Harry Potter and the PHILOSOPHER'S Stone (Pgs. 0 - 130)

About that title… It's philosopher's stone. What in the world is a sorcerer's stone? Why was this changed? Why is this a thing? Did the publishers think that no one would get it? Honestly, what was the logic behind this? That's a rant for another time. Not now.

I must confess that I never read the Harry Potter series as a kid. I wasn't abroad the train of the obsession of Harry Potter, and although I enjoyed the movies, I couldn't tell you what the first few were about today. It was that long ago, and thus reading this book now is like getting a new experience… or close to one, at least.

It only hit me, as I was reading, the surface of the cool stuff present in the universe of Harry Potter. The nomenclature is very inspired, though at times significantly less than clever. As a fan of fantasy and one with a great appreciation for the likes of J. R. Tolkien's efforts in creating an entire language all its own, seeing things like the "Put-Outer" do nothing but put a foul taste in my mouth. I understand that it is a Young Adult novel, but seriously? In a world with so many cool inspirations and naming conventions, the first magical item the reader hears about is the "Put-Outer"?

What could a an evil, inhuman wizard look like?

Complaints aside, starting off the novel with the celebration of some (at this point) unknown evil sorcerer's death is one way to get a reader's interest going. Had I not known about Voldemort and his role in the events to come, this would have interested me greatly. The idea of some vile wizard whose only discernible motive seems to be to gain power doesn't really make for a good, morally questionable and well-written antagonist, but it does invoke a certain drive in the reader to want to learn more about how such a villain could be thwarted. When Hagrid talks about the rumors about the cause of Voldemort's disappearance, he says,

"Some say he died. Codswallop, in my opinion. Dunno if he had enough human left in him to die." -Pg. 57

That plays up a villain. That creates mystery. That makes the reader wonder just how powerful the guy was, if he had apparently gained enough power to lose the title of being human at all. And the book is barely 3 chapters in at this point. That is good writing. And speaking of good writing, given my knowledge of the later events in Harry Potter, J. K. Rowling does an excellent job of foreshadowing. Her planning is evident when Harry chooses his wand.

Slightly disappointing in all honesty.

"It is very curious indeed that you should be destined for this wand when its brother --why, its brother gave you that scar." -Ollivander, Pg. 85

The fact that Harry has a wand that is connected to Voldemort's is clear foreshadowing of a connection between the two. This is all only the start of the cool things I could talk about in just the first half of the book. 

Image Sources: 

http://lilithstreasuretavern.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/7/3/13737227/s144094589190160637_p425_i1_w639.jpeg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a3/Lordvoldemort.jpg

Persepolis 2 Blog 2 "Looking at the Person"

Now that I have finished Persepolis, I want to know just what kind of person that Marjane Satrapi is. I believe that I have the information necessary to figure that out, but at best I can derive from anecdotes and interviews. As a note, nothing is certain until one actually meets someone in person. 

Despite what some believe, I do not think she is an instinctive person. Given the opportunity, not once but twice she speaks out against the Islamic Regime at a school setting. Perhaps from her being raised up with people like her uncle who was executed for wanting freedom and a family who generally were overjoyed with the rebellion against the Shah, she greatly valued liberties. It would make sense that she would act with every chance she got to attempt to fight something that restricted her so much. On the other hand, Satrapi also failed to defend herself several times while in Austria. She would occasionally explode, such as when she overheard the girls talking about her at a cafe, but most of the time, was self-blaming and passive. She is a short-tempered person who likely battles clinical depression of some sort.

If anything, this short temper and clinical depression would make sense considering her inclination to being an artist. There have been several studies linking depression and mental illnesses such as bipolar disorder to bursts of inspiration and a person's level of creativity.** This is because of an exposition to a greater range of emotion. She says that she chose to use writing and visual art to express herself for Persepolis.

"Well, for me, who is someone who cannot choose between writing and drawing, [a graphic novel] was the best way of expressing myself" -Marjane Satrapi*

She is a passionate person who puts in a great amount of effort to her work because she believes that that is the mark of a truly creative person.

*Source: http://99u.com/articles/7134/marjane-satrapi-on-artistic-freedom-fame-finishing-no-matter-what (Interview with Satrapi)

**Source: http://talentdevelop.com/interviews/psychcreat.html (Article about creativity and how it functions)

Persepolis 2 "Iranian Revolution"

Persepolis 2 is the second part of the auto-biographical graphic novel about Marjane Satrapi, someone who was a young girl during the Iranian Revolution. This part of her story details her venture into France when sent away for her safety. How people treat her in France gives an interesting view on the event, given the history of the Revolution.

The Iranian Revolution was a result of a history of unfortunate monarchy and a combination of US and British interference. In the early 1950's during the Cold War, the US feared Iran falling to Communism due to its being in close vicinity to the Soviet Union. Of primary concern was the potential for Iran to end up as a source of oil for the Soviets. "Thankfully", the Shah, bloodline monarch of Iran, would co-operate with them and promise not to ally with the Soviet Union. Through a long campaign of covert affairs, the US ultimately supported the Shah by performing a coup d'etat against the democratic political leader, Mossadeq, who was suspected of being a Communist sympathizer.

For years afterward, the people placed the blame of this on several sources: Britain, themselves, but they remained in the dark about US involvement. (Source: http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB435/) It eventually came to light, however, and Iran was quick to respond to them, such as when a group of people attacked the US Embassy, resulting in the Iran hostage crisis.

Source: http://www.gq.com/news-politics/big-issues/200911/iran-hostage-crisis-tehran-embassy-oral-history

This took place in 1979, 5 years prior to Satrapi's initial arrival in France. This puts things into perspective, though it doesn't really illustrate the significance of this point in time. Although Iranians knew what the CIA had done, US citizens did not. At least in the US, the Iranian Revolution was not of great concern to the public. It was only after the attack on the US embassy that people started to care, and even then it was in spite of Iran. In this way, the stigmas present in anti-Iranian sentiment are understandable. To exemplify this disdain, Satrapi says that at the time,

"Iran was the epitome of evil and to be Iranian was a heavy burden to bear." (Pg 41)

Now, the story itself more focuses on the life and times of Marjane Satrapi, but knowing this part of history adds a lot of depth to one's perception of the events in book. It acts as a good way to contrast what history has reported on with what a person who experienced the events has reported on.

(Background Knowledge on CIA coup d'etat from All the Shah's Men by Stephen Kinzer)

"The Help" Pgs 251 to End: Final Thoughts

I feel that I was a little too hard on The Help in my previous blogs. For all of it's shortcomings, I decided for this last section to take the story at face value; ignoring the historical accuracy and character depth to an extent. It was only then that I truly invested myself into the story and got through the remainder.

I found that, in browsing several interviews with Kathryn Stockett from https://acriticalreviewofthehelp.wordpress.com/a-list-of-interviews-with-kathryn-stockett/ , I found interesting information on the circumstances of Stockett publishing the book. She never intended on sharing the story with the world, but ended up going through the process of publishing after family told her it was good and she expanded on her original. She was also conflicted in that on one hand, she saw that a story from the viewpoint of primarily black maids in the 1960's was not her story to tell, yet she wanted the story to be told. Ultimately, we know what her decision was as otherwise I wouldn't be writing this.

As for the story, to begin with, I was mistaken in claiming that Hilly was written to have no redeemable qualities. She proved to have some amount of depth beyond being an absolute antagonist, even if she ended up the primary antagonist to the end. It's mostly her interactions with miss Skeeter that give her depth. And I suppose it's hard to write a character to be more than a racist when that is one of their defining characteristics in a book based around racial tension. In all seriousness, however, Hilly is still a poorly written character, and that I will stand by.

I liked the interactions between Miss Celia and Minny. Minny developed well from her initially rigid view of how people of different skin color could work together through both her and Skeeter. Really, it was the development that the story really needed, as without her, we'd be left without that transition, as no other character showed such a drastic level of change and everyone generally remained the same by the end as when introduced. She was a well-rounded character that made the story entertaining both with her brand of humor and good development, while at the same time providing some of the more disturbing parts of it that she experienced.

Finally,  Skeeter and her book ended up causing a whole mess of trouble with Hilly and a radio station that condemned the work. I am left to wonder just how much of an impact the book really had on the rights of African Americans, specifically maids, even if the book is historical fiction. In wondering, I then question the point of the story, and no, I am not referring to the theme of segregation in the 1960's. I questioned the point of using the book as the primary plot device, given that, as I have just said, it can't really have an effect on the law.

My final thoughts of the book are as follows: despite its lack of historical accuracy (see the first blog), use of nigh-impossible to respect antagonists, and almost subverted messages through the text in the form of self-degrading values for many characters (for example, Aibileen being able to, for the most part, get over her son's death by more or less replacing him with Mae Mobley), the book has some merits that I respect. It is by no means worthy of being a best seller in my eyes, as pretentious as that sounds, but even the author acknowledges that, as she states in many interviews.

"The Help" Pgs 166-250: Criticism, criticism...

Criticism. It's healthy. It keeps one's standards high. It prods at flaws that can be improved upon. It can be used to analyze a story. In pointing out what's wrong or "off" with an author's writing, one can probe for a meaning beyond their confusion. I'm about to do just that, so be ready.

It never really occurred to me just how thick Miss Skeeter is in the head until now. I knew she wasn't the one with the most common sense, certainly, but she takes the time to explain just what should have been pretty obvious dozens of pages ago. For example, on page 202, she reads sections of the Jim Crow laws, only to conclude:

"… There's no difference between these government laws and Hilly building Aibileen a bathroom in the garage…" -Pg 203

Obviously they're both being done to segregate African Americans and white people, yet she had to sound that out for herself? I forgave her interactions with Aibileen, considering that she was played as an awkward, book smart but not street-smart person. She understood that black and white people still were immensely segregated despite the supreme court's recent ruling given the time of the story. This was not necessary to get into.

On another note, I think I gagged at the thought of Elizabeth being pregnant. After what she's done with her first kid, she thinks having a second is a good idea? Perhaps one of the more revolting characters of the cast, Elizabeth doesn't deserve the right to be called a mother. I'm not aware of how parents in this time and place treated their kids, and I don't trust the author to know herself, but somehow I don't think that Elizabeth's "parenting" would be acceptable treatment of a child even then.

I can't tell you if these characters are believable. They are obviously written to fit roles, with characters like Miss Hilly being antagonizing general racists and Miss Skeeter being elevated as a heroine. There is not a single redeeming factor about Miss Hilly or Elizabeth in my eyes. Every story needs its hero and conflict, and although I understand the point of not antagonizing the oppressed African American maids, well-written characters could be made to fit said roles without making either of them out to be an ultimate good or ultimate bad. I know I said that I'd focus more on the story this post, but I can't just ignore these points.

(Source re-used from previous post)
Source: https://acriticalreviewofthehelp.wordpress.com/2011/05/09/facts-surrounding-the-help/

"The Help" Pgs 1-165: Setting the Scene

This past week, I have started reading The Help by Kathryn Stockett. I can't say much aside from the fact that I my knowledge of the time frame and a lot of the involved history with the subject matter was very fuzzy. My background for the book was not very strong, so although I enjoy the story so far, I felt that I couldn't talk about any of it without some research. I have thus looked at a critical review of the book that analyzes the facts about the book. Despite the hyper-critical voice present in the article, it brought up many problems with the book with reliable sources to back the author's claims.

Let's start with the story. It takes place during the 1960's in a racially charged Jackson, Mississippi. The book follows three alternating narrators, an African American maid named Aibileen, another named Minny, and a white woman named Eugenia (referred to as Miss Skeeter). The three share their viewpoints in much the same way as the characters in My Sister's Keeper, and unfortunately, are subject to the same pitfalls that said characters were: poor characterization and in a few cases, unbelievability. When the many maids were on the bus openly badmouthing their "white superiors," something in the back of my head told me that this seemed a little odd given the time and location. Here's where I did my research. Aibileen mentions Rosa Parks winning the right for them to sit wherever they please on the bus, when it was the Freedom Rides, the movement of many civil rights advocates to attempt to use white-only facilities, which was met with arrests and heavy bias in trials. Ultimately it was ordered, with the aid of 400 federal marshals, to overturn the states' segregation of interstate travel laws. This was happening in 1961, just a year before the start of this book, and the struggles of segregated buses did not end with it. Already the story has a historical hole, and this is less than 30 pages in.

Source: http://www.jfklibrary.org/JFK/JFK-in-History/Civil-Rights-Movement.aspx?p=2

Source: https://trainwreckdsociety.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/kathryn-stockett.jpg

With regards to the review, I found several points that suggested that the author was not familiar with the time she was writing in. From the absurd use of self-deprecating terminology (the idea of an African American valuing "blacker" skin) to the repeated anomalies of odd character actions. And although I have to do more research on the facts challenged by the review, it was particularly convincing and I can't help but have a bias when reading.

Source: https://acriticalreviewofthehelp.wordpress.com/2011/05/09/facts-surrounding-the-help/

The story has only begun, and I realize I didn't go into too much detail on the aspects of the story at all. I'll try to focus on that next blog.

Reading "My Sister's Keeper" Pg. 260 - End

Alright. Let me get this out of the way before I start: I am not a good writer. For as much as I could go into how a good ending works and what can kill an ending, I admit to falling for most of the traps associated with writing an ending. I understand why an author would choose to make a surprising ending, twist ending, storybook ending or whathaveyou. But this I will get into after a few points are discussed.

To begin, all character's motivations (save Jesse, but I'll get to that) are revealed in a medley of revelation and closure. Campbell reveals that he is epileptic, Anna reveals that Kate had asked her to instigate the suit for her medical emancipation, Brian reveals that he wanted to let Kate die rather than watch her suffer, and many other things of less importance.

Something I never really touched on which I should have was the poor handling of Jesse as a character.  Or rather device, as aside from being the "antihero with a caring heart" trope, he is used only when something else important that doesn't directly involve him occurs. Where characters like Campbell and Anna are tied back to Kate just as the book has set up, they have their own voices and histories that are significant in their own right. With Jesse, he is a boy who was ignored and is now taking out his anger. That's all. Maybe that signifies how he was actually treated in the story, but this is disrespectful to a character that could have been much more. Not only is treating him like a plot device poor writing, his character and voice are poorly written as a whole. It's like reading what a mother thinks her brooding teenage boy would say and do.

"Fuck them all" Pg 93, as Jesse drives haphazardly down the wrong side of a highway. 

This line coming from an angry boy that evidently hates the world would be understandable, but the delivery of it along with what was obviously meant as a "shocking" segment where Jesse drives down a highway in his very first narration chapter, show just what Jesse was meant to be from the start. The off-child. The one who had the potential to solve the problems the others couldn't. And Picoult failed to give him a proper presentation. But it's ok because she made him reconcile with his father and made him a police officer in the end, right?!

With that out of the way, the characters appeared to have a proper "happy" ending, for as happy as this book could get considering its subject matter. When all of a sudden,

"Anna's head hit the window with great force, Mrs. Fitzgerald. It caused a fatal head injury." Pg 415

And that takes me back to the start, as Kate is then able to use her kidney and is then somehow cured, able to live while Anna is the sister who dies in the end. The story was built in such a way that this ending makes little sense; it's almost as if the ending wasn't planned until the very end. It was abrupt, out of nowhere, and coming back to Jesse, his reaction isn't shared of all of the main characters. The most damning peace of evidence for this point is at the very beginning:

"In my first memory, I am three years old and I am trying to kill my sister... In the end, though, I did not kill my sister. She did it all on her own… Or at least this is what I tell myself." - Prologue

Kate never wanted to kill her sister. In fact, there was never any evidence to suggest that she wanted anyone else to die other than herself. I somewhat understood it when this applied to Anna, as at the time she was receiving painful treatments for her sister without knowing why. She describes what suggests her smothering her sister in this prologue, and that would not be what Kate would ever do. Yet this mysterious person behind the prologue's sister dies. Plain and simple: the ending was not meant for the book. It was shoe-horned in. And that is my biggest qualm with this title.

In spite of a powerful emotional ride, the ending sours what would otherwise have been an interesting experience.