Blog post for gone girl

    Characters in the moment can really be seen from 2 sides. As an idiot who doesn't plan or an aware person who doesn't get caught up on things. I can say that without a doubt, that Nick from "Gone Girl" is the idiot. Near the beginning of the book Nick makes two very big and bad decisions. 1 moving back to Missouri and 2 opening a bar. Throughout the book, the book only emphasizes how bad these decisions are, and Nick does them without thinking. Even without finding out the consequences of his actions, these still would be terrible decisions that prove how Nick being impulsive is terrible for him and people around him.

    The first of these actions, which is the worst of the two, is moving to Missouri. Nick's mother has cancer, so Nick forces his wife, Amy, to move with him. They are newly unemployed and gave most of their (her) trust to their parents when their career of writing very popular children's books has become very pitiful as each new book brings in less and less people and they are broke. The discussion is barely a paragraph and Nick treats her like she is the enemy during the very quick negotiations. Amy has never been to Missouri and is used to New York.  Nick is now forcing her to go to this basically foreign place. He also immediately tells his sister that without thinking about it all. This motion really sets up the entire story and she really disappeared because nick is an idiot.

    The second big mistake Nick makes is opening a bar with his sister. First off they have no experience with bar tending or mixology, they only did it because it was a childhood dream. Second, they opened a bar that's in the middle of a town filled with hobos or very poor people, so money is not very available. Also the place is very old and dirty, but Nick claims that it's rustic. Finally, the money he used to buy it came from the last of their trust fund, which is really just Amy's money. Nick keeps on making really stupid decisions all the time.

    To conclude, Nick is very impulsive, but rarely in a good way. These two drastic decisions are terrible, but he fails to see that. Moving and opening a business need to be thought about, but Nick decides these in a day. These decisions will probably be his downfall.

Blog Review of Sophia's Post on the Book "Lolita"

                                                       

The book described by Sophia sounds horrifying, yet somewhat ingenious. It describes a man that attempts to have a relationship with a twelve-year old girl. The surprising part is he apparently describes her as the dominant person in the relationship. He says that she seduces him and that she is smitten with him. Sophia then claims that most of these events are probably fabricated as the man is much older than Lolita so probably pushed her into these acts. Apparently, he threatened her with foster care and and juvenile detention. This book really seems to show how unreliable an narrator can be.

First off, this post makes me want to read the book to see how deceptive the narrator really is. The narrator sounds like a charming and intellectual man. I would be very curious to see where I was deceived and how many times I actually figured out that I was deceived. Another reason I would want to read it is because I want to compare the events of the book to what actually happened. I feel that in the end, I would just want to get it to see how the narrator contrasts with the facts.

This book kind of reminds me of another memoir about a man that was doing something illegal and didn't fell at fault. The main difference is that the main character in my book realized that he was doing something wrong and tried to fix it. He was a cop that conversed with criminals to get bigger criminals. In the end, he realized that dealing with shady people was wrong and decided get one last criminal, then quit the force. I don't think that the narrator of "Lolita" ever felt guilty about his action.

To conclude, "Lolita" sounds like a very interesting story. It's about somebody doing something illegal, then doesn't feel guilty about it at the time. This story seems more unique than others because the author doesn't see himself as a criminal. He see's himself as a man seduced by Lolita. This seems like a book that would be very hard to analyze, but would be rewarding to do so.

The blog post

No lights, No sirens critical analysis.

In the book "No lights, No sirens" by Robert Cea, the author want the reader to know the faults in the police system. Even in the first third of the book, you can see the drastic change in Robert. In the beginning, he seems optimistic and understands the streets, but not the people fighting them. He believes that the police are against crime, pure and simple. At the third mark, he truly understands the police and the streets and how they work together. He shows the heartlessness of the police and their constant tolerance to active crime to have street cred. He has friends on the streets who are obviously criminals and they both know it. Basically, Robert learns about "true" police system.

The author subtlety adds clues to show the change in Robert's character. He does this to show how the police system is not as innocent and just as it may seems. The biggest way the author shows this is by using Robert's method. He changes them by focusing on his hero. Because of this, Robert changes to be more tricky and manipulative than he was at the beginning when he just wanted to do justice fairly and honestly. He tricks drug dealers and takes bribes to add charges. Another strategy the author uses is the scene with Robert and his girlfriend. He uses this as a comparison to show how his new personality traits have changed his social life. He yells at a guy for looking at his girlfriend and seems more apathetic. Even when they have sex by a fire, all he thinks about is the streets and actually hurts her.

I think that the author really shows how a memoir can still teach about a topic. This book focuses on the main character's struggles and changes, but still teaches about the police system. It seems really weird that this isn't a fiction. This book really shows the darkness of this system.

blog post social action the silent wife.

In "the silent wife",  The main character, Jodi, goes through alot of injustices as a wife. She is a loving wife who constantly provides for her husband. Even with this,  Her husband Todd takes away their home and money when he has to get married to his latest mistress who he got pregnant and who is also the daughter of his best friend. Jodi has to go through all of this having done nothing wrong. Eventually her friend springs the idea of an assassination on her husband and after saving up they go through with it and Todd dies. After this,  Jodi had gotten her revenge. Even after this, Jodi hasn't resolved her injustices.

Jodi has alot of injustices against her yet she still tries to be a good wife. For example, after leaving her, he cancles her credit cards without telling her and also gives her an eviction notice. These are terrible things to give to your wife that you are currently divoracing.
He doesn't even think of trying to support her for a while. He just pulls all the things that are helping her cope and survive after losing the most stable and important part of her life. Todd doesn't care about this.

Another injustice done against Jodi is his constant cheating. Before getting Natasha pregnant, he had cheated on Jodi alot. She wasn't worried because she thought that her routinely life would always draw Todd back. Todd didn't really care that he was cheating on her. While she was right, her routine was the reason Todd continually cheated on her countless times.

In conclusion, Jodi is a women who is a victim. With her twenty year relationship with Todd, she was cheated on alot and still stood by him. Then, he left her out of nowhere, another injustice. Finally, after leaving her, he took away all of her reasources without warning. Jodi has done nothing wrong yet suffers many injustices. Maybe her doing nothing was the reason she lost everything?

Ya social analysis post

In the book "The Silent Wife",  a very common and complex issue is denial. Throughout the book, A main character (Jodi) knows about her husbands infedelity as there are obvious signs like getting a phone call from a random women. Even when the father of the girl her husband (Todd) is cheating on Jodi with tells her that her husband is cheating on her, Jodi comes to the conclusion that he was mistaken. Another thing she denies is her need to confront. She rarely confronts her husband, but instead likes to do little things to get even with him, then goes about her day. These issues really make the book more complex as a whole.

Denial is a part of jodi's way to cope with her husbands infedelity.  One of the biggest examples of this is when her husband's best friend tells her that her husband is having an affair. She knows him and he is best friends with her husband, so he wouldn't lie. Also, that night her husband asked suspiciously asks if his best friend has called. Even with this, She want's to believe that he is making a mistake. She knows that he has affairs, but she refuses to believe that he will leave her because of how they were in love and how she acts perfectly.

Another thing that she denies is a need to confront. Whenever she finds that Todd is cheating on her, she just does something to feel like she's empowered. When she discovered a girls sleeping pill perscription in todd's coat, she put those pills in his drink, making him wake up extremely late at 11:00. Another time, he left for work early and she stole his key to the office. She rarely confronts todd and when she does, they fight then have makeup sex.

In conclusion,  Denial is a major part of Jodi's character. She uses denial to cope with her husband and the bad things he does. She also denies her needs to confront him by using cheap tactics to annoy him. She really needs denial to have the will to hold her marrige together.

Argument essay YA fiction

Has the world of YA fiction gone into chaos. YA fiction has become a series of books that are argued about alot. Some people think YA books should be labeled. Some think That these books shouldn't change at all. Some even want labels but to use them to filter content based on age. YA Books shouldn't be banned or labeled to filter content, but instead harmlessly labeled (like a movie) to help people easily identify levels of maturity to help people pick out books they would like.

Since the introduction of a movie rating system in the 1930's, barely anyone has contested it's continual existence. Have you ever heard somebody say that they wish movies didn't have a rating system. You would think they were crazy. It's such a small detail that just barely adds to the experience, but helps let parents know what movies are appropriate for their children.  The same principle could apply to books. If barely anyone has objections to the movie rating system, then why should they have any for a book rating system.

Another need for a rating system is for children. A child could effortlessly discover sex and drugs prematurely because a book was put under YA and they thought they were old enough. I was also affected by this lack of supervision in reading. When I was around ten, I took home a YA book from the library expecting an interesting supernatural story, but one day during class, the book took a very dramatic turn when the two main characters started having sex. It shocked and ruined the whole book. I couldn't even read more after that. With a rating system, this might not have happened or at least prepared me for that scene.

While some may might with me, some may not. They may argue that a rating system may ruin the experience and in some respects this is true. A book may not have have the same flare if you know that it's suited for an older audience. It will give you a small insight on the books subject and content. However, this argument is flawed because of its scale. As I said, it gives you a small insight, but not a big enough one that would actually ruin the experience. In movies this isn't an issue because the view is so small. Also others may want a rating system, but they want to use it to filter content that may not be appropriate for children. The founder of a small idea to use age ratings to filter books and a YA author said "I have changed my mind: I think children's literature has got to far". The article also says that YA "bestsellers have twice the rate of cursing as video games...". These are valid points somewhat. Children's literature can be very graphic and mature. The article's point on swearing rates also shows that there is a valid reason for this. Actually, these reasons aren't very good. While a medium may be graphic, it doesn't mean it should be filtered. If this existed then you would be basically banning books for children. The fact that they're mature doesn't mean that some people shouldn't be allowed to read them.

In conclusion, YA fiction should have an rating system. There already is one for TV and movies and they can help children stay age appropriate. The only arguments that don't want a rating system are flawed and aren't strong or supported enough to be taken seriously. What would be so bad about letting readers know how appropriate a book is? Why would you want to let children read anything without letting them know if it's appropriate or not?

Independent reading blog

          If you have ever read the book series Agatha Raisin, then something that will immediately be recognizable is her odd personality. Throughout the book you'll see that she is a likable character. This is the odd part as she shouldn't be. Throughout the book she also shows "bitchy" qualities. She gets obsessed easily, she is longing to get married, constantly gets in the way of police investigations (withholding evidence, confronts suspects by herself, etc). Throughout all the book even with this, she some how becomes a likable character.

          One example of this is her care for appearance. Throughout the book, whenever she goes out with somebody she often will spend an hour(s) on her make up. For example "Charles noticed that Agatha insisted on repairing her make-up before approaching Gareth Craven's house". It the book Agatha notices that Gareth is an attractive man, so focuses on her apperence to impress. Gareth Craven is also her employer, showing how her need value more then her company's. Also the word make-up appears 24 times. This is one time per twelve pages.

          Another example is her obsession with her neighbor James Lacey. Throughout the books, she constantly focuses on him and other women. She had had a crush on him for a while and they got married when he realized he'd rather be stuck with a good friend as a wife then some random bimbo. Even after the wedding gets stopped when her first husband shows up, she still thought up romantic dreams for a long time. It took a very long time to get over him, even though it was obvious to an outside viewer he wasn't a very loving husband.

          To conclude, agatha raisin shouldn't be a very likable character. She is an angry, obsessive, petty, etc. But somehow, she is. It's really strange how the character is written in a way that doesn't make her seem like a bad person, but instead a likable one. I feel if a computer analyzed her, it would say she is unlikable, but there is something about her which counteracts these elements