Poesies

Jean-Paul Pages, Janvier 2006

J'ai deux soleils dans ma vie

Alexandre et Nathalie

Rayonnant de la frequence

De cet amour infini

Qui tous les etre unit

En transpercant leurs defenses

Si bien qu'au fond je me dis:

Ils sont la preuve vivante

Que la Vie intelligente

Cree ici le paradis

Et qu'il suffit d'observer

Pour voir mon coeur s'abreuver

De la tendre certitute

Qu'il n'est nulle solitude

Ainsi malgre les apparences

Rien ne me fonde a douter

Du sens et de la beaute

De ma presente existence

Merci o merci mes enfants

D'exprimer tant de joie de vivre

Vous ravivez pour vos parents

L'etincelle gui les delivre

Elle fuse a travers vos yeux

Et votre sourire radieux

Translation:

John Paul Pages, January 2006

I have two suns in my life

Alexandre et Nathalie

Radiating in the frequency

This infinite love

Which unites all be

By piercing their defenses

So that inside of my heart I say:

They are living proof

That Intelligent Life

Here Created paradise

And it is enough to observe

To see my heart quench itself

With the tender certitute

That there is no loneliness

So despite appearances

I have no basis to doubt

The meaning and beauty

From my present existence

Thank you, O thank you my children

For expressing such joy of living

You revive your parents

The spark issued the mistletoe

She bursts through your eyes

And your radiant smiles

My (Response?) Poem

Mon pere!

Seulment si j'avais le vocabulaire infini, des modes pour t'exprimmer

Mon amour:

Impossible, 

Immortel.

Tu est les rayons de lumiere qui eclairsi le monde en pleine nuit

Les notes parfaites qui sortent de la tere

Mon pere!

Sans tes touches magnifique,

Les soleils dans ta vie, trops vite-fini

S'elionnent de tout les peuples

L'heure est L'hiver

O mon pere!

Je suis ta deuxieme joie, la moitee de tes soleil

Tu est ma seule rainson

Je suis ton deuxieme

Tu es mon premier et mon dernier

Papa, papa, papa

Mon amour:

Impossible, 

Infallable

Immortel.

Tu est les rayons de lumiere qui eclairsi le monde en pleine nuit

Les notes parfaites qui sortent de la tere

Mon pere!

Sans tes touches magnifique,

Les soleils dans ta vie, trops vite-fini

S'elionnent de tout les peuples

L'heure est L'hiver

O mon pere!

Je suis ta deuxieme joi, la moitee de tes soleil

Tu est ma seule rainson

Je suis ton deuxieme

Tu es mon premier et mon dernier

Papa, papa, papa

Translation:

My father!

If only I had an infinite vocabulary, a million ways to express to you

My love:

Impossible, 

Immortal.

You are the rays of light that illuminate the world in the middle of night

The perfect notes emerging from the earth

My father!

Without your magnificent touch

The suns in your life-who's end premature-

Retreat from all people

The hour is now winter.

Oh, my father!

I am your second joy, the half of your suns

You are my only reason

I am your second

You are my first, my last

Papa, papa, papa.

THE EPICLY AMAZING TRIPLE WHAMMY BLOG POST!

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.

The Honesty Blog

 People say that patience is a virtue, but I think that honesty is much more important. Granted, as human being-and a teenage one, at that- I'm not always completely honest. I think that it's rare that I'm ever completely, 100% honest with anyone. Why is that? Why can't I talk to people, unafraid to say what's really on my mind? Sometimes, I feel like I'm even editing my thoughts. I try to keep myself from thinking a certain way, or about specific things. It's almost like I don't want to hear my thoughts. I don't want to face who I really am, alone and honestly.

Don't get me wrong, I love myself. I don't have any self-esteem, body image, or self-acceptance issues. But sometimes I just don't think that I'm completely fair or appropriate or what-have you. Sometimes, I surprise myself with  my thoughts. They're wild things-things I wouldn't expect I am capable of thinking. And I suppose that's why I'm not always honest with people, isn't it?  I don't want them to know everything about me, how I think and what I think. I don't want them to know I were really am.

But if I'm clipping myself-editing out the parcels of my character that I don't want other people to see... am I still that un-clipped, unedited person? Or have I become the new and improved, mature, appropriate, likable person? Is it healthy to be dishonest in this way? I don't even know if it counts as being dishonest. Is not telling the truth lying? But then again, if I were to be completely honest, nobody would like me. They'd find me to be a crude, unkind, immature, perverted, materialistic, needy, perverse girl. So would it really be better if I were completely honest?

Both Eugene, the main character in Brighton Beach Memoirs by Neil Simon, and Holden, the main character in the book The Catcher in the Rye by J.D Salinger, made me question honesty. Both characters often said what was honestly on their minds, never keeping a single perverted, unkind thought to themselves. As a result, I think it was easy for me to more than a little bit uncomfortable reading some parts of these books. I didn't like knowing what was really on these character's minds. Even though all their thoughts were natural, they were almost too honest. At the same time, their sincerity and honesty made these characters so real. I found myself relating to these characters. The writers dived straight into the mind of a pubescent boy, writing without hiding a single thing. And that's what I think made me love these books so much-even if sometimes I felt like I was hearing too much, the characters were totally relate-able.

But as much as I was able to relate to these characters, the other people that they interacted with in their books seemed unable to. These brutally honest boys seemed lonely, misunderstood, and disliked by the people around them. Why is that? Why don't the supporting characters like these totally honest people? Have these characters been hurt by Holden and Eugene's honesty? Does the truth, indeed hurt? I'm sure we can all say that we've been hurt by someones honesty. Perhaps being honest all the time would also end up hurting people all the time. At the same time, don't lies hurt people as well? Which is better?

Even if these characters seem to prove that honesty can be harmful and isolating, I read something recently that makes me think otherwise. Last week I was reading 36 Assumptions about playwriting by Jose Rivera, which is basically a list of things that make plays wonderful. One of the first things on this list was that a writer should hide nothing in their writing. It's important to be completely honest when one writes. A reader can tell when writing is authentic; that something is wrong. So if in the literate world, honesty is good, why is it that in the real world it seems that honest can cause trouble?

Maybe it's not the honesty, but what the honesty reveals. In being honest, we expose to the world all of our flaws. Perhaps, if we we'rent as flawed; if we were better, more respectable people, our honesty would not be a problem. Honesty can be good. And perhaps Rivera was only speaking about writing. Perhaps, it's okay to lie once in a while. Maybe it's better that I'm not 100% honest, 100% of the time. I think what Rivera was trying to say was that when you write, you have to write with your heart. Write what you feel-don't just write what you're told to write. And I think that this applies to life, too. Be honest-do what you feel is right, not what you're told is right. Of course, that doesn't mean that you should go about breaking every rule.  Overall, honesty is good. An honest person is good. But an honest person also knows when NOT to say something. They will keep things hidden, because if you expose everything, you will become a Holden, a Eugene. You will be scrutinized, ostracized, disliked.

 Honestly, honesty is a dangerous thing. It is not good or bad, but something much more complex. So use it with caution.

Magical Mistakes

So...I know that I might face possible Ms.Robbins Jail Time or public reader's shunning or something, but...I totally didn't read this week.
BUT!
I have an explenation: for the past four days I've been sick, and I couldn't do anything but mope in bed and be sickly. It was bad. Really bad. Also for another three days I've been in a terrible bookless state. (I searched the classroom library, and my own library for like fifteen days but nothing struck me as interesting).
Alas, I was in a 'all the good books that ever existed died in a terrible fire of terror' state.
So for the part of the week that I was actually physically capable to read, I read this biography about Nikola Tesla which was really good but totally non-thought provoking/inspiringly magical.
I mean, he's a really interesting guy, he had a really interesting life, but this book was...lame sometimes.
There was no pizaz, or spunk or spark. I mean, even a non-fiction book can be exiting, right?
This, was not.
The book kind of went like this "Nikola Tesla blah blah history history". Somehow, on the fiftieth page I decided, if this book wasn't going to excite my inner reader, I would.
So I thought of everything I learned from this book.
A lot.
Nikola Tesla was a total genius, but had a lot of nervous and psychological/mental problems. The lack of documentation on his past makes him a man shrouded in mystery. More facts, blah blah blah.
So then I decided to think deeper about the FACTS, and make THAT interesting.
I realized, most geniuses are usually pretty much sociopaths or have some small form of a mental disorder.
Why is that?
Does your brain erase the common-sense part of it to have more room for crazy genius facts?
Tesla had a pretty dark past, so maybe the fact that he dealt with what he did caused his mental issues, which actually HELPED him strive as an inventor/mad genius.
He had OCD, might have had schizophrenia, often had hallucinations, photographic memory and a multitude of other medical phenomena, and they all contributed to making him successful as an electrician/inventor/genius.
So I thought, maybe our faults help us become better people? That might be something I can get out of this totally lame book...Because it's true. Every mistake we've ever made has brought us closer to success. Every fault we have kind of makes our good sides better. Maybe the fact that I'm really moody makes it easier for me to write plays that are super dramatic and complicated. Maybe the experience we've had, be it negative or positive, have helped us be better equipped to go out into to the world.

So yeah, I did read a book. Not my favorite, not something I would suggest unless you're seriously into the informative non-thought provoking, but I definitely got something out of it.
It was a good mistake.

New York Writer Sentenced to 5 Years of Angst?

Well I mean, we all are, kind of. (Sentenced to five years of angst). Honestly, as adolescents, all we do is suffer the terrifying grips of 'teen angst'. So usually, from around age thirteen till eighteen, we are the unrecognizable monsters of the human race. Just kidding.
In Ned Vizzini's book Teen Angst? a collection of essays and short stories about growing up in New York City (Brooklyn, actually). Throughout the whole book, I was thinking 'uhh, this is all great, but really, where's the teen angst, exactly?'. There was no angry brooding bohemian grunge boy, no nerdy trench-coat mafia kid; just a nerd who went to Stuyvesant. A kid like you, or a kid like me. (Honestly we're all nerds) And I realized that I was kind of angry.
I wanted my teen angst and I wanted it now! I wanted all the stories about drugs and alcohol and all the stupid things teenagers were supposed to do. So why was I reading about SHSATs and Summer Camp with a Punk Rocker Girl? And more importantly, why was I enjoying it?
Because I can relate to it. Even though I have to admit, sometimes I can be a terrible annoying angsty girl, (like everyone else), I'm normally just...me. A 'normal' teenage girl. Not rebellious or angry, or stupid or badass (uhh...am I allowed to say that here?). Ned Vizzini, once again, shows how interesting life is, on it's own, without any extravagant rebellion/dramatic additions.
I mean really, do you think that being all 'fml, I hate my life, blah blah blah' unless you actually have a reason makes you more interesting? (And even if you have a reason, would you really be saying that?) I don't think that angst is something that teenagers NEED to have. Sure, it's something we all feel occasionally, maybe more than your average adult, or toddler, but I don't think that we need to make it our only emotion. And I don't think we need to hunt for it in books, either.
That's kind of what I love about Ned Vizzini's books, actually. They're mostly all normal. There's no extra drama, it's all stuff that could actually happen to anyone. (I'm not saying that being assaulted by your uncle after your dad died and become addicted to cocaine while your mother goes bankrupt and your sister suffers from lukemia and you struggle with anorexia while trying to get a certain hot guy to like you couldn't happen to anyone, but really...?) Somehow though, it's still totally interesting. You don't need to suffer from five years of terrible angst and terror to have something interesting to say to the world. I think, by simply being alive, we can be interesting. You don't really need a lot of sprinkles on your vanilla ice cream to make it a real ice cream. (Okay, my metaphors are weird, so shoot me.) And I have to say, Ned Vizzini's teenage life totally lacked sprinkles. I mean, he never really bemoaned his life or talked about his troubles. He was pretty vanilla.
 Which makes me think, what's with all these kids who try so hard to be miserable? Since when was this a pity contest? Since when was being a brooding teen with a terrible emotional life become cool? It's all for attention, I guess. We all want something to make us feel special, unique, worthy. And as soon as you don't care about that, like Ned did as a kid, you start to be okay with life. Things are happy, normal. You're not some ridiculous kid with an abnormal amount of problem sprinkles on your vanilla ice cream of life. Yes, a few sprinkles add flavor, but too many cause diabetes...
I don't think that people really need to put an emphasis on their problems. I think that if you have a problem, you should fix it. Publicizing it isn't really going to get you anywhere. You're life is already interesting without the extra emphasis on the misery. YOU are already interesting without the extra sprinkles.
I mean really, sprinkles can be really gross if you eat too  many. Have you ever tried to eat a container of sprinkles? They loose taste, your tastebuds kind of die and all you taste is food coloring for weeks.
So trust me,  you don't need extra stuff to make your life more interesting. You already are interesting. If a 20-something year old New Yorker can write a book about his bland life, then so can you! And I'm not saying you have to right a book, you can just sit here and think of how cool you really are, and how your life totally IS interesting.
So comment, tell me about the vanilla in your life, or the sprinkles, or what makes your life good. Think about little things that are totally average or uninteresting about your life. Because really, the vanilla is the best part of the ice cream.
Sprinkles suck.

Social...what?

Look out of a window, right now. (The one in your bedroom, that opens up to the street that seems to always full of loud, obnoxious people right as you're about to fall asleep.) All of those people, they have lives. They have lives, and their lives have issues. That man in the yellow parka, (which is so weird, because it's like, thirty billion degrees and sunny...) he might have marital issues, or he might have just lost his job. That woman in the workdress, her son might be gay. And she's homophobic.

Now you're asking yourself, 'Why am I making up terrible scenarios for these people?'. Well, that's what stories do. They make problems. In every book I've ever read (no, self help books and non fiction and cookbooks don't count), characters always have major issues that they're dealing with, throughout the story. Without a problem, you have no book. Problems make everything interesting. They are the story, itself. Problems make you relate to characters.

For example, I'm reading Sold by Patricia McCormick, which has major social issues. It's not just about prostitution, which is a pretty heavy topic, in itself. This goes so much deeper. Because, what makes these people think it's okay to hurt people like this, to do disrespect them?
The fact that they're prostitutes.
Why are they prostitutes?
Because these girls were tricked, hurt, and young and naive.
How are they tricked?
They are uneducated, and poor, and unexposed to the world.
Why aren't they educated?
Because they're women.

In Lakshmi (the main character) 's society (in Nepal) women are seen as lesser, they are only meant to bear children, and support a family. Women cannot function on there own, according to Lakshmi's culture. Her mother even tells her 'a crippled husband is better than none at all.' That's demeaning.
That a social issue.
How can women be so degraded?
 Women are hugely significant in life-we're not just goats who get used for milk, and then slaughtered for stew. And it's terrible that Lakshmi's society sees women this way. Because of this, she's been sold into prostitution-because of the way these women are treated, like they shouldn't have rights, like they're lesser, it isn't fair. It's what causes them to be in this situation, in the first place.

Now, how can we relate to a social issue like prostitution, anyway? That's why McCormick ties feminism, and women being degraded into this story. It's something we can relate to more easily, it helps us understand this struggle that Lakshmi goes to, having been sold into prostitution, and it makes us think.
What gives them the right?

What gives people the right to treat women-or any group of people- like they're lesser?
I mean, why couldn't these women fight back, come to the realization that this wasn't okay, that women are just as intellegent and worthy as men? Maybe, it's because they're not educated. I read this article that talked about how many families in India wouldn't send their daughters to school, because they could only afford to pay for one child's education, and they would rather educate a son, because sons are 'more worthy'.  By keeping women uneducated, they are more easily brainwashed into this 'unworthiness' idea.

And the disgusting thing, is that many women accept this. In Sold, there's this whole feeling that even if Lakshmi, or anyone else tried to speak out about the way women are treated, or the issue of children getting sold into prostitution, no one would listen. Most women have accept their fate, and have started to believe themselves, that this is how women should be; that they are lesser than men. And if anyone tried to speak out about this, even many women would be against it. And in terms of prostitution-no one really seems to know, or care, maybe. And these girls have no way of getting out-their brothels are like jails-the girls cannot speak to anyone, or get anyone's help.

I hate that, the idea that even if you tried to save yourself, or could speak up, the people you're representing would push you back down. Because they've already accept their fates. They've lost all hope. And that's the remarkable thing about Lakshmi-she never loses hope. And because of that, she's able to stay 'alive'. She's able to stay who she is, and not become another slave, another zombie to this terrible situation. She hasn't given up but she's giving in. She's accepting where she is, but you still understand, she's holding on to her past, and she still knows she can get out. And that's remarkable.

I think that strong social issues like these can bring you to conclusions like these. A social issue can get you to want to do something about the problem. Whether it's helping girls escape prostitution, or just helping girls know that they're worth something-these social issues impact you, when used and written powerfully. That's exactly what Patricia McCormick does.

So when you look out your window at 3 A.M and hate all the loud people keeping you up, maybe, you can think about their problems, and why they're so loud anyway. Maybe you'll get some inspiration. Maybe you'll want to do something. Or maybe you'll just get some earplugs and go to sleep.

Youth in Revolt

I literally just started this book today, so I'm only on the sixth page, and don't know anything about the plot yet. But so far, I love this book. It's so awkward and real. Not awkward in a cute way, awkward in a kind of gross, weird, adolescent way.The fact that Nick Twisp is so honest about how 'weird' he is, makes it more acceptable to the reader. He isn't hiding that he has weird fantasies and stuff, he doesn't embrace it either, I respect his awkwardness, in a way. And what's great about the way the writer portrays Nick, is that she still manages to make him likeable. Maybe it's the fact that in reality, his life is sort of terrible-his dad doesn't really like him, (actually his dad is just...a big terrible person) and his mom wants him to be something he isn't. Life isn't easy for Nick, and that makes us feel sympathy for him, even if he's totally gross. But you still like him! We can still connect to him, in our own, screwed up way.

Nick is basically all the awkward and hidden secret parts of us that we don't share with anyone. All those weird curious and unsure feelings we have during puberty are basically Nick Twisp. And you have to love that. You have to love that he can actually admit these things (to his diary...eheh). One quote from this book that I really love, is when Nick's mother tells him he's insane, and he responds 'I'm being a teenager'.

I think that is one of the most true things I've ever heard. I think that at one point, you just snap. Teenagers seem like these crazy, mentally deranged, strange things. And they totally are. No one can understand a teenager. (except for maybe other teenagers.) I think that that's the cool thing. They're so into their own world, in a sort of inbetween, that to everyone looking in at them, they seem like strange creatures with twisted morals and twisted minds. And Nick can show you, that is SO totally not the case. Nick can show you the thought process-how everything sort of does make sense, in his weird, awkward and sad life (while managing to be hilarious and upbeat, as well).

I can't wait to continue this book to see what Nick's adolescence has in store...