Hunger Games #2

     As you already know, I'm reading the hunger games for our ELA book club. It's an amazing action packed, futuristic survival story thats surprisingly philosophical.
     This week in reading the Hunger Games, I've noticed how the poorer people have a greater chance of being chosen than the rich. So basically if you didn't already know, the Hunger Games is when each of the twelve districts (that are owned as colonies by a higher power) must sacrifice one boy and one girl tribute in between the ages of 12-18 to fight till the death against the others in a televised arena. The games were created to make the districts sacrifice to the "all mighty Capitol" and fear it as well. The selection is random (like a lottery) but, if your poor you have the option of putting your name in the selection (increasing your risk to be chosen) for tesserae (money). In the book, Katniss says that this system was made to make the poor suffer a greater deal for the cause. To make the poor even more helpless against the all mighty Capital as they put themselves in risk for public humiliation and death so they can have money to eat. I don't think that its interesting to talk about weather its write or wrong because it's kind of obvious. It isn't write to have the poor be at greater risk for something that (acourding to the Capitol) is the entire communities fault. Also, this solution is only eligible for children, which means poor families can only be fed if they have the twelve year olds sacrifice. I think the fact that its children being put in debt and risking their lives just makes it even more wrong.
     I think that what this rule is interesting because its put me into the opposite perspective. The Capitols perspective. When I think about it, not only is this rule demeaning to the poor citizens, but also to the government. This entire system was created to make the citizens fear the Capitol, and with my previous knowledge of the second book, the Capitol has all the winning tributes fight each other to show that even the strongest are nothing to the Capitol. No one is meant to be superior. Well, if your wealthy and your children have less of a chance of being slaughtered, doesn't that make you feel more superior. The government of Panem has created a cast system through their sacrificial games, and I don't think that its wise. If I were in charge and I wanted the people to fear me using that system I would have everyone feel equally powerless so no one can get away with anything, because in the end rich or poor they're all eligible for the games, and the credit system is just making the rich feel like they can escape the punishments. I don't think the government of this world is making a wise decition...

Hunger Games

    Recently I've been part of a book club for school, and thank god we have chosen the Hunger Games, which was a very beloved book for me in the 7th grade. I don't really like allot of books I'm more into plays, but the Hunger Games is a strikingly entertaining read, it's fast pace and anyone can fall for the story.

    Basically if you don't know the story, its about the government taking like 24 kids and having them fight to the death in a televised arena. This dystopia has the government controlling the people to such an extent they are forced to sacrifice their children. Its perfect to discuss our latest philosophy topic of freedom. Just being trapped in an arena forced to fight until death obviously interlopes with freedom, but I want to think about the entire rebellion aspect and if your really free if you are being controlled by a cause.

     I know this sounds pretty abstract, but it's more about control and how I'm realizing that what Katniss is fighting against is controlling her no matter what she does. The government controls everyone anyways,  but when Katniss does everything she can to defy it, even when it wont do her any good, she's still being controlled because it's her enemy's actions that are causing hers. She nor anyone cannot possibly be free because what ever they do is just doing because of this higher power, weather it's to follow it or fight against it. So its not freedom to rebel, because your decitions are just the retaliation to another force. But being obedient and following the rules also makes you not free. So how can they ever be free? How can we ever be free if we're always doing something for another cause? There is always something greater than us, a cause or an idea that's more important than just our selves. Something we're following or working at. If we're always being influenced by something than I don't see how we can have total freedom. It's like we have no choice. I'm talking about freedom, and control, and the Hunger games only because I was influenced by the book and the discussions we've been having in class. Did I have the "freedom" to choose what to write about? Or to create my own ideas? No, I've been influenced incredibly. We're always being influenced by something, so how can we possibly be free to make our own choices? 

Antony and Cleopatra

    Recently I've stumbled upon a really intense, and kind of exotic Shakespeare tragedy. Antony and Cleopatra, has so far been about the courageous Roman General Mark Antony, who falls passionately in love with Egypt's beautiful and manipulative Queen. They both have huge responsibilities for their nations, and I find it really interesting how through the jealousy of Ceasure and the conflicts between the people they tamper with the entire political ancient world, and even start uprisings and wars. All because of one love affair.

    Mark Antony comes to Cleopatra, to her palace in her land. As they fall in love, he decides to stay with her, but he has a home and a job to do back in Rome is it right that he's staying in Egypt with Cleopatra? Or what I think is more interesting to discuss, is it right that Cleopatra is having him live with her, even though he's needed in Rome, and more importantly by staying with her he's risking not only his career but his life, and the good of his people as well. So is it okay in a relationship to want someone to stay where you are when it doesn't benefit them? I don't think it is. Even if Antony at the time wanted to stay with Cleopatra, if Cleopatra really loved him she would want what's better for him. 

     This reminds me of in The Devil Wears Prada, when Andrea (Ann Hathaway) has this new fashion career and is rising up, but the boyfriend isn't supportive at all because she never spends time with him, and her career has become her life. He would rather her quite the job and spend more time with him. Well I think its not right for you to want the person you love to be unhappy so your happy. It's just a sign of in-maturity and if Cleopatra really loved Mark Antony she would want what's best for him. And if your on the other end of the situation, I think that in when important people in your life are weighing you down and you should drop them.

      Personally, I do not think Cleopatra really was in love with Mark Antony. Not only because she didn't want the best for him but also because, all the consequences and problems that were created by their relationship hurt Rome so much, and benefited Egypt. Because of Cleopatra seducing Mark Antony, Antony breaks up the marriage between him and Octavia (Ceasures sister) and becomes an enemy of Ceasure. At this time Pompey is rebelling against Rome, and now Antony is leading the Egyptian Navy against Rome. Now that Rome is: missing its General (Mark Antony), and already fighting a war, Egypt attacks. To me the political situation seems to benefit Egypt way to much for this all to be a coeincidence because Cleopatra really did love Antony. 

      Not to mention, Cleopatra already had a previous love affair with Ceasure himself. Egypt's Queen used her beauty to control the two most powerful men of the ancient world to benefit her nation. I think Cleopatra was a master of political manipulation.

    

reading response: perfect chemistry (& justice...)

      Salutations people of the cyber world, I'm back! Being away on a trip and then bombarded with Macbeth lines has caused me to falter on my reading responses but now it's time to get back in action!

      I've been reading Perfect Chemistry (if you've read my previous post you would know that this book is just so awful, yet so good...) anyways, so in the book the two main characters: latino gang member Alex and head cheerleader Brittany sit next to each other in science class and do not get along. As they argue and throw words at each other, they're chemicals start to spill and they basically start a fire at their desks. Although there were a couple of other people getting involved in the argument, (boyfriend, friends ex...) the teacher gives the entire class detention. I thought that this situation would be perfect for writing a blog post off of because it has to due with justice, and if it's right or wrong to punish the community because of the actions of few people. Like for instance, what if a crazy person in NYC kills someone. Should we all go to jail? Well, no and that's obvious but it seems to me that the smaller the group and the more people that get involved the more complicated our decition becomes. It all has to do with a mentality, "every man for himself?" or "know one gets left behind?" I think it's just how individuals perceve their duties to what ever community they belong too from things like households, to neighborhoods, to cities, to countries, to citizens of the world. Personally in my opinion I have an individualistic state of mind, in the sense that I won't bother anyone just don't bother me, you do what you want, just don't tell me what I can and can't do. So I think that would answer my question on not punishing the community.

      However, today in class something very similar happened. So many people in the class were talking and making noise, that the teachers just gave us all detention. Out of about 25 people maybe 8 people were talking, but the teachers couldn't decifer who it was so we all took the blame. In this situation I think you could have a more powerful argument for the communal punishment. Although, I wish this hadn't happened, if I were the teacher and it was a number of people making noise and I couldn't tell who; someone has to be punished. And sometimes the group does have to take a blame, because when your taking part in a community you do end up going through situations together and if you all have to suffer than you have to progress yourselves and each other to be better as a whole so you don't have to face further punishment.
       In the end, I don't think an entire community should be punished for the actions of one, or two, or even three or four, just as long as the person in power (punisher...?) know's who they are. But if it's obviously many people, and they are unknown, unfortunetly the group must take fault.

Response: D'aulairies book of Greek Myths

     Now, recently, I've happily been treating myself to flipping through the pages of what is probably my favorite work of literature. "D'aulaires Book of Greek Myths." For years now I've been reading this book (on and off) and it just never seems to get boring.  D'aulaires book of Greek myths is a collaboration of what to me almost seems like an infinite amount of myths. They consist of both Gods and Heroes, but I like reading about the Gods. To me, their lives just seem so much more complex and intriguing, and that's what I wanted to write a response about.

      What I've come to notice about the Greek gods is that, the Greeks created them as imperfect creatures. Non of them have it all, they all have their flaws, and thats what defines them. I feel like that's what makes their stories so complex. Zeus, is ruler of the universe and has all the power possible, but can't control his temper which causes him to compromise many of the lives of the people who worship him. He does not have a good state of mind... Aphrodite, the goddess of love herself doesn't even have what we would call an "idealistic" marriage. She was forced to marry Hephaestus, who she'll never love and because of that she ends up having affaires with Ares which leads to having her caught and humiliated by the other Gods. And Ares God of war, was not only strong and courageous, but also a coward, he retreated his battles the instant he started to get hurt. He also was ruthless and had no value of life destroying others without even realizing it.

      What I love about these interpretations, is that they resemble reality. Life isn't perfect and it never will be, so if we had to place beings that rule and create our universe it just wouldn't make sense to have them be perfect specimens. If they were, life would be perfect too. Wouldn't it? I mean, power is overwhelming and can make you go crazy, make you lose control, like Zeus. And love can't be "Idealistic" or perfect. It's flawed and difficult and risky, like Aphrodite's relationships. And, wars don't only consist of victories, there's defeat, and after every war lives are lost, innocent people are killed, and there's destruction that never was meant to happen. I think Ancient Greeks were brilliant because they were able to create characters that do resemble the elements of life. They weren't fake.

      These fantasy's aren't just meant for entertainment. I really do believe that they can create an incredible state of mind in culture. I think if we did believe in gods like this, we would have a better mentality. A mentality of imperfection, and acceptance. As Americans, many of us (not all of us) grow up with Disney and Fairy Tails and I hate to say it but, a God that's "perfect" (well at least for me when I went to sunday school we learned that god makes no mistakes ex...). Maybe I'm wrong, but what I'm trying to say is that this whole ancient Greek conception of having imperfect Gods creating a flawed universe is interesting to me because I think that allows people the answer to happiness. Don't expect perfection and don't have an ideal symbol/god/whatever that idolises perfection. Because, if you do you'll never be happy. nothing will ever be enough. 

       Thank you D'aulairies!

reading response: perfect chemistry and many other stories...

   Recently I have been contradicting my taste in books, and have kind of forcefully been reading "Perfect Chemistry" by Simone Elkeles. I actually chose this book randomly without even looking at it when we had a reading period last week, and just as I saw the cover I rolled my eyes and laughed mockingly because their are hundreds of "dramatic teen romance novels" out their and I find them utterly cliche and frustrating to reflect on, because they lack of creativity and don't provide any ideas that make me question our world and society ex... plus the literature is usually boring or mediocre, and I get to many vibes that the author is trying way to hard to be "dramatic."

   However, despite my negativity towards teen romance novels, reading the book "Perfect Chemistry" has been very appropriate to our Romeo and Juliet study and class, and doing reading responses. (note: I'm not saying that a book called "Perfect Chemistry" could compare to Shakespeare's literature, I've just found that I've been able to connect one element I noticed in Perfect Chemistry and elaborate off of it, which also connects to Romeo and Juliet.) 

   So basically, I want to talk about forbidden love, and look at it through a different perspective. Could the certain love be created because it's forbidden? In the book i'm reading, the two main characters are from opposite backgrounds and are forbidden to be together, (ones poor ones rich) and just like in Romeo and Juliet they fall in love so quickly without even really knowing each other. I do feel like it's the fact that these people are not meant to be together (in the eyes of society) that becomes the foundation of their relationship.

   Besides "Perfect Chemistry" and "Romeo & Juliet," recently I've also stumbled upon an old classic that also fits into this topic. The Little Mermaid! Pretty much everyone knows the story, and what happens is Ariel falls in love with a human.  I do think that Ariel fell in love with the prince because he was human. She even sings about wanting to be human constantly, its her want. 

   What if with all these stories there isn't any love at all but just personal desire. Like Romeo wanting to forget about Roseline, Juliet wanting to defy her controlling family, the characters in my book wanting something different, or Ariel wanting to be human. I feel like there's just something about being human that makes us want what we can't have. Something that makes us want to do something different or crave the "forbidden fruit."

reading response: Pretties

     Iv Currently started to re-read the book "Pretty's" by Scott Westerfield. So basically Pretty's is about this future-istic world where our society becomes even more vain and takes plastic surgery to an even farther extent. Recreating yourself becomes the point of life, and a persons only purpose in life is to be beautiful.
     I appreciate Scott Westerfields idea of creating a dystopia based on a vanity dilema our society is facing today. The problem with people in general, is that we as people think we're right, and normal. And it's always been like this, each generation thinks their superior and hip, but after a while they'll just get laughed at or frowned upon in the future by a new generation of young people. Hundreds of years ago in China women would bind their feet, and we look at this with disgust now, but back then of course they thought what they were doing was right. They thought it was necessary, why else would they go through that pain?  Generation, after generation new "fads" become popular, it can be styles in history so far away from our world, that may seem more extreme like, foot binding, corsets and toxins for whitening the face. Or it can be be more recent trends like sagging pants, and the obsession Americans go through over weight loss. There are 60% of Americans who are obese, and I think that it would be normal for them to want to lose weight, but I think our society has a strange perception on what size is considered beautiful. And people of healthy sizes are striving to be thinner trying to reach a place they'll never be, and doing vile things to their body which leads to eating disorders and mental illnesses. I really do believe that as time goes by, the future generations are going to look back at us and frown.
     But how do we realize what we're really doing to ourselves? I think that writing and reflection is the key. When Scott Westerfield wrote his dystopia Prettys, all he had to do was set his story into the future and just exaggerate what's happening to us now in order to get the attention. Now, reflecting on it we can understand what us as a society are doing.
      Looking back at history can also help us fix our mistakes because history does repeat itself. The answer is to just look upon a different society and judge them. Because naturally we don't judge ourselves, but realizing things about others can make us think about ourselves. And its ignorant not to realize that we're wrong. We are only human, so obviously we can't be perfect and fads will come and go. Small fads like bobs, perms or even sagging pants aren't much of an issue, but when we do something thats physically going against nature and hurting our bodies we're just destroying ourselves over vanity. Vanity is a normal trait, but it shouldn't be taken to the extent where your physically hurting yourself . I think that not only do we have to observe the past, but we can question the present. Questioning the world around us is one of the smartest things we can do, in order to realize what we're doing wrong we have to start with questioning, and create our own philosiphies about the world.

     I thought the most helpful thing that Patrick did to me was explain how I felt about the facts I was listing (and adding more previous fads).  Because of writing about how I felt about weight loss, I was able to finish stronger, connect to the world, and explain when vanity goes to far.

reading response to shakespeare's tragedy's (preferably macbeth and romeo&juliet)

      As you already know, in class we've been reading the tragedy of Romeo and Juliet by Shakespeare. Also, I've recently been reading the tragedy of Macbeth as well, so the passed couple of weeks have kind of been dominated by Shakespeare's most famous tragedy's. I've recently realized, I really enjoy tragedy's.
      So basically Macbeth is about this power hungry couple who kill people in order to get to the throne, like friends or people who have helped them ex... and by the end of the play the guilt eats them alive, making them go crazy which leads them to their own downfalls.
       Romeo and Juliet also ruin themselves when they're love becomes even more forbidden then it was, and they attempt to run runaway together, to escape. Sadly, just because of lack of communication, the elaborate plan Juliet and frier Lorence made that would allow Juliet to runaway with her Romeo failed epicly, when Romeo himself wasn't notified, and thought that the love of his life was actually dead. And, we know that this causes Juliet to kill herself, ending the passionate love that these two lovers shared.
       And its passion that inflicts the tragic endings of these plays, the strive for power and control, or the heat and the connection with another person that love brings. These characters, just like any other characters in a tragedy go to far. The strive and desire they need takes them way over bored, and kills them. Its almost like you can't keep living after becoming so alive. Or like, "living fast, and dying young."
        But what I noticed is that its not the tragedy at the end of the story that needs to be thought about, its what leads up to the climax. In Macbeth, the witches just give away the entire story, and in Romeo and Juliet theres an actual prologue that states the death of our two main characters. So even if your not familiar with these famous stories you know whats going to happen. I don't think a good tragedy should be suspenseful. In class when we read the prologue to Romeo and Juliet we talked about how it makes us "feel" for the characters, and its true. We feel sympathy, and we feel smarter as if we're let in on a secret, like we know more about their story then they do.
        I want to also focus on another aspect that I mentioned before. Because we know we're in a tragedy. If we can already infer that its the whole living large with passion theory, that killed these characters then, we have an entire play to let our minds wonder how this is going to happen. And even after reading these plays a million times our minds cant even help themselves we feel the need to unravel the story further. We want to know "what if" they had survived? What love could possibly be so passionate? What kind of people would strive and kanive for power at such an extent? What kinds of actions would characters have to do that would cause they're lives to end so harshly, what would they do to make the world around them want to destroy and eliminate them. Why do these people crave absolute control, or the need to be with someone?
        That is what I like about tragedy's.

Response to The power of a qoute: (Rebekah hickson's blogpost)

        My fellow classmate Rebekah Hickson, wrote a powerful blogpost about her independent reading book (along with everyone else). But, what i really admired about Rebekah's post was that she didn't even need to retell, and then talk about the plot of the book she was reading, I didn't even have to know what book she was reading to understand the post because Rebekah went much deeper then the book itself. Her post was about the authors tactics and how he used "quotes" in his book. Then in the response, Rebekah disected the quotes and let us understand what they mean and how she felt about them. And after that Rebekah went even further talking about quotes in general and what they really are, or what they really can be.
         While reading rebekah's response, I first noticed how she just went strait to the quotes without talking about the plot of the book. I really admired this, because I thought it was a perfect example about how a book can be more than just a story, and it was like an apreciation to the quotes the author was putting in. When writing a book, everything that goes into it is purposeful, and is there for a reason. Rebekah was able to zoom into one of the elements and write a whole response off it. This shows she put allot of thought into the detail the author used.
          Like I said before, Rebekah was able to disect her quotes and she defined every one of them with her perspective. She made it clear what the quotes meant to her, like what they make her think about and ex...  She put meaning to what the author was doing by not only recognizing the quotes, but putting meaning behind them with her own words.
          And finally, Rebekah went even further with her writing by talking about quotes in general, explaining what they are and saying stuff like: "Quotes can be just a few words, but can make you think for hours" (quote from rebekah!!!) I feel like Rebekah really zoomed in on one topic and elaborated perfectly, creating a perfect blogpost.
        
      

reading response: ROMEO & JULIET

       As you know, I have been reading the book "Burned" by Ellen Hopkins, and quite frankly after reading it for over two weeks I realized that I didn't like the book. Nothing happens. However, I was able to write two blogposts off of it but it wasn't because of the plot line or the book its self. It was more of, my response to the twisted Mormon society that the book takes place in. So, I thought to myself why am I reading a book that I don't enjoy? And because of that I've taken a break from the dark and depressing Ellen Hopkins books.
       Mainly because we're studying this in class, I am currently re-reading (for like the 100000th time) Shakespeare's tragedy: Romeo & Juliet. To most of the world "Romeo and Juliet" is a heart warming love story, not only is it heart warming, but its probably the most classic and beloved love story of all time. Everyone desires love like that. I'm sure that even the most "safe" and boring people really do dream about running away and experiencing something "forbidden," sneaking around under the moonlight in balconies all secretive, it's probably every teenage girl's fantasy. But as reading this with a different perspective I'm realizing the sickening irony shakespeare put into this play. As if to mock... pretty much everyone....
       In school, we were given a sonnet to read, in which Shakespeare says the opposite of everything you would usually say in a sonnet. like, "her lips aren't red like coral," and "music sounds much nicer than her voice." We learned how Shakespeare was mocking all the other sonnet writers and kind of waking everyone up. I mean, it is pretty ridiculous. This may not sound romantic but I don't care how pretty any girl is, scientifically her eyes cannot shine brighter than the sun. They just can't or being on the same planet as her would blind you let alone burn you to death. I feel Shakespeare was thinking like this when he was writing that sonnet. Like me.
       But now, reading Romeo & Juliet after having that discussion in class, I'm realizing that irony of Romeo and Juliet's tragedy is trying to make the same statement as his sonnet. Juliet is only 14 years old. 14!!! I know that this is set in an older time period where life starts younger, but still thats not even a high school girl in our society. Do you know how many girls don't find "true love" in middle school? let alone high school, let alone college! even 40 year old women still get married and start families. Juliet had her whole life ahead of her when she met Romeo, who knows what such a wonderful young girl could accomplish in her life. I know that in the 1500's it was normal to marry in your teenage years, so this may not have supported Shakespeares intentions but it sure does prove mine. Juliet thinks that Romeo "loves" her, when the irony is, (and I think shakespeare must have done this intentionally) just before Romeo met Juliette, in like the second scene of the play, he was going off about "Roseline" and how he loved her. And needed to be with her forever. Then as soon as he lays eyes on Juliet he drops Roseline like an old pair of socks. Who knows, if he survived he could have easily forgotten about Juliet, and moved on.
         In reality, I feel that Juliet was a poor, confused, and innocent girl who experienced "first love" in  an over dramatic way which led her to leaving her life in the hands of an un decided, un-rational, hormonal, teenage boy. And that was the mistake that led to her downfall.
         Just the whole epic failure that Romeo and Juliet go through is what my entire theory is based on.  And the beautiful things they say to each other, just makes it even more of a slap in the face to all those starstruck lovers out there, because they feed into it. It's like tempting kids with candy, and Shakespeare's a genius because all the negative messages he's trying to send are covered by Romeo and Juliet's beautiful relationship. And not only is he getting his messages out but, the people of the world who he's making fun of don't even realize it! They're way to caught up in the story of these two beautiful passionate lovers who the people aspire to be. And Romeo and Juliet is a pretty amazing play.
         It's like making fun of someone, but they not only don't know your making fun of them, their amused by what your saying! Shakespeares a genius making statements about his world through his writing, and the people he chooses to demean, just feed into his plays. And, his writing and his ideas behind his writing are eternal. Im sitting here typing in the year 2011, and I'm talking about how Shakespeare used Romeo and Juliet, to make fun of all those mushy starstruk lovers out there. And my theory makes perfect sense, because anyone can interpret Shakespeare in any way they want.

reading Response for "BURNED" #2

     As you know, I am currently reading the book "Burned" by Ellen Hopkins. In this book, the main character Pattyn lives in a Mormon society where everyone control's her. I have already talked about the theory on parents giving kids more and more rules just puts more focus on breaking them. But now I want to focus on rules in general, and the control factor that society can put on people.
      In the Mormon society that my character lives in, the customs that have to do with religion and respect are so intense I feel it just makes the people unhappy, and less self dependent. The Mormon gender roles are extremely traditional even though its the 21st century. The men work, and the women stay at home to watch the kids. There's nothing wrong with that, but in this society it's a rule. You don't have a choice, and I've been noticing that the more society enforces these gender roles the harder it is for the individual. The women like Pattyn's mother only leave the house to go to church and their soul purpose in life is to give birth to as many baby's their body can bear. It's not these rules themselves that I see is the greatest problem, but the fact that they can't be broken. Thats dangerous. If the women like Pattyn's Mom stay inside all day and aren't educated than how will they be able to stand up for their rights?
       Rules in society our needed obviously, they're needs to be a punishment if you kill someone. And you shouldn't be aloud to steel, but society or government cannot tell you how to live your life. In my eyes we should be able to marry who we want, work if we want too, or the contrary.
        When society uses something like religion to control your everyday life and who you are as a person that's wrong. In "Burned" Pattyn would get punished for dreaming something considered "un holy." It makes people not think for themselves, and then if people realize that somethings wrong its almost impossible for them to fight back, when everyone els is doing it. Problems in society can be solved, but it's our job to make it as fair as possible in the first place and give people their space.

reading Response for "BURNED" by: Ellen Hopkins

     I have finished the book "Identical" by: Ellen Hopkins, and now I have just started another of her poem anthology's called "Burn." I'm still in the begining of this book, but I've read enough to be able to make powerful predictions.
     The book "Burned" takes place in Utah, and it's about a mormon girl living under the extreme customs that her family and society, (the society of mormons around her) expect from her. Before starting to read this book, I vaguely new about mormon culture. I assumed that it was strict, and I had heard that men where allowed many wives, but I didn't comprehend how strict they are with rules, and how over-top they are with supervising their children's lives. Pattyn, the main character in this book seems to always be thinking about the things she's forbidden to do. (this is probably a utility the author is using to get us to understand the background in the story). Anyways, Pattyn is in high school, and she's "forbidden" to kiss, or for any matter show any kind of affection towards any boys. For her, romance is to take place after marrage, and it is just disgraceful for a girl to start being attracted to boys at her age (somewhere around 15, 16). Yet, I've noticed that all these social barriers telling her what not to do, are fuelling her with defiance and eagerness to break the rules.
      That is what I wanted to talk about, and I've come with an inference. I think that the more rules that are enforced on a kid, the more he'll want to break them. And, the more reasons why he/she will grab any chance they get to defy their superiors. In the book "Burned" the more and more these rules and expectations are recited to Pattyn, the more and more she starts thinking about breaking them. Or "what it would be like to kiss a boy?". The more she uses her mind to think about these forbidin actions, the more and more she wants to do them.
        This whole concept that strict rules lead to chaos reminds me of a similar story about a girl. Not in a mormon society but instead a puritan one (which is different, but they both have the same concept of being pure before marrage and they are both very uptight cultures). A little over 300 years ago in North America the Salem which trials occured. Last year in school we watched the movie the Crucible and found the significanse of the main character Abigail's, accusations. In the crucible, Abigail is a girl around the same age of Pattyn, and in a very similar situation. Puritan life just like mormon life is very strict. The girls are meant to be silent, well mannered, religious and "pure" meaning no expressions of physical attractions until they're married. And all these rules are enforced on them harshly and daily. They have no choice. No voice. The tragedy of the Salem which trials definitely has to do with the fact that Abigail was a puritan girl with know power at all, and once she made these accusations, her voice was heard, and she was important. In fact, some would say she went "crazy" with power and abused her decition to take away lives. One after another innocent people died, because of a girl, who was so tangled up with orders. Once she got the chance to give them, she abused it and broke all the rules, going too far.
        I haven't read enough of this book to know what will happen to Pattyn. But, I am predicting tragedy similar to the Crucible. I don't know if Pattyn will end up in a powerful position like Abigail, but I do know that she's being treated like Abigail, and she's just getting closer and closer to breaking out of her obedient exterior and defying all the rules along with everyone around her. Being controlled 24-7 and having expectations like "Marry and then breed as many children as your body can bear" can't lead to any good. Something in this story will change, I don't know what. But, I do know that when the time comes that Pattyn gets a little freedom, she is going to abuse it. Leaving the rest of the story in over-the top tragedy and a failure at recovery.

"IDENTICAL" reading response #3

     As you know, I've been reading the book "Identical" by Ellen Hopkins, and I've already written two responses to it. I've been talking a lot about how the elements of denial and isolation have been making the two main characters in my book go crazy. But now, I want to push aside the factors of denial and what not, and focus more on this whole isolation theme (meaning not telling anyone what's really going on at home). I'm not talking about how they're going insane because of it, but more like zooming in on the reasons why they keep to themselves, why they won't seek help from anyone. This also goes for all people, and it is one of the characteristics of human nature in general.
      Kaeliegh is the character that I want to focus on. She is the younger twin and has been abused several times by her father, both sexually and physically. But, she wont tell anyone. That gave me an idea for a response.
      Why don't kids tell people when they're being abused by their parents, or anyone for that matter? Usually,  it can be because they love and want to protect their parents, but in this book since both the sisters despise their father and want him in jail, I don't think that's the reason. These characters don't want to confess what's going on because they're self concious, fake, and tired of complication. I think that being tired of drama and sorrow means a lot. To not only these two characters, but also to other people facing this issue. Being abused is a sickening thing, and it's not a light topic for anyone, especially kids who are actually having this happen to them. I don't even have to be reading this book to know that being abused is complicated and has a negative influence on life. But when you're out in places like school, in my characters' situations, it seems they don't want to deal with it. They want to be happy.
      And, I do believe that every human being on this planet secretly has the desire to be happy, whether it's with riches, or love, or power, we all want it. I'm starting to realize that the reason my characters don't want to tell anyone at school is because letting people inside the horrors they've experienced would almost be like connecting their terrible home life to school, which is one place they can be normal. For 7 hours, 5 times a week they get to pretend. They get to become normal, and not have to deal with the fact that they're abused. They get to be happy, fulfilling the need everyone craves. It also connects to the denial factor I mentioned before. They pretend, and I think that's one of the many interesting ways I could answer my question because, once they reveal what's going on, everything will change and they're afraid that the one place they wont have to deal with all the complications of being abused will be gone, dispersed and mixed into their home life because it is true. Once word gets out, people will be concerned, feel sorry for them and try and be extra comforting which will just remind them over and over about their problems, like the abyss of thoughts and emotions nagging over and over. The lies they store inside will then become reality, and these two characters don't want to deal with it.
       They want to keep pretending.
  

reading response for "IDENTICAL" #2

           In my first response to the book "Identical" by Ellen Hopkins, I was noticing how the twins were starting to become less slick and not as cold hearted. Through out the book they've seemed like they're made out of marble, they're so fake with no expressions and they hide every little bad thing that's ever happened  to them. As the story keeps moving on, all the secrets and lies they are containing start to get extreme and they begin to crack, I'm even seeing sines of insanity like, when Kaeliegh starts barraging through food like theres no tomorrow because she feels "empty" inside. But, wouldn't you go crazy if you couldn't talk to anyone? If all there was in your life was your nagging thoughts that keep playing over and over in your head, and an abyss of memories that are never leaving you?
           Theres this factor that they also think they're crazy. "Crazy" is just a word and them thinking that they are becoming ill in the mind, just might make them think these terrible thoughts, and do insane things. It's like they're making themselves crazy. I know that once other people, or society in general starts telling someone that they're crazy they can feed into it along with everyone else. Human beings are contagious of one another's ideas. I think that you can also be contagious of your sub conscious ideas. Not only are these to girls going crazy with all the truths bottled up inside of them, but with their internal thoughts.
           Since almost all the dialogue in this story is internal, I've noticed that both Kaeliegh and Reaenne have been compulsively putting their focus on other people, and have been noticing every little flaw in everyone that surrounds them. Its all they do, and I think there using other peoples problems, as a defense mechanism so they don't have to think about their own messed up lives. It's like a distraction. They're almost feeding off of other peoples issues. This is another reason why they're starting to go crazy. Or think they are going crazy. They are barely alive anymore.
           As I mentioned before in my other reflection, there is a ton of denial in this book and I think that denial is what's keeping the two main characters going. Not having to think about their own problems is like procrastinating endlessly, while they're feeding off of their observations of other people. This whole source their using to live is fake, and its causing them to go crazy (or just think they're going crazy which is making them seem crazy). It can't last forever and it is destroying them.