The Monsters of Templeton

 I am still reading this book. Although it's very good, it's taking me a long time.  Last week, I wrote " In this novel, Willie Upton returns to her suburbean  home town of  Templeton, New York, from an archeology mission in Alaska, the same day a horrific yet beautiful beast surfaces on Templeton's Lake Glimmerglass. Willie doesn't return to "recharge," and she certainly doesn't return home because she adores her home town. She returns because 29 year old Willie Upton is pregnant with her married professors child. Scandalous, I know. Not only this, but she attempts to slaughter her professors wife in a Bush Plane. However, this isn't really relevant. At least not yet. It's all just leading up to her returning to Templeton." Since then, the one of the main things of this book has entered the plot. Vi, Willie's mother, tells her that her father is not the random chicago hippie like she grew up thinking. In fact, he is a respected templetonian man with a family. Of course, this comes as a shock to Willie. Her father could be anyone! One half of the source of her life lives in her very town.  You see, Willie has roots in Templeton. Marmaduke Temple, the founder of the town, was an ancestor of her. But the Temple family has two sides. The side with Marmaduke's wife, and their children, and their children's children. Also, the is the side in which supposedly quaker Marmaduke Temple has an affair with his slave. (This is in the last 1700s.)It's the Temple's and the Averall's. However, another shock. Willies unknown father is also a descendent from Marmaduke Temple. So, Willie starts a mission. Tracing bake to her ancestors, she finds everything she can about her family.

           Now, I want to talk about Vivienne, or Vi. Willie's mother. I have mixed emotions about this character. Sometimes, I really like her, and others times, I hate her. My feelings contradict each other, just like Vi's "sides" contradict each other. All Willie's life, she grew up with a hippie mother who completely believed in equal rights for everyone, who lied to Willie by telling her she was allergic to sugar to keep her from eating it. She grew up with a mother who found some religions insulting. But when Willie comes back, everything is different. Her mother has gone eats fatty foods, and is church-crazy. We soon find out though, one reason she's so religious now is her relationship with the fat, greasy minister.

           I think the reason this really bothers me is because it's obviously not who she really is. Vivienne is drastically changing herself for her new boyfriend, when it used to be leaping from one partner to another. I understand how in a relationship, people would change small things to make their partner happy, but what Vi did isn't right. She's  basically masking herself for the satisfaction of, as Willie calls him, "Reverend Milky."

          So, what if she really has changed? If she isn't truly masking herself, I still find her new personality annoying. Because she is completely going against herself. I  personally think she is masking herself, because it's impossible to just completely change your view on everything. Her two opposing opinions just clash.

Revised Post

                    In Harry Potter, Ron, Harry and Hermione are always doing dangerous, mischievous things that they shouldn't be doing. While doing these things, they make it seem fair, and right, and safe for them to be doing it.  Well, at least it  is from their perspective. They make it seem totally normal and even right to be doing some of these things. The reader feels safe when reading these parts of the book. J.K. Rowling, the author, seems to resist that feeling of unsettlement that one gets when they read a -breaking-the-rules book. An example would be the Yule Ball.

          The fourth Harry Potter book, Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, is about when Harry enters the Tri-wizard tournament. This is a competition involving spells, tasks, and obstacles, between students. It's very dangerous and very risky. In this book, a celebration called The Yule Ball takes place at Hogwarts.  At this ball, Ron and Harry overhear a conversation between Igor Karkaroff and Severus Snape (teachers). They find out that "something" (that turns out to be the Dark Mark) "has been growing clearer and clearer for months," on Snape's arm. This indicates that Voldemort, the Dark Lord, is gaining power. Snape tells Karkaroff to flee, but that he will remain at Hogwarts.
         Of course, nosy  Harry and Ron can't help but get involved. "What were they talking about?" "Since when were they on first name terms?" These were the kinds of things that these boys would wonder. You see, usually Snape and Karkaroff hate each other. And this only adds to the suspicion that Karkaroff is a Death Eater, and their hatred for Snape.
         As the reader, and as Harry Potter is the main character, you must agree with him and Ron. You automatically assume that they are correct. This is because through out your journey through these books, you learn and develop along with them. So they always seem right, just like your friends are always right in an argument with someone else. And you must agree, it's totally their duty to get involved, and find out every bit of information that they can.
         But what's missing? It's the thought that they maybe shouldn't get involved. It's the thought that what they are doing is dangerous, and that they should inform the headmaster immediately. The small thought that they might regret their actions hover some where in the back of their brain. It's the though that Hermione Granger sometimes expressed in the first book, before she grew close to Harry and Ron. She used to strongly disagree with anything bending the rules. She said, " We could get killed. Or worse, expelled."  It's the perspective of someone outside of Harry and his close friends.
        It's a good thing that this perspective is usually missing. If it were here, it would completely ruin the story.
If that voice was there instead of the perspective of Harry and his friends, the reader would be disappointed. They would doubt the strength and passion of Harry and his friends. If there was anyone holding them back, then their determination would be weakened. "Do they really want to go through with finding that out? What about the risk?" That is not how you are supposed to feel at all. You are supposed to be excited, and supporting, and eager for adventure. The  book is supposed to excite you! You are supposed to feel strong emotion. If the other voice was their instead of the voice of Harry and his friends, then it would be 2 sides contradicting each-other. They would cancel each-other out. The actions of Harry and his friends would weaken, due to the words of perspective.
        If that voice was their in addition to Harry and his friends perspective, than there is a chance it wouldn't overpower the original voice. The original voice is Harry, Ron, Hermione, sometimes Ginny Neville, Sirius, and Fred and George's view. These people are their friends, but their usually not as in-the-loop of Harry's obstacles and actions. But your are supposed to know that this danger and mischief is okay. This voice is often shared by the reader. Because of this, it would be hard for an opposing view to overpower it. But, it would still weaken the view. If there was a voice when Harry and Ron listened to the conversation of Snape and Karkaroff saying...
"But they shouldn't share the information, or go into it deeply, because it's private and could be very dangerous"...

The Monsters of Templeton

      Currently, I'm reading a book.  A very good book. (Well, in my opinion.) The title of this book is The Monsters of Templeton, by  Lauren Groff. In this novel, Willie Upton returns to her suburbean  home town of  Templeton, New York, from an archeology mission in Alaska, the same day a horrific yet beautiful beast surfaces on Templeton's Lake Glimmerglass. Willie doesn't return to "recharge," and she certainly doesn't return home because she adores her home town. She returns because 29 year old Willie Upton is pregnant with her married professors child. Scandalous, I know. Not only this, but she attempts to slaughter her professors wife in a Bush Plane. However, this isn't really relevant. At least not yet. It's all just leading up to her returning to Templeton.

                                 I believe that this gigantic monster that floated, dead, onto the glimmering glassy surface of Lake Glimmerglass is more than just an amusing side story. Granted, it hasn't been giving VERY much attention by my placement on page 83. However, every author writes what they write for a reason. Willie's life is screwed up, big time. Her professor impregnated her, she has to leave her exciting, door-opening expedition because she could be charged for attempt of murder. She comes home to find her hippie mother has gone church-crazy. Her best friend, home in San Franscisco,    is ill and out of work, due to her lupus. And now, for the big guns. She found out her father is not, in fact, a random hippie her mother met in Chicago. He IS, however, a well-respected man with a family in her very town. As you can see, Willie Upton's life is all over the place. 

       Based on these facts, this is my theory. The monster, emerged from water, represents a calm, pure, peaceful aspect that just isn't present in Willie's life. It is desperately, desperately wanted. When the dead monster was the center of attention, before it was dragged from it's home/death site, and after it was discovered, Willie touched it. She placed her hands on it's huge, cold scales. And when she did? She felt a nostalgic, pure sense of serenity. She had a memory of being in the water. Now I don't know why the author choice this for the symbol, but I'll find out.

Message in a Bottle

     Message in a Bottle. Ugh. I hated it. I hated it, but at the same time, I felt compelled to read it to the end. (So I did.) Message in a Bottle is about Theresa Osborne, a divorced, 30-something-year-old woman, with a 12 year old son. Theresa was walking on the beach of cape cod, away from the chaos of her life in Boston, when she comes across a bottle. Based on the title, I'm sure you can guess that yes! there was a message in this bottle.
     After taking this beautiful, emotion-stirring, passionate blah blah blah letter out of the bottle and reads it, she shows it to her best friend/boss, who basically forces her to publish it in her column about parenting. (However, I have no idea how a love letter relates to parenting.) The author of this letter, Garret, seems to be writing to his dead wife, her girlfriend or love one named Catherine. For Theresa, it was love at first read. Determined to be with him, she and her friend track him down in North Carolina and away she goes. "Oh, of course her must love me because he has loved before," was basically what I got from Theresa.
      They meet, fall in love, have a long distance relationship, break up. Over the course of the months they are together, she never tells him that she already he was. Tragically, in the end, he dies.


    Why do I hate it so much?
I'm really not sure. Maybe it's the fact that the genre of romance has been worn out. But I don't really think so. Maybe it's the weird, boring relationship between them. Wait. I just figured it out. It's simple really. It's just that it bores the hell out of me, and exasperates me so much! I'm exasperated right now writing this, just thinking about this annoying book that makes me want to throw it across the room every time i pick it up!
    What annoys me so much is got to be the cheesy thoughts, the boring relationship, the annoying supposedly beautiful chemistry between them that's actually so so so corny and way over used! I honestly just can't take it any more. No more romance books, please. All Garret and Theresa think about is,  " Oh, there so wonderful, they make me so happy, do I love them? Oh god, I just don't now!" All the do is go out  to eat and hang around the house. They hardly knew each other when they first fell in love, but ( as the summer breeze ruffled there hair, and sweet air was around them- ugh) it was love .
     I don't know why this annoys me so much, but it does. To an unbelievable extent. I truly don't think this is what real loving relationships are like but if this is an accurate portrayal, then thanks, author, for showing me I never want to be in one.

The Bell Jar

     Recently, I started the Bell Jar. From what I can tell,  the main character us a young girl who has an exciting internship in New York City for the summer. She's from the suburbs  Boston, and could use this glamorous change. He name is Esther Greenwood. 
      Although I'm not very far into the book,  I'm just having trouble figuring out Esther. I guess this is part of the intrigue of the book and, if it is, it's working. I'm really enjoying what I have started, and I've hardly started anything.  So anyway, I'm having trouble figuring out Esther.
     She's not the typical character. I have noticed that in most books I read, female characters are portrayed in two different ways. Either they are very girly and are interested in boys, makeup, clothing and popularity, or their way to cool to care about those silly things. They are in to being themselves, and are high above those "fake" girls.
    To be honest, this kind of makes me angry. Although this isn't true for every book with a teenage girl or young female adult, it is true for many. These are not the only types of girls in existence. Authors, look around. Notice that each and every persons unique, and the kinds of people that there are in the world vary so much it's impossible to pin down!  So why does it look like, from my side of the book, that that's not true in the novelists world? 
     So far, Esther doesn't fit into either of these two categories. I should think this is good, and I do. But I'm also kind of mad at myself for being surprised by this. I'm being convinced that there's a limit to how many kinds of people exist. But at the same time, I ask myself, how can I be convinced? How can I be convinced when there are so many different people, even in my own classroom?
      Esther Greenwood likes parties. She liked to beautify herself, and likes working on her magazine, and she likes nice adventures and her housemates. However, she's more than this. She's herself, and she's not afraid to like who she likes, and she just honestly can't get excited about her new adventure. 
      I can get this worked up, and can tell this much in only the 7th page. This is going to be a good book.

The Wedding

     Last night at about 11:30, I flipped to the last page of The Wedding. To  my disappointment,  the book was finished. Finit. Fin.
    This book is about Wilson Lewis and his desperation to save his marriage to Jane Calhoun. Next to the ideal marriage of Jane's parents, Jalson's marriage seems loveless. After raising 3 children together and being married for 30 years, their marriage has turned awkward and as if somethings missing. They seem to be more like friends than spouses, and all conversations are familiar and have been recited already. So when Wilson forgets his 30th anniversary to his wife Jane, he knew he was at his last chance.
     This story is told through Wilson's eyes, and all through out the story, he mentions he mentions one thing. One thing over and over, this one surprise to his wife he works on an entire year to present to her on their 31st anniversary. But what I really enjoyed about Nicholas Sparks writing? He makes it a surprise for the reader.
     What the author does is mention this surprise every so often but then quickly covers it up and distracts you with the plans for the wedding of Jalson's daughter Anna. She came in one saturday evening and announced she was getting married to her boyfriend Keith... The next saturday. Quickly, her parents got engaged in making wedding plans. This week happened to be their anniversary week, and their child's wedding happened to be on the day of their anniversary. 


What you don't realize is the importance of their anniversary and Wilson's special surprise in this wedding.


     I would have never expected the surprise Jane gets that saturday, the supposed day of her daughters wedding. However,  what leaves her shocked also leaves the reader shocked. Through out the week, her and Wilson have been growing closer and closer. And on saturday, the big surprise Wilson, his family and friends have all been keeping a secret comes out. The wedding? It's not Anna's. It's Jalson's. They're renewing their vows, and it finally gives Jane confidence in her marriage.


   The fact that this secret of the pages doesn't come out until the very end really is a great writing technique. It leaves you so you have to read the book. You just have to know how their marriage turns out in the end, and what the great surprise is. The suspense kills you, so you have to read and read until finally, you are satisfied with the answer.

Responding to Mentor Blog

http://ferny-nandez.blogspot.com/


     In this blog, Isabelle Fernandez talks about It's Kind of a Funny Story. Or, to be more specific, the idea that it brings up.  She talks about how she only likes the book because the end of the ending, the last page even, makes everything else better. She relates this to Shakespeare's  play, All's Well that Ends Well. At the very end, she questions the reality in this theory. Sure for movies and sometimes books, everything is forgiven and the happiness is restored in the ending, but not in true life.
       One reason I like this post is the following: Half way through reading It's Kind of a Funny Story, I stopped. I got bored with it, and put it back on the shelf. Maybe I should've continued? If the god part is at the end, it's like I just missed a finally leaving train after waiting for it forever! Isabelle has me tempted to go pick it up again, just to see what happens on the last page.
     Another reason I like this blog post, is because of the relation to Shakespeare. Isabelle Fernandez says that just the title of this play brings up the question of whether a great end to a story makes up for the bad beginning. In my opinion, it can in stories. It does all the time, and the stories are still generally good. But not in reality. Isabelle says that it happens in reality, but "doesn't erase the unhappy event entirely."
 I agree. 
     When a person is unlucky, and has a tough life and gets a good break? That's an all's well that ends well.
    When two people are fighting, and make up? That's an all's well that ends well.
    When the quality of anything increases, that's an all's well  that ends well.
     But In reality, these should be called..... all's Well that ends well... then ends badly.
Most times, Isabelle is right. Just because it may seem like everything is okay, that previous events probably aren't totally made up or. They needed to be made up for for a reason, and they can't just magically be made all better.
    In conclusion, I just totally agree with Isabelle Fernandez.