If The World Ends, I am Screwed: A Reader Response to The Road by Evie Johnson

The Road was a short book that I knocked out in about a week. I chose this as my final book to read because of all the intriguing posts I read on this book. Unfortunately, I do not think I enjoyed it as much as others did. In the beginning, I was happy with the book. It was fast moving, lots of things were happening, and it was interesting to see what life would be like if the Earth had a world-ending disaster, etc. However, as I kept flipping the page, the book was just more and more depressing, but also just seemed a little repetitive. The Man and the Boy, the only two main characters, are trying their best to survive the desolate planet once known as Earth. I guess my biggest problem with the book is that Earth doesn’t “get better”. When I say this I mean during the book the reader never gets to see Earth start to go back to how it used to be, when people start to reproduce, and things go back to square one. I think this is the one thing that made me the maddest. I guess I don’t ever want to think about the fact that one day this world we know so well can end, and it might not ever be the same again. As I kept flipping pages, I was waiting to read a success story or a recovery story; I wanted to believe that Earth would always recover no matter how bad the disaster. The story just got me more depressed when I realized that Earth had been like that for more than just a couple months, it was more like a few years. The question that I want to pose is whether or not you are comfortable thinking about/ realizing that one day the earth could end/ change drastically by some huge natural disaster. I now know after reading this book that I do get uncomfortable thinking about fighting for survival on a desolate barbaric planet that would of used to be so different.

 

Salander Somehow Survives Playing With Fire: A Reader’s Response to The Girl Who Played With Fire

From Evie Johnson:

The second book in the series “The Girl With A Dragon Tattoo” is called The

Girl Who Played With Fire. This title seems to make sense due to crazy things the

main character, Lisbeth Salander, does throughout the book. Salander somehow

survives every situation she gets herself into or is put into, however, it seems she’s

always dangerously close to dying (playing with fire). What I want to discuss is the

end of the book, when Salander digs herself out of a grave she was buried in. Yes,

you heard that correctly.

In the end of the book, Salander has finally tracked down her evil father, Zala,

and finally wants to take revenge. However, she ends up getting shot in the head by

Zala, as well as in the shoulder and knee. When I read that she got shot in the head, I

immediately knew she was dead; there’s no way a person can survive getting shot in

the head! However, Salander does! The book goes on to tell you that Salander gains

consciousness in her grave, and digs herself out of the hole (probably at least 4 ft.

deep) with a cigarette case. Yes, she DUG, with a cigarette case! As I read, it got to

the point where I could no longer believe this book; the author was stretching this

ending a little too much. But, it got better. Salander somehow picks up an ax and has

enough power to sneak up on her father, Zala, and put the ax into his face (it’s too

much). Finally, she grabs a gun and tries to shoot her father’s helper, but misses. The

helper ends up running away because he thought she was a zombie. The novel ends

with Blomkvist, Salander’s ex-lover and partner, showing up as Salander is about to

pass out on the floor.

Well, as you have just read, the ending is very hard to wrap your head

around. What I want to ask is what do you think about the ending you just read. Do

you think that as a reader you would be able to read this book and take it seriously?

Or was the author adding way too much “over exaggeration” to the book. Also,

would you choose to read the 3rd book in the trilogy, or stop after this one? I have

chosen to stop, I can’t handle another “zombie rising from the dead”.

 

A Reader’s Response To The Perks of Being a Wallflower by Evie Johnson

Perks of Being a Wallflower was a book that I loved. It portrays the story of a

freshman boy in a series of letters whom the reader never knows are being sent to.

Throughout each letter, the reader learns more and more about this boy, and how

different he is from the every other regular highschooler. Each letter begins to prove

why the title of this book, “perks of being a wallflower” is a perfect title for this

story. So, in this blog post, I want to discuss what a wallflower is…

When I looked up “wallflower” on Google, this was the first definition I got: a

southern European plant of the cabbage family, with fragrant yellow, orange-red,

dark red, or brown flowers, cultivated for its early spring blooming. After I read that,

I knew this could not be right, so I found another definition, which states: a person

who has no one to dance with or who feels shy, awkward, or excluded at a party.

This was perfect. This definition epitomizes what this book is about.

Charlie, the strange boy, had a different “growing up” than most kids. His

Aunt Helen molested him, and his lower school best friend committed suicide in 5th

grade. The reader understands that because of this, Charlie has a hard time socially.

Charlie is repeatedly encouraged by his English teacher to “participate” and do

things that any other teenager would do during high school. Charlie tried, but never

ended up liking it. He liked watching people, he liked keeping to himself, and he

liked hanging out with friends who didn’t pressure him to participate more. So then

I thought why would it be beneficial to be a “wallflower”? Well, it was Charlie’s

oddness that led him to meet some of his best friends, Patrick and Sam.

The three of them grew a strong bond, even though Charlie was a freshman

and Patrick and Sam were sibling seniors. They took Charlie under their wing, and

gave Charlie a memorable freshman year, which would not of happened if Charlie

was not an outsider; it was a perk of Charlie being a wallflower. My question for you

is whether or not you agree that there are perks to being an outsider, and if you

would rather be an outsider than an “insider” in high school and why.

 

Women: Selfish, or Selfless?

During acts four and five of the play, Hamlet, one thing stood out to me: the final actions of the two women of the book, the Queen Gertrude and Ophelia. Both “seemed” to commit suicide during these two acts, and in a very suspicious way. In Act four, the reader finds out that Ophelia has drowned, and it is quite obvious that Ophelia put herself into a dangerous position. Swimming in heavy dresses and clothing can lead to only one thing, death. At first, my reaction to this was pity. I felt as if Ophelia made a decision that I’m guessing anyone else would do if they were put in those circumstances. Then, while reading the final scene of Hamlet in Act five, the Queen decides to take drink the drink that the King had made for Hamlet, which was poisoned. She then dies.

Based off of these two incidents, I believe that the women in this book were weak and oblivious. First, let’s look at Ophelia. She drowned herself after Hamlet told everyone she had slept with him, and Hamlet had killed her father. She was in deep grief, and also became mad. However, Hamlet is also in a similar situation. He felt just as much grief, and even sooner than Ophelia did. As the reader knows, Hamlet’s uncle murdered his father, and his mother then married the uncle. Hamlet is driven mad with this, and does not know whether to seek revenge, or commit suicide. Hamlet, though, never kills himself. Hamlet, even though he did turn insane, showed a sense of courage by not killing himself; he tried to push through the hard times, and attempted to deal with the madness. Ophelia on the other hand looses it, all within the time span of a couple days, and then kills herself. This infers that she was a lot weaker than Hamlet, and could not cope with the grief, as Hamlet did. Then, the second woman in the play, the Queen, dies. In the movie, it seems as if she takes the cup from the king, brings it to Hamlet, then tells Hamlet she will drink it. Even after the King warns her not to drink it, she still goes through with it. What? If your husband were warning you not to do something, wouldn’t you have believed him? From this, I infer that she willingly knew that what she was about to drink was poisoned, or she at least had to know something bad was to come. From this, I also believe the Queen displayed a sign of weakness, as if the stress of Hamlet grieving was enough for her. It is obvious Gertrude had many alternatives: she could of thrown away the drink, made someone else drink it, or just hide the cup. So, once again, I believe obliviousness and weakness was shown through the two female character actions in this play.

My question for you is what do you think about these two women in the play based on their actions in scene four and five. Do you believe the actions of the two women were cowardly, or rather an act of courage? Did the Queen save Hamlets life, or did she want kill herself and be out of misery? The final acts of the play create these female characters to either be more courageous, or weaker, it is up to the reader.