to go on. Many people can also post things anonymously, and as it says in the article, "most people who cyberbully do it anonymously, and that can hurt the person being bullied even more. The fact you are being bullied is bad, but not knowing who it is can be even worse." I think in our age of technology it is so easy to chat people and even get personal information it is very easy for people to be bullied.
Cyber-bulling has spread to a wider age group too. Kids as young as nine and ten often say mean comments to each other online with worry they will get in trouble. As they grow up they will probably still continue to cyberbully because they did not get in trouble when they were younger. I think that kids so young cyberbully and act mean is really bad, and must be stopped.
My whole opinion on the article is that there should be more safety settings and more ways to keep your computer private. I know several websites such as Omegle, and ask.fm where people are allowed to chat and ask people questions without knowing at all who they are. You might be chatting with someone thinking they are a 13 year old girl when they are really a creepy old man halfway across the world. In real life that would be seen as creepy and not right, so why should it be okay online?

Reading response on other blogs Blog Post On Other Blog's

http://busyfizzyizzy.blogspot.com/2013/02/house-rules-by-jodi-picoult.html
I read Izzy's blog Post on House Rules by Jodi Picoult and I loved her blog post.  It was very informative, and clearly showed the views of all the characters in the book.  The book is about a family with a child with autism. Although many readers will want to focus on the child with autism, Izzy focused on all members of the family to show all the views of the book.
I found it most interesting how she describes Theo, who's brother has autism. Theo feels like he just wants to be normal, which is impossible for him because of his brother. Izzy did a good job describing how Theo feels, saying that he always wanted to have a older brother, and now he is the older brother. Living with someone that will be forever branded "the person with the weird brother" will affect Theo deeply and I think Izzy was very smart to have understand Theo's personality that well.
Izzy also described Emma, the mother of the two sons, very well. She showed her thought and also used some retell to fully understand the character. She comments on how it must be very hard for Emma to out in a brave face and go on living with a kid that has  autism. If something as small as the car next to them is orange, she has to find another place to park. I think Izzy did a good job of describing her character as someone who feels alone and stressed but still manages to be brave. I also liked how Izzy added her own opinion to make her ideas more true. I also agree with Izzy that if I was in her situation I would not be able to face having to change my life for her son, Jacob.
Jacob, is one of the most interesting characters in the book is a complex person. Izzy describes him as smart, smarter than other people give him credit for. I agree with Izzy and that because people see him with autism, they think he cannot do anything himself. This makes me think of many common stereotypes and how people think of others.
In all, I think Izzy did a very good job on her blog post, it was organized very well and made a lot of sense. She had the perfect combination of thoughts, retell and evidence from the story to form her conclusion. I would like to try her strategy of describing all the main characters of the story and not focusing so much on the themes of the story.

Blog Post on The Book Thief

I just read The Book Thief, this is a story of a girl in Nazi Germany and crazy and scary things happen to her, including risking her life for others, and stealing books. One of the most unusual thing about this book is the fact that is narrated by death.
Death, in the book is a not really a person, not really anything. When people die he carries their soul's in his arms, and he says that is his only and one job. I think people because of scary movies and stories would associate a figure of death as scary and threatening, like a big figure with a black hood and a bloody sword or stick. But, as death tells us in his book, he is not scary and he means no harm, and throughout the book I felt that he felt like any normal character, but I still felt it was a little weird for the book to be narrated by someone who wasn't really in the story that much.
The main character is a girl named Lisel,  whose brother dies on a train with her and her mother sends her to live with strangers, I think Lisel was represented by death because she too is lonely and sad in the world,  and that is why death is drawn to her so much. Not that she is dying or coming close to dying that often, but she understands death in the way her peers don't.
The name of the book, The Book Thief, is talking about when Lisel stole many books from houses and even from a burning fire. I think the name is supposed to be mean that even in such a crazy time,  before world war two and during, while one single girl suffered  she stole books. Out of all the crazy things that were happening, out of all the people who were dying, the author chose to write about a girl who stole books, making the book special and more interesting.

Blog Post on I Am the Messenger

I just finished I am the Messenger and it is a story about a man, Ed Kennedy who is a 20-year old man that lives with his dog and works as a cabdriver. His life is very boring until one day he stops a bank robbery and he starts receiving cards in the mail, that tell him addresses to go to.
Ed the main character makes me think about people in the real world, how one small event can affect people in the biggest ways. Ed has a very normal and boring life, but when he receives the cards in the mail he is a different person. He does risky things, which makes me wonder how I would react in those situations. Honestly, I don't think I am brave enough to do all the crazy things Ed does, and I think that sometimes the quietest people can be the best in a crisis. Anyone else faced in Ed's situation might've chickened out, or worse been overly violent. Instead, Ed accepted all the missions he had to complete despite the fact he had no real reason to do them. Like i was saying, I think I am more of a quiet person who likes to play by the rules, but in an example form the book the quietest people are the one's who are more important.
Ed meets so many people and they change his life in so many ways. Even hough Ed lived in a pretty small town, he met so many new people that he had never discovered before. This makes me think that there are so many secrets that can be hidden in people and towns, and the Ed discovered a world he had never known. Going through a experience like that will change a person forever and I am sure that is what happened to Ed.

Blog Post on Catcher in the Rye

I recently read Catcher In the Rye  and one thing I want to talk about is Holden, the main character's personality. First off, Catcher In The Rye is about a boy Holden, who just got kicked out of boarding school, and when he travels to NYC and the crazy things that happen to him in the few days he is there.
I also wanted to say how this book was pretty unusual because it only took place for about three days, and was quite a long time. Almost every minute was described and you got to know Holden very well. Like I said before, Holden had a very odd personality.  Unlike most books where the main character is a hero and is usually good-natured and honest, Holden is almost the opposite. Holden often described himself as a "yellow-bellied coward" and he did not seem like he cared that much about himself. The way he described everyone in the book made him see better than he actually is. He loved his sister and his late brother, and often spent a while describing people him that he barely knew. Other than that, he was quite rude, and he smoked a lot. He would just meet somebody and already judge the person and have a whole set opinion about them. He hated more people than he liked, and in my opinion he didn't seem to like the world in general. He called people "lousy" and "phonies" just because something that person had done once to upset him. I feel like Holden felt too trapped in the world and was mad at some people, but he took it out on everybody.
Holden has had a pretty crappy life, he talks about how he was kicked out of so many schools and how many jerks and horrible people he has met. I think that Holden has spent so much time in the ugly side of the world he thinks everybody is going to behave like that. He is too quick to judge, because he himself has been judged too many times. This book was written in 1946 when a lot of new things were happening in the world, and I think Holden just couldn't grasp it all.

Blog Post on Shiver

I recently read Shiver by Maggie Stiefvater and it is the story of a girl that meets a werewolf that has watched over here for many years. I thought this book was very good. One issue I want to touch upon are how animals are treated in the book. In Shiver, the main character Grace was attached by wolves when she was eight years old. She mentions how people in her small town grew angry and tried to hunt and kill the wolves.
Another incident like this happens, when a teenager that lives in the town gets attached by "wolves" and is found dead. All the people try to hunt the wolves and "solve" the problem, even though they don't have enough proof it was them. I think the the author is trying to get us to feel sympathetic to animals, and that is what the main character Grace is feeling. Although it is very unlikely that a wolf attacks someone, it is impossible for such thing as a werewolf to exist. When Sam (the wolf) turns into a human he is shown as almost perfect. In real life, this is unrealistic. Why would someone treat an animal so harshly, but be so kind to a wolf that was turned into a human?
The author also wanted us to appreciate the beauty of nature too, with long paragraphs and pages talking about the beautiful woods. I think the woods symbolizes a peaceful haven, a place where for a little while there are no problems. I also noticed in the book that whenever Sam and Grace go into the woods, they go in happy and usually come out running for their lives. The woods are the home of Sam, and they reflect all his troubles and happiness that he has faced.
In all, I liked Shiver and would want to read the sequel. I think some of the some plot ideas and interpretations that I made for this book will carry over and continue to be a major part of the book.

Blog Post on the Hobbit

I recently finished The Hobbit and I thought it was very good. I have read Lord Of The Rings and was wondering how the Hobbit differed from Lord of the Rings. I felt that the hobbit was less dark, and that the main issue (and problem) was not as serious. The story of the hobbit is Bilbo Baggins, a well-respected hobbit goes on an adventure with thirteen dwarves and a wizard, Gandalf. They encounter all sorts of nasty things such as goblins, and Bilbo discovers a magical ring. The thirteen dwarves want to get back treasure that they was captured from them by an evil dragon, Smaug.
As I was reading the hobbit, I was mentally comparing it to Lord of the Rings. Although the hobbit is a prequel to lord of the rings, they could almost be two different books. As I said before, the hobbit was much more lighter toned, and that consequences weren't as severe if they did not complete their mission. The lord of the rings was the end of the world, we may not come back alive mission. The hobbit seems more like a bedtime story for little kids, they tell stories of dwarves and marvelous adventures.
Despite theses obvious differences between the books, I enjoyed the hobbit a lot. It was quirky, and there were both funny and scary moments. I think if I was to tell someone which to read first I would say the hobbit, because once you've read lord of the rings nothing really amazes you in the other books.  The Hobbit will set you up for lord of the rings and will give you a sneak peek into what will happen. The hobbit is also very different because it follows the view of Bilbo Baggins, who is doubtful and very often wants to go home at different parts of the book. This is very different from the narrator of lord of the rings, who is Frodo Baggins and who has a much deeper perspective on the world and his adventure.

Blog Post on Blonde Roots

I recently read Blonde Roots and I did not really like the book. The plot of the book was about if white people were enslaved and black people were the masters. The Earth was completely different, and black culture was all over the world. While the basic ideas of slavery were the same, I felt that there were differences in the way real slavery in the past and the way it was presented in the book.
In the book, the story was told in two views, split into parts. The first was of a slave girl, who tries to escape from slavery many times. The second view is from a black man and his experience meeting the "primitive" Europeans and his takes as he becomes a slaver. Even though the idea of a book like this is very intriguing, the actual book wasn't that good. The end was very uncompleted, and the end of the book felt like the middle, with many things still unanswered. The fact that they included the slavers opinion wasn't very necessary, since it took you half the book to realize who it was.
The main characters name was Doris, and she came from England. She talked about her experience living there and how happy she was. This reminds me of primary source documents that tell the life of a slave.  They had to go on a awful ship voyage, and the treatment of slaves was mostly the same. There seemed to be a modern twist on it, people eating foods that did not seem that old. And you never knew the year, so to me it rose up some questions. Would blacks have ended slavery? How would this happen? How would the world be different? Slavery has affected everyone and still affects people today. People still think about when we enslaved people and I think no one truly got over that.
Honestly, in my opinion this book was okay, but I wouldn't really recommend it.

Blog Post On Climate Change

I read Climate Change by Shelley Tanaka and the overall main idea of the text was warning humans about climate change and global warming. She included chapters about the idea of the Earth warming, how it started, what humans can do against it, and how far humans are behind in all this. She included details about the number of emissions we are currently burning, and how much forests are left in the world. She mentions that major countries have lost most of their forest, for example the US has lost 94% of its forests. She makes many predictions about what is upcoming for humans, that polar bears will only be able to live in the arctic circle by 2050, that almost all farming will have to be stopped by 2050, that by 2020 there won't be any ski resorts in upstate new york because it will be too warm. One quote is,"we consume things, discard them, replace them, expand them." Humans are constantly trying to get things that are better and bigger, and that is causing the world to lose energy and warm up the planet. These details contribute to the main idea, which is that global warming and climate change are happening and that is the fault of humans.
I think the author wants us to be very shocked by this book and to get so shocked you want to help. She includes scary facts and ideas that really stun people. While I was reading this book, I began to feel almost depressed because the book was depressing. She did underestimate anything; if anything she overestimated. She included facts that she knew people care about, such as "a polar ice cap melting by 2050, leaving 30 million without water". People will realize right off the bat that they need to step against global warming because it could mean the death of people. Instead of including facts such as, the amount of burning emissions have gone up 3.6%, which most people won't even understand what that means or could cause for them, but including people will scare the readers.
After reading this book, I began to feel worried about how the Earth is going to change for everybody on the planet. I read it and was surprised by the harsh facts in the book. I knew a little of global warming, but not that much and did not realize the harsh affects that are going to come this way. My thinking has been changed and I am more serious about global warming. I will try to remember the little things I can do to save our planet, like turning off the lights when I'm not in the room and conserving paper. Some questions I still have are how can people try to stop global warming. Although Tanaka did a good job explaining all the bad things that are coming our way, she didn't mention that much how to solve it. One of the downsides of the book is it gets you worried about our planet, but it doesn't tell you much how to save it.