I'd like to write about ideas, not the book itself, but a system of ideals.

Color is a focal point to the first few chapters and, as it happens, extensive to our very livelihood. Color is everywhere and in everything. From the trees, whose lives come to a sad yet beautiful end every year, they make a dance of changing their leaves to colors, painting the ground their masterpiece. It can be the sky, who brings us the only conclusive evidence that Robin's Egg Blue should be a color, but can also bring a deep purple, an ominous grey, and if you are reasonably lucky, a literal rainbow of colors. As capitalists, our very foundation and what we measure much of our success and worth is the color of money. A bright green, hard to miss so that we can pompously flash our cash and deem ourselves worth it. Furthermore, as much grandeur as there occurs in nature, there is an unmistakable color in people. I am not talking solely of the clothes people wear, but what they are. The soft pink when someone blushes or the dirty brown after a hard day's work. The metaphorical blue when someone is sad or the blackness of someone betrayed. My favorite, despite all the beauty of these things, the most magnificent color, is that of her eyes. Many of us guys, no matter how masculine we appear, fall weak to that one girl's eyes. We look in them and see color, color in which we forget our stresses and losses, and we get lost at sea, comforted by the continuous tide yet afraid at the same time at what might happen, happen if we take a step further out into the blueness of the ocean. And yet, there is an elegance and beauty about the way the waves continue to comfort the sand no matter how many times the sand pushes away.

Now, if I may, I shall dutifully overanalyze the title and setting of The Book Thief.  Books, an object, can feel comfortable, but nonetheless, frail. It can be a symbol of one's love passed on from generation to generation. But what is more, it can be our dreams, our escape, from a harsh reality that we live in, where people are starving on the streets, or the most petty things are of dire importance, or where our politicians fight a war on drugs all while smoking crack (I'm looking at you Toronto). Books are where we can dream. Dream of a place where we can fall in love with shooting stars, where "I love you" truly means "I love you," where we won't be cheated on or used for our kindness, and where the nerd gets the girl. It is a place where we can identify with the characters, rooting them on to live their dream and take chances because we are living vicariously through them and if they can do it, so can we. If we build upon that thought, that books are where our dreams can come true, stealing one's books, in turn, steals their dreams. On the other hand, giving one the gift of books and poetry and rhyme, can forge them. But books are fragile, and during the book's setting, the nazis burned many books, and at the same time, burned many bridges, bridges to Terabithia, and bridges to imagination and wonder. They cut off ideas and ruined many Jews' futures all in the name of ethnic cleansing. Because who needs dreams anyway?

Books are the very thing that keep our minds open, spawning dreams where the colors in people are equal (Martin Luther King Jr.), where people keep their promises, and where we can escape into a magical world where anything is possible. For that period of time where the book is in our hand, we can be all that we can be. And most importantly, we can start our own stories, where the pen can be linked to our heart to write the poetry that is our destiny.

The Book Thief . . . The Power of Words

I must admit that I have finished The Book Thief.  I don't want to spoil the ending for those of you who haven't finished reading it, but I do have some thoughts that I would like to share.

On a less positive note, I did not like how the book ended, with "Death" "talking" to Liesel.  As I posted earlier, Death is an event that precedes eternity.  Zusak seems to drag out the event in the book in order to have a conversation.

Now on to some things that I did like.  (There are more, and if you are into analyzing writing style like me, reading this book just for the stylistic aspects is interesting.)

On page 243 "Death" talks about mystery and makes the point that often we know the ending of a story or mystery, but it is the machinations of how the plot unfolds that holds our interest.  I would have to say that as I have gotten older, I have gotten better at predicting how stories end, but plots still interest me.  I think that it is somewhat ironic that "Death's" statement is in the book at all; it's almost as if Zusak if putting all of his eggs in one basket.  We are going to have to want to read the book because we want to know how the events we know will happen unfold and occur.  This means that Zusak has to write in such a way that his plot will hold our interest.  I think that he succeeded.

One of my favorite parts of the book is on pages 520 and 521.  Earlier in the book, Max (the Jew that was hiding in Liesel's basement) writes her a book called The Word Shaker.  In it, Max writes about the power of words, and how Hitler used words to build up hatred and fear.  I'm going to quote some of 520 and 521 for those of you who do not have the book to illustrate how the power of words comes up again.  I also think that it is a good illustration of how Zusak writes.
       "She [Liesel] slid a book from the shelf and sat with it on the floor. . . . For a long time, she sat and saw.  She had seen her brother die with one eye open, one still in a dream.  She had said goodbye to her mother and imagined her lonely wait for a train back home to oblivion.  A woman of wire had laid herself down, her scream traveling through the street, till it fell sideways like a rolling coin starved of momentum.  A young man was hung by a rope made of Stalingrad snow.  She had watched a bomber pilot die in a metal case.  She had seen a Jewish man who had twice given her the most beautiful pages of her life marched to a concentration camp.  And at the center of all of it, she saw the Fuhrer shouting his words and passing them around.  These images were the world, and it stewed in her . . . . The words.  Why did they have to exist? Without words, the Fuhrer was nothing." 

For the rest of the quote, you will have to read the book, but there are a few things that this quote made me think of.
1)  The fact that Zusak is talking about the power of words in a book is potent in itself.  Without the words, there would not be this book, and since much of the book is very well written, one feels the impact of the words as one reads.  Therefore, as a reader, you feel the importance of words as Liesel is lamenting their power for evil in the hands of Hitler. 
2)  The imagery in this quote is amazing.  All of those events are described earlier in the book, but the way that Zusak depicts them on pages 520 and 521 I think capture the essence while at the same time doing so by pairing together objects that create a jarring effect.  Death and a dream, mother and oblivion, a scream and a coin, a hanging rope and snow, pilot (plane) and metal case, beauty and a concentration camp.  Personally, it makes me think about how ridiculous us humans can be to each other.  
3) It's somewhat ironic that Liesel is a book thief; she steals words. Throughout the book, the books that she steals/rescues fit into what she is experiencing.  Clearly, words have played a powerful part in her life, and end up saving her.  However, from this quote, I think that what Liesel would most dearly like to steal are the words out of Hitler's mouth so that he can never use them again.  The problem is that she can't, and even if she could, others could use them.  We are each responsible for how we use our own words. 
 

 

Annoyance is the best way to finish a book.... Nature of College reflection

I have to admit, I'm struggling to read this book. As in I am uncertain if I will ever finish this book.

My main problem is that I am incredibly annoyed by the way this book is written. It has a pretentious overtone that I could truly be making up just to justify not reading, however, other people have picked up on  so perhaps not. I enjoy being told that I am living my life entirely wrong, however, the part I enjoy most is where I'm NOT TOLD A SOLUTION FOR IT.

I also have found some fallacies in the arguments, and it fails to give a complete view of all of the points made (usually by lacking a solution but occaisionally by completely omitting relevant information). I am very aware that I should back up these strange claims with substantial evidence from the book and other sources...however I threw my book across the room and have not yet found it. More on that later. I will say that I am very positive that America was referenced as the richest country, which, to be gentle, is dead wrong. We aren't even the second, third, fourth, fith, or sixth richest country. So that was fun to read.

I don't mind being told that there are things in my life that are wasteful, however, I feel that the author could stand to consider his audience when writing the book. Some of the information I read actually was good, however I was so annoyed with the author that, as a flawed human, I probably won't do what he wants just to spite him, even though to change would benefit the world (don't take that too literally).

As I don't have much of substance to reflect on (still can't find the book) and this has taken on a rambling tone, I'll finish here. I will say that I will try to finish the book, however, I won't make promises.

My thoughts on Facebook

I am about halfway through The Nature of College, and I realized that this blog for the book club still existed. I would have posted earlier on in my reading journey especially since things have been standing out to me, but I've been too lazy to turn on my computer and actually type something. That is, until today when I read about Farrell's thoughts on Facebook. 

First of all, he wrote, "Facebook is good for capital, but not necessarily for social change" (Farrell, p. 143, 2010). I was going to respond by saying, "Granted, this was written a while ago", but 3 years isn't all that long I have found. Especially when I was reminded yesterday that my cousin has a 7-year-old son. Like, REALLY?! I thought that was last week!

Back on topic.

Facebook definitely has helped spread advocacy for social change. Since a lot of people in America and the world are plugged into some form of social media, it seems right for campaigns to spread to the Twitterverse or the world of Facebook. In fact, I have learned a lot about problems and issues from posts on Facebook. I don't read the paper much at college because I've never been a big newspaper reader. Every once and a while I'll browse an online news website, but I have trouble paying attention to screens sometimes (which could expand into an entirely different post). But when I see someone close to me post something on Facebook I pay more attention because all the unimportant news is filtered out. I like showing interest in what my peers are interested in, so I notice when they are feeling especially passionate about an issue. 

For example, when the marriage equality bill was passing through Congress, my brother changed his profile picture to this: 

I didn’t know that there was anything being considered by Congress regarding gay marriage at all, but when I saw everyone change their profile pictures to show support, I started researching, using Google of course. I didn’t participate in the campaign personally, but I became more aware of the ideas of social change happening around me.

I think that Farrell is being ignorant about Facebook if he believes that it doesn’t call for social change. Maybe the website itself doesn’t, but the information being posted and shared does. That’s what really matters.

Second of all, I keep getting annoyed with every topic being related to “nature.” Farrell needs to specify which kind of nature he’s talking about, because there are many different kinds. I believe he has limited himself to the “outdoors-y” nature which is cool, but there is so much else to explored.

He argued that Facebook doesn’t in any way educate us about nature or nonhuman beings. This is true. However, I wish he would address what kind of nature we do learn about from social media: human nature. It’s kind of sad that human nature can be observed through the internet nowadays, but it’s true. Technology, especially information technology, has taken us over! It’s easier for us to observe relationships through the internet than in real life because that is where many of them are started and flourish. I think this is really unfortunate because I love personal contact with people, but it’s just the way that society has grown.

College has actually made it easier for me to communicate with peers in “the real world.” I can just walk a few steps and be at a friend’s door ready to start a conversation about something or other. Sure, I still use social media, texting, etc. to keep in touch with family and friends from back home, but college makes it a heck of a lot easier to contact people without the use of technology.

In conclusion, I agree that Facebook has done a whole lot of bad in regards to connecting with people. However, Facebook has also done a lot of good because of the access to information and such. Also, college is not to blame entirely for the disconnect of relationships, and it certainly hasn’t been the place where my social media usage has increased. In fact, I have a block on my web browser, so on weekdays only 10 minutes of social media websites are allowed. I’m just trying to get my priorities straight early on and avoid distractions. Plus, this helps me “do the social” in real life. 

Ecology

I still remember when I was in High School Biology that the teacher insisted that we be ecologically aware.  At the time, I completely rebelled.  I didn't like the guy and he completely frustrated me.  The Nature of College book talks a lot about how much things cost, not only in dollars, but also in chemicals and carbon footprint.  Maybe it is because I am older and wiser, but I am much more sympathetic to these concerns now.

When I asked the first year students about "Random acts of Virtue," what I was thinking about is small acts of ecological virtue.  When walking across campus and I see a candy wrapper, I pick it up and find a garbage can.  I have made my own laundry detergent and hang my laundry whenever possible.  I bring my own reusable bags to the store. I compost most of my food scraps.

What small steps can you do to reduce your impact on the world?

Mariah Birgen

Two Thoughts and a Line to Share

Since I've gotten fairly far into The Book Thief, I suppose that I should finally post something!  I have two thoughts and a favorite line so far to share.

First, I've never thought of death as a character, but rather as an event that we all are appointed to face before entering eternity.  The way that Zusak makes a character out of an event is interesting; the remark that death hands souls off to the conveyer belt of eternity I think helps retain the "eventness" of death.  Death comes, and then eternity.  Death as a narrator certainly gives the book a grimness that fits the setting of a poor family in WWII Germany.

Second, reading books is one of my favorite past-times.  Particularly when I was little, I liked rainy days during the summer so that I could have an excuse to stay inside and read.  However, I never considered stealing books, and I was fortunate to be able to attend school and learn to read at an early age, unlike Liesel.  Liesel also has a thirst to read, but her actions remind me of what humans can be driven to do in desperate circumstances, although I admire her for "stealing" a book from a Nazi book burning.

Finally, one of my favorite lines thus far is on page 211.  "Imagine smiling after a slap in the face.  Then think of doing it twenty-four hours a day.  That was the business of hiding a Jew."   

Merry

Best line so far

Smith and Denton contend that the operative religion of American teenagers is "Moralistic Theraputic Deism," and that its creed looks something like this:

1. A God exists who created and orders the world and watches over human life on Earth.
2. God wants people to be good, nice, and fair to each other, as taught by the Bible and most world religions.
3. The central goal of life is to be happy and feel good about oneself.
4. God does not need to be particularly involved in one's life except when God is needed to solve the problem.
5. Good people go to heaven when they die.

This religion is simple.  It tells us to be good and feel good, and not much else.