Thoughts on: The Book Thief

This book is, by far, my favorite book so far this semester. I became emotionally involved with these characters. It took me about a week to finish it, and each night I would be anxious to see what happened to Rudy and Liesel. I saw all of the forshadowing, and "Death" even comes outright and talks about parts of the ending, but in my mind, I still hoped that somehow everything would turn out alright.

I wonder how many stories from the point of the Germans during World War II there are. It almost seemed strange, because I have this perception that all of the Germans were in on it from the beginning. Most books focus on those who are being dominated by the Germans who step out and try to help someone else being even more oppressed, but I guess I never thought about it happening in Germany, too. I became sympathetic towards the town and its people. Even Rudy, who wasn't even in on the plot to save the Jewish man, was a sympathetic character. I think the author used children as the main characters because we are more likely to see them as innocent and sympathetic while we might automatically assume that the adults were already corrupted by Nazism.

I also found the narrator--Death--to be absolutely fascinating. He is omniscient in that he is outside of the story, and so his blunt details about what will happen and what he will see is incredibly effective. In the end, I struggled with how the whole street could be blown to bits-it frustrated me to no end. Why would the author even create Rudy if he was going to kill him off in the end? Why does he spend so much time letting us get aquainted with that character who wants to be a runner and who likes to get into trouble with Liesel and who is her ever faithful friend (though he wants to kiss her) if he is just going to be another casualty? But this is relevant to the war that is going on around them. How many children, even younger than Rudy, died during the war? How many were forced to join the army and fight for something they didn't even understand or believe in? Who is it that said "war is hell" ? So often, I think of World War II from the position of a spectator who isn't even personally connected with it. This book is perfect for people who need to see it as something that is relevant and personal. I think students would find it difficult to deal with at first--it is a hard and depressing subject--but if we ignore the issue, we may find ourselves back there in the first place.

I was reading my book report book and the author talked about how he taught the book "Night." He got in contact with the local synagogue and found out that some of the survivors from the Holocaust were living nearby. The teacer contacted the woman, and even though she had never spoken about her experience after the fact, she wanted to talk to the class because she had heard some people say that what happened to her had never really happened. One of the most touching parts of this story was when the kids asked to touch her arm--and the numbers tattoed on it from the Nazi camp. Something they had heard about was now something they could experience.

If I were teaching this, I would think about showing a few clips from the movie "The Boy in the Striped Pajamas." It is also a very sad story, but again, it is told from the perspective of a German family. The mother first tries to ignore the fact that her husband is running a concentration camp--and many lies are told about how it is really a "work camp" and how the Jews are benefitting from it--but they experience its horror first hand. (I won't give away the ending in case someone hasn't seen this movie yet).

Thoughts on: American Born Chinese

First of all, I had a blast reading “American Born Chinese” by Gene Luen Yang. I think that Yang touches on several incredibly important and relevant subject that we as teachers are going to deal with. Students, whether in elementary, middle, high school, or college are constantly re-evaluating themselves and trying to figure out who they are. I am 23 years old, and I am still no closer to figuring out who I am than I was as a five year old asking my mom if I could be an astronaut, a ballerina, a pianist, and a singer or if she could turn my older sister and I into twins. Ironically, the one thing I never wanted to be while I was growing up was a teacher, but that’s beside the point. If there is one thing I have learned this year—thanks to Dr. Galioto’s Psychoanalytic approach to 19th century American Literature—it is that identity is an endlessly complicated idea. We can have as many theoretical approaches to discovering how each person develops their own identity as we want, but there will never be one simple equation that tells us exactly how we form our identity. In the novel, Jin Wang has to grapple with the idea of becoming his true self—which firsts requires him figuring out who that true self is. Is he just the boy that his classmates see? No. There is clearly so much more to him than what others see—especially since most can’t see past the label of FOB (fresh of the boat) even though he was born in America. Is he simply whoever he believes himself to be? No, if that were true, he would only be “Danny”. So then who is Jin Wang? I think that identity is a learning and developing process. The things we experience now are all a part of who we become, but they aren’t the only part. And while we clearly make decisions about who we are and who we become, that isn’t the only part either.

Identity is obviously not the only, or even main focus in the novel. Something that we will all have to deal with as teachers is stereotypes that we have, and that other students have. It would be so easy for me to write this post by condemning American youth for not being tolerant, but where are they getting this attitude? At least in part by emulating the adults that they are around. I feel like such a bad “teacher in training” for saying this, but I am constantly having to check my own feelings and thoughts because, whether based on race, gender, sexuality, I know that I make assumptions about people. Often times I am not even aware of what my silent actions say about what I am feeling. Students are incredibly in tune with subtle messages that we send, and as much as much as we like to think that as long as we are not outright in our prejudices, assumptions, (the name doesn’t matter much), kids pick up on these things. I like what John Gaughan says in his article “Cultural Reflections: Critical Teaching and Learning in the English Classroom.” He writes, “I think most of the classroom communities I’ve worked in since have been healthy places, but had to battle my own prejudices and experiences to construct those environments" (13). In “American Born Chinese,” Jin’s teacher doesn’t even try to get his name right. It may be a gross exaggeration—and I hope it is—but what kind of message does that send to the child and to the other students? That this one kid isn’t important? That if the teacher isn’t even bothering with him, why should they? Alright, I’m done preaching. I appreciated Gaughan’s honesty about how he developed as a teacher, and his descriptions of the various teachers at the beginning were very interesting.

The format of “American Born Chinese” is a breath of fresh air, if you will forgive the cliché. I seriously laughed at such a format when I first bought the book. Twenty minutes into it, I was so engrossed that I forgot to start dinner and had to convince my husband to take me out to eat. I think this book would be a great companion to books about identity (maybe with “The Importance of Being Earnest”—I know, I know, a weird combination if you think about it only from the prejudice stand point, but the idea of identity being so created and confusing is pretty similar). Or even Twain’s “Pudd’nhead Wilson” which explores the ideas of race, stereotypes, and identity. ("Pudd'nhead Wilson" is seriously my new favorite book! Um, I haven’t finished it yet, so don’t hold me to that!) In any case, I think "American Born Chinese" would be a fun book to teach. Its a great jumping off point for a variety of topics, and I think a lot of students would really enjoy it.

Thoughts on: Monster

I really enjoyed “Monster”. As I read, I felt more and more like the jury trying to figure out if Steve was guilty or innocent. I think what I appreciated most was that Myers did not give you a clear answer as to Steve’s guilt. No, I didn’t want him to go to jail. His comments about the horrors of being in jail made me sympathetic. After all, he is just a 16 year old boy. Why should he have to spend the rest of his youth in jail? If he got out in 23 years, he would be in his thirties! That means that the entirety of his twenties would be spent in a cell. He would never get a chance to experience life, date, have fun, make something of himself. At the same time, a crime was committed. If Steve was a part of that, he should be held accountable—even if he didn’t pull the trigger. Steve lies on the stand doesn’t he? Myers blurs many of the details. We learn from the sections that describe jail and what he is thinking that Steve was in the store. However, we also know from Bobo that Steve didn’t give any signal at all—which the two men took to mean that it was all clear. What a hard issue to deal with, and what a hard decision for the jury to make! I certainly don’t envy them their job.

At first I wasn’t sure of the connection between the article and the book. Sure, race comes up a little bit in the novel. Steve’s mom asks if they should have gotten a Black lawyer. One of the witnesses admits that she has a hard time testifying against a Black defendant. I guess that where a multi-cultural reading would come in is in where Steve was raised. He must attend a decent enough school—if he has the opportunity to take a film class. But it is clear that gangs are a part of his every day life. He is very aware of Osvaldo’s choice of friends. If Steve lived in a ritzy part of the suburbs, would he have gotten into this situation in the first place? Maybe. I am reading Mark Twain’s novel Puddn’head Wilson for another class. In this book, two boys are switched as babies. One is a slave (though he is only 1/32 Black) and the other is 100% White. No one except for the woman who switched these children knows that the “Black” child is the one who becomes educated and stands to inherit quite a fortune. But then, no one knows that the other child, who is uneducated and whose language is identical to the other slaves, is actually White. In this way, Twain breaks down the barriers of stereotypes that insisted that African Americans were slaves because they were stupid or incapable of learning. It becomes obvious that the environment played a key role in how far an African American slave could go. Now, I’m not suggesting that just because Steve is from a rough area and grew up seeing gangs and surrounded by people who were violent that he should be exempt from the laws that govern our country. Nor am I suggesting that the prosecution is targeting Steve because he is Black. What I am saying is that we must consider how environment affects who we become. There will always be those who are able to go beyond what everyone expects of them. Being from a rough area doesn’t guarantee that you will never get out or make something of yourself, but it will always be a part of how you become who you become.

Thoughts on: David Latham's "Melinda's Closet"

I really enjoyed reading Latham's article on "Speak." I think that in the back of my mind I made a mental note on the fact that Melinda hid in a closet both at home and at school, but I never went back to think more on it. The idea of being in "the closet" is such a huge marker in today's society and even though this story was written 10 years ago, I'm not sure that Anderson could have written about Melinda's "closet experience" without at least somewhat referencing its connotation in her own mind. The closet (in the literal sense) actually makes sense to me as a place for Melinda to choose to hide. She is still in the school or at home but she is still separated from everyone, and she is the only one who knows about it. For the first time since she was raped, she gets to make the decisions. She gets to decorate the closet, she can invite or exclude both company and objects. It is small and it is in her absolute control, and she needs to feel that way about something in order to begin to heal.

Where I think Latham really excells in creating a convincing argument is in his use of psychology to prove his points. That Melinda exhibits the main features of PTSD is obvious from the text, but Latham is able to use this to link Melinda's recovery process to that of everyone--especially homosexuals, but not exclusively--who are trying to work through the same process to escape from their own closet as well.

At first I was kind of sceptical to the idea of linking rape with homosexuality, but I think Latham makes some very good points. He doesn't diminish Melinda's experience--as I feared he would--but instead, he looks at the psychological and emotional recovery process, and I think that it is a very interesting connection.

Thoughts on: Laurie Halse Anderson's "Speak"

“Speak” is an incredibly well-written novel about a girl who is unable to say the very thing that she needs to say to be free from the pain of what has happened to her. Melinda Sordino’s rape changes everything in her life from her ability to relate to others to her view on the world in general. Although I found it frustrating to some extent—it is obviously not a smoothly flowing teenage novel like “Forever”—it is still very powerful and effective.

I really appreciate the Laurie Halse Anderson’s style of writing with this novel because it becomes a way to understand Melinda’s world to an even deeper extent. The paragraphs are broken and feel quick and desperate as though she cannot stand to think about any one subject for very long, and it is more than just the constantly active mind of a teenage girl. Through Anderson’s style we are better able to see that Melinda carries the experience at the forefront of her mind and she cannot decide what to do with it, so all other thought becomes a way to distract herself from the reality of what has happened to her. The way that Anderson structures the dialogue and thoughts are also very relevant to Melinda’s psychological state. There seems to be a very blurry line between thought and speech—especially for Melinda—and the novel feels like a play at times when Anderson gives direction as to who is speaking. Melinda’s experience has made her so aware of how she feels most of the time that she senses the truth about other things as well. She sees how the world is almost putting on a play—and that either nobody is truthful with themselves, or they don’t want to admit the truth that they see. Melinda sees everything as 2-dimensional.

As I started this book, I kept thinking,” I’ve heard this story before”. It took a few pages to realize that I have seen the movie, and I hated it at first! Like the novel, the movie feels very inconsistent and awkward. I was eventually able to get into the movie, but I don’t think that I ever figured out—until I read the book—that this discontinuity was deliberate. I enjoyed the novel much more than the movie, but then, that is probably because I already knew what had happened to Melinda and it was easy to understand why the author would use such fragmented text.

I would definitely consider teaching this book to an adolescent class. It deals with a very real issue in a very real way. I think that students can relate to the setting, and while I hope that none of the students would ever be able to personally relate to Melinda’s rape, there is a possibility that some may have had a similar experience. Like “Forever”, it may be hard for some boys to relate to a novel written from the perspective of a teenage girl’s mind, but it is such a unique perspective, and the issues that it deals with—rape, family problems, problems with friends—are very real to most students.

Thoughts on: Levithan's "Boy meets Boy"

In “Boy Meets Boy,” David Levithan describes a high school—and even an entire town—that is so completely different from our expected reality that it becomes almost other-worldly. He seems to throw every possible stereotype out the window when describing this world. I will admit that I was rather confused by Levithan’s strategy in creating such a setting until I read Pattee article. I didn’t realize that the creation of a fictional utopia was a literary strategy—especially one that has the express intent of making society aware of the need for social change. It makes sense to use something like this. It is an eye-catching strategy and it compels the reader to compare this fictional setting to reality. I also have to mention that I got a kick out of seeing Pattee quote the ever interesting Trites!

Levithan’s use of a utopian setting became very clear once I became aware of its existence! To be perfectly honest, I felt both overwhelmed and entertained by Levithan’s fast moving narration. My biggest weakness in reading is that when I cannot relate to any of the characters, I give up reading altogether. I was afraid that I would find this novel hard to relate too, but Levithan pulled me in the moment I began to read, and held my attention until I found a character that I could find commonality in. Once I realized that the setting was deliberate, things began to fall into place. However, I find myself torn as to whether I like the use of utopia or not.

I think that Levithan uses this Utopian technique to serve his purposes well. Like Pattee says in her Trites quote, “Boy meets Boy becomes a tool for making sexuality visible” (169)—and it does. The reader cannot help but to suddenly stop think about how very different our world is compared to Levithan’s utopia. However, my next thought is not, “how can I make my world like this?” It tends to be, “this situation is so unrealistic that I cannot imagine it ever happening.” If Levithan wanted to actually change how society works, I think he would be better served by creating a story within a traditional setting—but this is only my opinion. Pattee mentions the problem with using traditional conventions to try and assert a new reality when she quotes Trites as saying that such novels tend to “undermine that alleged liberation” (169).

I’m not sure if I would want to teach this novel to a high school English class. I feel that it plays with concepts that are extremely important for high school students to grasp. First of all, Levithan emphasizes tolerance. I think that too many high school students are intolerant because they are afraid that tolerance means that you have to go against what you believe—I often find myself caught up in that fear. (And of course, many students are intolerant simply because they do not understand other people). Tolerance is about showing genuine respect to every individual regardless of how different they are from you. What I didn’t like about this novel is that the entire middle section is nothing but drama! I guess it fits with the age group that Levithan is writing for, but I wouldn’t use any other book that was so filled with pointless drama. I chalked it up to trying to bring the familiar into a situation that is so completely different from ours, but it seems to undermine Levithan’s initial push as a utopian setting. I understand why he does it; it just doesn’t work for me.

I typed in "what does tolerance mean" on google and found a website for something called the "Museum of Tolerance." The first page talks about what tolerance means, and then it goes on to discuss why it is so important. The museum focuses a lot on anti-semitism, but it also has all kinds of exhibits on the Civil Rights Movement, and even the idea of "personal responsibility." The museums are in CA and NY, but I think the website itself has some great information. www.museumoftolerance.com

Thoughts on: Judy Blume's "Forever"

Judy Blume’s novel “Forever” is the story about one young woman’s sexual awakening. Katherine must face the choices that every young person must make in dealing with her relationship with Michael. Like most teenagers today, Katherine and Michael must define “forever” and “love” for themselves. While I suppose that I wish that “Forever” would have ended in that typical sappy way—cliché as it might be—I am also glad that it didn’t. The typical teen movie ends with the young woman and her hunky love interest finally getting together, but it usually stops there. Most of us like to assume that it was a “happily ever after” kind of thing, but we are never told. Blume refuses to fall into the trap of the teen love story formula by not ending the story with our two favorite characters truly finding forever. Still, what I love most about “Forever” is that our heroine is able to learn and grow through her experiences. Katherine becomes a woman in the pages of this novel. Her emotional maturation lends credence to the feminist ideals.

While I found Trites discussion on how sex and power relate in young adult novels fascinating—“sexual potency is a common metaphor for empowerment in adolescent literature” (84)—I feel that she is much too harsh on Blume’s “Forever.” I consider myself a feminist, and in doing so I tend to agree with a great deal of feminist criticism. But, Trites has nothing good to say about teen novels that deal with sex—even those like “Forever” that were intended to change how female sexuality is portrayed.

Trites declares of Judy Blume’s novel, “[t]he text tries to liberate teen sexuality by communicating that curiosity about sex is natural, but then it undercuts this message with a series of messages framed by institutional discourses that imply teenagers should not have sex or else should feel guilty if they do” (88). In defending her position, Trites recalls the conversations that Katherine has with her mother and grandmother. Katherine’s grandmother warns her to be sure that she should “mak[e] wise choices with her sexuality” (Trites 89), and her mother asks her to make sure that whether or not she chooses to have sex with Michael, that she be responsible in her decisions. Trites asserts that Katherine’s mother’s and grandmother’s discourses “construct intercourse in terms of something that requires emotional and physical protection, implying Katherine’s vulnerability” (90). I agree that their words of warning represent sex as something that “requires emotional and physical protection” (90) but I disagree with her belief that this is a bad thing. Katherine’s “matriarchal support-system” (89) are not forbidding her to have a sexual relationship with Michael. What they are doing is making sure that she is prepared for it. Is that so wrong? Most parents who try to raise there children to have morals or to be cautious do not do so with the intent of restricting their children, but rather to empower them by allowing them to make choices based on as many of the facts as possible! Trites would like to brush sex off as a big deal only because we have a wrong perception of sexuality, and not because it is something that should be treated as a big deal. In my opinion, this isn’t what feminism is about. Feminism is about empowering women, now pretending that our actions don’t have consequences. As Katherine’s grandmother makes clear, there are decisions that must be made once someone decides to have sex. What kind of birth control to use. The problems involved with contracting sexually transmitted diseases. What to do if pregnancy occurs—birth control is not a guarantee. If someone is mature enough to make the decision to have sex, then they must also be able to handle the decisions of the “what ifs” that go along with it. Katherine’s mother and grandmother would be wrong not to discuss the responsibilities she will have as a sexually active woman. Katherine’s own discourse reveals that she believes that having sex is a big decision that she must be ready for. It was a decision that she had to make for herself. Had Katherine’s mother and grandmother given her the wrong impression of sex—if they had presented it as something that isn’t as important as she seems to think—they would have taken away some of Katherine’s power to choose for herself. She likely would have not thought so seriously about how she wanted her relationship with Michael to progress and instead of making sure that it was what she wanted, had sex with him just because she perceives it as nothing of importance.

Wow. I don’t think I would want to teach this novel to a high school English class. It deals with so many controversial things—most of which will be based on the many moral standings and view points of individual students and parents. It would be easy to assume that every high school student is like Katherine and Michael, and that in this day in age, every parent would be as “progressive” as Katherine’s parents, but this simply isn’t true. Trites would obviously disagree with me, but I don’t think sex is something that should be taken lightly. And while I do think that students should be exposed to various views on controversial subject matter, not every student thinks the same way, and we can’t assume that every student is mature enough to deal with some of this stuff. That being said, I do think that it is important for students to understand sexuality. Where I am uncertain is whether or not that should be my job as their high school English teacher.

If I were to teach this novel, I would probably have the students compare Katherine and Michael’s view of “love” and “forever” to other couples—either in another novel or perhaps in a movie.


Some Essential Questions:

1. What is the relationship between “love” and “sex” as defined by they story of Katherine and Micheal?
2. What does “forever” mean to Katherine? How does it affect her actions, and does her perception of “forever” change as the novel progresses?