My Final Post, What We Learn From the Little Seamstress

*THIS POST GIVES AWAY THE ENDING TO "BALZAC AND THE LITTLE CHINESE SEAMSTRESS" 

So I finished "Balzac and the Little Chinese Seamstress." In the end the Little Seamstress leaves. She had started to change after hew abortion and then left. She became more modern and then left with out a goodbye. I wondered about why it was exactly she chose to leave. I think she had just finally gone through enough in her little town and had to leave. Though she never had the opportunity to learn she needed to. There comes a point at everyone's life where you become so mature you need to grow up. I think that though her decision seems quick and reckless, but she was really ready for it.

Often this moment comes with a anger. Anger at parents, anger at yourself. Some kind of anger. One becomes so caught up in his or her own need to grow that teenage angst forms. Teenagers are famous for this angst. I think that means you aren't really so mature that you can't stand everyone else, rather you think you are mature but very often are really just hopelessly confused. I liked that the Little Seamstress was truly ready when she left. She wasn't angry or upset. She was very calm. I think that this proves she is ready to leave more than anything.

I think it was Balzac more than her abortion that changed her. Which is interesting because you would think that a abortion would effect someone more than a book. I think this is also shows her maturity. If it was the abortion that caused her to leave she may have been angry at Luo for getting her pregnant, or at China's laws for making it so hard to get that abortion but making it impossible to keep the child. The banned books just inspired her to grow up so she could see the outside world. She learned about far away places like France and unheard of feelings like love. Her perspective on the world change resulting in a loss of innocence and the need to leave. The abortion just taught her about the harsh realitys of the world. A lesson more than a change.

I think that the Little Seamstress is actually a good example of a responsible teenager, despite her pregnancy. She made a mistake as a teenager but she learned from it. She grew up and left when she needed to. She didn't blame anyone. Which is really easy to do sometimes. She prepared herself for the outside world by slowly changing, she didn't rush into anything. I think as hard as it is, it's important for teenagers not to totally lose there minds. Not as easy as it sounds. Most importantly we need to learn from our mistakes. Learn from our mistakes, let books change us and never stop moving forward. Thanks Little Seamstress.

*This is my final post, so thanks to everyone who reads this and thanks to Ms. Robbins. If you have time please please please please check out and follow my blog "And A Little Bit Not"  for poetry, vignettes, some things that are almost essays but not really, lists, and everything else that goes through my mind. *

Disspointed Little Seamstress

So in ELA our group mostly talked about a quote from the book I am reading, "Balzac and the Little Chinese Seamstress." It is about 2 boys, the narrator, his friend Luo and their friend the Little Seamstress, a girl. Both of the boys are in love with the Little Seamstress. The story takes place in the "cultural revolution" of China. The 2 boys are being re-educated and find a stash of banned "Western" books. The Little Seamstress, (whose name is never mentioned, she is just referred to as "the Little Seamstress") says in a letter to Luo, "I'm disappointed, but that's life." Dramatic right? Funny thing is that she is referring to how Luo, showed her that they both have 2nd toes longer than their big toe and since then she has seen that other people who have 2nd toes longer than there big toe. So why so dramatic?

Well it could be that during coming of age we start to see things differently and really question things which is extremely scary. It's scary when everything you have ever thought starts to change. So because we are scared, our thoughts and every day conversations start to take a darker turn, especially with our friends. Her fear has come out in conversation. It could be that this isn't really the reason why she speaks so dramatically. Though the Little Seamstress craves knowledge she is still raised in the Cultural Revolution where the young are being held from knowledge. She lives in a world where knowledge and questioning are discouraged. At this point in the book they have not found the banned books so she has not learned about the outside world from these books yet. She hasn't changed or grown. She is still naive, or at least the government are trying to keep the young naive.

It could just be young innocent love. She has a crush on Luo, and when you have a crush on someone as a teenager you cherish little things like both having 2nd toes longer than your big toe. Anything that you have in common is important. It's the same idea as doodling both of your names in the back of a notebook with a heart around it just to see your names together. Or noticing that you both like coffee or dubstep. In this case the Little Seamstress and Luo don't have opportunities for much personality, like interesting names, or coffee, or dubstep. She also just doesn't know him that well yet, as it often is with a crush. So things like toes seem important.

I could be wrong. Is it possible to stomp out adolescence by taking away anything that could help you grow? Like books or movies or proper schooling? If you don't know about the world is it possible to question it? For example if you never see a cigarette you'll never smoke one to rebel right? Is this the same idea or is it a natural thing? I think no matter what situation you are in you will still grow. Maybe you can keep it from surfacing but it will still be there. Perhaps the Little Seamstress was unconsciously questioning the world and wasn't content with her life but the cultural revolution kept that part of her from showing. She thought life was disappointing but there was no teenage rebellion or teenage spirit. Just occasional casual, but dramatic remarks.

Lisabeth Salander

The author shows that you can't judge a book by it's cover. Lisabeth is the sort of girl who appears like a punk-rocker chick, with died black hair and skin covered in tattoos. In fact, she seems very much useless. She dropped out of high school and comes and goes as she pleases to work. Despite her appearance she works as a private investigator. Her boss almost fires her before realizing what she is capable of. It isn't just her intelligence or her mysterious ways of finding information on people that make her more than meets the eye. Her boss Dragan Armansky notices that she is almost pretty despite everything. She is almost delicate. She doesn't seem like much but she is very smart. She can get information described as being like "sheer magic" and "never once fumbled a job or turned in a single mediocre report."

Despite her differences between her and Mikael she handles conflicts with a similar matter-of-fact way. She is about to investigate whether or not he actually was guilty. Her reports are very matter fact similarly to how matter-of-factly he deals with his problems. Her reports are emotionless like how he reads his judgement thinking of how to deal with money and his company but barely his own emotional well being. When Lisabeth was about to be fired she convinced her boss to keep her three more days so that she could prove what she could do. Most people wouldn't try anything like that with their job on the line. She appeared as though she didn't care if she was fired but I think she did but didn't show it because she knew that it wouldn't get her anywhere. Lisabeth wrote a report on a pedophile with only pure facts and "dropped the bombshell" with the same "dry-dust tone she used to report that he lived in Sollentuna and drove a dark blue Volvo. Mikael gives very emotionless, vague answers in his interview after the trial when the court rules him guilty. It had just been officially confirmed he has to spend three months, basically ruining his reputation and he handles the press and his problems calmly. If only we could all face our own conflicts that attitude.

Mikael Blomkvist

So I just started reading "The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo." I noticed in the very beginning after Mikael Blomkvist has been judged guilty by the court it says, "As he read the judgement, he felt a growing heaviness and discomfort in his stomach. This surprised him. As the trial began he knew that it would take a miracle to help him escape conviction, and he had become reconcile to the out come. He sat through the two days of the trial surprisingly calm, and for eleven more days he waited, with out feeling anything in particular".... "It was only now that a physical unease had washed over him."

I guess it doesn't sound that deep, but to me it sounded poetic. I think often in life we know something is going to happen but it isn't till it actually happens that we really feel anything. When we know something bad is going to happen we don't realize just how it feels. Like we may know a loved one is going to die of a terrible disease but it isn't till they are dead that we feel we have lost them. This is interesting psychologically because it would make sense that we would always be terrified when we knew something bad was coming, and sometimes people are, but often we feel very little. At least  compared to when it actually does happen. Even physically we don't feel much. He felt fine, but it took a moment of realization that made finally it all seem real to make him feel anything about it. In our mind nothing that is going to happen, no matter how sure we are that it is going to happen, feels real till it is right in front of our faces.

Mikael goes at the whole thing very business like. He thinks of how going to jail and paying the money will effect his career and his business. At first I thought maybe he was just cold. Later he says things putting down business men so it isn't that he only cares about money. I think he is just very logical about the situation. He is going to jail for three months but he keeps his head. Not that he doesn't feel anything but he handles the problem instead of losing is mind. If I were to go to jail, even for a short period of time for something that wasn't that bad I would be thinking more about actually going to jail. Then again he is a adult man. He isn't unfeeling after all, he is at least nostalgic about his apartment because he basically designed it. I think he is just sort of average-guy who got in the wrong situation. There doesn't seem to be anything cold or bad about him and is likable but has no stand-out qualities. He is a good, fair reporter according to Lisbeth Salander but I'll talk about her next.

But She'll Never Have the Moon

 The lyrics to "Stars and the Moon"
A video of "Stars and the Moon"
"Stars and the Moon" by Jason Robert Brown is a narrative song about a woman who meets three men through out her life who love her. One has no money or ambition and another lives on the road and left his wife and kids but both are romantic and love her, and promise her "stars and the moon." She doesn't stay with either of them because she wanted a life "like the movie stars led" and was "scripted and planned." Then she meets the 3rd man who is young and wealthy. She marries him only to realize later that she'll "never have the moon," meaning she'll never dream or love anyone the way she could have been in love with the first 2 men. Jason Robert Brown is saying that she should have gone with one of the first 2 men.

He shows she should have gone with one of the first 2 men through imagery. The first man tells her "I'll give you stars and the moon and a soul to guide you" and "I'll give you hope to bring out all the life inside you/ and the strength to help you grow" The images are dream-like and beautiful. The rich man she marries imagery is less lovely and more materialistic. He says "I'll give you cars and a townhouse in Turtle Bay /And a fur and a diamond ring /And we'll be married in Spain on my yacht today /And we'll honeymoon in Beijing./And you'll meet stars at the parties I throw at my villas /In Nice and Paris in June" There aren't really any metaphors or images here. There is no romance, he is simply telling her what he can literally give her. Its almost like a business offer rather than a proposal.

I think that none of the men would be good for her. I understand why she didn't stay with the first 2 men though. I mean as much as she loved them, or could have the first man was planning on "letting life pass him for awhile" and the second man left his wife and kids "on a whim." Who is to say he wouldn't have left her? The first man wasn't reliable. I like the reality of the song. Most of the time it would be a poor amazing man and a mean rich man. She would have chosen the rich man and the lesson would be that there is more to life then money. The song is more complex then that. It isn't just that one man is poor and the other is rich, it's that 2 men are unreliable but have life. The other man isn't bad necessarily but he is lifeless. I think if she had gone with the first man she would have been in love for awhile but would become frustrated with struggling as she got older. She would have had the same problem with the second man except he may have left her. The romantic part of me wants to say that she would have been happy with the first man but realistically I don't know if she would have. It sounds a bit cheesy but I think that in life we choose things and in the end we gain things from our decision but we also lose things. We can almost never be completely happy no matter what we choose. The right decision is just when you gain the most and in this case there just was no right decision.

Scary =Hoodies?

http://www.good.is/post/hug-a-hoodie-what-the-u-k-teaches-us-about-making-a-sweatshirt-a-symbol/

When people are angry they blame anything and everything. This time it's... hoodies? Hoodies have been blamed for being a symbol of low-income minority youths. Even the death of Trayvon Martin. They are said to look suspicious or threatening. Places in UK have had campaigns to ban them from public places. However some people in the US are supporting hoodies. The Miami Heat posted a picture of themselves in hoodies to honor Trayvon Martin.

The author is trying to say that hoodies can't be blamed for this stereo type. For example when saying that the UK Prime Minister endorsed the anti-hoodie campaign he says "Talk about treating the symptoms instead of the disease!" This means that he thinks hoodies aren't the problem. They are the "symptoms" but not the big problem, the "disease." Also when saying that the UK is blaming hoodies for big problems he says, "we can be glad most people in the United States haven’t jumped to the same backwards theory of causation." This means that he is glad that most people in America don't think hoodies are the issue.

I think that hoodies are just part of a larger stereo type of "gangs." Parents of all ages, many adults, are terrified by the thought of drugs, gangs, street fights and racism that their children could encounter or could effect them. When people are scared they find a symbol for their hate and blame it. Whether it be hoodies or pop music. Maybe these things are part of the image of a rebellious youth but Ke$ha isn't the reason kids brush there teeth with a bottle of jack. They would drink alcohol anyway, Tik Tok is just a excuse to. The same applies for hoodies. People who wear hoodies may appear menacing but it's not because they wear a hoodie. If a kid wears a hoodie he may look threatening but hoodies can't be the only reason s/he does and simply wearing a hoodie isn't causing a kid to do anything. That's the same logic as saying if a kid has glasses and braces s/he is going to become smarter.

Sondheim's Flop Once Again Rolling Along, Smoother Than Ever

http://theater.nytimes.com/2012/02/10/theater/reviews/sondheims-merrily-we-roll-along-in-encores-staging.html?pagewanted=2

This article "Time Traveling with Old Friends" by Ben Brantley was a review of the "Encores" revival of "Merrily We Roll Along," a show that in the original production ran for 16 performances. His 2nd biggest Broadway flop, next to "Anyone Can Whistle." In February, "Encores" revived it for a limited 2-week run. "Encores" is group that revives old shows for limited runs often to save a flawed show. The show is about three friends, Mary, Charley, and Frank. It is mainly centered around Frank. Frank is a hit Broadway composer who has become cold and greedy over time. Charley is his best friend, who writes the lyrics to his music. Charley is frustrated with Frank because of Franks greed. Mary is their best friend, a alcoholic writer, who holds them all together and is in love with Frank as she sees him go through marriage, divorce and another marriage. The experimental part of "Merrily" is that it is told backwards. Starting at Frank's party where they are all successful but Mary is drunk, Frank is secretly unhappy and Charley isn't even there because he and Frank hate each other. Then it goes through scenes going backwards in time to when the trio met. It is famous for songs like "Our Time" and "Not a Day Goes By."

The reviewer is saying that "Merrily We Roll Along" is desperately flawed, the show itself and this production, but has things in it making it worth trying to save. He compares "Merrily" to "many a problem child, to possess both glorious potential and a heartbreaking tendency to sabotage itself." He means that it is like a "problem child"in that it has possibilities but often ends up badly, it's own material "sabotaging" itself. He later explains that "Mr. Sondheim’s book writers have never been able to match the textured subtlety of his music, and the disparity is especially glaring in 'Merrily.'" He is saying that the dialogue in "Merrily" just can't keep up with Sondheim's complex lyrics. He quotes lines from the show like "Is Frank the only person in the world who doesn’t know you’re in love with him?" Which isn't a awful line, though very cheesy. Compared to songs with complex, conflicting emotions "Franklin Shepard Inc" and "Rich and Happy" the book looks lame.

I agree with Ben Brantely on somethings but not on others. I agree about the book not meeting the music's standards. I don't agree with his comments on casting. Having seen the show I think that the three main characters are incredibly complex due to the music and plot. However Ben Brantely thinks that Frank is a stereo-type producer. I think that "Merrily" can be confusing at times but Lin-Manuel Miranda, creator of "In the Heights" who played Charley had the best version of "Franklin Shepard Inc" I have ever seen. Personally my biggest complaints were that the 1st act was a bit confusing and that the set was distracting in the overture, the song "Merrily We Roll Along" and now and then through out the show so I couldn't fully enjoy everything. The beauty of Sondheim's music will always draw theater people back to "Merrily" despite it's flaws. "Our Time" and "Not a Day Goes By" are just too beautiful to pass up.

"Luka" A Nothing Broken, Nothing Thrown Child

http://www.lyricstime.com/suzanne-vega-my-name-is-luca-lyrics.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZt7J0iaUD0

The song "Luka" by Suzanne Vega is about a child named Luca who is abused by his parents. He is talking to his downstairs neighbor begging him/her to leave Luca alone about it. It is told in the 1st person. I think Suzanne Vega is saying children who are abused might not want you to say anything about them being abused but that makes it all the more important to speak up.

"Luka" has lyrics with images of violence said in a very "I'm-fine-mind-your-own-business" almost positive sort of way. The speaker says "Yes I think I'm okay/ walked into the door again/ if you ask that's what I'll say/ and it's not your business anyway/ I'd guess I'd like to be alone/ nothing broken nothing thrown". The first two lines shown in denial but that he is obviously hurt if he has to make the excuse that he walked into the door. The next two lines show that that is not the real story because he says that "walked into the door" is what he'll say. However that implys that that is just what he is saying, but he thinks it's not the neighbors business. Then Luka says that he wants to be alone and that he didn't break anything and nothing was thrown at him. If he has to say that nothing was thrown at him then that means someone has done something to make the neighbor think that. This makes me think that things have been thrown at Luka before, but Luka is saying it isn't that bad this time because nothing was thrown or broken. The music is a bit upbeat with a catchy melody. This is a metaphor for Luka trying to make things at home seem happy and upbeat when with the violent lyrics they are obviously not.

I think that Suzanne Vega brings up a issue that is not given enough attention and puts it in a digestible way. Issues like this are often put in a depressing way. Suzanne Vega's song became popular because it, like similar songs such as  "Pumped Up Kicks" are songs people want to sing along to and doing so think about issues when they may not have otherwise. I remember when I was little, like 7, my mom would listen to this song because she loves songs with deep lyrics and I would listen and hum the song for days after words. I listened to it again recently and looked at the lyrics and started wondering about the fun song I hummed in 2nd grade.

Romeo's Forgotten Rosaline

*I wrote this on my other blog for fun when we started reading Romeo and Juliet/saw the movie, this was not homework but I figured I would share it since we were talking about whether or not Romeo was in love today,*

Romeo and Juliet. One of the most iconic love stories ever. Romeo and Juliet's tragic young death for love. Yet I think of Rosaline. Rosaline, the girl Romeo had been oh-so heart-broken for right untill the second he saw Juliet. He only thought of Rosaline but with one look at Juliet, Rosaline was forgotten. Not that Rosaline cares, she didn't have feelings for Romeo.

Did he really love Rosaline? And if he didn't really love Rosaline, did he truly love Juliet? If he didn't die, and Juliet had died, or left him, would he have forgotten Juliet so quickly with one look at another beautiful girl? I mean after all, he is about my age. Can there be "true love" at 13? Not even I believe that. Heart-break but not true love. Not that the heart-break doesn't hurt because if it didn't then Romeo and Juliet wouldn't have died. But that brings me back to did he love Juliet, and if he didn't why did he die? Do we have the illusion of being madly in love, or am I wrong and we do fall madly in love?

But I think Romeo just falls in and out of love easily and is just as easily heart-broken. Dramatic. He means no harm, he thinks he is in love, and maybe he is.

Since I Couldn't Find Meaning in the "Sunday in the Park with George" Painting

Okay, I couldn't find any meaning or anything in that painting from "Sunday i the Park with George"(I picture the painter as Mandy Patinkin and only know him as "George)

 This painting is "The Train" by Romare Bearden (American, 1911-1988.) What I find most interesting about this painting is that only 2 people have a body, one is a child and the other holding the child doesn't seem to have legs. The child barely has a face. They are all African American. All of the people seem very crowded and the background seems to be falling apart. However the background reminds me of ancient ruins in Greece or Rome, like it was once very beautiful and proud. They are all wearing what appears to be very traditional scarfs around there heads, something not from American culture.

I think that the people barely have bodies because they are shown disabled literally when these people may be disabled figuratively like being very poor or having few opportunities for things such as a education. I think that the background symbolizes that these people were once strong and powerful but have fallen, like the ancient Greeks.  You could say that when Africans were taken for slavery by the Europeans and US colonys that they were being taken over like Ancient Greeks. It's like they are on a modern train (seeing as the painting is named "The Train") but with the head-scarves are also in Africa. The train means that they are moving somewhere. I think they are moving into the future.

I think he is trying to say that the present hasn't changed that much from the past and that if we don't do anything the next generations will share our fate and our ancestors fate. 

Well Its Awards Season, Here Is My Nomination

I nominate Gaby's post for all-star mentor because I liked that it was a thoughtful "Hunger Games" post that was deeper into hunger games then just things like government corruption. That is all a major part of "Hunger Games" but it is also has characters with emotions, who have human feelings. I didn't think too much of the idea of "owing" in "Hunger Games" but now that i think about it, it is a major part in the book, like how Katiniss always feels she owes Peeta and Thresh feels he owes Katniss. Even through the cruelty of the games there is still people trying to do what they think is morally correct.

FINAL HUNGER GAMES POST-Owing People

 

 

Idina Menzel's vs. Gregory Maguire's Witch of the West

So I am re-reading "Wicked" by Gregory Maguire. I read it awhile ago after seeing the musical "Wicked." I didn't really get the book when I read it, I was 9. Though I appreciate both (okay the musical is kind of overrated but its not a bad show) re-reading it, I'm a little shocked by the differences between them. At the core they are the same. A story of the "Life and Times of the Wicked Witch of the West," as in the Wizard of Oz. Elphaba is born green because of a mysterious drink her mother drank while she was pregnant, her father favors her sister and Elphaba goes to Shiz University mostly for her sister, where she meets Galinda. Most of the similarities end there.  

The book is about human rights (Animals versus animals,) religion, (the Time Dragon versus the old religion) and mostly the true meaning of evil (Elphaba.) Is Elphaba born evil or out casted by others and becomes evil. Is she really evil at all? I think the point is (like the musical) that she isn't evil at all. Or at least wasn't born that way. In the musical she is never evil, just severely misjudged because of her skin color. This makes it a great family musical. Reading the book now, I don't think that she was meant to be so clearly not evil. She becomes so, she wasn't really born that way. She wasn't a perfect baby but everything she did in her childhood wasn't her fault. She was born severely different from others. Later when she is at Shiz University she is polite and quiet but hated. If all people were green and had strange qualities like being born with sharp teeth, it wouldn't be strange and no one would care. In the musical this message of people being mean to others because of there differences portrays it in the common way of the outcast main character being the hero. Showing that people who are different are really not that different from us so we shouldn't be mean to them. Not a bad way to tell a theme but actually not all that original. The book instead shows us that strange people aren't born evil because they are strange but will become evil if we hate them for no other reason then they are strange. Both have the theme of acceptance but in different ways, and the story is original in that it is a different view on "The Wizard of Oz," but the way the theme is shown in a more  fresh, original way in the book.

However, seeing Elphaba become evil is much more harsh then then seeing her be unfairly judged. You could say that it is more touching seeing her basically lose her mind but I think that no matter how skillfully written, it's harder to read about a evil main character then a relatable one. Though it was a risky choice on Gregory Maguire's part and he did it well so I respect him for that. It can be very harsh and inappropriate so I also respect the musical for being able to turn it in to a musical. I don't think I could have or would have even thought of it. I mean they changed quite a bit of it but they still did it and even if I did change the book I still wouldn't have been able to make it a musical, much less a successful one. So I also respect that.

Hungry for Hunger Games, Catching Sleep with Catching Fire.

 *SPOILER ALERT*
(by the way this is not for the hunger games book club)

Harsh title for this post, I know. Anyway, I am towards the end of "Catching Fire" by Suzanne Collins. As much as I loved "Hunger Games," I can't seem to get my head around "Catching Fire." I'm not totally certain why but I think it is for a few reasons though they are more or less related. "Catching Fire" just doesn't keep me as interested as "Hunger Games." In "Hunger Games" the constant danger of the games is fresh and raw making it powerful. Especially in moments when the mood changes suddenly like when Rue dies. This makes Suzanne Collins ideas about government and our society captivating and maybe not easy to digest but digestible. In "Catching Fire" the mood is always the same. There is almost a kind of constant adrenaline. Which makes books exciting, but when every moment is full of this adrenaline every single moments the moments are empty.

Katniss has grown-up and isn't afraid to die. In fact she is certain she will die. It's like knowing how the book will end. We know she will die, though I think some sort of plot twist would allow her and Peeta to live. None the less the certainty, even if it is false, of how the book will end also makes the book less exciting. This isn't to say that she is certain about everything, in fact she is barely sure of anything. However she has decided she will die.

I also found her very cold and bitter. She says things about day dreaming about killing President Snow. I mean she has every right to but that doesn't make her more like-able.  When acting I have often been told never to "play bitter" because the audience wants to like the character. If they don't like the character they don't care about what happens to them and the play is boring because the audience doesn't care. I think this is very true here. 

For whatever reason one moment stood out.  At a feast there are hundreds of different foods to eat and Katniss and Peeta are full very quickly. Only to find out that most people eat as much as they want because they eat, drink a something that is designed to make them throw-up, then they throw-up and start over again.  This sickens Peeta and Katniss because they grew up starving and watching people starve so it seems cruel to waste food. This may have stood out because it is very clear and understandable as to why it is cruel and why people do it because it is easily relatable to every one individually. It is thought-provoking with out making me frightened (or trying to do so.)

The idea with dystopia is to show the future to reflect on the present. I think that the obvious way to do that is to scare people about who we are. That isn't necessary. Maybe a little of the book can be frightening but when the entire book is like that we are no longer frightened and no longer care. Things can be thought provoking with out giving us night mares.