The Kite Runner, by Khaled Hosseini without a doubt, is my favorite book of all time.
A story of intense sadness, but also joy.
Although I was desolate at the end, Hosseini still left me feeling hopeful.
I feel we all are a little like Amir, the boy who is afraid to stand up and lives with regret, more than we'd like to admit.
And we all have a friend similar to Hassan who is just so good.
Khaled Hosseini is a masterful storyteller.
His two other books also take place in Afghanistan.
Anyway, The Kite Runner was published in 2003, and according to the Today Show, it spent two years on the New York Times Best Seller List, and according to National public Radio, more than 7 million copies have been sold.
However a book, with such large popularity, can hardly escape the eyes of critics, and critical adults around the United States.
According to the Marshall University Library, it has been challenged for sodomy rape in graphic detail, vulgar language, violence and religious content.
While it's true there is a rape scene in The Kite Runner, it is very brief; spanning little more than a page.
And I know what you're thinking, "Brief can still be graphic."
While that's true, Hosseini glosses over this part of the book, the scene is not sensationalized, for good reason.
There's no caressing, no more a vivd description than naming body parts (hips and buttocks), and removal of clothes.
In the end, Hassan is bleeding, but wouldn't that be expected of the aftermath of any rape?
Whenever I re-read this book, I always dread this part, not only for Hassan, but also for Amir.
For paying the price of not acting, and living with the grief and guilt for the next 30 sum years.
While people object to The Kite Runner, anything that happens in this book is no more graphic than Titanic, no more violent than Iron Man and no more profanity filled than The Bourne Supremacy.
Most of these movies are watched by teenagers, and even children younger than that.
Some might think The Kite Runner is just a book and isn't worth spending time on.
But I declare it's not true.
The Kite Runner has so much wisdom; we can learn so much from it.
The Kite Runner is more than an action movie or a romance novella.
The Kite Runner is about guilt, redemption and sacrifice.
It's a call to rise above the past and forgive yourself as well as others.
It's a book that reminds us to remember that we all make mistakes, and although some are bigger than others, there is always "A way to be good again."
Sunday, September 21, 2014
Tuesday, July 22, 2014
#23 The Giver
The Giver will celebrate it's 20th birthday this year, and even gets a film to bout! So congratulations to the Giver, the book that keeps on giving.
I'm slightly more than skeptical about the film, but I'll still see it in theaters, albeit the cheap theater in my town.
You can watch the trailer here. This trailer is the second one, because the first trailer made the movie look like an epic fail.
The Giver is a relatively old book, but has certainly withstood the test of times.
According to Marshall University Library Web page, The Giver has been challenged several times with the most recent accusations being, "adolescent pill-popping, suicide and lethal injections given to babies and the elderly."
According to Marshall University Library Web page, The Giver has been challenged several times with the most recent accusations being, "adolescent pill-popping, suicide and lethal injections given to babies and the elderly."
The underlying current I sense in the parents' reasoning is they don't trust their children.
Of course taking drugs blindly is bad, and everyone's opinion on euthanasia is different, but obviously Lowry isn't glorifying those things; that's why she wrote the book.
Alright, the evidence, submitted for the clearing of all banning and/or challenging, is given below.
Exhibit A: Taking pills that alter your thinking is bad.
"The next morning, for the first time, Jonas did not take his pill. Something within him something that had grown there through the memories, told him to throw the pill away," (129).
Exhibit B: Suicide is also bad.
Suicide is indeed shown in the book, when the Rosemary, the Receiver before Jonas, asks to be released.
But what the reader experiences along with the Giver and Jonas is immense sadness and grief, not joy and happiness.
The Giver, who recalls when Rosemary, his daughter was released said, "I was so devastated by my own grief at her loss and my own feeling of failure, that I didn't even try to help them (the citizens) through it. I was angry too," (144)
According to Merriam Webster's Dictionary, devastate is by definition: "To destroy much or most of (something): to cause great damage or harm to (something).
By reading about The Giver's intense sadness and overwhelming emotions, but also the story of Rosemary and understanding how terrified and desolate she was after feeling sadness, the reader can understand much about suicide.
Not only about those who commit suicide, but also those who are left behind.
Indeed, no one could say Lowry was advocating it.
Exhibit C: Giving lethal injections to the elderly and babies is unacceptable.
Finally, when Jonas learns what happens when citizens are "released," he is horrified, and that is expressed through his feelings, actions and behaviors after learning it.
Of course taking drugs blindly is bad, and everyone's opinion on euthanasia is different, but obviously Lowry isn't glorifying those things; that's why she wrote the book.
Alright, the evidence, submitted for the clearing of all banning and/or challenging, is given below.
Exhibit A: Taking pills that alter your thinking is bad.
"The next morning, for the first time, Jonas did not take his pill. Something within him something that had grown there through the memories, told him to throw the pill away," (129).
Exhibit B: Suicide is also bad.
Suicide is indeed shown in the book, when the Rosemary, the Receiver before Jonas, asks to be released.
But what the reader experiences along with the Giver and Jonas is immense sadness and grief, not joy and happiness.
The Giver, who recalls when Rosemary, his daughter was released said, "I was so devastated by my own grief at her loss and my own feeling of failure, that I didn't even try to help them (the citizens) through it. I was angry too," (144)
According to Merriam Webster's Dictionary, devastate is by definition: "To destroy much or most of (something): to cause great damage or harm to (something).
By reading about The Giver's intense sadness and overwhelming emotions, but also the story of Rosemary and understanding how terrified and desolate she was after feeling sadness, the reader can understand much about suicide.
Not only about those who commit suicide, but also those who are left behind.
Indeed, no one could say Lowry was advocating it.
Exhibit C: Giving lethal injections to the elderly and babies is unacceptable.
Finally, when Jonas learns what happens when citizens are "released," he is horrified, and that is expressed through his feelings, actions and behaviors after learning it.
"Jonas felt a ripping sensation inside himself, the feeling of terrible pain clawing its way forward to emerge in a cry," (151).
"Jonas wrapped his arms around himself and rocked his own body back and forth. "What should I do? I can't go back! I can't!" (153).
Clearly Jonas is devastated by the news and knows killing people to keep "order and control" is unacceptable.
Although readers are exposed to these themes such as suicide, taking pills and killing people, if the reader pays attention, Lowry carefully guides the him or her and shows her audience that these things are not OK.
It seems to me that the parents who wish to ban The Giver, don't trust their children to see that.
Parents don't trust their children to understand consequences of actions.
They don't trust them to see a moral.
They don't trust them to know what's right or wrong.
They don't trust them to think for themselves, quite ironic if you ask me, especially regarding the subject matter in The Giver.
The Giver tells us that yes, bad things happen in the world, but it helps us enjoy the good things.
If we lived in a world where we are given everything and told what to do with our lives and our time; where there is no color or feelings, is that really a life worth living?
If we lived in a world where we are given everything and told what to do with our lives and our time; where there is no color or feelings, is that really a life worth living?
Questions like that are important to address because it gives and teaches us (and children) a sense of gratitude and understanding.
Also, pill popping by definition is someone who regularly takes large amounts of pills.
If the daily pill taken by all citizens is considered pill popping, then so is everyone taking "The Pill" as birth control. Arrest everyone!
If the daily pill taken by all citizens is considered pill popping, then so is everyone taking "The Pill" as birth control. Arrest everyone!
Saturday, May 24, 2014
#1 Harry Potter (series)
The Harry Potter series has been banned since 2001 when the first book was released.
According to the Marshall University Library Web page, it was banned in 2001 for occult/Satanism and anti-family themes.
Before addressing the occult and Satanism, let's talk about the anti-family portion.
The reader is introduced to Harry when he is a young boy.
When he was a child, his parents were murdered by He-who-must-not-be-named.
He goes to live with his aunt and uncle who accept him (the nicest way to put it is) grudgingly and he grows up with them.
He intensely dislikes his aunt, uncle and his cousin Dudley who all treat him as a delinquent.
Beginning with this plot line, I can see how people would think it was anti-family.
After all, Harry longs to get away from the Dusleys his supposed family, like they were anything.
However, labeling this book as anti-family is a mistake. But if and only if, the reader goes beyond the first chapter.
When Harry goes to Hogwarts, he finds the Mirror of Erised, which shows "nothing more or less than the deepest, most desperate desire of our hearts," (Sorcerer's Stone, 213).
When looking into the mirror, he sees himself surrounded by his family.
He returns to the mirror several nights until he meets Professor Dumbledore, bless his heart, in front of the mirror who tells him "It does not do to dwell on dreams and forget to live," (Sorcerer's Stone, 214).
This part of the book is about halfway through, so if someone didn't read though the whole thing, I could understand.
But this scene is the first time Rowling displays Harry's intense desire for a family.
Throughout the entire rest of the series, is it obvious to see that Harry wants to be part of a family and, he cares deeply about his parents although they died when he was young.
This is shown through a number of instances for example, in the second book, after Harry escapes from the Dursley's house, he goes to Ron's house.
Ron's family is not wealthy and their house is a little, falling apart. When the Weasley's and Harry walk in, Ron said, "'It's not much,' said Ron. 'It's wonderful,' said Harry happily," (Chamber of Secrets, 32).
In the third book, he finds out why He-who-must-not-be-named came after his family and who was responsible for the murders.
When he mistakenly thinks the person is Sirius, the books reads,"A hatred such as he had never known before was coursing through Harry like poison," (Prisoner of Azkaban, 213).
When Sirius dies in the fifth book, Professor Dumbledore said "You have now lost your mother, your father, and the closest thing to a parent you have ever known. Of course you care," (Order of the Phoenix, 824).
In the final book, before Harry is killed by Voldemort, he uses the resurrection stone to bring back his parents, Sirius and Lupin.
He asks if they'll stay with him. Then says to Lily, his mother, "Stay close to me," (Deathly Hallows, 700). The entire series is centered around family and belonging.
Although Harry doesn't have any family is the traditional sense, he calls Hogwarts home "Hogwarts was the first and best home he [Harry] had known," (Deathly Hallows, 697).
Concerning the Occult and Satanism, there really is nothing anyone can say that will change the minds of people convinced of this.
Yes, there is magic in the books, and yes the bible says magic is of the devil.
But Harry Potter is a book.
It's a not the Devil in disguise trying to drag children to Hell.
Just because the book involves people cast spells and using magic the moral of the story isn't "magic is good" its "good conquers evil."
The take away message from Harry Potter is to stand up for the right and fight those who are against it.
What's wrong with that?
The world is at a place where almost all people do not believe in magic. Children might want to read about it, but that doesn't mean they will try to summon the Devil.
Living in this world, children will encounter all sorts of evil things, but Harry Potter is not one of them.
According to the Marshall University Library Web page, it was banned in 2001 for occult/Satanism and anti-family themes.
Before addressing the occult and Satanism, let's talk about the anti-family portion.
The reader is introduced to Harry when he is a young boy.
When he was a child, his parents were murdered by He-who-must-not-be-named.
He goes to live with his aunt and uncle who accept him (the nicest way to put it is) grudgingly and he grows up with them.
He intensely dislikes his aunt, uncle and his cousin Dudley who all treat him as a delinquent.
Beginning with this plot line, I can see how people would think it was anti-family.
After all, Harry longs to get away from the Dusleys his supposed family, like they were anything.
However, labeling this book as anti-family is a mistake. But if and only if, the reader goes beyond the first chapter.
When Harry goes to Hogwarts, he finds the Mirror of Erised, which shows "nothing more or less than the deepest, most desperate desire of our hearts," (Sorcerer's Stone, 213).
When looking into the mirror, he sees himself surrounded by his family.
He returns to the mirror several nights until he meets Professor Dumbledore, bless his heart, in front of the mirror who tells him "It does not do to dwell on dreams and forget to live," (Sorcerer's Stone, 214).
This part of the book is about halfway through, so if someone didn't read though the whole thing, I could understand.
But this scene is the first time Rowling displays Harry's intense desire for a family.
Throughout the entire rest of the series, is it obvious to see that Harry wants to be part of a family and, he cares deeply about his parents although they died when he was young.
This is shown through a number of instances for example, in the second book, after Harry escapes from the Dursley's house, he goes to Ron's house.
Ron's family is not wealthy and their house is a little, falling apart. When the Weasley's and Harry walk in, Ron said, "'It's not much,' said Ron. 'It's wonderful,' said Harry happily," (Chamber of Secrets, 32).
In the third book, he finds out why He-who-must-not-be-named came after his family and who was responsible for the murders.
When he mistakenly thinks the person is Sirius, the books reads,"A hatred such as he had never known before was coursing through Harry like poison," (Prisoner of Azkaban, 213).
When Sirius dies in the fifth book, Professor Dumbledore said "You have now lost your mother, your father, and the closest thing to a parent you have ever known. Of course you care," (Order of the Phoenix, 824).
In the final book, before Harry is killed by Voldemort, he uses the resurrection stone to bring back his parents, Sirius and Lupin.
He asks if they'll stay with him. Then says to Lily, his mother, "Stay close to me," (Deathly Hallows, 700). The entire series is centered around family and belonging.
Although Harry doesn't have any family is the traditional sense, he calls Hogwarts home "Hogwarts was the first and best home he [Harry] had known," (Deathly Hallows, 697).
Concerning the Occult and Satanism, there really is nothing anyone can say that will change the minds of people convinced of this.
Yes, there is magic in the books, and yes the bible says magic is of the devil.
But Harry Potter is a book.
It's a not the Devil in disguise trying to drag children to Hell.
Just because the book involves people cast spells and using magic the moral of the story isn't "magic is good" its "good conquers evil."
The take away message from Harry Potter is to stand up for the right and fight those who are against it.
What's wrong with that?
The world is at a place where almost all people do not believe in magic. Children might want to read about it, but that doesn't mean they will try to summon the Devil.
Living in this world, children will encounter all sorts of evil things, but Harry Potter is not one of them.
Thursday, May 22, 2014
Don't Ban Books
I love reading. I have liked reading ever since I was little.
I read the Berenstain Bear books when I was younger until I discovered Harry Potter and started reading chapter books.
Books have always been a way for me to disappear and escape from my daily troubles. They're a temporary relief, and a primary way I relax.
When I was in middle school, I often went to the library to check out books. It was there that I discovered that some books were banned.
This was curious to me because I had never thought there was anything wrong with the books I read.
To be honest, I grew up in Seattle.
So I definitely went to a more liberal school.
Unsurprisingly, my school library was not supportive of banning books.
They had a huge book of the banned books in the United States for 2009, or whatever year it was when I was 12.
Flicking through it, I realized the beloved books of my childhood had been listed.
Harry Potter, the first chapter book I had ever read, had always been about a boy who finds magic and fights evil while attending school.
I couldn't understand why it had been banned, he was fighting for the good guys right?
Well, I guess some parents didn't like it and decided it was too dangerous for their children to be reading.
It's banned in various places in the United States (and Christian communities alike) for reasons mostly magic related.
According to the ALA, it's banned for occult and Satanism. I honestly don't agree with the accusations. I see more religion in the books that Satanism.
Moving on, I don't agree with banning books.
Some people compare banning books to rating movies, but I do not believe it is an accurate comparison.
With movies, people are still able to watch them.
Even if teenagers under 17 can't go see a rated R movie, they can still rent one from the video store, or find one in their parents collection.
Books are completely different. They are physically taken off the shelf or put in a section that is off limits unless the child is 'old enough.'
Sometimes a parents written consent is necessary to read certain books that have been censored.
The point of books is to teach people to think.
It's to help them learn.
Taking away books will harm us and our minds.
It will hide our children (be they young or old) and keep them away from the world and the real problems they will inevitably face.
If parents want to ban books, that is entirely up to them.
I just would like to point out that banning the Lorax, Little House on the Prarie and Winnie the Pooh is probably causing more trouble than its worth.
I read the Berenstain Bear books when I was younger until I discovered Harry Potter and started reading chapter books.
Books have always been a way for me to disappear and escape from my daily troubles. They're a temporary relief, and a primary way I relax.
When I was in middle school, I often went to the library to check out books. It was there that I discovered that some books were banned.
This was curious to me because I had never thought there was anything wrong with the books I read.
To be honest, I grew up in Seattle.
So I definitely went to a more liberal school.
Unsurprisingly, my school library was not supportive of banning books.
They had a huge book of the banned books in the United States for 2009, or whatever year it was when I was 12.
Flicking through it, I realized the beloved books of my childhood had been listed.
Harry Potter, the first chapter book I had ever read, had always been about a boy who finds magic and fights evil while attending school.
I couldn't understand why it had been banned, he was fighting for the good guys right?
Well, I guess some parents didn't like it and decided it was too dangerous for their children to be reading.
It's banned in various places in the United States (and Christian communities alike) for reasons mostly magic related.
According to the ALA, it's banned for occult and Satanism. I honestly don't agree with the accusations. I see more religion in the books that Satanism.
Moving on, I don't agree with banning books.
Some people compare banning books to rating movies, but I do not believe it is an accurate comparison.
With movies, people are still able to watch them.
Even if teenagers under 17 can't go see a rated R movie, they can still rent one from the video store, or find one in their parents collection.
Books are completely different. They are physically taken off the shelf or put in a section that is off limits unless the child is 'old enough.'
Sometimes a parents written consent is necessary to read certain books that have been censored.
The point of books is to teach people to think.
It's to help them learn.
Taking away books will harm us and our minds.
It will hide our children (be they young or old) and keep them away from the world and the real problems they will inevitably face.
If parents want to ban books, that is entirely up to them.
I just would like to point out that banning the Lorax, Little House on the Prarie and Winnie the Pooh is probably causing more trouble than its worth.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)