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
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
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
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
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
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)