Persopolis- inquiry question 2

    The perspective that is mostly being shown in persopolis is maryjane, a young girl that narrates the graphic novel. Maryjane is actually the author of the graphic novel. the whole story is about experiences she has grwoing up in iran. The story not only includes the difficulties of living in a war torn county, but also just growing up in general.
    it is un maryjanes perspective because i think people can relate to her best that way, not only people who have had to grow up in such difficult situations, but also just young girls. the story is just as much focused on her growing up as it is focused on the war happening in her country. she didnt want the story to be about some random person living in iran, she wanted it to be about a kid, if it wasnt about one, the story would be so foreign to readers, but now, kids can relate to it, which makes it more appealing to them, in fact adults could relate to , considering they were all kids at some point. and part of the reason it was in her point of view is obviously because its a memoir. maryjane satrapi was just explaining her life in an interesting graphic novel.
   The perspective missing is the enemies, or in this story, the government. it is not being shown, because it would send across the completely wrong message. it would make them seem like the good guys, which would not only send a controversy across readers because they were not the "good guys", but also thats not what maryjane wanted to do. she was a victim of what the government was doing at that time, she would never want them to seem good.
    overall, i think maryjane made the right choice in putting it in her point of view. she wanted to share her experiences with the world, not somebody elses. and by doing it, it made an interesting book and character.

YA fiction essay

Lately in the literary world, YA fiction has been a raging topic. Outraged parents, librarians, and teachers have been trying to convince people that the current literature has become to dark for their audiences. And authors and kids have been disagreeing. And according to my sources, their attempts have not been too convincing. Teens should be able to read any books they choose because many of them go through the same things as the characters, and it would just be pointless to take it away.

Young adults appreciate YA fiction greatly. In “Why the Best Kids Books Are Written in Blood”, an article written by Sherman Alexie, author of the award winning novel “The Absolutely True Diary of a Part Time Indian” explains just how much teen readers love his novel. He says he gets letter daily thanking him for his frequently challenged book. He even includes that he has still not gotten a single complaint concerning his book coming from a teen. He says that when he was a child, he read a lot of YA fiction himself, the types of books that might be considered “dark” now. And he explains he read these books “because they taught me how to battle the real monsters in life.” Right there, just shows how much kids appreciate these stories. So, when I saw Meaghan Cox Gurdon, in the article “Darkness Too Visible” trying to convince you that books like these just spread problems, I knew it was ridiculous. She says that the “logic” is that when a reader reads things like this, they can relate to the books and it will help them manage. Which is exactly what it does. Telling from all the letters Alexie gets, it seems like it does anyways.

Taking away teen beloved young adult fiction would sere as beneficial to no one and just be pointless. According to Sherman Alexies article, many children go through grim experiences similar to those faced by the characters in these stories. He states that he’s spoken to numerous schools where the kids are victims of sexual and physical abuse, racism, poverty, depression etc. These are all “dark” topics that play a big role in a lot of teen fiction today. Many of which are reasons behind banning a lot of popular teen fiction. Seeing that kids are going through these things themselves, what would be the point of banning these books? Sherman Alexie includes a powerful quote about his own childhood. “They wanted to protect me fro sex when I had already been raped. They wanted to protect me from evil when 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 had been sexually and physically abused by generations of clergy.” This is coming from someone who has experienced darker things than any one could imagine, and has watched as people try to take away the novels that helped him and hundreds of other teens bear these experiences, for what he knows is absolutely no reason. Alexie in Gurdon’s article says that kids can find just as bad stuff online. Yet another reason for why taking away teen fiction wouldn't help anyone. Since kids spend almost all their time on the Internet now, I’m sure kids have found worse things surfing the web. Again, this proves another one of Gurdon’s silly arguments to be invalid. She talks about “Scars” by Cheryl Rainfield, and how the cover might make a victim of self-mutation relapse. I’m sure this picture of a “horribly scarred forearm” is nothing compared to what kids discover on various social networking sites like twitter, tumblr, and instagram.

Even teenagers themselves agree that YA fiction helps them. In  Mary Elizabeth Williams article “Has Young Adult Fiction Become Too Dark?” she speaks about a reoccurring trend on twitter, #YAsaves. According to the article, the hashtag has endless links to teen and adult blog posts. She recalls one child’s heart-wrenching post on a reaction to Meaghan Cox Gurdon’s article. She says,” Good literature opens up all the good parts of us, the parts people like you have deemed too dark, inappropriate, grotesque or abnormal for kids to be feeling- and try stitch is all back together before we even realize they’re talking about us. This explains exactly how teenagers are reacting to all these attempts at taking away their books, which is exactly what Gurdon failed to do in “Darkness Too Visible”. She even tried to convince you that children don't read YA fiction at all. This honestly just made me laugh, because if she’s trying to tell me that, why did she just write a 4 page article trying to get kids to stop reading these books. She explains that a local bookstore owner visited a private school (which are typically very small already), that only 18 kids actually admitted to reading teen fiction. However, just one poll done by a random woman from a bookstore isn’t exactly a good source. And again, if kids aren’t reading these books, why are you trying to take them away?

Telling from several the articles I read both and against YA fiction, and being a young adult myself, teen fiction should not be banned or challenged. If YA fiction does anything at all, its most definitely help us. There’s been various stories of kids benefiting from teen fiction, but I haven’t heard a specific story of a child being harmed by it. And again I have read several articles against and for YA fiction. And Sherman Alexie, an award winning author, Mary Elizabeth Williams, mom of teenagers, and thousands of other parents’ kids feel the exact same way. Trying to limit what we read wouldn't help anyone and just upset readers that depend on these stories just to get him or her through their difficult adolescence.

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.

The Great Gatsby

This summer one of the books I read was the Great Gatsby by F Scott Fitzgerald. Not only is the Great Gatsby a great book itself but it shows an interesting metaphor. The book begins with Nick Caraway, an educated man from Minnesota. Nick goes to his friend, Daisy, and her husband Tom's house, and becomes good friends with Jordan Baker, a young famous golfer at the time.

The group of friends soon meet Gatsby, Nick's mysterious neighbor who throws huge parties weekly. Later, we discover that during the war Gatsby and Daisy had gone out a few times and ever since then Gatsby has been searching for Daisy. Eventually Daisy and Gatsby reconnect, and once again fall in love. Tom, however, is also having an affair with a woman named Myrtle Wilson.

One day Tom, Daisy, Nick Jordan and Gatsby all decide to go into the city. After getting there Tom, who'd been suspicious of Daisy and Gatsby for a bit, gets into an argument. After Daisy admits that she loved Gatsby, Tom Nick and Jordan get into Toms car and Daisy and Gatsby gets into his. Daisy drives back and accidentally hits Myrtle Wilson after she had just gotten into a fight with her husband George Wilson, and Daisy kills her without even stopping. They return home and Tom and Daisy aren't heard from. The next day Nick hears shot coming from Gatsbys pool and finds Wilson dead, having shot himself and Gatsby.

 After Gatsby's funeral (which no one attends) Nick sees Tom in the street and we find out that Tom had set Gatsby up to die. Apparently Wilson had came to Tom wanting revenge for his wife's death, and not wanting him to kill Daisy Tom lies and tells him it was Gatsby who was driving, not Daisy.

I think that "The Great Gatsby" doesn't only have a good plot to it, but it also expresses how selfish and careless Americans were at the time and sometimes still are. Tom and Daisy for example didn't care that Gatsby was the one to die as long at it wasn't themselves. They are "careless people, they smashed up things naif creatures and then retreated them bad into their money on their carelessness or whatever kept them together, and let other people clean up the mess they had made", says Nick in the last chapter.

The novel is an example of what the American mind was like by showing how Tom and Daisy only cared about their own well being. However, it also expressed that Americans were hopeful and optimistic, by showing that Gatsby "believed in the green light, the orgastic future that year by year recedes us. It eluded us then, but thats no matter--- tomorrow we will run faster, stretch our arms father… and one fine morning--- so we beat on, boats against the current borne back ceaselessly into the past."

The reason why i enjoyed and appreciate "The Great Gatsby" is not only because of the plot, but because of the fascinating message it sends to its readers.

girl interrupted- re read

today i re read girl, interrupted. I also recently saw the movie and can now compare them. Girl interrupted is about a young, 20 year old woman in the 1970s in the middle of the Vietnam war. Susannah Kaysen is an independent woman that goes about her bussiness everyday and has a passion for writing. One day, after taking 50 advil she sits in a therapists office as she is told that she is being shipped off the the nearest mental hospital.

There, susannah meets lisa and other friends. Susannah is played by Winona Ryder, an experienced actress who portrays Susannah, who was also to author of the book. Lisa, the most crazy person in the mental instituion, being a sociopath is played by Angelina Jolie. Although most of the characters are played by good actors, is plot is changed.

The movie is mostly circled around Susannah actually getting out of the Institution. However the book is focused more on susannah and her character. About half the book, susannah is out of the instituon but in the movie, she gets out at the very end. Personally, I think the book expresses susannah well, just like the author wanted.