Q2: Blog6

I DID IT!!!!!

That's right, I finished Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close. It took me forever, but I'm finally done. So yay!! Now onto my analysis/ opinions on the book.

It would help if you could completely ignore my last post. I was wrong. Oskar's father did die. I guess I knew something was funny and couldn't quite figure out what it was, so I made a slightly ridiculous guess. The 'Thomas Schell' who wrote his name all over the pads of paper at the art store is actually Oskar's grandfather, who has the same name. That makes a lot more sense.

And Oskar's mom knew that he was going to the Blacks' houses. She actually called them before he went over there to warn them. Which explains another thing. I was always curious as to how Oskar's mother never questioned him being out for so long, and why Oskar's french teacher never made a phone call to Oskar's mother wondering why he got a note saying Oskar quit taking french lessons, but he would still be paid. Personally, I would be curious about a situation like that.

As for the key, Oskar found it's owner. Abby Black, who Oskar had talked to second, called to say that the key belonged to her ex-husband. To make a long story short, he had mistakenly sold the blue vase with the key in it to Oskar's dad. So Oskar really had no connection to the key after all, which was disappointing for him.

The book ended with a scene of Oskar and his mother crying together, a sweet ending to a book where Oskar and his mother seem to have no connection to each other, especially concerning Oskar's father's death.

Q2: Blog5

I'm making very slow progress with EL&IC, but progress none the less. I enjoy parts of this book, but when the story transfers into letters sent by grandparents to Oskar, I quickly lose interest. What I especially like, however, is when there is a part of the story that seems to be a mystery, and I get to try to figure it out. For example, there are multiple messages from Oskar's dad the day of 9/11. A new one came up on page 207, his fourth message. He gave small bits of information about what was going on, mentioning some sort of evacuation plan. I have come to the conclusion, however, that Oskar's dad isn't actually dead. I decided this because Oskar's dad's name appeared on the pads that you test pens on at the arts store, after he was supposed to have died. It is possible that someone else wrote it, but I doubt it.

If Oskar's father really isn't dead, then what do the messages mean? And if he really was at the World Trade Center on 9/11, then how did he have time to call and leave four messages? These are all questions that hopefully either I will figure out or the book will explain to me in the next couple of weeks. I'm almost finished, I just need to encourage myself to keep reading.

Q2: Blog4

Wow. It doesn't seem like it's been a week since the last time I blogged. I guess that's what breaks do. I didn't get in quite as much reading as I had hoped over break, but I still got farther into the story. I was sick on Sunday, and after realizing that they was nothing on TV, it was back to EL&IC. I made it to page 208 this week. The part of this section that struck me is when Oskar and his mother are at a psychiatrist. Oskar shares his feelings with the psychiatrist, who seems quite concerned with Oskar's intense feelings. While Oskar's feelings are intense, the part that really surprised me was his suggestion that Oskar should go to a hospital. His mother, of course, refused. Oskar, however, had a good point. After your dad dies in a horrible accident, wouldn't it be more worrying if you didn't have some strong emotions going on. While Oskar is a strange boy with strange feelings, I had always taken his feelings at face level. They change often, and even though they may seem frightening, they aren't strong feelings for Oskar. Oskar quickly goes from having 'heavy boots' to 'light boots' to 'very heavy boots'. I feel like the psychiatrist is overreacting to Oskar's emotions, but then again I may just not be taking Oskar completely serious, he is a bit of a strange character.

Q2: Blog3

This week I read up to page 182. I know, I'm making slow progress. I should have some good free time over Thanksgiving break to get a little more reading done, and if necessary winter break too. In this section, Oskar basically goes to visit more Blacks. One of the Blacks lives in Oskar's building. This man really struck me. He is an old man who lives alone, his wife had died over 10 years before. Through Oskar's conversation with him, it comes out that he used to be a journalist, covering every war that ever was. Through his journalism, he came to keep index cards for everyone he met. They included the name of the person and one word to describe them. Some examples were "Henry Kissinger: war!" and "Martha Stewart: money!" (157). Most people were either war or money, which I found intriguing. Mahatma Gandhi was listed as war. Although anti-war would perhaps be a better description, Mr. Black does bring up a good point. War and money are everywhere, they are so many peoples' life goals or careers. Personally, I would hate to be classified in either category. Oskar wonders what his dad would be described as, and can't think of an answer. I can't either, for myself that is. Honestly I have no idea. And I'm fine with that. I've never liked anything where you have to give adjectives that describe yourself. I feel like I'm me, and that's it. I don't want to have to describe myself, because then I feel the need to hold myself to the standards I described myself as. "Oh no, I said I was prompt, but now I'm late..." I don't like to fit under adjectives, although I'm sure everyone does fit under adjectives in one way or another. People are so much more complicated than a word, at least in my eyes. But Mr. Black seems to disagree, as he has everyone classified, even himself. Despite my reservations, I still feel myself wondering, how would I be described?

Q2: Blog2

I have to admit I'm not having the greatest time reading 'Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close'. It's alright, but there was a really tedious section with a bunch of letters from Oskar's grandparents written to him before he was born. This section gives us insight into Oskar's family, but it's slightly confusing and not very exciting. But that's over and done with. Oskar has performed in an abridged version of Hamlet at his school, and visited a few more 'Blacks'. There was one part in the section that I read that really struck me. When Oskar was performing in Hamlet, his grandmother came to every show. She made a fool of herself. She laughed at the wrong times and was very loud and obnoxious. On page 144, a boy in the play is imitating Oskar's grandmother, and doing a good job of it at that. While Oskar is laughing on the outside, he is embarrassed and angry on the inside. He says "I wished that she'd had an invisibility suit," (144). This was a part of the book that seemed a little more 'real' to me. Oskar is a strange boy, so a lot of this book strikes me as him acting as 'Oskar', not as a normal boy would act. However, this part of the story could, and does, happen to everyone. I've been to plays where I can hear someone I know from backstage. Nobody related to me, thankfully, but none the less I feel embarrassed. Not so much embarrassed for me, but for that person. However, I can totally imagine feeling embarrassed myself were it to be my family I could hear from backstage. And my parents have embarrassed me, of course. Just not exactly like how it happened to Oskar. I think I'm starting to like the book better, but the section with the letters was definitely a struggle.

Q2: Blog1

I promised myself that I would FINISH Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close, by Jonathan Safran Foer, and yet I haven't picked it up since my last blog post. But if I read it for outside reading, I'll have to finish it, right? Well, that's the theory. So I picked up the book, but had to reread all but the very beginning because I have a horrible memory and always forget what happens in what I read, even if I read it fairly recently. So to recap: Oskar's dad died in 9/11, he finds a key that belonged to his dad. The envelope that the key is in says 'Black' on it, so he is going to find every black in New York City and ask them about a possible connection to his dad. On page 91, Oskar is at the first of the Blacks' house, Abby Black. When she won't let him in, he tells her, "'I'm diabetic and I need sugar asap.' Lie #35." The whole book, but this passage in particular, reminds me of the summer reading book for 9th grade, The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-time. Oskar, like Christopher, must have a very structured mind if he counts the number of times that he lies. Also, he goes out of his comfort zone to solve a mystery about someone he really cared about. In Curious Incident, Christopher's neighbor's dog, a 'friend' of Christopher's, has been murdered. He crosses the street my himself, which scares him. He also talks to strangers, which he is scared of doing. It is worth it, however, because he wants to solve this crime. Oskar follows a similar path. He spends his entire weekends going to various 'Black' homes to try to solve this mystery relating to his father. The boys also follow similar paths in the lines that they won't cross, even for the sake of solving their mysteries. Christopher won't go to the 'drug dealer's' home, even though that could help him solve his mystery. Oskar won't take the subway, even though that could save him a lot of time, he wouldn't have to walk two to three hours to the various homes that he is going to anymore. Both boys also lie to their parent about where they are and what they are doing. I wonder if more similarities to the two stories will come up over the course of the book?

Blog #7? I'm losing count...

9:20 am. On a Tuesday morning. What a glorious time to write a blog post. I love late starts.

Now onto my reading. This week has been insanely busy, and I haven't had much time to read 'Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close'. But I will fill you in on what has happened in the few pages that I have made it through. Basically, there are a bunch or little stories and letters written to the main character, Oskar. The reader is able to infer from clues given who the letters are from. For example, in one letter the writer talks about wanting to be a sculpter. You know that Oskar's grandfather was a sculpter, so you know who wrote the letter. I find this an interesting, unique style of writing. One the one side, it really engages the reader because they have to think and figure out who wrote the letter and what is going on. But I don't like this technique. This is probably because of how I read. I like to read before I fall asleep, I've done that every night since I was in first or second grade. As of late, however, I've been so tired before I go to sleep that I either don't read at all, or I only read a page or so. With this style of writing that really makes you think, I generally put the book down before I even finish a page. Not because the book isn't good, but because I need to think. I need to figure who wrote the letter, remember what the connection is to Oskar, and understand what is happening. So I put the book down with the intention of picking it up when I'm less tired. I've gotten through maybe ten pages this week. I think I need a new strategy. I promised myself that I would finish this book, something I couldn't manage to do with 'Everything is Illuminated'. So, I will finish it. It just might take me a while...

Blog #6: Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close

I was in a little bookstore in New York City this weekend and found the book "Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close" on the shelf. This is a book that I've been meaning to read for ...ever. I tried to read "Everything is Illuminated" by the same author, but never got past the first chapter. So I wasn't sure that I really wanted to read "Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close," but there it sat on the shelf, a hardcover book for only $7.98. It was fate. I bought the book and started reading it on my flight home the next day. Despite dosing off multiple times, I got 120 pages into the book. I was enthralled. I've heard mixed reviews from those who have read this book, but I absolutely love it. The story takes place in New York City (where I got the book!), and the main character is a 10-year old boy whose dad died at the World Trade Center on 9/11. But there is more to the story, some phone messages from his father from right before he died as well as a mysterious key that the boy, Oskar, is trying to find a lock to open with. Oskar is a very unique and smart boy, and I find it fascinating to see the way he thinks. I'm honestly on the edge of my seat. I need to know what happens next, how this mystery is solved. Anyways, I should get back to reading to find out what happens next.

What Steger says...

I read an article on Sunday in the Star Tribune written by Will Steger, on page 4 of the opinion section. And if I do say so myself, it was a gem. I would even go so far as to say that it made my day. Steger brought up the issue of energy in his article, "It's a poor time to exploit oil shale." He makes the brilliant point that the only reason that using oil shale is even being considered is because of the high price of fuel. It takes a large about of oil to make oil out of oil shale. Because of high gas prices, using oil shale is becoming more economically feasible. Hopefully that makes sense, but if not I would highly recommend reading the article because it puts relatively complicated matters involving the environment and the e

Publish Post

conomy into simple and understandable terms. Steger's reasoning for not using oil shale, besides what I already stated about how it doesn't make sense economically, has to do with the protection of our environment. Science has proven that global warming is caused by fossil-fuels. Were we to use oil shale, it would be turned into oil in a power-plant that burns fossil-fuels. Then, when the oil is used, it too will destroy our ozone layer. We need to focus on our environment. I know that gas prices are high, but oil shale is not the answer, as Steger has proven. And neither is drilling in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge, but maybe I'll get to that issue later. For now, lets stick to oil shale. Steger has shown that it is not a good plan, and yet Norm Coleman's plan calls for the use of oil shale in oil production. Steger urges voters to oppose Coleman's plan, as this is our small window of time to be able to stop harming our environment, before global warming has progressed too far for us to do much. So while I may be biased, Will Steger is a role model of mine, I think that Steger brought up excellent points in his article, and I urge everyone to take the issue of oil shale seriously. And seriously, read the article. It's amazing.

Blog#4: Giving in

Obviously, I read another short story from the same David Sedaris book for this post. This story, titled "Solution to Saturday's Puzzle" (pages 124-134), is about Sedaris' unfortunate situation on an airplane. When he sneezed, his cough drop fell out of his mouth and landed on the lap of the woman sitting next to him. Awkward, right? But it gets worse. He had earlier had a fight with this woman. The woman next to him asked him to change seats so that she and her husband could sit next to each other. While this seems like a perfectly reasonable request, Sedaris declined. Why? Because the woman's husband was sitting in what Sedaris dubbed 'The Bulkhead", also known as the front row. Sedaris assured her that had it been her child wanting to change seats, he would have obliged. But not for a grown man. However, this explanation was not good enough. The woman was really mad. So that brings us back to this awkward situation. There isn't much of an ending to this story, only that the woman called him a name.
Yet this story brings to mind a common issue. Do you give in or stand your ground? There are the people who can't say no. Those who would switch seats on an airplane with someone who had the bad luck of ending up next to the man who reeked of alcohol and spent the 8-hour flight sobbing uncontrollably. And then there are the David Sedarises of the world, those who won't change seats with the man in the front row who simply wants to sit next to his wife, for a 45 minute flight. These people are debatably bring unreasonable. But if you paid for or requested the seat you are in, why would you want to change? This is where a balance must come. Be reasonable, think about yourself and others when making decisions, and don't be afraid to say no. And keep in mind, if you don't give the other person what they want,you will accidentally drop a cough drop onto their lap and be in an unfortunate predicament. That's karma.

Blog#3: Animals

For this post I read the story "April in Paris" in the same David Sedaris book (pages 204-217). This story talks about how much impact animals have on convincing people of things. Sedaris brought up the example of after Katrina. There were incessant news stories about the horrible disaster, with phone numbers to call to and donate flashing across the screen. But what if they had had a puppy on the TV? Would they have made more money? Honestly, I think they would have. One example that comes to mind is the charity 'Helping Paws'. I was recently at a benefit dinner for this organization because my aunt is involved with them. They were telling about all the large companies that had recently chosen them as their charitable initiative for the year. As much as aid dogs are a very good cause, I am sure that they were only chosen because they are animals. To get these donations, the company brings in one of these dogs to do a demonstration. The dog is very talented, and also adorable and loving. Also, it is frankly much more enjoyable spending the evening at a benefit dinner for cute animals with people telling about how these dogs changed their lives than to learn about the next horrible disease that is killing thousands and ripping families apart. Sedaris brings up the point of how much people connect to animals, which is very true. They have cute little faces and touch your heart. To me, this idea that animals impact people more than human suffering is very frightening. I love animals as much as anyone else, I'm a vegetarian who tries to avoid animal products whenever possible, yet I believe that humans should come before, or at least equal to, humans. But in the end the best advice comes from Sedaris when he recommends to include animals on advertisements for non animal-related charities.

Blog#2: Be Careful What you Wish for

For this post, I read another story from the same collection, “When you are Engulfed in Flames” by David Sedaris. The story that I read, called “What I Learned” (pages 71-81), was one of the few stories written by Sedaris that is fiction rather than nonfiction. This story was about a man who went through Princeton, telling his dad that he was going to major in patricide. Despite his father’s extreme excitement over this idea, he does not kill his father, at least in the literal sense of the word. He majors in literature, but remains unemployed for several years after graduation. He eventually writes books, telling true stories about his family. His parents are mortified. They claim that he is killing them, to which the son replies, “But I thought that’s what you wanted?”(80). His mother replies, “We did, but not this way” (81). Despite how unrealistic this story is, it conveys an important message: be careful what you wish for. Because this man’s parents had show such an interest in being killed by their son, he may have felt that he could do anything to them. After all, if they wanted him to kill them, they obviously wouldn’t care about a little embarrassment. Because of this, a book was published that made them the laughing stock of the neighborhood. We can learn for this fictional story about watching what we wish for, as well as making sure that other people understand what we want and what is okay for them to do in regards to things that affect us.

*My blog wasn't posting before, but I have it worked out now, so I just reposted my first post onto my blog*

Blog#1: Startled to death?

I read the first story of "When You are Engulfed in Flames" by David Sedaris. This includes pages 1-10. This section starts off talking about germs, then goes on to talk about a fact that was thrown out during a discussion: every 5,000 children are startled to death. I don't think that it is important whether or not this fact is true, it leads to interesting thoughts. Everyone wants to avoid anything that could hurt them in this world, which is why we wash our hands, eat healthy, and don't try dangerous stunts. So if being startled to death was on the list of things that could kill us, would people try to avoid things that would startle them? In the book, David Sedaris raises the example "All right, now, Caitlin Two, when we get home a great many people are going to jump out from behind the furniture and yell 'Happy Birthday!' I'm telling you now because I don't want you to get too worked up about it" (10). While this example is somewhat a joke, I do wonder what the result of such a fear could be. Would people truly try to avoid surprise? Surprise is something so uncontrollable. With the exception of an occasional practical joke meant to create a feeling of surprise, surprise generally just happen, with humans having no say in the matter. What could humans do to avoid surprise? They would need to always be fully prepared for everything. Teacher would not be able to give pop quizzes. Would people go so far as to install motion detectors in rooms so that they would know when somebody entered? What about video cameras? I highly doubt that this will ever become an issue, yet it is still interesting to ponder, especially in light of humans’ track record for trying to keep themselves safe.

Welcome!

Welcome to my blog!