Redemption for Yourself

"Well, Clarice, have the lambs stopped screaming?"

          Have you ever done something wrong? Or haven't DONE anything at all when you could have? And when another opportunity comes along similar to the last or something huge comes into your life, did you take it? Did you believe that if you righted this wrong, you make up for the last one you didn't do? Did you think you could ty to redeem youself? SPOILER ALERT! In my book, Silence of the Lambs, by Thomas Harris, Dr. Lecter presumes that Clarice is trying so hard to find "Buffalo Bill" so "the lambs" will finally stop crying. The lambs that Dr. Lecter is implying are the lambs from Clarices' childhood. The relatives she lived with for a short period, slaughtered lambs and horses. She ran away with a horse that was on "death row". She awoke that early morning because the lambs were screaming. They knew that they were being killed. She had heard the lambs through out the rest of her life. She wasn't able to save those lambs.

     Clarice did stop Buffalo Bill from killing a seventh girl. Clarice was never able to save those lambs and i think that that has haunted her a little through out her life. Dr. Lecter brought up the lambs i think because he realized that these girls Bill was killing were practically getting slaughtered. She pushed or all the details and answers from him because deep down, those girls were teh sceaming lambs. They were the helpless animals who had their life cut to short. I think that Clarice carried this around and wanted to save these girls not just for justice, but because they were like the lambs. She wanted to redeem herself. To prove she couldn't just walk away from these girls as she had done with the lambs. She wanted to prove to whoever that she did care, she felt their pain as their cries rang out. She understood. And after leaving the innocent lambs alone and dead, she couldn't do that agian. She couldn't just walk away from the case and let someone else handle it. Her pride and dignity was connected to this case on a personal and professional level.

   When i think of this sentence, i think about how ignorant people are blind to the need of others. But suddenly, when they need help, they can see perfectly. And they see that they ignored all the need from others, ignoring others entirely. But i don't think this sentence is menat that way here. Thomas Harris wrote that line for Dr. Lecter, who cared dearly about Clarice. To Clarice, the lambs were silenced. She felt as though she had redeemed herself. I think that if your always tying to make up what you missed, you'll miss out on opportunities that are waiting for you to turn around and stop looking back. But i still think that redeeming yourself-to your own standards-is good. A weight will lit off your shoulders. Don't let an opportunity go by for you to "save the lambs."

Baz Luhrman's Romeo and Juliet

After watching the movie, I had a lot to think about. What I found very interesting about the movie was the way Baz Luherman deicded when to play the music. Almost every scene has music. And I think every scene has different music to go along with the cahracters in that scene or the action/suspense during the scene. I think by having Baz Luherman specifically choose where the music plays in (a) or (the) scene(s) was a symbol for the audience to think deeper in that scene.

When I first noticed this, it was in the very beginning. The prologue actually. After the "newscaster" comes and says the prologue, when all the cahracters are being introdueced. The music is very loud and kind of up beaet. Like, the drums and the singing gets louder as the intro goes on. But when it gets to the end, like right before the "title page" William Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet, the music speeds up  and it comes to like one note and then it abruptly stops.  I think Baz Luherman did that for the prolouge/intro to show that all these characters have power and importance but when it stops at the end saying ...Romeo and Juliet, it's like saying but all these characters and the storyline are in the balance of these two characters, i.e. Romeo and Juliet.

Then i noticed when Tybalt and Mercutio has started to verbally fight on the beach, in the background, quietly you could hear the rhythm of upbeat music. Like, the music was started like the fight but when Romeo pulled up in teh car, the music that had now subdued from a soft rhythm to a just a louding beat stopped and when Tybalt called Romeo, it was just silence. Again I think Baz Luherman purposely stopped the music in that moment and purposely lead the music up higher and then silence to show that if the audience wasn't paying attention before, they should now because this part is important. Romeo didn't see Tybalt until his name was called. They are from two different sides of power who both cannot stand each other. (Romeo tried reaching out to Tybalt but Tybalt refused.)

And then at the very end of the movie, there was no music. In the death scene specifically. When Romeo first arrived at the church, there was. But all while he was talking, there wasn't. All you heard was his voice. And when he took some of the poison, a slow and low song played until he died. Then there was complete silence while Juliet sobbed and looked around for a way to kill herself. And there especially was no music when she picked up the gun and shot herself. The (2nd) climax of the scene held no music. I think Baz Luherman wanted the audience to really pay attention to what was happening in the scene and to clearly hear everything and not everything with music.

When i think about all the things Baz Luherman purposely did in this movie for a ceratin reason i think about the music. I think that whenever Baz Luherman thought a scene or part was very important for the audience NOT to miss, he played music and then stopped it. He wanted to grab the audiences attention and then deliver the climax in silence for meaning of importance to that specific part.

Stubborness-I hate it!

Have you ever been so stubborn with someone you care about? Like, you realllyyy want something from your parents and you beg and debate but you refuse to give up? Or trying to be independent and choose your own choices but someone is there trying to stop you or protect you and you get very stubborn? SPOILER ALERT! In my book Dead Before Dark the protagonist Lucinda Sloan is VERY stubborn. She has always been independent but now with Randy being back in her life-YAY!-and him being VERY protective, they constantly clash. Whenever Lucinda wants to go off on a excursion, Randy wants to come and protect. Lucinda fights that protective wing.  I think that being stubborn and also being protected go hand in hand, but if there's no line, no independence, they will constantly feud.

I think Lucinda has always been independent. She's never really had a serious relationship and the only "relationship" she's had that was kind of serious was an affair with Randy years ago. Now, his wife and him split so they are close together again. Point being, Lucinda has never been really dependenton anybody. Not even her good friend Neal. And being sooo independent can bring on stubborness. Lucinda isn't used to having someone care about her the way Randy does. He wants to be the superhero, protect his woman like Spiderman. But Lucinda isn't used to being "smothered." She needs her space. Yeah, chasing a serial killer who wants to in the end kill HER may not be the best choice and of course, anyone who deeply cares about her would do exactly what Randy is. But trying to protect her so much, he's kind of smothering her. I would definetly try to convince her and follow her, but you can only do soo much before the person gets very upset and does something reckless.

As people get older, they can comereckeckles hind.Os till that they are stil are young . Benig stubborn and old ot in Lucinda'ways of helping her out when Randy was trying to protect her. Lucinda has so independent she hasn't been protected like this before. But with her being so stubborn, it doesn't help the situation. What would you if you were Randy or Lucinda?

http://www.metmuseum.org/Collections/search-the-collections/140005439?high=on&rpp=50&pg=3&rndkey=20120124&ft=*&pos=101

I think this piece is talking about how the people in this world don't take initiative and help out some one without being asked. Like, they aren't the good samaritan and instead of going to help, TAKE INITIATIVE, they stand around and watch, waiting for someone else to do the work for them. I think this piece in one way shows someone protecting the villagers but in another sense, it shows this ONE person, who is willing to stand there and hold their arm up for who knows how long and protect these villagers and no one is doing anything.

If you look at teh picture closely you see that everyone is looking at the person, and looking up at this land/mountains the person is holding up. They've formed like this semi-circle around the person and are just watching. And some are even looking at each other or pointing up at the mountains but i see nobody who looks like they are going to help that one person. They are all watching and looking around, each waiting for something to happen or someone else to make the first move.

I think this relates to our world because a lot of people will jus walk by a homeless person for example and not put money or change in their jar or can or box. But when someone does, everyone looks at them like their weird. A lot of people in the world let other people do the work for them. They let other people risk their lives for someone else and watch when they can help! If no one helped anyone or anything, we would't be here right now. We would have destroyed the world already! But for the people who care enough to take initiative and help out complete strangers or someone they know is a big thing. Just like this person in the picture. Those mountains can fall at anytime. Most people would get out but the one person who definetly wouldn't get out is the one person holding it up. Risking their lives to HELP others.

All Star Mentor Anouk!!!

http://agranditsreadingblog.blogspot.com/

I nominate Anouk for the All Star Mentor. Every Wednesday when i comment, the first blog i go to is Anouks. I love how she takes such a simple sentence and goes deep into the meaning. Last Wednesday she did a post on the book You Have To Stop This. Cass was given a daily, " To get to the other side joke," and Anouk didn't just see it as a joke, she imagined people as the thing crossing the Nile, which in reality is life. When i read that, i realized Anouk really puts in effort to make sure her thoughts are well put and deep. Anouk always puts in effort and it makes me look at the simple things in my books and try deciphering them on a deeper note. She doesn't make up this obvious theory and drag it out. I love Anouk's posts because they are thought-provoking and logical, she didn't just write down the first thing that came to mind. I read Anouk's posts EVERY Wednesday because we don't always think the same way about something or have the same idea, so it's intruiging to see what Anouk thinks like or about in her books. I choose Anouk as my mentor because she makes it a point to go deep and deep and keeps thinking about the idea, it's not just whatever comes to mind first, bad or good. I choose Anouk because i feel i can learn from her posts.

FINAL HUNGER GAMES POST-Owing People

How many times to repay someone for a favor they did for you? When are you even? Will you contstnaly keep owing them because nothing is enough? In The Hunger Games, I realized that Suzanne Collins brought up favors or just owing people a lot. So i think, that is book definetly had to do with always owing someone something. Like, no matter what you do, you'll never stop owing the person or people. Katniss seems to have owed or still owes some of the characters through out the book.

I first noticed this whole owing thing in the begginning of the book. On page 42, its mentions about jistory class and always learning about the Capitol. It states, " Except for the weekly lecture on teh history of Panem. It's mostly a lot of blather about what we owe the Capitol." I thinkn Suzanne collins makes a good point. Tome, it really speaks out about how some people just don't let go of things, and no matter what you do to fix things or at least make them better, it doesn't work. No matter what you do, nothing will ever stop you from owing them.  Especially, Katniss brings up owing Peeta forever for that bread he gave her when she was starving when she was younger. On page 293, Katniss says to Peeta, "It"s like the bread. How I never seem to get over owing you for that." Katniss mentions this in the begginning of the book at the reaping when his name was called. And after all she has done for him during these last 50 pages or so, she still feels that she can never repay him. And Thresh, when he killed Clove and let Katniss go because she gave Rue the best final moments of her life. He said "You and me, we're even. No more owed. You understand?" He didn't want to have that dark cloud of owing something to her later on. Plus, if he died before he didn't repay her, that wouldn't be a calm and a peaceful final moments for him.

I think what this means to some people is pretty obvious. This book was about how people are constantly owing others. But, what if it doesn't just mean that? What if it has to do with giving and taking. You bend a little for someone, they bend back. You sacrifice for them, you sacrifice right back. It's an honor code. You are truly being honest if you give back , instead of always asking for something in return. If someone does something for you, don't hold them up to that for their whole life, don't make them your servant. If someone owes you something, let them do that one act of kindness and even the playing field. Let it go.

Kind-hearted Katniss (Catching Fire) !!!!! SPOILER ALERT!!!!!!

"Because obviously I can't tell a friend from an enemy." Page 270 Catching Fire

       In the second book of The Hunger Games Series, Katniss and Peeta are chosen to be tributes again in the Quarter Quell, (a mini Hunger game). Them two and 22 other victors from the past Games are chosen to participate. Obviously since Peeta protected her in the last games, Katniss has taken on the responsibility of protecting him. She hits a few rough patches, but he is alive and surviving by the end of the book, as well her too. But what is interesting is this whole knew curveball Suzanne Collins throws at the readers when they get to the end of book.

What also seems to be interesting is that the topic of enemies has been slowly climbed through out the two books. Choose the right allies, remember the enemy is you opponent, the capital, your fellow tribute from the district. With more tributes thrown into these games, Haymitch informed Peeta and Katniss to "Remember who the enemy was." I think Katniss keeps that in mind more than Peeta does. But it doesn't really get brought back up until the very end where Katniss is thinking about Haymitch and his directions. It's more like Katniss pictured the other tributes as the real enemy then what he truly meant. She didn't really catch on until she was in a very tough situation. When Haymitch says that, he means the Capital. The head of authority, the ruler of the districts, the gamemakers.

To me, the Capital has always been put as the enemy. They are contrllig, invasive and manipulative.  Yet they are the alllies to very few districts while the others are on the bad list. The enemy who seemed so obvious in the very beginning of this whole series got lost inside all the drama and pain inflicted upon Katniss, and Peeta. But yet Katniss assumes th etributes. She temporaly looses herself caught up in all this fighting with others.

This quote i took was after she discovered the biggest secret of all times. Of realizing why Haymitch truly said what he said. She discovered the truth and herself again.