The Fault in Our Stars

       Recently, I finished "The Fault in Our Stars" by John Green. This along with other novels bu John Green has gotten great reviews from the YA audience. I think, that Green yet again, really expresses what its like to grow up. The book tells a story of Hazel, an 16 year old with incurable thyroid cancer who at a cancer support group meets an Augustus Waters, a seventeen year old cancer survivor with a prosthetic leg. Throughout the story you get to know and like the characters so much you sort of wish you knew them yourself. He gets into the little details about what a 16 year old girl would be feeling, from being upset about missing episodes of her favorite TV show, America's Next Top Model, to falling in love for the first time.
        And yes, the main two characters have cancer, but that's certainly not what the book is centered around. In fact, the main character, even explains how much she despises cancer books. "but its not a cancer book, because cancer books suck", she says about "An Imperial Affliction", one of her and Augustus' favorite books. This book plays a big role in the novel. Without it, there would probably be not story. The book is what I think really brought Gus and Hazel, and is a big part of the plot. Through out the book Hazel and Gus are trying to reach their goal, which is to meet Peter Van Houten, the author of AIA who lives in Holland and have him answer the endless questions Hazel has. However, when the couple finally gets to meet him he turns out being quite a disappointment, and a "drunk doucheface" as Hazel says.
       However I don't think actually having answer the questions was the reason why going there was so fun. It was fun because Hazel and Gus were going on adventures and "drinking stars" (champagne) and making memories as much as they could before they had to face facts. Like in many of John Greens novels, (spoiler alert) he kills off one of the main characters, Augustus. Who was exactly who you didn't think was going to die. The whole time Hazel is worried about dying and hurting Gus, but alas the exact opposite happens. Its revealed that he has cancer all throughout his body. "I went in for a PET scan. I lit up like a Christmas Tree, Hazel Grace.", says Gus. And so, Hazel has to watch what we were sure to be her soulmate die. For the rest of the book the once blue eyed crooked smiled Augustus Waters turn into a "pitiful", dying cancer patient in a wheel chair. However Gus never lost his sense of humor, the last time you get to see the real Augustus Waters was in Holland. Again this is why Green included this part, to have Gus and Hazel go on a final adventure.
       On one hand, your sort of mad at John Green for doing this to you, having you to get to know these kids so well, and right when your convinced they're meant to be and are going to grow old together, he kills Gus. On the other hand, the story would've ended too well if that did happen. But in the end, I think Green did a great job at creating great characters, and also an interesting plot. This book made me laugh for a good ten minutes and at the same time, made me bawl for a good ten minutes. Which is what I think really makes this such a great book.

Non Fiction- "Why the Best Kids Books are Written in Blood" by Sherman Alexie

          This week, I read and annotated "Why the Best Kids Books are Written in Blood", by Sherman Alexie. The article is a response to Meaghan Cox Gurdon's, "Darkness Too Visible". The whole entire article pretty much is focused on contradicting Gurdon. He also wants to make the readers see how ridiculous Gurdon was being and feel and really know just how hard some young adults lives are.How does he do this? He proves his points by using stories of children hes met throughout his years of being an author, and even using his own personal information. Hes trying to prove that there's no point in trying to stop Young Adults from reading "dark" fiction, when many of them have gone through the things in the stories themselves. And that fiction does not expose teens to profanity but actually helps YA's. In a paragraph talking about Gurdon, he says "Does she [Gurdon] believe that a YA novel about murder and rape will frighten a kid who already lives in hell?" This sentence pretty much sums up the point he is trying to prove. Then in order to show the audience just how "dark" his and hundreds of other kids lives are he discusses his childhood. "They wanted to protect me from sex when i had already been raped. They wanted to protect me form evil though a future serial killer had already abused me. They wanted me to profess my love for god without considering that i was the child and grandchild of men and women who'd been sexually and physically abused by generations of clergy." That detail really spoke to me because it shows me that he went through a whole lot when he was kid, things similar to what children are going through now, and he really knows what he's talking about. However Gurdon does not. She doesnt include a single quote from a YA at all, and definitely not one that is a victim of abuse. He even says that he wishes he could've read Laurie Halse Anderson's "Speak" when he was a young adult. This shows that after being through hell, he thinks YA fiction would actually help him get through. Alexie even puts us in his shoes, and says that if they tried taking YA fiction away when he was a kid hed just say "Wow, you are way, way too late." When he puts us in his perspective like that its pretty much the same as quoting a YA. He did this so we could see how stupid and unbeneficial taking away YA ficiton would be. In the beginning of the article he says hed spoken to students that had "survived depression, attempted suicide, gang warfare, sexual and physical abuse, absentee parents poverty, racism and learning disabilities," He tells us about all these different things that kids have been through to again, point out how horrible things are for some kids. He also includes a story about a 17 old id he met that wanted to be a writer, but his father was forcing to be a soldier. He discussed how "Yes, he was old enough to die and kill for his country. And experience the infinite horros of war. But according to Ms. Gurdon, he was too young to read a YA novel that vividly portrays those very same horrors." This is yet again just another story that proves his point. He completely contradicts Gurdon by using this story. And once again, he puts you into the kids shoes. "I don't want to be like my father, I want to be like myself. Like in your book." That practically just says that YA books help readers. Not only victimized ones (the 17 year old had never been abused) but also ones facing problems like this. After this quote Alexie also talks about other teens. He says, "There are millions of teens who read because they are sad and lonely and enraged. They read because they live in an often terrible world. They read because they belive, despite the callow protestations of certain adults, that books- especially the dark and dangerous- will save them." He included that part of the article because it pretty much sums up the whole entire point of the article. Showing us all these upsetting and "dark" details about some YA's lives, and then leaving us, with his point. Which is that YA saves kids, and taking that away would be completely pointless.

Faithful Elephants by Yukio Tschiya

       "Faithful Elephants" by Yukio Tschiya zooms in on just one of the horrible anecdotes of Word War 2. The picture book is about a zoo in Japan, caught in between a time in Japan where they get bombed almost every night. We learn that the army is forcing the zoo to kill all dangerous animals, including the elephants must be killed because of the war. The book begins on a spring day in the Ueno Zoo, where a zoo keeper looking at the elephants begins to tell us a story about the Elephants from years ago. The story then becomes in the point of view of someone during the war. As the story goes on, the first elephant dies and afterwards the 2 others do as well. Even though it is just a childrens picture book, the author is trying to send a ver obvious and important message and i think the story indicates it very well.
   I think that even though "Faithful Elephants" is very specific to one story, it is showing a much bigger picture. I think that Tschiya is trying to convince readers at a young age that war is horrible and incredibly destructive. The author teaches young readers this by using Elephants, a friendly animal that most people have sympathy for and showing the terrible experience they had to endure starving to death instead of talking about the holocaust and all the people that lost their lives in world war two. Yukio includes very depressing and heartbreaking details, even putting you in the elephants shoes. At one point tin the story, when the elephants try to get noticed by the keepers by doing their banzai trick, the author writes"surely their friend would reward them with food and water like he used to do.", putting you in perspective of the elephants. The author also included how the people at the zoo specifically one zoo keeper there were also suffering, watching as their elephants that he "loved as if they were his own children" slowly starved to death, the elephants becoming weaker and weaker by the day. When the elephants finaly died, the zoo keeper yelled "the elephants are dead! theyre dead!" as he ran into the office stomping his fists on the table in frustration. I think Yukio put such upsetting details in like this to really show readers how difficult the war was on both the elephants and the zoo keepers. Yukio has a very obvious opinion on wars. After the elephants die, the zoo keepers put their fists up in the air and yell "stop the war! stop the war! stop all wars!" Tschyia could not have a more evident stance on the war, and decided to put it towards the end of the story to conclude the lesson of the book. Overall, I think the narrative expresses how bad war is, and that it is a Person Vs. Society , showing that the enemy is obviously the army and just wars in general.