Theme Statements Are Awkward And Nobody Likes Them.

         Up until AP Literature, I was always taught that the theme of the story was an overall idea that the author is trying to convey throughout their prose; that it was some kind of concept that we, the readers, were supposed to understand by the end up of the story through reflection of all the plot events as a whole. But no. Apparently  theme is actually a slightly generalized...and I repeat...only very awkwardly slightly generalized statement that shows what the author was supposedly trying to convey through the story. But you know what? Here's my problem with it: Let's take the The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe, for example. I always thought that the theme of C.S. Lewis's classic tale was the importance bravery, friendship, and loyalty to your companions. Not in AP Lit! The theme is actually more something along the lines of "When children are forced to flee from war and violence in the real world, they may end up in compromising situations with talking animals, battle, and magic inside of a wardrobe." I bet Lewis would be proud of that one. Or hey, maybe the theme for The Lord of The Rings doesn't actually have to do anything with bravery and perseverance, it's really just "When one object holds the power to rule the world, it may cause temptation, violence, and the suffering of young hobbits." Pshhh, I guess Tolkien was trying to warn us not to go forging any rings of power, you guys! Readers, what kind of awkward and deceiving theme statements can you come up with to destroy the actual intended meaning of your favorite childhood tales?

Hemingway Fries My Brain Once Again

     My sophomore year, I was forced to do this giant book project on Hemingway's novel The Old Man and the Sea. It included a 45 minute power point presentation that consisted solely of me trying to explain to the class every single metaphor and allusion that the good old Ernest stuffed into a seemingly short and simple  80 page book. When I saw that we were assigned to read Hills Like White Elephants, I knew that I was in for another not-so-simple read as soon as I saw who the author was. 

     This story, unlike The Old Man and the Sea...was actually kind of straight-forwards in what it meant, or at least you may think. Hemingway goes the whole time just narrating a back and forth conversation between a young girl and a man, otherwise referred to as "the American". You can't even draw the conclusion that he is her lover for a little while. But...the big question that the reader is left with is what on earth the operation is that this man keeps urging the girl to pursue. And further, we are left wondering at the end if she decided to pursue it or not. Now, I may awkwardly be WAY off in saying this, but my theory is that the operation referred to during the course of the novel is actually an abortion. The story refers to elephants a couple of times. The popular phrase an "elephant in the room" is described as when you have a situation or topic of major importance that no one wants to talk about, but the topic is there nonetheless. The baby growing inside of the poor girl's stomach is the elephant that is in the room. The American (her lover) does not wish to take responsibility for the baby, so he is pressuring her to abort it, promising that their relationship will go back to normal and he won't leave her. Obviously, seeing how weak of a human being he is just for saying this, the girl should not trust him even with that...but the rant that would ensue from this criticism of mine clearly does not belong in an English class blog. Anyhow...they also conjointly refer to the operation as "not even an operation" that "doesn't take long". Many times, abortions can be done medically rather than surgically; the woman simply takes a series of pills that kill the fetus and make her feel sick for about a week or so. So, like I said, I may be really really wrong in this theory, but that's kind of just the guess that came to mind first.

PS I was absent during class today, so I missed the discussion on this. If my theory about the hidden meaning is really really really wrong, don't judge.

Stupid Books That Have Ruined My Boomerang Collection

In the words of my all-time favorite author, Daniel Handler (better known as Lemony Snicket):

"Of course, it is boring to read about boring things, but it is better to read something that makes you yawn with boredom than something that will make you weep uncontrollably, pound your fists against the floor, and leave tearstains all over your pillowcase, sheets, and boomerang collection." 

   I always thought that this quote was kind of funny and of course, characteristic of classic Handler writing with it's blatant honesty and awkward juxtaposition that always brings a slight comedic element in at the very end of the statement. I have to say that lately, the stories that we've been reading for this English class have really been reminding me of this particular quote from the Grim Grotto. For example, reading Atonement; I don't know how many of you read this book, but those of you who have (or even just watched the movie), know that the ending is literally the worst thing that has ever been put in the denouement of any book that you have ever experienced in your entire life. I think it's twelve times better to read a horribly boring book, like Moby Dick for example, where you don't get attached to any of the characters or the plot line...where you struggle just to stay awake for the duration of a page, than one like Atonement where you're completely drawn into the plot and you're almost certain that everything is going to turn out okay and then BAM! - everybody dies and justice isn't served and you sit at your desk crying a little and have to watch a small marathon of The Office to try and forget that none of it ever happened. But guess what? It did. That book raped your happiness, and now the ten hours of your life that it took to read it completely though, crappy denoument included, will NEVER be returned. At least you can feel productive about the infinity hours that it took to read Moby Dick because you've just exposed yourself to a classic and therefore, by default, are some kind of literary scholar genius type thing. And you don't have to waste additional time watching The Office to cheer you up. 

   Seriously, though...we've read three short stories in our anthologies; The first ended with a man being forced to murder a psychopath in order to save his own life, the second with a man who turned into a dark and dangerous killer because of the horrible and unjust oppression that ripped his innocence and purity away from him, and the third with a poor old man getting his beautiful home (which was all he really had left) completely destroyed and torn from its foundations by a chuckling taxi driver. Look, I'm not going to sit here and pretend that these stories tore me apart inside like Atonement did, because that's called "sucking up". However, I do think it's about time for a story with a decent ending...even if it is just for kicks and giggles.

Hobbits and Mermaids and Such.

      J.R.R. Tolkien was probably just sitting at home one night chilling with a cup of coffee and out of the blue he decided to invent hobbits. I mean...how does that happen? I'm glad it happened, of course; Lord of the Rings is probably the greatest thing that has ever happened to paper, ink, and, let's all be nerds and face it,  the entire cinematic industry.
     I don't quite get it though. When I really start to think about it, I have no idea how authors come up with things - what it is in their minds that just lets them invent and invent and invent while I'm just sitting there at my desk reading a thesaurus like it's the Bible because a decent vocabulary is all that my short story about talking vegetables is going to have going for it? Even worse, talking vegetables have already been invented by multiple authors, so it's not like I'm being original there or anything. I wish I could be like Tolkien or Rowling and have the genius to come up with a whole other world that people could obsess over and make trivia games about. Not just because I would enjoy being filthy rich, but because it must be so liberating to have that freedom of creation and possibility in writing. I absolutely hate writing, and honestly...it's mainly because of the writers block and my insane lack of innovation and creativity. What is it that makes certain people so full of ideas and then other people, like me, so devoid of them?

Most Dangerous Game

    It's always interesting to read something that you have read a few years prior all over again. I feel that each time, you find something new in the story that you weren't quite able to grasp before...whether it's underlying symbolism, motifs, or even just themes that the author was trying to emphasize. The first time that I read The Most Dangerous Game was in the seventh grade. What I remembered of the plot was just that it was dark and dangerous; a fun read, especially compared to all of the other boring stuff that they throw into anthologies for middle school English classes. I read the novel yet a second time my freshman year of high school at Lafayette. Again, the events of the plot were all that the teacher really chose to focus on in the class discussion. My third reading of Connell's classic short story took place about 4 days ago. I'm a senior in high school now, so my thought process during reading has changed a little bit since the good old days of Advanced English 1. 
   What I found in the novel during this third read was Connell's underlying idea of the hunter being the hunted and how the role reversal was able to show Rainsford the empathy towards life that, through his hunting career, he had lacked. In his desperation to evade General Zaroff and his hounds, the protagonist was thrown into a hell-ish situation of fear and desperation to stay alive. This same situation could be mirrored with Rainsford as the General and the game that he hunted just for the fun of it. Zaroff, on the other hand, had completely lost any empathy for life at all; he was so obsessed with his sport that it's value, and his love of the challenges that it could pose, made him completely lose his sense of humanity. There was also a certain sense of hypocracy that I noticed; It was completely okay for Rainsford to run around senselessly killing game that he didn't really need for food or survival just for kicks and giggles. However, it was not okay for the same to be done with him as the victim. However, I do understand that most people would not accept this theme, being that we tend to believe human lives are much more important than those of beasts. The fusion of this short story between a literary and a commerical read, with it's disturbing plot twists and dark elements, made it very fun to read while still giving the reader a lot to grasp underlying the plot itself. I enjoyed being able to see the classic in a new and more complex manner whilst reading it this time around.