As you might know from reading my previous post, I'm now reading The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat by Oliver Sacks. It's actually really interesting. I honestly love how I learn about neurology and at the same time, read an interesting story about a man and his patients. The book has actually made me value life more and made me restrain from taking things for granted. When Sacks talks about memory and judgment being the most important thing and how many of his patients lack the ability to judge and assess, not only did I realize and learn that judgment really is important, but I realized how lucky I am to be healthy and the way I am. I'm able to assess and understand things on a personal, particular level, while Sacks' patients succumb to only being able to judge abstractly and computational-like. Memory is also important because without it, one's life is meaningless to the person. They're basically living for nothing. I've also learned that a person is made of feeling and judging. As Sacks' says, if we delete feeling and judging, we reduce them to something as defective as Mr.P (a patient who couldn't recognize faces and things). The person becomes computer-like and loses their apprehension of the concrete and the real. Another thing i've learned is what prosopagnosia is. It's more scientific rather than the two 'pathos' things above. Prosopagnosia is agnosia for faces. Agnosia is the inability to judge and interpret things due to brain damage. The patient in the first chapter lacked the ability to judge and interpret faces and people. He was unable to recognize and imagine and remember any faces. He had basically lost the idea of a face. This is extremely unfortunate and horrible for a victim's family to experience. This actually relates to a question I have about the novel. Sacks never talks about the family of the patient when describing the situation and condition of each of his patients. I'd like to think that the family was at the most, traumatized but at least affected by this. Sacks does mention Mr.P's wife in the first chapter, but he didn't exactly explain how she felt like. Again in chapter 3, Christina, the disembodied lady, had young children who were obviously affected by her traumatic injury. For god's sake, she was in the hospital for at least a year after the occurrence! Another question about the story is how did the patients act after the incident? Do they usually live a happy (as happy as they can be) remainder of their life with their family? Or are they abandoned? Sacks didn't really assess that even though I think that's pretty important. He did say a few times that the patient continued to deal with the condition and was living their life the best that they could, but I want to know what happened to patients like Jimmy. Jimmy had extreme amnesia and forgot things he had said thirty seconds before and people he'd met an hour prior. He was basically abandoned by his family and was wandering on the streets until Sacks found him. What happened to him? After reading half of this book, I've come to realize that you should be understanding and kind to people because they may have experienced things such as a brain disease. For example, Catherine is a lady who is unable to feel her body due to lost control. It is extremely difficult for her to move about so when she slowly, clumsily mounts a bus, she receives nothing but insults from insensitive, unknowing people. She receives no support and kindness from bystanders who are unaware of her condition and things she's been through. I feel like I can apply that to the real world. If I come across a scene like that in real life, I should be able to be patient and understand that I don't know what they're going through.
0 Comments
I've begun a new book this past weekend called The Man Who Mistook His Wife For a Hat by Oliver Sacks. It's about science and boring stuff like that but I've found myself slightly interested in it. It's supposed to be finished by the end of the week so I hope it's a quick read (lol). It has 233 pages and is seems to have an abundance of fact-based content and extravagant vocabulary. The plot, however, is a myriad of stories on the struggles people have with neurological disorders and problems. The first chapter is a man who struggles to understand reality, and who ceases to have a sense of realism. He loses his sense of judgment due to visual agnosia, in which all powers of representation and imagery, were being destroyed. Why is judgment so important, you may ask? As said in the novel, "judgment is the most important faculty we have. An animal, or a man, may get on very well without 'abstract attitude' but will speedily perish if deprived of judgment" (20). If we become computer-like and delete feeling and judging, we then reduce our apprehension of the concrete and the real. Judgment is intuitive, personal, comprehensive, and concrete, meaning it is different for every individual but still is extremely necessary to survive. For example, if you were to lose all judgment and then conveniently see a cliff, then you wouldn't be able to judge whether it was safe or not. That's pretty exaggerated but you can understand how valid judgment is.
So I've been running this blog for the past few weeks for an assignment in class but alas, like the majority of my classmates, I won't be using this blog anymore. I'm apparently supposed to say my final thoughts for the process of creating/maintaining a website/blog, so I guess I'll do that. I actually enjoyed designing the website. Although it was really simple, I loved toying around with the fonts and backgrounds and figuring out what looked good with what. Like, I made a website with a whole theme but then I looked at a few of my peers's pages and I realized how bad mine was. I cringed and immediately remade it. It's not much better but hey, at least it's something? I admit, I asked for help like twenty times from my teacher (sorry Mr.B) but I learned something, and that's all that matters. About the updating part, I had to make time to post on time, but I realize with how the world is digitalizing, i'll have to get used to this kind of stuff. I have a social media account which I check on every day, maybe two to three times daily? I admit, it's addicting but it's fun. At the same time, sometimes I don't have enough time to write a whole blog post, reread it to make sure I don't sound stupid, check for grammar errors, and post it. So it's difficult knowing how much time to spend on it and when I should be online. I really liked this assignment to be honest. I loved creating my blog pages, designing them, and writing them. I also liked my friends commenting on my page. Overall, it was just a really good experience. I hope I get this assignment again soon in the future... Anyways, thank you for reading my posts even if all you did was skim it and scoff at my writing. I still appreciate it!
The Book Thief by Markus Zusak.
I find it upsetting how Max Vandenburg, or the Jew who stays secretly in the Hubermann's basement, constantly says and acts life he's lesser than Germans. It really bothers me how Hitler's control and influence can make people to think that less of themselves... I'm going to give and justify my opinion on Max Vandenburg's staying in the Hubermann's household. Like when Max first wakes up after the first night at Hans's house, he literally says that he's "a Jew, and if there was one place he was destined to exist, it was a basement or any other such hidden venue of survival" (205). It's so sad how he automatically thinks he deserves that low of a home. Yes, it could be because he feels bad because the Hubermanns have to risk their lives for him, but still! I find it horrible that not only him, but all discriminated people feel that they're not as good as the majorities. The Book Thief by Markus Zusak.
Did Rosa and Hans choose a wise choice of action by letting Max stay in their home? I honestly don't know. I mean, yeah Max's dad seved Hans's life, but if caught, they could all get killed. I think they did the right thing obviously, but it could cause so much danger to them. I mean after a few seconds of research, I found out that at that time, if caught of committing treason, you could be issued a death penalty which involves mass deportation to the Treblinka killing center. That doesn't sound good. But again, Erik Vandenburg, or Max's father, saved Hans's life. If a Jew (i'm not trying to be discriminatory) saved his life, then shouldn't Hans try to help Jews as much as he can? Plus he's just repaying Erik for a favor by taking care of his son. But I assume that Hans would have kept Max secret even if Erik didn't save Hans's life because that's just how Hans is. He's a sweet, selfless person who would risk his life to help people who need him. The Book Thief by Markus Zusak.
So whenever Liesel steals a book or something, I take a moment to think "would I do that?" Like, what would I have done in that situation during the burning of the books. Would I have done what Liesel had done and steal the book? Or would I have just left? I think it depends more on the setting. In the setting of my home in the USA I would have most definitely not have stolen the book. Not because it's immoral to steal, but because of the consequences. I could be jailed or fined. If I was in Nazi Germany and I only had three books in my possession then the situation would definitely be different. I might rethink Liesel's decision because she could have been arrested or the Hubermanns could have been killed or taken away. But she hasn't gotten a new book in so long. Other than playing soccer with her neighborhood friends, she didn't have anything to do but read. I would steal a book in order to not be bored. The Book Thief by Markus Zusak.
So I finished the Book Thief! It was really good honestly. The only thing I didn't like was obviously the Hitler part but that's okay because without the idea of him, the book wouldn't have been as good. But the characters, being German and supporting Hitler, made me really uncomfortable because I had never really read a book from the perspective of the Germans before but at the same time, it gave me a new perspective. It made me think about how people actually struggled with this, and how some of those people were German. I had always thought of Germans as bad people but when I read The Book Thief and read about Hans Hubermann, I felt bad for assuming so because Hans was such a nice character and human being. He risked his reputation by helping Jews and painting their houses when they were destroyed by other Germans. I mean, that's nice! And when he took in Max, I understood how not all Germans believed in the war and what Hitler was doing. In the book, there are many things that are constantly repeated. Like how books and stories and words are so important. They hold power and freedom. Liesel used books as her escape from the war. She'd read every day, and learn a word or two in order to entertain her and to distract herself from the war. When the mayor's wife saw Liesel steal the book from the fire, she invited her over to her library, filled to the brim with books. Seeing Liesel enjoy herself in the library with all the books, the mayor's wife smiled. It was probably the only time we'd see her smile in the book too. I think Zusak is trying to tell the reader to appreciate the books and freedom we have now rather than take it for granted. When I saw Liesel's struggle to get a hold of just one book, I feel grateful for what I have. Even though I think that was the main theme, I noticed how Zusak included so many different types of people. There are people like Hans and Rosa Hubermann who take in a Jew, continuously stand up for Jews, and risk their lives to help others. But there are people like the Germans at the concentration camp, who show such cruelty it's unbelievable. With all these not-so-secret messages, I really liked the book. I might just read some of Zusak's other books. I've heard of the book "The Messenger" and I intend to try reading it during winter break! The Book Thief by Markus Zusak.
What if Werner hadn't died? Ok so... I was really hyped about talking about Liesel's brother, Werner, so I decided to make a follow up sort-of post. If Werner hadn't died, the book would have been really different. Emphasis on really. At first I thought that maybe life would have been better for Liesel because she would have had her brother, whom she loved dearly, with her again. That maybe the Hubermanns would have been happier when both of their foster children had come home alive. But then I realized that would not have happened. For pete's sake, without her brother dead, the book wouldn't have been titled The Book Thief. That's because Liesel found her first book, "The Gravedigger's Handbook", at her brother's burial. So basically, her brother's death was sad but relevant and important and it was definitely necessary for the book. The Book Thief by Markus Zusak.
I wanted to go into the fact that Liesel saw her brother die, right next to her. It must have been horrible. And what really bothers me is that the author doesn't really acknowledge that other than one or two times. I can't imagine losing someone special to me but when I read the book, I assume that she never really knew her brother or was sad for his death. But after I think about it for some time, I understand that it must have really affected her. I mean, she lost her brother, her mother abandoned her, and she was thrown into a whole new atmosphere in a matter of days. How can a girl, 9 years of age, handle all that change? How did Liesel react to her brother's death? How did she react? Well, from what i've read, she didn't react at all. But from my assumptions and deeper reading, I realize that she was too young to realize. She was too young to fully realize what had happened. She didn't know how his brother's death would affect people, how it would affect her life, how it would affect her. But every day she is reminded by her brother's death. As she goes to sleep, she sees the empty bed next to her, made for her brother but cruelly reminded by the fact that he never got to use it. I wanted to compare Liesel before and after her brother's death. I don't know though because there wasn't a very distinguishable difference. I mean, of course she grieved. She mentioned a few times how she hated imagining waking up and seeing her brother, lying dead in her arms. I assume she became less aware and trusting considering she wouldn't take a shower for a good two weeks after the incident. It took her a few months to begin to trust her new foster parents because she didn't have her brother with her. She most definitely lost her innocence by seeing such a horrible thing. Don't get me wrong, I love The Book Thief, but I just wish Zusak had explained Liesel's feelings during that time. Hi again! I'm sorry I'm such a slow reader but I'm still reading The Book Thief and I'm only like halfway done with it. I was reading the book and I was interested in the way the narrator speaks to the reader. I've already come to the conclusion that the narrator is Death so it makes sense why the narrator knows what's going on and how the characters are feeling because Death is a character who could speak from Liesel's point of view but at the same time provide information that Liesel doesn't know at that time. Death also provided a new perspective on all the occurrences of death and violence happening during that time. At the beginning of the novel, the narrator, or Death, talks about how the last time he saw her (Liesel) which of course is in present form. Then he proceeds to describe their first "one-way meeting" (because only Death met her, Liesel doesn't really know he exists) and then the novel changes into past tense because he's describing what happened in the past. But of course, as a normal novel, the timeline moves forward chronologically as Death describes different events which each happen one after another. The different events which Death happens to describe are little snippets of Liesel's life which don't exactly happen right after each other. But this story is most definitely a continuous story because the things in the story are all about the same character, Liesel, and take place right after one another. As I mentioned earlier, the single viewpoint used in the novel is of Death. I think the author wanted Death to be the narrator because he was a character who would know what is happening at all times and he would be able to understand what Liesel is thinking without her having to speak her thoughts. Zusak actually says he wanted Death to be the narrator. He says "Well, I thought I'm writing a book about war, and there's that old adage that war and death are best friends, but once you start with that idea, then I thought, well, what if it's not quite like that? Then I thought what if death is more like thinking, well, war is like the boss at your shoulder, constantly wanting more, wanting more, wanting more, and then that gave me the idea that Death is weary, he's fatigued, and he's haunted by what he sees humans do to each other because he's on hand for all of our great miseries."
This basically means that he chose Death as the narrator because since Death is "best friends with War" (according to the old saying) it would be interesting to see the idea of War as Death's "boss", and to see Death tired and done with War and conflict. What I like about Death being narrator is that he often includes his point of view on things during the book. Whether is is to prove a point or to provide extra info for the reader, he constantly includes his thoughts, and he does it humorously. Like for example, on page 34, Death says: "Her cooking was atrocious. She possessed the unique ability to aggravate almost anyone she ever met. But she did love Leisel Meminger. Her way of showing it just happened to be strange. It involved bashing her with wooden spoons and words at various intervals. What I like about his comments (other than the fact that it's sassy) is that they're actually informing. The structure of his comments make me understand the book more because they give me the extra clue on what exactly his writing means. If I don't get why Liesel doesn't like Rosa I can look at the small "tip" Death had said and understand that Rosa had a weird way of showing it. That's why Death is the narrator and why his role is so important. Alright,, well time to go to sleep (thank god). I hope you all are having fun in the snow! |
Pooja ShetHi! I'm a freshman at NCHS! Archives |