alive- a welcome home chillier then the Andes- REVISED

http://claratheawesome.blogspot.com/2011/03/alive-welcome-home-chillier-then-andes.html
alive- a welcome home chillier then the andes

I've finished reading 'Alive" (for the plot see my last blog post here ) and have sufficiently lost my faith in the morality of mankind. Even though the 17 surviving men were rescued, it took way too long for them all to get back home. When the two sent on an 'expidition' finally stumbled across a tiny house, they had to wait days to convince people that they really were the survivors, and that this was not a hoax or a misunderstanding (there had been several before). I expected the escape and recovery to be quick, but it was just as drawn-out and painful as the rest of the book.  

But the worst thing, it seemed, was the media. Of course everyone had wanted to know how they'd survived for so long. The survivors were all in questionable and unstable mental states, and mostly didn't want to talk and be judged. But the secret could not be kept quiet for long, so the men decided to tell the press what they'd done, and hope that they'd understand.

I'd love to say that the press was understanding and kind. I'd love to say that no one minded them too muck, and that they were hailed as heroes. I'd love to say that they went off and led normal, happy lives. But the press reacted exactly the way that I'd dreaded they would. They hounded the survivors, spreading stories of wild canabalism and attacks. Of men preying on the weaker men.

To the already fragile men, public hatred was torture. But in a way, it was just the tabloids destroying yet another persons story. It happens every day.  Why should these people be any different?

somehow, I feel like thay should be. but why? Maybe it's because they've been through... a life or death experience. but does that make them better then your average tabloid-hounded pop star?

the end of dracula- luck

So after long last, I've finished reading Dracula. (You can see my other post on Dracula here)

It had a worthy, if slightly predictable ending, which i won't spoil because you really should read the book. But then again, how can the ending not be predictable? It's Dracula,  for gods sake. That's like saying the bible is predictable! (no offence, i just mean that the fame of the story is similar)

Which leads me to think, how did this story get so famous? Bram Stoker was a cheap, not-very-popular writer. Yes, Dracula was a big sucess, but do you expect Twilight to be around in over 100 years? Maybe.But maybe not. (This made me think about an earlier post where I thought about the staying power of jokes and books.) 

 While reading the notes and things in the back I came across an interesting fact. It seems that one of the reasons that the story of Dracula has stayed with us for so long is because Stokers widow sold the movie rights to Dracula right at the turn of the century. So the classic is retold again and again in adaptations and spin-offs.

Which made me think: is this the only reason why it was remembered? Was it really for the story, or for the fact that I've heard it referenced all my life in everything from Scooby Doo to True Blood? What if there are hundreds of other books, just as good, all forgotten in time because no one could ever make a film about it?

I used to be generally against the movie-from-books genre, but now I'm not so sure. It helped save Dracula, didn't it? Or did it? I personally think that it did. So maybe all this 'test of time' stuff is complete rubbish. Maybe all that matters is what you sold just at the right time.

And luck. Definitely luck.

P.S. sorry that this isn't technically about the book, but the subject seemed really interesting to me. Tell me if this isn't ok. :(

alive- a welcome home chillier then the andes

I've finished reading alive (for the plot see my last blog post here ) and have sufficiently lost my faith in the morality of mankind. even though the 17 surviving men were rescued, it took way too long for them all to get back home. they all had mild to severe mental damage from the ordeal they'd been through, not to mention they were all starving and some injured.
but the worst thing, it seemed, was the media. rumors about what happened on the mountain circulated mercilessly, and before long the survivors were being blamed for preying on the weaker boys. of course no one said anything out loud, but it was heavily implied. imagine what that must have done for these damaged, fragile men.
but no one took it too seriously. it was just a horrifying story to fill the tabloids. they usually run a stupid story. and it gave someone a job to write it.
but it was still horrible. so what do you think?
was what the media did wrong? or was it just a harmless story?

Alive- ethics- eating people

right now i'm reading Alive, a true account of a plane from urgay that crashed in the andes mountains, in which survivors survived for 72 days and (i don't know for a fact since i'm only halfway through but i assume) got out of and climbed out of the andes mountains in winter. wow.
but seventy two days is a long time for people to go without food. and this is wounded, freezing, shocked, helpless people. so they had to do something out of a horror film.
imagine that you are one of them. you are trying to tend to the wounded, that is if you are not wounded yourself. you have to  salvage the wreckage of the plane for something useful. you have to melt snow for water. and there's no food.
so now look to the bodies of the dead, piled outside of the flightless plane. friends. siblings. parents.
meat.
it might not seem so bad. but it was. these were not strangers, they were friends. and they had to cut them up and eat them.
sooooooo... was it the right thing to do?
i think it was. i mean, those people probably would've wanted them to live, and if the only way to do that is to eat their bodies, so be it.
but maybe it's not what they would've wanted at all. maybe it's disrespecting their bodies and lives. i don't know.
i really suggest this book. but if you do want to read it, don't you dare read it as 'the one where they eat each other'. these people had to go through terrifying and repulsive experiences, and watch their friends die, so don't treat it like fear factor.
what do you think about what happened? please comment

Romeo and Juliet- dirty jokes

while reading romeo and Juliet the past few days, i noticed a strange phenomenon- while the majority of the page of the play seems like lyrical, elegant Shakespearean verse, some of the footnotes seemed more akin to    our latest science unit; puberty and the endocrine system. that is to say, just when i thought that Shakespeare was like one big poem, with characters and scenes, it turns out that will was also quite eager on the dirty joke. for instance: (and this isn't even a joke)
 Mercutio:
if love be rough with you be rough with love
what is he suggesting????
so it makes me ask this question: at the time, was Shakespeare considered inappropriate? because if so, isn't it a bit strange that one of the most read authors of all time, whose work is a big part of literary education, made some jokes worthy of the boys bathroom? (I'm not saying that will S. wasn't also the master poet that he was, but that he was, erm, many sided.) if a contemporary of Shakespeare's went to the future and saw him much everyone loved him, would they be surprised?
but how can we predict what will still be popular in 100 years? because i feel like that's another thing that a great book, or play, or even movie has. Staying power. it has to have, as they say, withstood the test of time.
can we predict which books will still be around in 100 years? what do YOU (I assume ms. rear and maybe one bored classmate) think?????