final blog post.

i think that this was a satisfactory ending, especially for this type of book. I as a reader tend to want some sort of closure between Christopher and his parents, so i think this was a good way to do it. it is also not the super cheesy "everything's alright, kids!" ending where the divorced parents get back together, the kid loves them both and feels finally complete, and everyone lives way too happily ever after. Oh, and they throw in a new puppy sometimes for extra emphasis on the new life full of laughter and smiles. A la The Parent Trap... minus the puppy. But no, this book kept the parents separate but worked out a situation where Christopher got what he wanted, which was to live with him mom because he was afraid of his dad, and also threw in a puppy for good measure. This way, as a reader I felt the closure, like "things aren't perfect but it all works out" and I wasn't left feeling unsatisfied with a head full of questions or anything. I like this kind of book because confusing books are not appealing to me. What's the point of reading a book if it leaves me unsatisfied, mildly angry, and feeling like I just wasted many hours of my life I'll never get back? Books for me have to have a good story to tell, like a purpose for being written other than just to annoy the reader into oblivion and "make us think." Anyway, I also thought that this ending went well with the general storyline - the end isn't picture-perfect, and the lives of the characters isn't either, considering Christopher's problems and all. The characters know their lives will never be easy or normal, and it seemed like the author tried to make the ending tie into this notion. Why make the ending seem like the icing on top of a cake of perfection if that would never really be the case? No, Haddon creates a less-than-perfect ending with the right amount of closure for his readers with reading satisfaction problems while keeping in sync with the style and flow of the story... good, good, and good.

post four.

I finished my book a long time ago, so do I still have to do these??
Actually its in my locker so i will commence this post tomorrow.

post 3 - the letters

"Then i stopped reading the letter because i felt sick.
mother had not had a heart attack. mother had not died. mother had been alive all the time. and father had lied about this."

i chose this passage because it is a huge climax in christopher's ongoing investigation of who may have killed his neighbor's dog, wellington. no, it doesn't tell him who killed the dog, but it is just one of the many new and somewhat disturbing things he discovers. the book is full of surprises. i think that christopher's investigation is somewhat of an epic convention to help the reader along to get to discoveries such as these. finding out that his mother is in fact not dead, but rather living in london with the ex-husband of the woman who's dog was killed, is much more important to him than who killed the dog. in order to make the story flow and get to these discoveries that christopher has to make sooner or later, i think the author created the plot of the dead dog. i am still wondering who might have killed the dog......was it his dad maybe??

the curiously second post

[for the record, mrs. alexander is his neighbor, wellington is the dead dog, and mr. shears is the husband of mrs. shears, who's dog is wellington. christopher is trying to find out who killed mrs. shears' dog against the orders of his father, who told him not to pry into the business of others.]

"Then I thought that this was a super good day and something special hadn't happened yet, so it was possible that talking to Mrs. Alexander was the special thing that was going to happen. And I thought that she might tell me something about Wellington or about Mr. Shears without me asking her, so that wouldn't be breaking my promise (Haddon 55)."

I thought that this passage was a good example of characterization of Christopher. It shows a little bit of how his mind works. He thinks that seeing 4 red cars in a row mean the day will be super good, and 4 yellow cars in a row mean the day will be super bad (he hates yellow). He shapes the events of his day on these quirks of his. This passage also shows his nature to tell the truth and abide by promises he makes to anyone. His nature is also to be very sneaky and thoughtful, as seen in the passage as he tries to think of ways to investigate Wellington's death without actually doing so.

New book - the curious incident of the dog in the night-time

"I find people confusing.

This is for two main reasons.

The first main reason is that people do a lot of talking without using any words. Siobhan says that if you raise one eyebrow it can mean lots of different things. It can mean "I want to do sex with you" and it can also mean "I think what you just said was very stupid."

Siobhan also says that if you close your mouth and breathe out loudly through your nose, it can mean that you are relaxed, or that you are bored, or that you are angry, and it all depends on how much air comes out of your nose and how fast and what shape your mouth is when you do it and how you are sitting and what you said just before and hundreds of other things which are too complicated to work out in a few seconds." 

This passage develops characterization of the main character and narrator, Christopher John Francis Boone. Throughout the book, the style of writing is as though the novel is being narrated by the autistic mind of Christopher. This passage was a good example of how his mind works as he talks about his trouble he has when trying to understand what other people mean. He is a very smart person but has a lot of difficulty interacting with people. His friend Siobhan tries to help him learn how to deal with people but as seen in this passage, Christopher remembers everything she tells him but does not know how to apply it to real life. I think his confusion about interactions with other people is going to shape the story.

questions:

do the police know he is autistic?

is he going to find out who killed the dog?

what kind of school does he go to?

who is siobhan?

what kind of autism does he have?

the finale

Comment on the perspective from which the book is told and how the author's choice affects your relationship with the book's content.

Chuck Palaniuk writes with a style unlike any other I've ever read. This book is detailed, disturbing, and is narrated with comments that no one would ever make, but as I read them, I realize that he is completely right. Palahniuk thinks about things that no one else thinks about, and he inserts these thoughts into his writing. In a way, he voices the things that are left unspoken or buried in someone's mind because they don't want to accept the truth, as illustrated on page 100: ""Any call for world peace," Mr. Whittier would say, "is a lie. A pretty, pretty lie." Just another excuse to fight. No, we love war. War. Starvation. Plague. They fast-track us to enlightenment." His comments are painfully true and leave the reader thinking along the lines of: "Wait.. that makes sense..." It's a whole new reading experience.
Palahniuk also doesn't write from the view point of a certain character in the book, but rather an invisible one that is still living the story, just not interacting with the characters. He says, "We all had our eyes on Miss America," or, "We all leaned forward to hear him better." He uses first person, but in a different way. He never says "I" during Haunted, except when someone is telling a story, because then he writes it from their mouth and not his own. This made me feel as though Palahniuk really had insight as to what was actually going on inside the writer's retreat. I was able to understand the thoughts racing through the heads of those endangered and the diminishing sanity of the people within, all because this story wasn't told in complete third person. Most books, if told from the third person point of view, do not give the reader a peek into the minds of its characters. By including himself in the perilous plot of starvation and death without actually being physically there in the story, Palahniuk could tell the reader just what it felt like from two view points. In first person, he tells what really happened. The reader knows everything: the thoughts of the characters, the glances they share, the unspoken agreements and the feel of tragedy within the walls of the old building. In the third person comments he makes, he narrates what some of the other characters are doing that the others know nothing about. This is helpful because as the reader, I feel the emotions of the trapped people, but also get insight to what they don't know, such as how they are all working against each other to worsen their conditions without realizing it.
Writing in this way is truely a feat to have accomplished, so I have to praise Chuck Palahniuk for pulling it off nearly flawlessly. He is a remarkable author and I don't think I have never been so perplexed yet felt so knowledgeable while reading a book. Only he could make 73 total people faint while reading aloud from his book at various book signings across the country. Yes, that's how detailed, disturbing, and ultimately intriguing this book's writing is.

hiding

"Sitting in a yellow leather wing chair, the Missing Link turns to the Countess Foresight in the next chair and says, "So? Who did you kill to get here?"
Everyone pretends not to know what he means.
Each of us trying to be the camera, not the subject.
"Doesn't it seem like we're all hiding out from something?" the Missing Link says. With his long nose, his awning of a single dense eyebrow, his beard, he says, "Why else would people walk through that door with Whittier - a man they don't really know (Palahniuk 288-289)?""

This passage is important to the development of theme and characterization. Like i have said previously, the theme i see is that 'seemingly normal people sometimes hide dark and disturbing secrets.' The Missing Link now reveals to the reader that he thinks they are all there because each person is hiding from something, whether it be a murder, an attack, or some other legal issue. This relates to almost all of the stories being told because they each tell of a significant point in the person's life, and also usually tell why they are hiding. I think now that the 'hostages' realize that they are all hiding from something in the outside world, their stories may intertwine, or something big will happen... like all of them will get busted or something.

i wanna know,
how will they get out in the end if mr. whittier is dead, and took with him to the grave the knowledge of where the key is hidden?
will they ever get out??
how is it possible that no one will find them in this theater?
what's with this ghost business? is there really a ghost, or whats up?
will the stories of the characters ever intertwine with each other? (a la 'Crash')