Reflections and Events

For the past few months or so, though really, ever since I went to Alaska, I thought it would be neat to add a few more post series to my book blog. 

Though I have actively writing about books and movie adaptations of the books since November, my book blog was exactly that, about books. I went to a few places since May, and it was only after I went to said few places that I thought it would be great to have blogged or vlogged about them. Also these past few months, I had a lot of personal changes that occurred, that would have been some neat posts as well. 

And so, drum roll please.... Reflections and Events post series! They'll appear on Wednesdays, so my post cycles will be more during the week. I swear I'll have catchier post series titles, but for now... I think that is pretty straight forward. I'm not sure if I'll do separate blog posts for each (one for event and one for reflection or have just one series with either/or depending on what is going on that month. This will also give me a good avenue to really think about my blog in context to everything else that is going on. I missed quite a few opportunities this spring and summer because it was only after I went to the convention or went on the trip did I really think about what my blog could have benefitted from. 

"Reflections and Events" will be centered around things that are going on in my life, whether it be personal or events that I attend that I think bookish booky readers would be interested in. On my pages, I'll post Events that I'll be attending for that month (if any) just so readers can expect a blog review about it. 

Stay tuned next week for the first blog post! 

Which is better? Ender's Game

So, like most books I've stumbled across in this blog, I nabbed Ender's Game by Olson Scott Card from the Independence School book closet last summer. I've heard about Ender's Game from many people over the years, praising the book as a must read for science fiction. Getting the opportunity to read the book (for free), I decided to take it on as a summer reading project. This was before I knew about Card's beliefs against homosexuality, gay rights and gay marriage, though I believe it was made more apparent as the countdown began with the movie's release.

The movie was released 2 years ago. My co-teacher and I assigned Ender's Game as an extra credit project for 10th grade English and we were both a little worried they would watch the movie and not read the book. Well, we didn't have to worry too much because none of them did it anyway!

I wanted to first start off with my impression and attitude toward the book, in spite of Card's strong advocacy against gay people, is that the book is insightful and thought provoking and is about the atrocities of war, and of young men fighting the old men war. Ender's journey is the hero's journey, with a twist (and a few prequels and sequels). I'm surprised by Card's stance on homosexuality and gay marriage because Ender's Game seems to be a book about inclusiveness and misunderstandings. Upon reading many reviews and articles about Card, he has also turned into a conspiracy theorist (though he's not a racist, which... I guess is good? Why a social justice warrior for one cause and not all others?)

Now, onto the movie. I will say, the movie does a good job of adapting 1st person perspective. I felt like the movie does really good highlights of what the book was about and touches on the main points without sacrificing much of the story. The viewer understands his loneliness and isolation through scenes with other characters and how they treat him. The viewer gets how smart he is through his actions, and the movie does a pretty good job of showing, not telling, the society and the desperation they all feel to defeat the aliens. They show highlights of his journey through battle school and command school, up to his final war game with the Formics and his friends.

Whereas I believed most of the actors in the movie, (Harrison Ford just seems to be collecting a paycheck, I feel) and I felt like Ender could really kick anyone's ass who crossed him, I felt like there was a lot missing from the movie. I'm not sure how it would have been remedied, but though there were scenes where you see Ender be sensitive and empathic with strong ties to his sister, I felt like the final impact of realizing that the Formics couldn't orally communicate didn't really come across. It happened in the book through the game and through his exploration of the game, which was lost in the movie.

I also understand there was a big difference in technology between when the book was written and when the movie was filmed. When I read the book, I envision the kids playing video games and playing the war games in a literal video game (like N64). In the movie, though some of them seemed to be using consols and sitting at like arcade games, Ender was looking a full size screen which looked like a legit camera to zoom in on the actual fighting. To me, it didn't seem like there was much of a separation there between the game and the actual fighting.

Even though the movie wasn't bad and I enjoyed watching it (there was a great cast assembled, Harrison Ford included), I feel like reading the book adds more dimensions to politics and war that is not seen in the movie. The movie also left out the political side of the book, which is an another part to war with Valentina and Peter, Ender's siblings.

Girl with a Pearl Earring by Tracy Chevalier

So, for the past month, I was preparing to move. I was diligently going through my things and getting rid of books, clothes and other materials. I was packing boxes and wondered daily how I managed to keep so much stuff around. It wasn't like I used it... and completely forgot about it when it was put away. 

However, as my adventures to find my wedding dress led me to the Goodwill (I planned my wedding in a month, so there was no stone left unturned when I was finding my dress), I couldn't resist looking at the books when I couldn't find what I was looking for. There were a lot of good books at the Goodwill, and though I resisted getting many others, I couldn't resist Girl with a Pearl Earring by Tracy Chevalier. I stumbled upon the movie on HBO go, and figured that it would be a perfect fit for a review, and of course, 'which is better?' post. 

I didn't like how the book started. I thought it was cumbersome, the way the author described each entrance of characters with weighty metaphors and colorful prose. It almost read like a role play thread where each role player spent their own post describing the character before writing their action and reactions. I thought the beginning of the novel was very slow and I was disinterested in all the characters...Until I wasn't. 

Somehow, Chevalier snuck up on me and turned the story around, weaving connections between Griet and those she came into contact with. Griet would navigate a world that clearly was not meant for her. She fell in love with her master, Veemer, immediately when they met and as a maid working in their home, is on the brink of finally being able to peer into the art world when everything comes crashing down. 

Griet has no power. She is from a destitute family, charged with supporting her family when her father is blinded by his work. Her poverty and sequential low status, follows her wherever she goes. She is on the bottom of the totem pole as a maid in the painter's house, and possibly even sinks lower when she becomes his assistant. She does double the work without a thought from her master. She is made to navigate the social world that goes on below Veemer's art studio in the attic. When the butcher's son takes an interest in her, her mother, despite years telling her to "be a good girl" and that she is too young to be married, pushes her to court the butcher's son, Pieter. 

The theme of powerful individuals extends to which individuals wield the most influence over Griet's life, which include the wealthy patron, the mistresses of the household and finally, the master. It shines a light on women in poverty and how little they mean to those who seek to possess them. Griet at first, chooses the master, until it gets her in the end. When his painting is finished, he does not see her anymore and those who helped him paint, do not defend her against the mistress, his wife, consumed with jealousy. 

At the end, she chooses Pieter. She runs out of the house and goes to the person that will give her safety. I have no problems with that, except the times in the book where they are kissing and fooling around in an alley way and their conversations makes it seems like she is settling. He seeks to possess her too, not taking into consideration her feelings or wants. It just so happens that he is the only viable way out for Griet, and one where she is almost beholden to no one, except her husband. 

I like to think that maybe her attitude changes when she is betrayed by the entire household, including the man she loves. However, the book reads like she is telling a story, and the story is told with little side notes that are tinged with regret. It's not clear whether she regrets her treatment at the house, or if she regrets not being bolder? I think she navigates the world around her with the acute awareness of what happens to maids when they catch the attention of the master's eye and maybe she runs towards Pieter because she finally accepted her feelings towards him. 

The book was a quick read, and possibly a very good book to to read in high school English. A healthy dose of high school English standards (theme, symbolism, motifs, etc.) along with a lot of potential supplemental texts, including the actual painting the book is based off of. It almost makes me wish that I taught English next year, I would definitely have read it with my 9th graders.

The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time by Mark Haddon

I'm on a reading stand alone fiction books kick lately. I similarly found this book like Reservation Blues and another teacher encouraged me to read it. When she summed it up, a boy with Asperger's tries to solve the case of who killed a neighbor's dog, I figured I would give it a go.

I read this book in two sittings. I'm moving next week and the more free books that I can give away/give to goodwill, the better. I also couldn't put it down. When I went to check out my opinion of the book with goodreads, well... some of the reviewers REALLY hated the book. Like, absolutely hated the book/would never ever attempt to give it to another person/never sell it/wish it on some poor smuck. Some people really liked it, but most found it so-so. 

I'm firmly in the camp of so-so. It's very post-modern type of novel. It's told in the POV of Christopher, a teenage book who is on the spectrum. He lives with his father in England and goes to a Special Needs school, though he is very good at mathematics. With encouragement of his teacher, he decides to write a novel but since can't imagine unreal things, decided to write about something true that he considers a mystery. Christopher found a neighbor's dog with a gardening fork (the big ones) in him. The dog was dead. Christopher picked him up to hold him and the neighbor caught him then accuses him of killing the dog. 

He goes around to investigates who killed Wellington, the dog. Through his investigation, Christopher reveals his backstory and the way he thinks. His mother is dead, even though the way that Christopher tells the story of his mother in the hospital makes the reader think there is more to the story than her dying. He reveals his method of thinking, such as his favorite colors, his least favorite colors, his enjoyment of math, his hopes of becoming an astronaut (and reasons why he can never be is heartbreaking), and his befuddlement of people. 

His father tells him to stay away from the death of Wellington case, but Christopher, who connects more with dogs than with people, does not. After an epic blowout with him and his father, the story changes from a boy with autism writing a mystery to solving the mystery of his family. 

The book starts you off on one adventure but then completely changes gears halfway through the book. Christopher's emotions are real, but he processed them very differently than other people. There are emotions of other individuals in the story, but that is lost through the eyes of Christopher. Maybe the subtly is supposed to be lost. I'm not sure, but the mystery of who killed the dog ends rather lamely after Christopher went through the work of talking to strangers and making maps of what could have possibly happened. 

Christopher's declaration that he "can never tell a lie" is an interesting characterization point and when I was reading it, it made me uncomfortable. He states that it is nearly impossible for him to do so, because the unpredictability of what could be there instead of what is there is too much for him and he gets confused and overwhelmed on what to choose. During the book, he definitely does lie, omit facts and tells white lies. I'm sure this is an active choice by the author to say that he can never lie, but in fact, Christopher does and has no insight to what he does to other people. This leads into how he can trust others and his wariness of people.

His mother, in fact, is not dead, but left her husband. She moved to London with the husband of the neighbor whose dog was killed. Chris' father, angry and sad, tells Christopher that she died and hides the letters that she written to him for a year. When it is revealed who killed Wellington, Christopher decides he is no longer safe with his father and decides to move in with his mother in London. For a boy, with autism, who never went anywhere on his own describing his tale of going to London, was a part of the novel that I couldn't stop reading. He even takes his rat with him!

The book ended on a happy note, which made me go, 'aw.' I worked with students with autism for many years and this year also had a few students with autism in my classes. Christopher had a lot of the same characteristics: concrete thinkers and they have the ability to be overstimulated very easily. Everything needs to be scheduled and make sense and I laughed when Christopher discussed his timetable and how when they went to France, he made his parents tell him everything they were going to do that day so he could feel better.

Overall, it's a quick read. I wouldn't go out and buy the book, however, but it's a good way to pass the time.

Reservation Blues by Sherman Alexie

I discovered Sherman Alexie this year while my juniors were reading Native American literature in their English class. The kids enjoyed his memoir called Absolutely True Story of a Part Time Indian and a few of them read The Lone Ranger and Tonto Fistfight in Heaven for their final projects. Reservation Blues was another one of the books that was up for grabs at the end of the year when a social studies teacher was retiring. I'll admit, the title didn't look appealing, but I took it anyway. I'm not normally a plain fiction reader, but I knew the author and figure I would give it a shot.

Sherman Alexie... this book, the history of Native Americans, for a lack of a better word, is just sad. Heartbreaking. But the kind of sadness that doesn't make a person cry, but seeps into the bones and lingers. The kind of sadness that couples with hopelessness and stays with you forever. From the atrocities that occurred with the Native Americans, no one should ever forget what happened, and Reservation Blues makes damn sure of that.

The story opens with a folk legend that is taken for truth. Robert Johnson is standing at the crossroads in the Spokane Indian Reservation with a guitar and deep cuts on his hands. He doesn't want to play the guitar, he tells Thomas Builds-the-Fire, a member of the tribe who is the only one brave enough to speak to him, that he can never play again because The Gentleman will find him. Thomas offers to give him a lift but leaves him at the foot of the mountain when Robert Johnson requests to see Big Mom. The guitar is left in Thomas' car, and the guitar persuades Thomas to start a band with his three former/current bullies, Victor and Junior.

They soon become popular on the reservation and they play their first gig at a nearby reservation, the Flathead reservation. They meet Chess and Checkers Warm Waters, who eventually join the band. The guitar's magic helps them become semi-famous, playing off the reservation, and getting a call from a recording studio in NYC. However, like all Native American history, even though it starts to turn up, it eventually falls apart.

The story itself, a band trying to make it big, isn't unique. The characters, their personalities and their struggles are the embodiment of the same sort of stories found on reservations. Victor is a deadbeat, who mooches off his friend for most of the book, a drunk, and has deep seated anger and rage that has been boiling up in past lifetimes. He's mistrustful and mean, and uses sleeping with women as trophies. After the guitar talks Thomas into starting a band, the guitar finds itself to Victor, who becomes a powerful guitar player because of it.

Junior and Victor are best friends, though the reasons why are not clear until towards the end of the book. Junior drives a water truck and puts up with Victor's drinking (and partakes too) and crap. Junior embodies the Indian man that couldn't quite make it off the reservation but is almost functional on the reservation with his job and his friend. He flunks out of college, with reasons that are not revealed until 3/4 through the book.

Thomas Builds-the-Fire is the main character of the book, and the lead singer. He loves to tell stories. All the members of the reservation knows his stories and they are sick of them. He falls in love with Chess Warm Waters, who is a flathead Indian from the nearby reservation. He is not an alcoholic and is dependable, which are all traits that Chess desires in a boyfriend. Thomas dreams of making something for himself and since there are no opportunities on the reservation, they go off the reservation to see if their band could make it.

Chess and Checkers Warm Waters are sisters, who are plagued, like the other members of the band, by alcoholism and poverty. They fight fires in the summer, and hope that their money last them through the winter. Checkers Warm Waters falls in love with older men and later on, falls in love with Father Arnold, for better or for worse. Chess resents the white women who come onto the reservation, Veronica and Betty and whereas Victor uses them as trophies, Chess views them as women who take Indian men away from them.

Alexie uses prose wonderfully in this book, and the metaphor of Indian horses (and their mass murdering) is constantly referred back too throughout the novel. If I have to go back in the book to remind myself what "something" is (a person, an event, etc.), then the author didn't do their job of effectively making sure that I, the reader, didn't forget about it. The metaphor of the horses and Big Mom stuck with me and when Alexis throws a reminder of the screaming horses, I didn't forget. I knew exactly what he was talking about. The destruction of beautiful horses parallel the destruction of a people.

The sadness of the story is multifaceted but it's not overdone. He presents the reality of Native Americans through dreams, songs and stories, which seems to be the core of their cultures. It demonstrates the conflicts between characters and within themselves but the transition between all three within the larger context of the novel is seamless and it flows. What also flows within the novel is the reference of historical atrocities of Wounded Knee and other Indian wars. Alexie doesn't go into how these events drastically and systematically desimates Native American tribes, but the casual reference of them shows that they will always be apart of Native American history, but more importantly, Native American reality.

BAE has The Lone Ranger and Tonto Fistfight in Heaven and after I work through some of my book stack, I will revisit Sherman Alexie. He is a very talented writer with a viewpoint that should be shared with the world.

One Night Stands with American History by Richard Shenkman and Kurt Reiger

My favorite part about history, and why I was drawn to the social studies, were the stories. History is incredibly valuable: people can learn from the mistakes of the past, as well as look to the best in order to form their own decisions. I'm sure there are a lot of other valuable information about social studies as well, like politics and military strategies, but man, oh man, I loved the stories.

What is also very interesting about history and a bit sad as well, is that history is mostly written by the victors. We see that all the time when we read history textbooks. It doesn't take much to actually alter history. Just a few words on a page and distribute it to youngsters.

I got this book while I was going through a retiring teacher's classroom. He filled his room up with books and as he retired, gave them all away. I got a few other books that I'm excited to read but I chose One Night Stands because I thought it would be a good pairing with my new position as a social studies teacher next year. Not sure if I'll ever reference the title of the book, though...

One Night Stands shares a plethora of stories about famous politicians that can either be confirmed or denied. The author guides you through U.S history, starting from the American Revolution all the way up to the 2000s. The author groups stories by eras with bulleted facts and figures at the beginning of each chapter. Most stories are about presidents, with a sprinkling of cabin members, first ladies and congress.

Teddy Roosevelt is quite an exciting person who met his challenges with gusto throughout his life. However, he is a product of his time and backed up a "scientific" book about the inferiority of black people. Yikes. Not cool, Teddy... not cool.

George Washington is a folk hero and a legend in American history, including how lucky he was to not have been shot. John Adams, the poor sod, who is so brilliant but at the end of the day, everyone hated him. I also loved how he was vehemently against the Bald Eagle and wanted a good solid bird to be the nation's mascot... the turkey.

Side note, why is Andrew Jackson still on American money? He's such a jerk and wasn't a good president. Even though I mentioned that Teddy Roosevelt was a product of his time, Andrew Jackson was a jerk. He hated Native Americans and there was this one story about how he was stopped somewhere where the agents wanted to check his papers for transporting slaves. Not one to be told what to do, or have his slaves being taken from him, he uncuff his slaves, gave them weapons and walked through the town. When they made it through, he took the weapons away, put them back in chains, and then sold them. Just... wow.

I thought the most interesting thing was the fact that Hoover's veep was part Native American. Charles Curtis's mother was Native American (Kaw, I think) and his father was white. There are a few sad stories about his childhood and how when his maternal grandparents were forced to moved reservations, they told him to stay with his paternal grandparents to in order to have the opportunities. Apparently he rode horses as well.

Even though I enjoy studying WWII history, Ike Eisenhower was... an interesting individual. Apparently, he didn't like intellectuals. There was also a tidbit about a satirical journalist rewriting Lincoln's emancipation proclamation in Ike's language. He does not sound very good.

The first presidential library I ever visited was the LBJ museum in Austin, Texas. Johnson was a great personality and practiced some of the old politics of intimidation and "wearing you down." There was also a story about how he whipped it out for journalists in China!

The book only goes up to the George W. Bush, and after reading the Bushisms, I'm depressed he was ever elected. 

I would love this book to be updated with stories of Obama.... But who knows if they'll do that. Oh, I especially loved the Clinton stories... Who knew he would become even more popular after his scandals?

Which is better? Book Thief

I read The Book Thief last year. I don't remember how I acquired the book but I remembered that it was a great, big deal. I think BAE got me a copy of the book from Perry Hall? Or was it from the Independence's book closet? Anyway, I read the book last summer and a few days ago, I finally got around to watching the movie.

Man, oh man, I liked both the book and the movie. However, goodreads reviews always makes me second guess myself. Some of the reviews aligned with my opinions on the book, was that it was very good, albeit, dense. However, some of the reviews rip the book apart, which makes me think, 'oh, do I not have good taste? Am I not critical enough of books?'

But you know what? Sometimes we read for entertainment. Not every book we read has to enhance our lives for the better, or make us think of how to improve the world. Also, we don't have to constantly criticize whether the book will move the world or whether it makes the reader aware of what is out there. When people put themselves under that kind of pressure to change themselves or to change their universe, not only are they burned out, but nothing ever gets done. You don't change your life because every little thing you could change isn't enough... and if you want to improve the world, every little thing you do is also not good enough.

Anyway, I liked the book. I was confused in the beginning with the character of Death and the omniscient 3rd person perspective. Or was it 1st person when he was speaking? I honestly don't remember and I gave the book back wherever I borrowed it from. The Book Thief is marketed as a young adult book, but honestly... I don't see how. It's a dense book with colorful prose and a plethora of metaphors and other literary devices, some quite sophisticated. If it is, then I'm not sharp of a reader I perceived myself to be!

Back to "The Book Thief" movie. Like I said before, I liked both the book and the movie, and the movie goes well as a companion to the book. What I noticed about the movie was that they took scenes and events from the book and lifted them off the page. The introduction with Death and the death of her younger brother is exactly how I pictured it. She picks up The Grave Digger Handbook and starts her journey as a book stealer.

The movie was very well casted. They chose superb actors and actresses as well as the children to play Liesel and Rudy. Geoffrey Rush and Emily Watson's performances as Hans and Rosa actually gave context to how much Liesel meant to them in the book. In the book, Hans was very reserved and his love for his foster daughter came out in very subtle ways which needed to be translated for the screen. Rosa was a very difficult character to play and she nailed it. Everyone's on screen chemistry was excellent.

Now, the downsides to The Book Thief movie. The character of Death, which starts off as a narrator but turns into more of a character as the book goes on, is lost in the movie. His monologues are cut down to practically one liners. He has stirring lines at the end of the movie as he wraps up Liesel's story, but he doesn't really amount to anything other than a narrator.

The Book Thief book is also much more complex (which is why I'm still befuddled to why it's considered young adult) with much more events occurring in Nazi Germany with Liesel and Rudy, Max, the Hubermanns, Nazis and the Steiners. I completely missed that the father enlisted so that Rudy didn't have to be part of the Nazi Youth leadership because it seemed to be a 5 second scene. The movie alluded that Hans was not in favor of the Nazis, but the book really goes into Hans history and then how his actions lead to him getting drafted. There were also many other characters in the book that the movie did not cast, which characterized Nazi Germany as much more multifaceted than it did in the movie.

The movie largely focused on Liesel's story, but in the book there was Rudy's story, the Steiners, Max, the Hubermanns, and the mayor and his wife and through those stories showed the spectrum of living under a tyrannical government.

Overall, I highly recommend reading the book and watching the movie. They are both great stand alones, and one doesn't have to choose to either read or watch. I would recommend that students who read the book should also watch the movie in order to better understand the plot and Nazi era Germany. I agree with most of what the movie cut and adapted the premise of the book wonderfully.