The Ones Who Built the Fire

            Today I decided to take yet another trip down memory lane and revisit the girl who was on fire, who is still on fire in the minds of some. Yes, you know who I'm talking about, Katniss Everdeen.

            You've all heard of Katniss Everdeen. She's the girl who survived the hunger games. Twice. She the subject of the love of two desirable guys. She is a deadly weapon disguised as a human girl. She is confused, she is hurt. She is lovesick and furious, dangerous and sad. She hates humanity, she loves it. She is a turmoil of emotions. She confides in no one. Not even her parents. family. When you read this your mind probably flashed to your own. Annoying dad, patronizing mom, we all know the story. However, you probably have memories of hugs, words whispered to you at the dead of night when you are scared of the dark. Kisses dropped on your skinned knee. Parents are meant to love you. You can confide in your parents, and hopefully they will help you. However, Katniss, who has been through so much, doesn't confide in her parents. Rereading the Hunger Games, I looked closer into the dynamics of Katniss' relationship with her parents, the ones who built the fire that would become a powerful inferno.

        First, I looked at Katniss' mother. The book never mentions her name, is this a reference to how removed she is from Katniss' life? Well, she certainly is removed, ever since Katniss' mother fell into depression, Katniss is filled with mistrust for her mom. I think that Katniss and her mother should have worked harder to rebuild their relationship. Though no one could fathom that Katniss would have to compete in the Hunger Games, life in district 12 is tough, and a 16 year old girl needs someone to confide in. I think that things could have worked out better for Katniss if she and her mother confided in each other. If Katniss had talked to someone about her tepid relationship with Gale, maybe she would have felt less guilty about kissing Peeta. If Katniss had talked with her mother during the time she spent in district thirteen, maybe she would have been more mentally stable. And if she and her mom had had a better relationship, she might of had someone to support her when Prim died. Instead, Katniss began a descent into madness. Everyone knows that mothers baby you sometimes. Katniss was never babied. She always had to be mature and responsible, way beyond her years. Katniss was resentful of this, it turned her into the hardened killer who won the 74th Hunger games. And as she has said many times, "no decent person ever wins the games."

          Then there's Katniss' father. The one who died when Katniss was 11. If Katniss' father was alive, then the story might not have happened. Mr.Everdeen would have been the main hunter for the Evergreens and Katniss would not have to shoulder that responsibility. Mr. Everdeen would have put food on the table and cared for his daughters. If Katniss' dad was still alive, Katniss' mother would've never fallen into depression, causing Katniss and her mother to still get along. Katniss loved her father, he would have counseled her to the best decisions, and she would have felt safe. On the other hand if Katniss' father lived, she wouldn't have had all of the opportunities to practice hunting, as he would have been the main hunter. Also, Katniss wouldn't have become so hard and invincible. She wouldn't have been the vicious killer who won the games.

            There's no denying that parents are annoying, but they give you more help than you give them credit for. Supporting parents can help so much in a time of need. If Katniss had had a different parental situation, her life would be so much different. Katniss needs her parents, she just doesn't know it. And even though Katniss thinks she has more romantic love than she needs, she needs some parental love too.

The Blind Spot

               Recently I have started reading "1984" by George Orwell. The book is set in 1984, but an imagined one. Orwell wrote the book in the 1940s, so it is an imagined chronology of 1984. And what a different 1984 it is! Orwell writes of a supremest regime ruled by Big Brother, a tyrannical leader who is both worshipped and feared by all. To instill this fear and monitor the devotion Big Brother has installed devices in all houses that can record movement and hear audio that are almost like television. He has set up a vast government with communist-like coupons for food and clothing divided equally. The country (The novel takes place in London) is almost always at war with one country or the other and a new shorter language (Newspeak) is slowly leeching the English language of its adjectives and adverbs. The  book focuses on Winston Smith who works in the Ministry of "Truth," erasing all of Big Brothers false speeches and predictions and making them correct. However, Smith secretly writes in a diary about Big Brother's regime and his stifled hatred of the regime in a spot blind to the monitor, a deed easily punishable by death. It is the former sentence, I believe, that causes the latter.
            I think that the reason Smith is so different than his Big Brother fearing peers is his very job. Unlike Smith's friend, Syme, who diligently and enthusiastically purges English and replaces it with Newspeak, Smith's job is not to improve upon the regime or add to it, it is to erase its mistakes and clean up after it. Smith is constantly being exposed to Big Brother's mistakes and the very proof of his vulnerability.
           Big Brother has worked very hard at establishing himself as almost a God, the almighty power that can see everything you're doing. And the devotion that "God" inspires in his followers is almost matched by Big Brother's "subjects." However, this image is marred by the fact that he is still human and does make mistakes such as predicting an over-production of goods when there was actually a loss. And since Smith is the one who actually realizes that Big Brother makes these mistakes, he can never see Big Brother as his other comrades do. It is this realization that prods Smith to hate Big Brother, which comes from seeing who he actually is, not some propaganda-ed hero.
            This proves one of the most timeless causes of revolution, which I believe the book is leading to, information. When information is present, people can interpret it for themselves without someone else telling them what to think of it. Information helps people think for themselves and back up their suspicions and opinions. This is why Smith has the capacity to hate Big Brother, he has the information to do so. This is the regime's blind spot.

The Death Issue

              Once upon a time, I attempted to write a novel. I bought a leather-bound maroon book with gold trim and lined paper and told myself I would scribe until the end of the volume and publish it (in the process becoming rich and famous and getting a dog). I was six. Needless to say I did not make it to the end of that book. In fact I only finished about 20 pages in my huge first grade block letters. The book was about two friends who grew apart, but got back together  due to an elaborate plan and some minor animal kidnapping. The girls, named Anika and Sophie, were my dream alter-egos. They had their own rooms, pets and had delicious things like mac and cheese for dinner, and whipped cream and waffles for breakfast. They were talented (Sophie was a dancer, Anika drew), smart, pretty, basically perfect in every way. But that's what happens in the idyllic world of children's books, everything works out and everyone is special. Its so different from the YA books of today with their death, rape and social destruction-al themes. And transitioning between the happiness of early picture books to the disparaging works that fill my current shelves was one of the most eye-opening moments of my life.
                    Death becomes more integrated into the books we read as we get older, no longer just belonging to sickly animals or ancient grandparents. As death extends its dark reach to our teenage heroes and heroines, we wonder just how vulnerable we are. John Green informs us about cancer, Laurie Halse Anderson tells us about bulimia, Ellen Hopkins opens up our world to drugs. To the closeted reader that I am, books are a way to soak up the impossible and the all to possible. Books are the doorways and manuals to things I have yet to experience, and death is such a huge part of that.
                Where do we go? So many volumes have tried to address this inevitability. What religion doesn't tell us, stories make up, or sometimes refute the teachings of old. Heaven. Hell. What is even the difference? Elsewhere, a charming yet borderline creepy book, tells us we will be reborn as young children, perhaps addressing the degradation of our society and of ourselves. The Golden Compass, or to be more specific the Amber Spyglass, speaks of the dead, shadows in a barren land. The idea of this anomaly troubles me, for although when we were little death was a peaceful slumber, I now know the unknown lays beyond.
                 How will we die? Of course we don't know now, how would life work if we just counted the hours we had left in this world? Books have addressed this issue and more. But back to the question. The Hunger Games teaches us about our inner savages, waiting for the right venue to explode, the potential for violent ends in all of us. The Fault in Our Stars tells us of a different kind, a languishing death, so poignantly slow and painful that it almost hurts to read. Conrad sought suicide in Impulse and found "eternal rest." And others still teach us about the sudden death that occurs via car or crashing wave, unbeknownst until its too late. These different means expose us to both the horrors surrounding us and those within. All waiting until something falls into place and we vacate this world.
              So death surrounds us, and books have taught us that. Exposing some to that which was not imaginable and warning others about their paths. Innocent childhoods stolen by death, lust, greed. They're gone. For me it was books that took away my innocence and opened so many doors. And to think people say that teenagers feel like they're invincible; I feel closer to the grave than ever.

Paternal Ramifications

           Over spring break, as any teen with my ardor for the written word would do, I read many books. As my friends had scattered to various parts of the world to sojourn in various hotels and houses, I simply lay in my bed and devoured every book available online for free and the books my mother brought me from the library, as well as some old favorites. Among these volumes were the "Pretty Little Liars" series and "Looking for Alaska."
           As anyone who has read these books can tell, they are very different from each other. So dissimilar that it would seem fairly impossible to imply that they had any significant similarities other than they are all about teenagers. The former is about a group of wealthy teenagers living in suburban Philedelphia finding themselves and building their friendships and relationship amid the ongoing murder investigation of their best friend and threatening notes from the mysterious "A." The latter, "Looking for Alaska," is about a teenage boy named Miles finding "the great perhaps" in a Alabama boarding school aided by the Colonel (a brilliant scholarship student with a penchant for planning), Lara, Takumi and Alaska Young ( a sad, clever and beautiful girl searching for her way out of the "labyrinth" after the death of her mother).  One thing that stood out to me with all of these books is the effect of a father figure to the main characters.
           The paternal figure is often thought of as a mentor to boys, but they have an equal impact on their daughters. For example, in the "Pretty Little Liars" series, protagonist Hanna is prodded back into her eating disorder due to her father's new step daughter who "wears a size two!" Hanna even expresses this to her dad, saying, that she is "like a size two...I'm huge!" This is even though Hanna is thought to be thin by her peers. Her father does not respond, furthering her self esteem issues and pushing her deep into a cycle of bulimia and bad relationships. Another girl in the series pushed into bad relationships by her fathers actions is another protagonist Aria Montgomery. After Aria saw her Dad cheating on her Mom, he made her promise not to tell, which she kept for almost three years. When the clandestine affair goes public, Aria gets romantically involved with a teacher, saying, "I was vulnerable and he was there." Her fathers pressuring and extra-marital affairs got her into trouble, her boyfriend arrested and herself alienated.
              In "Looking for Alaska" the protagonist is named Miles, but the subject of the book is (arguably) Alaska Young. Miles is smitten and describes her as effortlessly beautiful, charismatic, intense, charismatic and troubled. Not the archetypal beautiful girl, but definitely worth obsessing over, in his opinion. Alaska's impulsiveness evidenced by her sudden desires to kiss or drive recklessly, is revealed to be caused by her believed causation of her mother's death. Her father reportedly blames her for her mother's demise and she lives with this imposed guilt everyday. It is also this guilt, I believe, that makes Alaska eventually die as she speeds towards her mother's grave after she forgot the anniversary of the death. If her father had made a connection with her after her mothers's death or attempted to remedy his accusations of fault made years ago, Alaska may not have felt such pressure to get to the grave and die.
             I have a relatively healthy relationship with my father. Because my parents are divorced, I get to see him more often one on one and, I believe, get to know him a little better than my friends and their fathers whose parents are still together. However, what someone's relationship with their father is supposed to be is hard to define. What anyones relationship with anyone else is supposed to be is also unclear. Should there be such definitions, such boundaries? How close is too close and how far is to far? These are questions that must be answered on a case by case basis, for as seen in these books, fathers definitely affect so much more than just their children.

The Weakness of the Inner Sanctum

              I recently finished reading the book "Picture Perfect" by Jodi Picoult. It was the first of her novel that I have read that was not a murder mystery. This reeled me in because the aspect that I usually find most appealing about her books is the fact that she integrates the technicalities of a murder trial with the heart wrenching backstory. Putting in stark contrast the emotional bloody throbbing of human nature with the cold, measured precision of courtroom proceedings. When picking up the book, I expected it to be derivative of these earlier books, but it was extremely different.
            "Picture Perfect" follows the tale of Cassie Barret. Or should I say, Cassie Rivers. Cassie is intelligent, mildly attractive, sensible and quiet in mien but what sets her apart from most women is that she is married to the most famous movie star in the United States, Alex Rivers. This is not to say that they have a perfect life. Oh no, Cassie is haunted by dreams of her childhood best friend, whom she watched die and her alcoholic mother, while Alex still cannot separate himself from the boy whose father forced him to "be a man" by spending days in snake infested bayous and earning bruises in New Orleans. In fact, the reason that Alex became an actor, as Picoult basically tells us, is to escape the person who he has become. That he does not know how to be someone decent, and this tortures him. Tortures him so much, in fact, that it leads him to brutally beat Cassie for something as benign as leaving his sneakers (of which he has many pairs as he is a star of epic proportions) outside. Cassie "escapes" by running away with her new friend (and possibly romantic interest?) Will Flying Horse to his families' reservation in South Dakota. But eventually returns to Alex, only to "leave him for good."
                If you could not tell by the tone of my summary, the book disgusted me. Its not to say that JOdi Picoult's books are the epitome of valid and layered adult fiction, but she is better than the trash I found myself reading. For one, Cassie and Alex's love story was not believable. They "got married six weeks after {they} met," and Cassie became totally integrated into his life as a movie star. They had the perfect wedding in Tanzania with all movie star trappings and moved back to Alex's mansion. There were no minute details to make it believable or even plausible. And even while I cringed at Cassie's beatings, it repulsed me how spineless she was, how SHE apologized to this man who broke her ribs for breaking a glass. How even after moving away for six months, she still returned to his side, a shadow that moved with him wherever he went. She continued to shape her form around his needs, becoming more of him than of her. I tried to understand  by comparing it to an addiction, you have to never have another drink of snort again to be completely clean, you can't let yourself slip up like Cassie did.
              But I guess I don't understand love, I can't fathom any emotion that would make Cassie come back; any gift. How can Cassie still call Alex her love? her other half? One can never fully trust someone again after they have damaged you so completely. There is an irrevocable difference between what has come before, and what life will proceed as. Cassie is spineless, and she has dug her own grave. By refusing to get out of her abusive entanglement with Alex she has sacrificed herself, her innermost sanctum to his wills and promises. And while her neck is "hung with a necklace of purple bruises" what is most violated is her soul.

Playing with Power

There is blood, so much blood beneath the polished facade of the Peoples Revoltutionary Council. Blood of the people of Sessamekesh, blood of fellow government officials and most of all, the blood of the royal line. An army uniform is a good hiding place for a snake. And a snake that hides well, in the case of General Citizen and his guards. In the book, Pathfinder by Orson Scott Card, many such snakes hide or come to light depending on the skill and rank of the uniform that is its host. However the thing is, in governments, there are usually many snakes. So what happens when there are too many of these reptilian miscreants in a room? The snakes kill! Behind the analogy of this post and the many subtle metaphors in the book, an underlying theme in Orson Scott Card's creation is the power struggles and revolts within the corrupt structure known as the "people's government. Which is not so aptly named as the "people" do not realized what "their" government was up to.

               One example of this theme is General Citizen. When Rigg is arrested by General Citizen, he begins to trust the solid, clever and almost fatherly figure in his crumbling life. What Rigg doesn't know about General Citizen is where his loyalties lie. This uncertainty and slight vagaries about his general person make Rigg find it hard to believe that the General is totaly on the government's side. It turns out Rigg is partially right about General Citizen, he is actually working with Rigg's mother, the former queen Hagia Sessamin, to overthrow the People's Government and return the royals to power in Sessamekesh. After finding this out, Rigg trusts Hagia and Citizen and this turns out to be his downfall. Already the corruption of youth and not only government is apparent in the book: a boy cannot trust his mother because of the power struggles in the government. Rigg has been through so much in his life, but this still takes him by surprise, although he does not say this outright. As the male heir to the royal throne he expects some plotting towards him, but not the backstabbing of his own mother. Up until this moment Hagia's actions have seen maternal and she has expressed the desire to become a "true mother." But Hagia bearly knows Rigg so she justifies her actions as secluded from her hormones. I think that Rigg's mother is drunk with the idea of ruling the empire so she forgets her love for family and exchanges it with a lust for power,   a common theme that the royal house has fallen for for. Their possesions have been taken from them, they are at the mercy of the common people. No wonder Hagia Sessamin wants to break out.

                 Correlating with this fictional government, common theme in historic governments has been power struggles.I compare this book to the movie J. Edgar. As much as this movie is, obviously, about the head of the FBI himself (J. Edgar Hoover), it is also a movie about political manuevers, personal and proffesional relationships and the thirst for power that encompasses almost all of us. This is evidenced as General Citizen and Hagia Sessamin are supposedly in love, which is why Hagia chose him to lead the revolt.  This correlates with the relationship between Hoover and his assistant Clyde Tolson as depicted in the movie. Is it romantic? Political? There are many disagreements about these two men, but one thing is certain. Their relationship affected Hoover in some way and his politics which sparked controversy and much criticism. In my opinion, I think that you know you are in trouble when leaders make important decisions based on personal relationships.

Power is a huge player in any organization or even family. Who holds the power, what they do with it and how are all extremely crucial to any group. This is why the power struggles in Pathfinder are such a huge part of the book. In a corrupt government, power is the chief prize. Hagia and Citizen both hope to gain power and Rigg is caught up in the middle. I guess there is always power to be taken, but it is you who must decide whether to use it for good or bad.

Sonnet

A mirror: a bottomless, faceless plane

A faithful audience for which to vogue

An alter upon which tears fall like rain

A ruler of impressions: none go rogue

An endless love affair: thankless and cruel

Thank god mirror impressions are fleeting

You are boiled down to naught but gruel

A slew of flaws with one chair seating

But what of beauty? Impressions pleasing

Showing your countenance fully in bloom

A tantalizing glance, mirror teasing

Where high self esteem and pride now assume

A tool for your id, measures volume; mass

Yet what is this fateful mirror but glass