Annotated Bibliography

This semester, I took a Young Adult Literature class. I found it very interesting because I've always kind of had a sort of negative outlook on young adult literature (I think Twilight corrupted me). I've emerged with a whole new outlook on the genre. 

Anyways, I don't have a final test for the class, just a bunch of projects and essays. One thing I had to do was put together an annotated bibliography of some books I read outside of our assigned reading. This is my incomplete list, we were supposed to read eleven novels outside our assigned reading (we read about one book per week, so you must understand that this was quite a feat to take on). 

An annotated bibliography is simply a list of books with some notes about said books. Kind of like a quick review; recommending it to certain age groups, talking about the writing, warning of anything people might find offensive or upsetting, etc. 

I thought people might find it interesting to see what I read and what I had to say. (Also, like I said, this is an incomplete list. I still have three more books to go).

Adams, Douglas. Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. New York: Del Rey Ltd, 2005.

Right before the earth is destroyed, a middle-aged man is saved by his neighbor who is actually an alien who has been studying humans and earth-life for years. The two of them travel throughout the galaxy whilst meeting a plethora of interesting characters and trying to answer all sorts of life’s questions.

This is a very quirky and funny book. The writing is very ironic and almost sarcastic, giving it a very dry sense of humor. It is a rather simple read and could be recommended to middle schoolers. The fact that it is mainly an adventure story might lend itself more towards boys, however girls might just as easily enjoy it because of the comedy.

Aidan, Pamela. An Assembly Such as This. New York: Simon and Schuster, 2003.

This is a behind the scenes look at Mr. Darcy’s point of view on Pride and Prejudice. One of three novels; it gives his inner thoughts and feelings of many famous scenes as well as fill in some gaps to missing scenes.

The writing is a little more advanced than most of the other books I read for this assignment, not Jane Austen-advanced, but I would not recommend it to middle schoolers. It follows Jane Austen’s book well and is on the same level of appropriateness. The same themes are applicable. This book might appeal to high school girls who have read Pride and Prejudice or who enjoy romance novels.

Burpo, Todd. Heaven is for Real. Tennessee: Thomas Nelson, 2010.

A true story of a pastor’s three-year-old son who nearly dies during a surgery, but miraculously survives. For months after the event, the son describes his near-death experience where met Jesus, his miscarried sister, and other extraordinary experiences.

The writing is very casual, but not overly simplistic. It addresses religious themes, but it tells it more as an experience rather than an attempt to convert the world. It is simply telling an extraordinary story which can be taken as truth or fiction. It has one or two more intense scenes where it describes the little boy’s surgery, but beyond that, it is a very safe book. It could appeal to either boys or girls, though the fancifulness of it might appeal slightly more to girls. Middle school and high school recommended.

Flinn, Alex. Beastly. New York: HarperTeen, 2009.

A modern take on the classic fairytale, Beauty and the Beast. A selfish, pompous jerk in high school plays a mean practical joke on a social outcast in his school, but she turns out to be a witch and she curses him to be as ugly on the outside as he is on the inside. He has two years to fall in love and be loved in return in order to break the curse or else be stuck as a beast forever.

The writing is fairly simple in this novel. The romance is fairly traditional for a high school point of view. There are some heavier themes addressed such as drug use, disabilities, abuse, etc. This might be recommended to high school girls for the romance.

Hale, Shannon. Austenland. New York: Bloomsbury, 2007.

This is the story of a young woman who is reaching her thirties and hasn’t found love because she is obsessed with the idea of Jane Austen’s heroes, particularly Mr. Darcy. An old relative dies and pays for her to go to England to an Austen-themed resort where she will role play as an Austen heroine and get her happily ever after.

The writing is pretty simple, almost coarse. It is comedic and romantic in theme with lots of description on the kissing scenes in particular. A good theme to discuss might be “letting go and moving on” or even “distinguishing fantasy from reality.” This is something probably more recommended to middle-aged women rather than young adults, however, teenage girls with an interest in Jane Austen will get a kick out of it.

Johnson, Maureen. The Name of the Star. New York: Penguin Group, 2011.

 A teenage girl attends a boarding school in London just as a copycat murderer of Jack the Ripper strikes. 

A very interesting story. It had more supernatural elements than I expected. The writing is easy to follow and understand, though it sometimes got a bit dry, especially when describing the school. It was a still a pretty entertaining read. It has some dark elements in it, such as descriptions of graphic murders that might disturb younger people. I would recommend it to high school girls. 

Oppel, Kenneth. This Dark Endeavor. New York: Simon and Schuster, 2011.

This book follows the early life of Dr. Victor Frankenstein from Mary Shelly’s Frankenstein as he tries to save his twin brother from certain death. It combines science, science-fiction, mystery, and suspense into one narrative. 

The writing is easy to follow-- fifth and sixth graders could handle it-- but the narrative itself might be recommended to upper middle school to high school. The plot is always moving and non-repetitive with enough surprises to keep things interesting. There’s no vastly inappropriate language or over-the-top violence. Boys might be more interested because of the dark themes and action, however anyone interested in Frankenstein can enjoy it. 

Rowling, J. K. Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone. New York: Scholastic Corporation, 1998.

A fantasy book about a young orphan who discovers he is a wizard. He goes to a school for witches and wizards where he makes new friends, learns more about his parents’ death, and the mysteries surrounding the school. 

A well thought-out and engaging story. It is easy to understand and follow, elementary school kids could read this. There is no sexual content, excessive violence, foul language (save some British vernacular), or inappropriate behavior. There are good themes for discussion such as good vs. evil, the loss of parents, bullying, fame, wealth vs. poverty, abuse, and so on. This book would be an excellent read for either middle school boys and girls who enjoy fantasy.

Spider-Man: Homecoming- A REVIEW (SPOILER FREE)

Guess who went and saw Spider-Man: Homecoming? This girl! Yes, finally! For those of you who don’t know, Spider-Man is my favorite superhero, so I was super stoked to see this movie; and after seeing Tom Holland’s portrayal of him in Captain America: Civil War, I was already sold. 

Let’s dive right into it, shall we? 

I LOVED it! It met all of my expectations (which were quite high) and gave me the Spider-Man movie I had been waiting for. Was it perfect? No. But it was extremely good. I have had some grievances with the past two interpretations of Spider-Man on the big screen (whether it be the character himself, the plot, the villains, minor characters, etc.). But this version, I feel, got the most right out of all of them.

I’ll start with the plot: brilliant! It took a new POV on the Spider-Man story that we haven’t really explored that much. It’s not an origin story and it picks up several months after Peter got these powers as he tries to deal with his two lives. However, the film does it SO well and in a different, non-cliched way. It’s interesting because it’s not Spider-Man getting in the way of Peter Parker’s life (so much), it’s more of Peter Parker getting in the way of Spider-Man’s life. Because why would you want to be some loser in high school when you can be Spider-Man? The plot really focuses on the difficulties of being a teenager (with the added pressures of being a superhero). I remember the director saying something about being a teenager that “a Spanish test is just as stressful as talking to a girl which is just as stressful as taking down a supervillain.” That entire essence is totally captured in this film.

The entire plot had me sucked in though, whether it was Peter’s struggle with his high school life or his superhero life. All the stuff with the villains was great.

Speaking of villains, can I just talk about Michael Keaton as the Vulture? *slow claps* He was great! (But I mean, hey, it’s Michael Keaton). I loved his costume design; it was awesome, yet practical. I loved the fur on his jacket (like a homage to the original design of the Vulture). He was really intimidating when he had to be. Like, wow! I won’t go into spoilers, but there’s this one scene where he’s talking to Peter just so calmly about what he’s going to do and the tension is so high, and ooh, you just get the chills. 

And on the topic of great acting... Tom Holland as Peter Parker/Spider-Man. He was so fantastic in Civil War and it just carried over into this movie. He held up this movie all on his own! His Peter Parker is just a funny, awkward, charming, sweet teenager trying to figure himself out. He was a very good balance between Tobey Maguire and Andrew Garfield. He’s not a complete geek who becomes a total boss like Tobey Maguire nor is he a snarky goofball like Andrew Garfield. His overzealousness, excitement, and slight immaturity makes him a bit awkward and unconventional as a superhero. He is very funny as Spider-Man, but he doesn’t intentionally say goofy and sarcastic things like Garfield, he just kind of says them.

There’s also a good deal of focus on how smart he is. I liked that. I’ll be interested to see how that plays into future movies when he interacts with other Avengers (like Banner and Stark who are also smart). 

Sort of unrelated, but I really liked how much wall crawling there was in this movie. In all previous movies, most of the action focuses on Spider-Man swinging on his webs and he barely crawls on walls at all. It always bothered me a little because 1) Spiders are known more for crawling on walls, 2) Just because it’s more impressive/showy to always have Spider-Man swinging around doesn’t mean you need to, wall crawling is just as iconic when it comes to Spider-Man.

Tom Holland portrays it all perfectly. His goofy side and the dramatic side are on point! 

All the lesser characters are awesome! They just all fit in their environment. Tony Stark’s presence was perfect and it worked much better than I expected. He fit right into the mentor role. That’s all I really have to say about that.

As for the comedy, there is a lot and it’s all great. I’m pretty sure I laughed at all the jokes. This is a very lighthearted and quirky film.

There are some dramatic moments though. There is one scene in particular near the end that really hit me in the gut because it was so emotional. Going back to Tom Holland’s performance, he was so freakin’ amazing in that scene. He just blew me away (until the special effects team kind of ruined it right at the end... but I looked past it).

Onto my criticisms, speaking of that:

The special effects were overall good. The line between CGI and practical effects were pretty seamless. However, some of their effects (even the practical ones) were pretty lame. That one scene I mentioned earlier (that I won’t go into detail about) in particular stood out. It was just SO fake! It really bothered me because it’s a big moment in the movie.

The action was a little shaky at parts and sometimes difficult to follow. The one stand out scene was when Spider-Man first faced off against the Vulture. I was pretty lost and  it kind of hurt my eyes. I think maybe it could have been edited better? I’m not sure how it could have been improved. It wasn’t terrible, just not top notch. 

My biggest criticism though has to do with Spider-Man himself: he was WAY to indestructible. I mean, I know he’s supposed to be pretty indestructible (like he’s got his extra strength and you can throw him through a brick wall and he’s fine and whatever), but in this film, he had some crazy stuff happen to him and he always walked away without a scratch. Literally! Not even a scratch! No black eye or nothing! (Except for one point at the end, he had a cut on his cheek... but that’s it!) You could probably drop an entire building on him and he’d be fine. It was pretty bothersome. He definitely should have had some broken bones or something (even on Spider-Man level tolerance) after all the stuff that happened to him, much less a bloody nose or split lip or something. Even his costume was always perfectly in tact. I know it was Stark Tech so I guess I can let that one slide because who knows what Tony did to that suit, but even when Peter wore his crappy old one, it didn’t tear or burn or anything. 

The writers had better beware because this kind of thing is entering Superman territory. Lots of people don’t like Superman because he’s too indestructible. Peter’s only weakness with his powers (in appears) is that sometimes he has to refill his web cartridges. But that happens rarely.

Anyways, it was an overall really good movie. I found myself actually gasping with surprise, joy, and excitement at numerous parts. I was literally on the edge of my seat at others. Then I was laughing through the rest. I think it deserves an 8.5/10.

TRAILER

Flirting and Relationships- Laying Out Your Coals

Ah, Mormon culture... Don't you just hate it sometimes? Particularly when you're a young adult with so much pressure on you already with trying to figure out what the heck you're trying to do with your life, then there's this added pressure of "you need to get married as soon as possible, preferably before your late 20's." It's a little stressful, because everyone is in that mindset and if you're not in that mindset, you're surrounded by others who are and you're just like "NO! STOP!!!"

I mean, literally, I meet a new guy and I can actually see it in their eyes, they gage me out: "Is this girl dating material?" That is their first question! Not "huh, she's cool, I would like to get to know her." No, it's "she's kinda cute. I MUST ASK HER OUT!!!" It's like a reflex.

For me, personally, there is nothing more stressful than a formal date if I don't already have some background on the person. I know that a date is a way of getting to know someone, but I am just so on edge and super nervous through the whole thing. And you know what I do when I'm nervous? Talk. I talk a lot. I'm pretty sure I've ended up sharing too much on more than one occasion.
My point here is that I think guys should lay at least a little bit of ground work before asking a girl out. Get to know her outside of such a formal, stressful situation. Don't be all dumb and aloof though (because that's the worst kind of flirting), just be nice and friendly. Figure out her interests, ask things you might ask on a first date, so that way when you actually go on a first date, it won't feel as awkward and tense. If you're a guy, you can figure out what she likes to do and take her for a date there (and not end up taking her somewhere she hates by mistake). Yes, I know, people are worried that someone else might ask them out first, but here's the thing, friendship is the foundation of a really good relationship. If you become really close to someone and he/she takes you for granted (aka the "friendzone"... I will cover that in a moment), they may not be worth your time after all.

Now, as for flirting... I despise the entire thing, mostly because I suck at it. A guy flirting typically consists of him showing off, asserting his manliness, and just being overall testosterone-y. A girl, in response, (not to be offensive), typically acts a little dumber and more helpless in an effort to allow the guy to come "help" them and show off their skills and manliness. Don't get me wrong, this is just the flirting part. Flirting is how people meet and start talking to each other before they start dating. Usually, after they start dating, they stop acting so ridiculous and resume normal behavior. Flirting is just an effort to impress and get the attention of someone you're attracted to. AND I HATE IT!!! As I said, girls usually act dumber and allow the guys to "help" them with things. They are impressed by the guys showing off for them (their muscles, their manliness, etc). I am not. Anytime a guy starts showing off for me, I am immediately unimpressed and/or I just don't care. I am a little competitive too, so if a guy starts either physically or mentally showing off, I will respond by doing the same thing and will either try to one-up or even the playing field... This is usually a turn off for guys because they want to be the big strong ones. But I just can't help it! Also, if I ever find someone I think is attractive, I simply cannot make myself all giggly and silly. I have this mental tick where I don't want to look stupid especially if it might not be worth it. Thus, I usually end up doing nothing and the guy has no idea. Even when I'm on a date and I'm not immediately repelled by the guy, I cannot do anything to act interested because I feel like it makes me look stupid. Then the guy thinks I'm not interested and moves on. FLIRTING IS DUMB!!!

Now, the "friendzone." I hear people complaining about this all the time. I recently watched a video that explained that the "friendzone" doesn't exist. It is a state of mind. Not their state of mind, OUR state of mind. We just need to be brave enough to break out of the "zone" and do something about our situation. 1) Act mysterious 2) Go out with other people 3) Cut the perpetrator out of your life (because you don't need that presence holding you back)... If they like you enough, they will come knocking on your door, suddenly seeing you in a new light. If they don't, they're not worth it. I've never tried this myself, but my point is, if you have tried laying some ground work with a person, but then found yourself in the "friendzone," just realize that it's all in your head. You need to step up and do something about it.
I should mention though, if you do something about it and you are rejected, that is okay. Just because you went through all that work to become their friend does not give you the right to date this person. If you are only in the friendship to get the date, you are a shallow human being. I had a guy act super friendly towards me for weeks (it was so obvious what he was trying to do). I was just waiting for him to make his move (but kind of dreading it because I didn't want to date a coworker). He finally (sort of) asked me out and I went, but then I rejected any further advances because, like I said, I didn't want to date a coworker. Ever since then, he's barely talked to me. He's been nice, but definitely not as friendly as he was. DO NOT DO THIS!!! Remember, it is okay to be just friends. Getting to know people is a good thing. It's only if you are stuck on one person and it is preventing you from meeting other people should you try to move on.

A recent revelation of mine is that you don't need to be immediately attracted to someone to go on a date with them, or to even consistently date them. People think they need to feel the sparks and have their tummies flip flop when they meet someone in order to pursue it. THIS IS NOT SO!!!
Attraction often comes later! Yes, a lot of the times it comes right away, but like 70-80% of the immediate attraction is physical (that's a random number I picked, I actually have no idea. But the concept is true). Remember earlier, I was talking about groundwork? This is why. Like I said, the best relationships are founded on friendship. If you have a genuine mental connection with someone, PURSUE IT!!! If you have lots of similar interests, goals, likes/dislikes, etc... don't drop them just because you don't feel those sparks, keep them because you're laying out coals for your eventual fire. A relationship is something you work at. I've heard of people who dated for over a month before they were genuinely attracted to each other (then they ended up getting married). Again, in Mormon culture, the pressure to get married is intense and they think they need to feel attracted right away so that they can get married quickly. We don't all have to be like that. It is possible to take our time. Also, sometimes we date people who obviously like us much more than we like them. Well, what's wrong with that? If you have that mental connection, PURSUE IT!!! The attraction might come later. Lay out your coals and blow on them a little. If after a while, you still feel nothing, yeah, you'll have to break up. I know that's a hard thing, but that's just how life is. But come on, chances are if you really connected with this person, you'll grow to like them more and more until eventually it turns into attraction. You just have to allow yourself to think that way. (This is a recent discovery of mine, as I said. I only recently went on my very first second date.)

So boys, you can keep asking out all kinds of girls and then reject them because it just wasn't right; and girls, you can keep going out with every guy you meet and then reject them for the same reason, but you may have been throwing out perfectly good burning coals just because you didn't see a spark.

We're all just fumbling around trying to find out way in the world. We all seek companionship whether it be an actual relationship or just friendship. A relationship is simply a more intense form of friendship. I don't see why people frown upon relationships. Yes, our lives should not center around "finding a man," like it's literally our only purpose, but it's certainly not a bad thing. Lay out your coals, find your best friend if you can.