It only takes 19 minutes to change the world.

I've been told hundreds of times that the greatest thing I can do in this life is to leave my mark so I'm never, ever forgotten. It's my job to create my own legacy and make sure my name lives on, and (for the most part) it's up to me to decide how to go about doing so.

Peter Houghton, a kid that was either ignored or tormented on a daily basis, made sure he was never forgotten.

Josie Cormier won't ever be forgotten either, but I guess that wasn't really because of her doing. True, she was responsible for Matt's death, but I'm not sure she would have ever found herself in that sort of situation if it weren't for Peter. I find it a bit ironic that after years of trying to get people to accept him and treat him fairly, it only took a quarter of an hour to kill 10 people and injure countless others, both physically and mentally.

An episode of "Friends" would have lasted longer than Peter's revenge on Sterling High. One episode, without commercials. The sad thing is that if even just one adult had intervened on the relentless and extreme bullying - including pantsing him in the hallway, shoving him into a locker, stripping him naked and shoving him under a shower in the locker room...just to name a few - maybe Peter would have been fine. Maybe those 10 individuals would have lived long happy lives. Maybe Peter's family wouldn't have deteriorated, at least not any more than they already had. Maybe Josie wouldn't have felt the need to join the "popular" crowd and left Peter behind.

Maybe. But I guess we can't live our lives thinking about all the maybes. I guess we can just treat this as a learning tool.

I've read a few novels by Jodi Picoult, and I am always impressed by her knack for writing an interesting, yet not too over-the-top, story. Her style and the subjects she chooses to write about don't simply appeal to one age group or gender, but rather can be enjoyed by a variety of readers. I would be surprised if I walked into a classroom full of 8th graders reading this book - because there is some advanced subject matter not relating to the issue of bullying present - but I do think the issue is something that should be discussed with younger grade levels. However, while I would imagine a high school class reading the novel, I think there are quite a few parts that should be given to teachers as reading material.

Over the course of the novel, Picoult details events leading up to the shooting, the shooting itself, the immediate aftermath, the early years of the main characters, the trial, and a few years after the trial. I think the most pivotal point for me, as a reader and future junior high/high school English teacher, came during the trial. Peter's one and only true friend is put on the stand to testify on his behalf, and while he didn't know what Peter was planning, he made the reader sympathetic towards Peter.

The Defense Attorney asked the boy, Derek, if he had ever been bullied, and he replied that he had, but that Peter suffered far worse than he did. He went on to provide some detail as to the types of bullying that Peter faced on a daily basis, and acted as a sort of character witness. The Prosecuting Attorney then asked Derek if he had ever brought a gun to school to shoot his classmates because of bullying.

Derek firmly answered, with no, but that sometimes he wished he had.

Even if students, like Derek, never act on their pain (at least not towards others, but we can't ignore the personal violence), it doesn't mean they don't think about it. Schools that think there is no problem with bullying, that "boys are just being boys" and are just having fun, will most likely have some sort of rude awakening. I certainly don't wish this tragedy on anyone, but part of me wants to say, "Well, you were warned." My high school definitely had its problems, and a large portion of the teachers just turned the other way. In fact, many of my teachers caused and promoted teasing at times - but, of course, it was "all in good fun."

I'm sure Peter thought it was fun too.

Well, I bet he thought part of it was fun, just not the same part as everyone else...

---

Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers. - Charles W. Eliot

Seconds, please!

Last Tuesday, I struggled through the day, fighting off restless yawns and prying my eyes open with copious amounts of caffeine, and I blame Suzanne Collins for it all.

If it weren't for her book, I would have fallen asleep on time (or at least not too late), I would have been bright and sunshiny for my first class of the day, and I wouldn't have had to practically glue a cup of coffee to my hand for the remainder of the day. How dare she?

Okay, but I actually loved the book. True, I was a bit tired and not as cheerful as my peers probably would have appreciated, but once I started reading The Hunger Games, I really couldn't stop. It actually pained me to run to the bathroom in the middle of reading, and if it weren't for the fact that I live in a hall and use a community bathroom, I would have lugged the book to the bathroom with me.

The entire idea of the book made me really sad, but the ties to our ancient history and our own obsessions with "reality" television had me on the edge of my seat as my head filled with hundreds of "What if's." I don't think we have gotten to the extreme situation in Panem, but I definitely think there was a bit of truth in what she wrote. Hopefully - if 'death games' become a reality - society would never reach the point of a lottery that citizens were forced to enter. Part of me thinks it would be considerably easier to watch someone fight to the death if they entered themselves willingly, but the need to know why they entered in the first place would drive me crazy. What could bring someone to that point? Fame? Fortune? Freedom?

Guilt? Maybe they would be fighting to pay back a debt (monetary or not)...I know it would be hard for me to watch regardless of the reason for joining. Whether it makes sense or not, there really is a big difference between watching a fake, yet realistic looking, death in a movie, and watching someone actually die in front of you.

I guess it would be the truest form of reality: Eat or be eaten, and never give up.

---

So please, oh PLEASE, we beg, we pray, Go throw your TV set away, And in its place you can install, A lovely bookshelf on the wall. - Roald Dahl

The End.

I really, truly hope that this is not the last book in the universe. I can't imagine spending my very last days reading a book wish such a miniscule glimmer of hope at the end which seems just like a cruel joke.

The concept of the book scared me. I think the overall idea is so extreme that the thought of it seems outrageous, yet at the same time, I'm not completely convinced it's impossible...a world torn apart by the greed of some, wars sparked by the need for censorship, addictions to technology, and unlikely bonds formed out of the necessity for help. Would it really take that long for our society to deteriorate to the point of mass destruction and hatred towards all?

Personally, while the possibility is still there (and will probably always be there), I think we are quite a ways off from any sort of widespread deterioration. Well, at least not in our country. I think our democratic government, and the fact that - for the most part - the people have a say in things, helps eliminate a lot of corruptions and tries to make the playing field a bit more level for everyone. We still have separations between the classes and rely almost too heavily on technology to make it through the day, but a majority of the population still studies our history and enjoys the simpler things in life. Even as we begin to move towards an entirely technology-based lifestyle, we watch movies about our history, and read electronic books about the world's greatest leaders. We're moving forward in life, but we are still very much invested in our past.

Unfortunately, life in the Urb is bit bleaker.

I don't think I'm optimistic enough to believe that things would ever improve for Spaz. True, he's now a Ryter and hopefully he'll be able to keep the world's history alive, but in a world full of destruction and pain, will he ever really be able to make a difference?

I hope so, but I won't be waging a hefty bet on it.

---

The failure to read good books both enfeebles the vision and strengthens our most fatal tendency – the belief that the here and now is all there is. - Allan Bloom

Who watches the Batman?

For years, I have battled with my brothers over what exactly makes a true superhero. Is it an intricate costume? A sweet catchphrase? Unbeatable superpowers? A consistent sidekick?

I think it is a combination of all of the above.

With that being said, I would like to make it clear right now that I do not, by any means, believe that Batman is a superhero.

Superman was born a superhero, and Spiderman was cursed into being a superhero. Even with all of the debate and angry tirades I have suffered through over the years, at least I have the dictionary on my side. According to the literary powers that be, a superhero is a figure, especially in a comic strip or cartoon, endowed with superhuman powers and usually portrayed as fighting evil or crime. Does Batman have any superhuman powers? Nope. He's strong, he's wealthy, he's intelligent, but above all, he is vengeful. A masked vigilante out to save the day from corruption, fueled by the loss of his parents.

I was always entertained by Batman's crazy antics, and I was even more entranced by the recent films. While many people seem to be troubled by Batman's vigilante-like behavior, I have never struggled with the morality of it. I think the reason I never really thought about the issue that lies behind Batman taking the law into his own hands was based on the fact that Gotham lacked any sufficient law enforcers to begin with, and someone had to do something to make sure the bad guys were kept in line...so why not let him? If he had superpowers, would people care less? Would they think it was his duty to save the day if he was transported to Earth on a glowing rock or been injected by some chemical agent....would it be okay for him to take the law into his own hands if he couldn't help the fact that he was different?

I don't think Batman is a superhero, but I think that he is pretty much the only one that cares about keeping Gotham as safe as humanly possible. It makes me think of the Watchmen. Of course, with the stress of "saving the world" weighing them down, and the possibilities that lie at their fingertips with their unbeatable powers, one of them was bound to become corrupt. But Batman, with his need to avenge his parents' death and ensure that Gotham is a safe place once again, I think he could never fully become corrupt...but then again, if he becomes corrupt will we ever even know it, when the world around him is splitting at the seams from the evil that fills every inch of its dark alleys?

But more than wondering about who is watching Batman, I think there is a better question.

Who is watching us?

---

Books, I have found, had the power to make time stand still, retreat or fly into the future. - Jim Bishop

Believing in the Unbelievable

I'd like to think that fairies were real, that one day I'll wake up have magical powers. I think deep down I'd like to believe in "unrealistic" things because even if they seem completely ludicrous and unlikely, it's often better than thinking about all of the horrible things in life.

While Bobby didn't really believe a fairy was creeping into the house at night through the dog door (or did he??), I think he was willing to grab on to the idea of a fairy because the truth was much more horrible. Well, maybe Bobby never really believed that a fairy was visiting with Dennis, but he was slow to believe that a little woman who most likely murdered the last tenant was stopping by each evening.

His mother was the same way. In fact, I was shocked at how quickly Bobby's mother changed her opinion on the likelihood of a fairy truly existing. It was as if she completely disregarded the idea that fairies existed until she thought something much more terrible could have been breaking into her house. When Bobby tried to make her believe that it was a little, murdering woman - not a fairy - who was making nightly visits to Dennis, she completely ignored him and started to act like she suddenly believed the fairytale.

I get it. It easier (or more pleasant) to believe that a lovely magical being is visiting her home during the night, as opposed to a creepy little woman. Why would she want to think that a murderer was living in their midst? I'm pretty sure if I had the option to start thinking that a magical creature was causing trouble instead of an actual murderer, I would go with the magical being...I know it isn't realistic, but if I think it's something that can't possibly exist (or is unlikely, at least), then in theory I should be able to shut my eyes and wish it away...but can you wish away something that is really there?

Sometimes we cling to the unrealistic and pretend it is real in order to ignore the ugliness of the truth.

---

If you believe everything you read, you better not read. - Japanese proverb

Post Traumatic Stress

In Purple Heart, Matt seemed to be the average combat fighter. He lived for the adrenaline of the job, breathing in every aspect of his GI Joe-esque lifestyle. He was able to separate himself from situations that became too touchy, primarily with the active children of the village in which his unit was stationed. He was also clung on to his ability to separate himself by at least one degree from his family and friends back home. While he was in Iraq, he viewed their simple lives as obsolete, yet he made sure not to tell them that. He asked about their daily routines, humored them with acting like life really was the cookie-cutter shape he had left behind. He let them complain about unimportant things, like biology tests and driving permits, while he stood face to face with death and won every time.

Well, I guess whether he 'won' or not is up for debate. The scars left on him were much deeper than any wound he inflicted on his enemies. I think he put up a very deep shield long before he was ever injured. As much as he lived and breathed the intesity of the battlefield, every little aspect must have gotten to him. If he was not impacted by any of it, why would he have made such great efforts to make sure that his loved ones had little knowledge of what was really going on? I am not convinced that he tried to hide the gritty details because he was ashamed of what he had done (or thought he had done) or the war efforts in general, but I think the nightmares were getting to him. Even before Ali's death and his injury, he must have been having nightmares, right? Or maybe not, maybe he was completely fine with everything. Maybe Ali's death and his TBI were just a little blip on his near-perfect mindset. Maybe Ali was the first person that really impacted him over there, and he was the only one who could really leave a lasting impression on Matt's life.

Or maybe Matt is just like everyone else who bottles up their feelings, hiding their fears from everyone else. Had he been struggling long before his injury and just never told anyone? And after he was hurt, after he watched Ali die, will he ever be the same? I would like to be optimistic and say that things would get better for Matt, that he would eventually be able to live peacefully and not think about the dreadful day in the alley, but I am not convinved life works that way. I think on some level we hold on to the painful memories so that we can remember what it is like to suffer and pick our selves back up in the end. In a way, I think we all suffer from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder in one way or another, we just choose to respond to it differently. Like Matt, my bad memories often present themselves in the form of nightmares, but in the end I crawl out of bed and make the most of the day. At some point you have to learn that you cannot change the past, no matter how hard you try. I think that as hardened as Matt may have seemed at the end, he was finally beginning to understand that. What happened to Ali was terrible, but all Matt could do at this point was prepare himself for the future as he builds a thicker wall around himself. Maybe things would be better if he talked about it with his family and friends from home, but I think that in his 25th hour he is clinging on to that last degree of separation, perhaps so that he can at least pretend things are normal and better, at least in a far and distant land.

---

Reading is one form of escape. Running for your life is another. - Lemony Snicket

Waking Up

Sometimes I feel that if you look deep enough inside the book you are reading, you can see all of the things you hope for - peace, undying love, equality, happiness & sadness at all the right times, an achievable challenge, camaraderie in the darkest of moments, and a place you can call home. My heart ached with joy while I read Wide Awake because Duncan had all of it, and for 240 pages I was able to live vicariously through him.

Overall, I loved the concept of the book. I liked the idea of Jesus Freaks and the more liberal community working together for equality, and I personally think this is the direction a large portion of our society is starting to take. I also thought it was a nice take on our future society - whether or not it will turn out exactly that way or not - but that it didn't necessarily take too many extreme turns for dramatic effect. There were some parts that I thought were too unrealistic (like the non-shopping malls), but from a political and (future) historical aspect, I think Levithan hit the nail on the head, or was at least pretty close to doing so.

Unfortunately, while I liked the idea of the book, I wasn't too fond of the characters...for the most part we only saw very small snapshots of everyone. Also, since it was all through Duncan's eyes, I feel like we rarely learned who anyone else really was. We had his opinions on the relationships of his friends, his minimal interactions with the newcomers when they reached Kansas, and his thoughts about his boyfriend. I wish less of it had been from his perspective because then maybe we could have learned how the situation felt to the others. I personally wish I could have heard more from his friends that were considered Jesus Freaks. When did that group start to favor the more 'democratic' political views? What kind of drama was there between them and the people like Mary Catherine? How many more people associated with this group? Was it generally younger people, or people of all ages? What other political groups were there? I guess I ended the book with more questions than I wanted, and it isn't that I needed to know these things, but I'm still a bit curious. I think it would have added a bit more depth to the story that goes beyond Duncan's feelings.

Aside from the fact that the book may be too political to teach in some lower grades, I think that the very explicit scene with Duncan and Jimmy is a bit too inappropriate. I was personally a bit disappointed in Levithan for including it, because I felt like he had built up a strong relationship between them already, and that he automatically made his book questionable by including it. Any scene that is that graphic (regardless of the genders/ages of the individuals involved) is going to be hard to convince as being vital to a plot to a group of concerned parents. I think it would be very difficult to use this book in a classroom, and I think that it's unfortunate because it was a great story and a very interesting look into the future.
---

Books are the compasses and telescopes and sextants and charts which others have prepared to help us navigate the dangerous seas of human life. - Jesse Lee Bennett