A Rant About Book Deaths... (Class Connection Post) (WARNING: Spoilers ahead for The Hunger Games, Harry Potter, and The Awakening Readers)

        Let me start with saying, I get very attached to the characters from the books I read. I'm sure that most people do. Books take us into an entirely different world, and we start to feel the emotions from those books rub into us. Therefore, after reading The Awakening, I can honestly say I am disappointed. Edna was truly engulfed in depressing emotions, but that is no reason to give up on life entirely. Some people may argue that it was the only way for her to escape, but I strongly disagree. Escaping from life is no way to solve problems! It will just make life worse for those around the victim, as well as a terrible end to anyone's life. Edna could have found another solution. In the worse case scenario, she could have left her town and started a new life, away from the people causing her distress. Still, she should not have given up on the rest of the people in her life.
        Pondering Edna's suicide, I started to think about all of the other books I have read where some of the best characters have died. I understand that sometimes it is necessary to kill off an important character, but it really tears at my heart when my favorite characters die. For instance, in Mocking Jay when Prim dies, I could not stop crying. Although it was in fact necessary for this to happen in order for Katniss to move on with her life, I was thoroughly angered by the book. After all of the other significant deaths like Finnick (in Mocking Jay) and Rue (in The Hunger Games), Prim was the final straw. Another book riddled with death was the last book in the Harry Potter Series, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hollows. What about Fred? Who could have ever wanted one of the Weasley twins to die? Who could have wanted Remus Lupin or Dobby or Hedwig to perish? I'm guessing that most people cried A LOT during the last book. Deaths like these truly leave a mark. It's hard for me to go back and read books with deaths in them over again. Every time I re-read novels, I carry a hint of sadness with me by knowing what will happen to characters who are currently alive but won't be for long.
        Deaths within books frustrate me. I understand why the characters need to die, but it breaks off a piece of the story. Every time a character is killed off, a fraction of the love for that book is ripped away. Books with suicide are the worst. At least when characters die from other factors, there is a valid reason. When characters go so low as to take their own life, I am very tempted to throw the book at the ground in frustration. This is the main reason I did not enjoy the end of The Awakening. Even when there are misunderstandings in novels or even plays like "Romeo and Juliet", I can't erase my frustration with the characters. I mean, I know that Romeo and Juliet loved each other and could not bear to face life without the other, but still! There are so many alternatives to death. Just think about what would have happened if Romeo had not killed himself when he saw Juliet's body? She would have woken up and they could have run away and lived a happy life together. Unfortunately, many stories do not end with happy endings.
         To sum things up, I strongly dislike book deaths. If it were up to me, all books would have a happy ending. Still, I know that if all literature had happy endings, there would not be nearly as much creativity in writing. Therefore, although I want all of the characters to live wonderful lives, I acknowledge the fact that not all stories from real life are essentially happy. Everyone lives in their own way, and we have no right to judge others on their own styles of living. I'll try to keep an open mind whenever I read books containing death. I may not agree with it, but there's no harm in giving them a chance. Who knows? Maybe one day I won't be as bothered by book deaths!

Making a Statement Through Poetry (Independent Reading Post)

       Poetry is an incredible form of writing. It allows us to portray our deepest emotions and thoughts through a true form of art. When I read the online article, "Dangerous 'truth': The Kabul women's poetry club", I realized just how much I take things like poetry for granted. For me, poetry has always been there. I can simply pick up a pen and start writing without any hesitation. In Afghanistan, however, woman are not allowed to do this. In their country, writing poetry is considered a sin that should be avoided at all costs. Now, women throughout Afghanistan are silently fighting back. They are forming poetry clubs in secret and writing to their hearts content. They generate words hidden deep within their hearts and fill the paper with their personal feelings about everything going on in their lives.        

       It makes me so happy to see women standing up for something that they believe in. Things like freedom of expression are essential to a true society. It takes a great deal of courage to go against the common beliefs of society. Imagine living in a country where you have to hide your writing pieces from your community as well as your own family and friends. Personally, I would be screaming in the inside. That's why it's such a pleasure to hear that these women are disregarding common belief and standing on their own two feet.       

       The situation in Afghanistan shows that women have the ability to stand up for what is right. Although they are ridiculed by those around them, they don't give up on their dreams. In the article, Karima Shabrang humbly explains, "I would prefer a dignified death to a life lived as a hostage in silence". The words of these women are small, but powerful. The women within Afghanistan support what they do with all of their hearts. When it comes to living life without the freedom to express your self through creative forms like poetry, it is better to follow your own beliefs rather than those declared by authority. I hope that soon, they will no longer have to live a life of secrecy. These poetic women deserve to be heard, whether it be through speech or writing. Since it is doubtful that the women of Afghanistan will give up in their pursuit of expression, I am sure that they will one day accomplish their goals.

Here is the Link to the article:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-24608666

A Review on "One Man" (TA Post)

        After watching the video on the "One Man" Movie Trailer Supercut, I was astonished. I have never really thought deeply about movie trailers before. I mean, we see them all the time, everywhere. They just kind of play through the back of your mind, and you don't really analyze the mass effects that they can have on society. The whole video took short clips from trailers that follow the "one ____" theme. Almost all of the videos filled in the blank with the word "man". In the trailers with women as the main character, the blank almost never read "woman". Instead it was filled in with words like "stranger", "person", and "thing". These kind of words make you wonder if the producers of these movies are actually trying to avoid using the word "woman" in the trailers. It sure seems like it. After all, the vast majority of trailers with male protagonists use phrases like "It's up to one man to save the world" and "Only one man could restore peace".  When woman are brought into the picture, why is it that they are more often than not referred to in ways that transform them into something that can be put into one's possession rather than an actual person? By declaring loudly that the main female character was "the one thing that he needed", trailers are becoming questionable on the terms of gender equality. Even at times when it would be perfectly acceptable to say, "The rest was up to one woman", the producers insist upon saying things like "The rest was up to one person". Why is it that men can be referred to as "men", but woman cannot be referred to as "woman"? Until these past few weeks, I had never observed the hidden messages of movie trailers and TV shows. It frustrates me that the writers of screenplay tend to portray woman as weaker characters than men. By avoiding the term "woman" in trailers, it suggests that they are not meant to have the best roles in stories and that they don't have as much character development as men do. This is, of course, not true in the slightest. All people can have strong characters, regardless of their gender. It truly amazes me that anyone would think otherwise. If someone is making a movie trailer about a woman, why not just say "woman"? It really makes no sense. Well, I think that concludes my long rant about gender equality!