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.