Thursday, March 1, 2012

Project Three

Harry Potter is a story about magic. When you’re reading, it’s like taking a step so far outside the box that you’re out of the old box and into a totally new box, full of endless beauty and surprises. It feels so whimsical, so freeing, to the point wanting to fly to Hogwarts on your Nimbus 2000, and never, ever leave.  You want to become part of the book. It’s for those of you who love thinking outside of the ordinary—for all of you who seek the vicarious thrill of the impossible. But t’s definitely NOT the book for you if you don’t like using your imagination, or if you don’t want to be shocked an amazed by the wonders of wizardry.
                The Harry Potters are a book series consisting of 7 books about a boy named Harry Potter (You’d never guess, right!) who finds out that he’s a wizard, and a famous one at that. He was orphaned as a baby as a result of losing his parents to You-Know-Who (Voldemort), and these books detail his encounters with everything from flobberworms to boggarts to hippogriffs.
                Though all of the books (based on what I’ve read so far) are totally different, they all have the same general road map. Harry starts out at the Dursley’s, then gets jerked away by someone or something, and goes away to Hogwarts, the school for witches and wizards. From there, things usually stay pretty average, or rather as average as a school for wizards can be, when some outrageous twist occurs, eventually causing a run-in between Harry and He-who-must-not-be-named, resulting in an epic battle of good vs. evil. But, if you zoom in on your viewfinder, each book has its own elaborate plot, complete with its own shady and at-the-time supposedly meaningless events, creating 7 entirely different stories. I would explain in more detail, but it’s not my job to spoil the books for you.
                Something very interesting in the books would be the voice, as it’s a third- person limited omniscient narrator, giving us all the play-by-play on all things Harry. The narrator has a very fun, different way of conveying their thoughts, and often forces me to read in a British accent (LOVE!!). Not just that, but the Divination teacher at Hogwarts, Professor Trelawney. ‘Divination was Harry’s least favorite class after Potions, which was due mainly to Professor Trelawney’s habit of prediction his premature death every few lessons.’(Rowling, pg. 236) Though this passage from Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix  gives a pretty good idea of the Professor, it doesn’t show that she isn’t out to kill him, but instead, not the best at telling fortunes.
                What makes me wonder is why they never wonder. By ‘they,’ I mean all those included in and affected by the wizarding world, and by ‘wonder,’ I mean why they never question the fact that they can do magic; they just accept it (with the exception of the Dursleys, of course, who won’t even permit Harry to say the ‘M word’ in front of them), and move on. Although some people would go to extremes to find out, that might ruin the uniqueness of the book. But it’s really cool to see how much the characters undoubtedly trust their powers, and most of them can’t live without them.
The Dursleys are somewhat interesting to read about their reactions to magic.  ‘“Watching the news. . .” he said scathingly. “I’d like to know what he’s really up to. As if a normal boy cares what’s on the news—Dudley hasn’t got a clue what’s going on, doubt he knows who the Prime Minister is! Anyway, it’s not as if there’d be anything about his lot on our news—“’ (Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, Rowling, pg.2). This quote, said by Harry’s Uncle Vernon, shows very well how they feel about Harry being a wizard. Did you see that? ‘His lot.’ This shows exactly the way they treat Harry, all the time. As much as everyone hate them, they’re extremely important to the storyline. Plus, they offer a possible muggle reaction to magic, shedding some light on why Wizardry isn’t exactly out in the open.

                One of the best things, in my opinion, about the series is that there was nothing like it before it came out. Of course, because of its insane success, now we’re seeing stories about wizards and such left and right, making Harry Potter seem less and less, but at the same time, more and more unique. How is that possible? Well, the more of something there are the more common and cliché it becomes, making the stories stereotypically boring. Yet, somehow, Harry’s particular story stands out above all the rest. That’s because the plots, and how intense and well thought out they are, while still being so free-spirited and lighthearted, and overall, so much fun. Not many books can manage to include bizarre characters with crazy names and still be wildly loved, let alone understood. When you have names like ‘Albus Dumbledore,’ or ‘Kingsley Shacklebolt,’ you’d think the book would be a failure, but as it’s commonly known, Harry Potter is probably the complete opposite of failure—Riddikulus success.

             What don’t I like? Hmm, tough question. Sometimes it’s easy to mix up characters, and Potter-heads sometimes accidentally give spoilers, which make the books so much less suspenseful. But even when they do that, it doesn’t give you the same effect actually READING the books do. So what grade does the 7 book series get on it's OWL’s? Definitely, without question, an O, for outstanding.
                               
   

Top Five

Thursday, February 16, 2012

When Harry Met Simba

When Harry Met Simba
                Now I know what you’re thinking. ‘Simba? As in The Lion King?’ Heck yeah! No, I’m not crazy. At least not this time. If you think about it, it starts to make sense. Here’s my logic.
                Let’s start from the beginning. Both Harry and Simba lose a parent (or in Harry’s case, both parents) which causes their journeys as characters. Both characters think that it’s their own fault, which again, it somewhat is, although it wasn’t directly caused by them. In both stories, the parent(s) die to save their child. The difference? Harry is a wizard, and Simba is a lion.
                Later on in the stories, the two characters have grown up. They’re both outcasts in their respective stories. Although Harry is stuck in a family of Muggles who hate him and ‘his kind,’ and Simba goes to live with Timone and Pumba, who love him like family, Simba ended up in that situation because he was tricked into thinking he was an outcast by his evil uncle, Scar.
                Speaking of Scars, let’s talk about Harry’s! Harry’s lightning-shaped scar on his forehead is his claim to fame at Hogwarts, the school for wizards. The minute he arrives, he’s practically worshiped because of this scar, but more importantly, how he got it. The minute Simba comes back, he too is instantly a hero. Everyone sees Harry and Simba as the light at the end of the tunnel—and I don’t mean the train.
                My final similarity is a small, and rather ironic, similarity, but I’d like to point out that when Harry’s sorted into his Hogwarts house, He’s put into Gryffindor. What is Gryffindor’s mascot? Oh! Look! A Lion!
I rest my case—Humans? Lions? Not so different after all, huh?

Thursday, February 9, 2012

The Issue with Half-Truths

In my opinion, Books have to be totally, and I mean like a hundred percent, true for them to be considered non-fiction.
Half-truths are fine. BUT, they’re not non-fiction. They can be fictional novels ‘inspired by true events,’ but they are not non-fiction. I don’t think there’d be any issue with Frey bending the truth to tell his story, because his story didn’t (to my knowledge) affect anyone, other than Oprah, but that is a whole different story. Mortenson, on the other hand, I have a problem with. The reason for this is because he features a village in his ‘non-fiction’ stories. Sure, he did go to a village, but not at the time he claimed to in the book and he didn’t even go to the right place. The whole situation with his charity bothers me. Isn’t the point of a charity to help a person, or a group of people for whatever reason, not to boost your fame? He has besmirched (I’ve always wanted to say that) the name of charities!
                I think David Shields is partially right. I think we need some lines between genres, we don’t need all of the little teensy-tinsy sub-categories that we have now, but I do believe we need to have fiction and non-fiction differentiated. That’d be because I think fiction is so much more creative. I think it takes a very special person to be able to sit down and write a book that they magically pulled out of their head. This isn’t to say that non-fiction writers are not special, but I think fictional writers are much more impressive.
                David Shields is weird though, his works weren’t anything but a collection of plagiarized paragraphs and quotes from all kinds of different books. That’s a compilation, or a collection, and I don’t think it has the right to call it ‘his book’ or ‘his work,’ because it’s not.
                From random collections to half-truths, how can we ever know what’s the real deal? And for that reason, along with many other reasons, I’m going to continue to comfortably read my fiction books.

Monday, January 30, 2012

Establishing The Connection

  
                I absolutely disagree with the statement that genre fiction is ‘unworthy’ to be taught as compared to literary fiction. Genre fiction definitely deserves a spot in the school curriculum. If anything, I actually think that there should be more genre fiction taught in the school curriculum, because then people will like reading much more. If you think about it, what are you training the students to think if the only things they are ‘forced’ to read are boring, old literary books? Granted, not all literary fiction is boring, I get that. But can you give me an example of a literary fiction that ISN’T boring? … That’s what I thought. From giving students literary fiction books they just automatically labeling reading as ‘boring,’ and therefore something they would never do in their free time, whether the book be interesting of boring.
                I think that literary fiction gives books a bad name. Disagree with me all you want, but when a person is forced to read a boring book the last thing they’d ever want to do are read something out of the necessary amount.  People who are raised to dislike books won’t gain the creative knowledge or life lessons that they would from a book, and literary fiction turns them away almost instantaneously.
                Genre fiction should be added to the curriculum, YES. Although I don’t want to swap out Of Mice and Men with Twilight, per say, I think it could be swapped out with something else, such as the hunger games, where students can relate to and ENJOY relating to the characters and their emotions. Quite frankly I find it difficult to the characters and time period of the literary fiction, so there goes the connection between the book and the reader. This connection could be reestablished very quickly with the introduction of genre fiction into the school curriculum.
                Reflecting on my response, this quote summarizes a lot of what I believe on the subject.
‘The problem with fantasy literature is that it has a certain stigma attached to it. This stigma has been identified and debunked by literary critics for quite a while now, yet the genre itself continues to be dismissed as escapist fluff-full of scantily clad sorceresses and wizards with long staffs. What seems lacking in acknowledgment are two facts about fantasy that make it perfect classroom fodder:
1. Students like it.
2. It is a metaphor for the human condition ripe with mythic structures, heroic cycles, and social and religious commentary.’
 (Teaching Fantasy: Overcoming the Stigma of Fluff’ by Melissa Thomas)

STUDENTS LIKE IT. Isn’t’ that one of the most important things? The student’s actually enjoy the book they’re reading, they engage in the plot, they get stuck on the cliffhangers.
Relating to the book, establishing that Connection—isn’t that what reading’s all about?

Thursday, January 12, 2012

Eat Pray Love, the movie

My book is Eat Pray Love by Elizabeth Gilbert. I’m not finished with the book yet, but because of the way the book is divided into three sections (Italy, India, and Indonesia) and I’ve finished all of Italy and am working on India right now. So my answers are going to come from only those parts of the book.
                First of all, this book is a true story, so the author is the main character. For this book, I think that some challenges a filmmaker would have in turning this book into a movie would be that for one, nothing is actually happening in ‘real time.’ Most of it is just the author’s thoughts after the fact. If I were making this into a movie, The whole idea of thoughts after-the-fact would kind have to be taken out, and replaced with mostly real-time interactions.
                A scene I believe is necessary to keep is the section of the book where the author is going over her divorce, especially when she’s in the car with her friend and they’re talking about how she wants her husband to sign the divorce agreement and everyone is ‘signing it.’ Another scene I think is very important is when the author breaks down in the car and Giovanni comforts her and takes her to a statue to help calm her down. The final scene which is very important would be in India, when she finally achieves her state of meditation, and then  when she’s finally about to be totally connected to her spirit or whatever the blue-ness in her meditation symbolized, she stopped and yelled out ‘I’m not ready yet.’
                There were actually a lot of things I would cut. I would definitely cut the three to four chapters where she talks about her sex life and that she is sex deprived. The younger guy hitting on her could go too, because it was kind of weird and seemed random. Another thing I’d cut if I were making this book into a movie is the part where her sister comes to Italy to visit her, because I didn’t really see a point in it.