Hmm. So after a wonderful breakation (vacation within a break). I come home, ready to write a new blog post, and bask in my happiness, only to find-TWO OF MY BLOG-POSTS HAVE BEEN DELETED.
Either:
a) my computer didn't actually post them, because my computer is just old and terrible, and gets viruses like every three months.
b) the blog monster ate my posts.
c) toast.
(I'm pretty sure the reason is toast, but it also could be unicorns. But unicorns isn't an option, so I doubt it.)
HOWEVER! I have a plan:
MAKE AN EPICLY AMAZING TRIPLE WHAMMY BLOG POST!
In which-
-I rewrite my two lost blog posts, and write this week's post.
-I eat baby carrots while writing, to get my creative juices flowing.
-I try to talk about unicorns as often as possible.'
So. Post one:
Maximus Ride-The Angel Experiment:
Oh. Oh dear. This book. I actually don't know how to feel about it. I think it's borderline guilty pleasure, because the entire time I was reading, I kept noticing how much I disagreed with the way James Patterson portrayed kids around my age, and how I didn't like the book. But somehow, I couldn't. Stop. Reading.
I think it was a nice escape, a fantasy, and some of it was actually interesting. I think that even though the story itself wasn't that great, the deeper messages were actually really interesting.
For example, Max (the main character) has this talking voice in her head, and he's kind of like the narrator of the story's deeper meanings. He's always asking questions, and making insightful comments about situations in the book. And as annoying and unnecessary as it really was, I do like one thing that it said:
"Is it important to be right, or is it important to do what's right?"
That stuck with me throughout the story. Max goes on this adventure, where she's trying to kill evil dog creatures and escape evil scientists and save the world from evil stuff. (It's all...evil.) And the entire time, I'm trying to understand what's really 'right' to do, in this story. I mean, one thing that's really interesting is that you don't know much about the 'enemies'. They're evil scientists, according to Max, but are they really evil? Is Max right? How can you know what's right, if you've got the story wrong?
At some point in the book, one of the scientists says 'You've got it all wrong-YOU'RE the bad guys!'. That really shook me. I mean, I think in order to do what's right, you have to BE right first. You need to, you know, know what's going on. But when does being aware become being right? When do you go from knowing what's right, to BEING right? What does that even mean, being right. I doubt that you can only be right, or only do what's right. Don't you have to be right, to do what's right?
Maybe, what the writer means is, doing what's right can often times mean doing bad things. So you can't be right, if you're going to be a hero. You have to be prepared to do bad things, to do 'wrong' things. It kind of reminds me of unicorns, or spiderman. In Spiderman, the Daily Bugle is always calling Spiderman a villain. Granted, they're a newspaper, they're just trying to make money, but I think that people always kind of hate the good guy. Maybe because it's easier to sympathize with an underdog, but maybe also because the hero DOES have to do some nasty things, for the greater good.
My question is, how much can we sacrifice before the greater good isn't worth all the bad things we do to acheive it? When does the greater good become less important than what we're sacrificing? When someone has to die, two people, a hundred? When is it no longer okay? I think that's more a question of personal ethics. It's different for everyone. I think that's why ''heroes'' have a hard time being liked/accepted. Because some people feel that what they're doing is wrong.
But hey, they're still saving the world. And unicorns.
Blog Post TWO! Catcher in the Rye.
This book. I can't decide whether I hate it or not, either. But in a different way. I really liked that there wasn't really a plot to the book. There wasn't a main issue, or whatnot. But I also hated that. It made it harder to find the big meaning in this book. At the same time, it made it a lot easier. Instead of one big major issue, there were lots of little ones scattered around the book.
But the one thing you can always count on is Holden Caulifield's character. He's always the same person. I mean, there's a definite change in him, from begining to end. He gets more mature, sure. But he's really predictable. ...In a good way. It's kind of like, you know him. He's very realistic. And I like that. So when Holden's at his old teacher's house, and he wakes up to find the teacher patting Holden's head/ running his fingers through Holden's hair, I wasn't at all surprised that Holden freaked out.
I doubt that the teacher was actually trying to do anything, but it makes me think about Holden. He was so scared and shaken about that incident, and really thought that the teacher was ''approaching'' him, even though it was highly improbable. It kind of shook me, to think about how easily people jump to assumptions like that.
I mean, it happens to all of us in real life. We just jump to absurd conclusions. We suddenly make the decision to believe something that's totally unrealistic. Why is that? Who do we blame it on? Another media stunt, where we're so stuffed with ideas of how to think, what to think, what decides whether something is or isn't something? Or could it be that we're influenced by other people?
Maybe it's just us.
Maybe WE'RE guilty. We're the blame. WE stereotype. And WE make assumptions and WE are overreacting. But that still doesn't explain WHY we do this. Sure, it's are own reaction, our own problem. But what sparked it? What sparked this initial need to understand everything, to figure out the scenario before really taking the time to know both sides? Holden could have easily asked what his teacher was doing, tried to understand why he was doing it. Instead, he jumped up, freaked out, and left. I don't get that.
Was it adrenaline? Simple stupidity? Ignorance?
Maybe Holden was just acting in the moment. He was scared, and didn't have time to think rationally. Honestly, I sometimes wonder if Holden DOES ever think rationally. I kind of admire/resent Holden's impulsive ways. Failed out of school again? GO RUN WILD THROUGH THE STREETS OF NEW YORK FOR THREE DAYS! Don't want to go back home? PLAN ON MOVING TO A REMOTE TOWN, WORKING AT A GAS STATION AND PRETEND TO BE DEAF SO NO ONE TALKS TO YOU! Bored, depressed? BUY A FIVE DOLLAR PROSTITUTE! It's kind of amazing, he gets to live his life so much that way. Just doing what he feels like, without really thinking it all through. One thing I noticed however, was how lonely he seemed to be.
Throughout the book, Holden was always talking about how ''depressed'' he felt, or how lonely. He was surrounded by people, but still felt so alone and sad. Isn't that creepy? I can see what he means though. I get the feeling. I think it's more that he couldn't really identify with anyone. Even that girl that he went to lunch with-Sally. He was talking about how great she was, and then realized that she was ''phony'' and totally not the kind of person he liked. I think that it's important to surround yourself with people you actually enjoy, or can relate to. That's probably why Holden hated his old school-his roommate wasn't like him, nor were any other kids. I'm not saying that you have to find someone who's just like you, or you'll be lonely and depressed all your life. I just think that maybe, you need to be around people you can enjoy, people you actually genuinely like if you don't want to start feeling lonely, or lost.
Actually, I think that the one thing that follows Holden from beginning right to almost the very end is his loneliness, or sadness. I think that even if this isn't the moral of the story, Holden was finding himself in a way. He was going home. To his parents, his sister, his actual house. He needed that. Without it he was just a sad kid lost in a big city. He isn't ready to go out into the world alone. He's still young. And he needed to get back home. I'm not saying that he isn't equipped physically-he did okay. But I think that being alone at such a young age kind of got to him. I don't think he was ready yet, for whatever reason.
I don't think anyone is.
What do you think? I mean, maybe I'm totally wrong. Maybe I don't understand Holden Caulifieled at all, and I've totally messed up with this book response.
I think Catcher in the Rye is the type of book that's sort of debatable, because it's so different and normal. I think I actually loved it.
Also, my computer keeps freezing, so the final part of this triple blog post will come tomorrow, because I'm scared it won't save. Stay gold, ponyboy!
I'm sorry, I just always wanted to say that.
