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.
Thursday, January 24, 2013
Thursday, January 17, 2013
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.
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.
Wednesday, January 9, 2013
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.
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.
Thursday, December 20, 2012
Non-Fiction Blog Post on Choclate
I read an article about the health benefits of chocolate. Many people have disagreed whether it can actually help your body. Cacao, which is what chocolate is made out of very good for battling tooth decay. Although, milk chocolate has high sugar so it counters that benefit. The smell of chocolate can cause relaxation, and has a mild mood elevator. These are really small, so you do not usually feel those things. Also the cocoa butter contains a unsaturated fat that can raise good cholesterol. Drinking a cup of hot chocolate can diminish appetite, and men who eat chocolate are supposed to live a tear longer than men who don't.Even though chocolate may have all those benefits, it still has some problems.They're are also many lies about chocolate that people think is about it. Chocolate is not a main cause of acne, and it only contains a little caffeine, so it shouldn't cause nervous excitability. Chocolate does not cause bad cholesterol. But chocolate can cause headaches, and milk chocolate is high is sugar and fat.
I think Marguerite is trying to tell us to consider and think about chocolate more. She is not telling us that is completely bad for us and should never be eaten, but she is not saying it is great for you too. She is trying to get us to think about chocolate while were eating, thinking thoughts like, "should I eat this, even though it is kinda beneficial it has some bad things in it." The last line of the article is,"your sure to find some brand of chocolate you can enjoy with a clear conscience." She is saying that you should be able to eat chocolate without worrying about health risks, but you should remember that chocolate, how many benefits it may have, still has a lot of fat and sugar in it.
I think Marguerite is trying to say in her article that chocolate has many good and bad things. Most people consider it a "bad" food but it actually has some good qualaties. Although most of them are countered by the sugar and fat amount, chocolate can be almost called a "good" food.
I think Marguerite is trying to tell us to consider and think about chocolate more. She is not telling us that is completely bad for us and should never be eaten, but she is not saying it is great for you too. She is trying to get us to think about chocolate while were eating, thinking thoughts like, "should I eat this, even though it is kinda beneficial it has some bad things in it." The last line of the article is,"your sure to find some brand of chocolate you can enjoy with a clear conscience." She is saying that you should be able to eat chocolate without worrying about health risks, but you should remember that chocolate, how many benefits it may have, still has a lot of fat and sugar in it.
I think Marguerite is trying to say in her article that chocolate has many good and bad things. Most people consider it a "bad" food but it actually has some good qualaties. Although most of them are countered by the sugar and fat amount, chocolate can be almost called a "good" food.
Blog Post On Pride and Prejudice
I am reading Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austen.The main character, Elizabeth Bennet is a girl who lives with her family in Hertfordshire and her mother is desperate to get all her daughters married to the richest men in town. Elizabeth in the book, is not in a hurry to get married because she wants to marry the right man. Her sister Jane however, wants to get married and have kids and has already met someone that she likes. I think if I was Elizabeth, I would not be in a hurry to get married either. A married woman back in the early 19th century(when this book was written) lost nearly all her rights and was almost the sole property of her husband. Even though this sounds really bad, they often lived happy lives and had many children.
Here is a quote from the book,"it is a truth universally acknowledged that a single man in possession of a good fortune must be in want of a wife." And mostly through what I have read, it is true. Mr. Bingley, who is the topic of this sentence, likes Jane but sadly moves away for the winter. Jane's family though he was going to settle down and maybe marry their daughter, but to their sadness he did not. The women in this book are quite sneaky, and they gossip a lot. Mrs. Bennet, Jane and Elizabeth's mother, is very critical of her daughters. Although that is understanding, she often goes out of her way to make sure they are following the rules and behaving proper. If I had a mother like that I would be very loose and want to break free of her iron grip. Neither Elizabeth and Jane try too, but Elizabeth sometimes feels overburdened by the stress her mother gives her.
Elizabeth so far in the book has only liked one man a little, Mr. Darcy. Although he is quiet and doesn't seem to have much affection for Elizabeth, she still is very fond of him. If she marries him or not will probably happen later in the book.
Here is a quote from the book,"it is a truth universally acknowledged that a single man in possession of a good fortune must be in want of a wife." And mostly through what I have read, it is true. Mr. Bingley, who is the topic of this sentence, likes Jane but sadly moves away for the winter. Jane's family though he was going to settle down and maybe marry their daughter, but to their sadness he did not. The women in this book are quite sneaky, and they gossip a lot. Mrs. Bennet, Jane and Elizabeth's mother, is very critical of her daughters. Although that is understanding, she often goes out of her way to make sure they are following the rules and behaving proper. If I had a mother like that I would be very loose and want to break free of her iron grip. Neither Elizabeth and Jane try too, but Elizabeth sometimes feels overburdened by the stress her mother gives her.
Elizabeth so far in the book has only liked one man a little, Mr. Darcy. Although he is quiet and doesn't seem to have much affection for Elizabeth, she still is very fond of him. If she marries him or not will probably happen later in the book.
Thursday, December 13, 2012
Blog Post on The Lovely Bones
I just read The Lovely Bones and one of the questions I am going to answer is, was justice served? I do not think world justice was served, only personal justice to Susie (the main characters) family. In the book, a fourteen year old girl named Susie gets raped and killed and the story is told from her in heaven watching over her family members react to her death and deal with it in their own way. Like I was saying, in the long sense justice isn't served. Susie's body is never found, only her elbow and part of her necklace and hat. Although her rapist Mr. Harvey dies, it is many years later and no one finds out until much later in time.
Even though in the long sense justice isn't served, Susie's family throughout the book grieves for her until the end, where they can finally find calmness. They feel relieved at last that Susie can now rest in peace, and they feel the burden of her death go away. They will never forget her, but they will also feel better when they remember her.
The whole book is told through Susie's eyes, even though she is dead and in heaven. Heaven, what Susie thinks is,"different for everyone, yet some merge into mine and others." In the book, heaven is portrayed through what most people think today. A happy place, where you can get everything you want and can look over the one's you love. I think that although heaven is nice, it is showing the injustice of the people who died young, or were murdered. Susie's own personal justice is at first not served while she is in heaven, she feels lost and sad and even wanting vengeance for her death. All the people that die unwilling such as dying young feel that justice should be served when dead, and even everything in heaven won't soothe them because everything they want is to be alive again.
I feel that in some ways justice was served to everybody, but in a way it was served to nobody. Mr. Harvey never got arrested, Susie's family went through difficult family trouble that nearly split their family apart. But through it all, they all feel that their personal justice was served because they could let go of Susie. This made me think of questions about justice, can justice be served without the law and someone having to pay? Is personal justice really justice?
Even though in the long sense justice isn't served, Susie's family throughout the book grieves for her until the end, where they can finally find calmness. They feel relieved at last that Susie can now rest in peace, and they feel the burden of her death go away. They will never forget her, but they will also feel better when they remember her.
The whole book is told through Susie's eyes, even though she is dead and in heaven. Heaven, what Susie thinks is,"different for everyone, yet some merge into mine and others." In the book, heaven is portrayed through what most people think today. A happy place, where you can get everything you want and can look over the one's you love. I think that although heaven is nice, it is showing the injustice of the people who died young, or were murdered. Susie's own personal justice is at first not served while she is in heaven, she feels lost and sad and even wanting vengeance for her death. All the people that die unwilling such as dying young feel that justice should be served when dead, and even everything in heaven won't soothe them because everything they want is to be alive again.
I feel that in some ways justice was served to everybody, but in a way it was served to nobody. Mr. Harvey never got arrested, Susie's family went through difficult family trouble that nearly split their family apart. But through it all, they all feel that their personal justice was served because they could let go of Susie. This made me think of questions about justice, can justice be served without the law and someone having to pay? Is personal justice really justice?
Thursday, December 6, 2012
Blog Post on Rash
I recently read Rash and the question I picked is was justice served? I think that justice is a way was solved for the main character Bo. Bo lives in the future, where everything is super safe and people are sent to prison for doing something as small as littering. Bo, unfairly gets sent to a prison camp where he meets friends and plays football, which is illegal. When Bo gets unfairly sent to prison, he is mad and confused. Although he did create some crimes, they are not strong enough for him to get sent to prison. Even though he gets out of prison, he does not feel satisfied that his life has been fixed. There are still unfair laws restricting peoples' basic rights. I feel that justice is being served only with his personal justice.
I feel that the people who were stopping the justice is the people who created the laws. They didn't realize that people should have personal freedom and laws should not be that strict. Even tough unconsciously they do not know they are stopping the justice, they are. What is ironic is that they are supposed to be represent justice yet they are doing the opposite. I think the one who is bring justice is Bork, Bo's animation monkey that aids him throughout the book. He is the one who manages to get Bo out of prison, and he helps out his family. Even though he is just a creation on a computer, at the end of the book he posses enough intelligence as a human.
I feel like in the real world justice wouldn't be served at all, even personal justice. If the United States did change their laws, I doubt that a computer creation could outwit them. In the book, there is no general justice served because the laws didn't change, and I feel like that would be true in the real world. Bo's personal justice is given to him almost by a accident. If this was the real world, I doubt that anything would change to the better, or change at all.
I feel that the people who were stopping the justice is the people who created the laws. They didn't realize that people should have personal freedom and laws should not be that strict. Even tough unconsciously they do not know they are stopping the justice, they are. What is ironic is that they are supposed to be represent justice yet they are doing the opposite. I think the one who is bring justice is Bork, Bo's animation monkey that aids him throughout the book. He is the one who manages to get Bo out of prison, and he helps out his family. Even though he is just a creation on a computer, at the end of the book he posses enough intelligence as a human.
I feel like in the real world justice wouldn't be served at all, even personal justice. If the United States did change their laws, I doubt that a computer creation could outwit them. In the book, there is no general justice served because the laws didn't change, and I feel like that would be true in the real world. Bo's personal justice is given to him almost by a accident. If this was the real world, I doubt that anything would change to the better, or change at all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)