In our world and also the world of Alagaesia, there is rascism and prejudice. There are a variety of races in the fantasy world including: Humans, Elves, Dwarves, Urgals, Dragons, and Ra'zaac. Some of these races work together comfortably, but their is one rivalry that has gone on for centuries between the races. These races are Humans and Urgals.
Urgals are humanoid immense beings with thick horns and rough hide. They are a war-like race, which involves warfare as an average part of life. Young rams must prove themselves by defeating and killing humans or bears and wild creatures. This idea of slaughtering does not earn you respect when you are kind of brought up in a culture where you learn to hate and kill humans, which in turn brings humans to hate urgals. Why the author made it humans as the rivals to urgals I'm not sure, but I think it's because we can relate to humans. Humans all around the world hate and judge other people, and by choosing a race that we are familiar with I think it is trying to tell us to bring us all together. And that is indeed what happened... In the book Eldest, the Urgals and the Varden (mostly human) made an alliance to fight the evil lord Galbatorix. But the leader of the Varden, Nasuada seems only interested in the request not to bring the races together, but to have extra men in her army. This seems as an evil thing to do and I disagree with her decision. She is taking advantage of a whole army which is wrong. But the other characters also have opinions, especially Eragon. Eragon was at first reluctant to become allies with members of a race he was forced to hate. Throughout the book he might jump when he see's them and pull his sword to kill them, because this is instinct to him. But over time he and some of the Urgals share stories and become better acquanted with each other. Unfortunately, Eragon adapted quickly and the rest of the Varden still hold a tension with the Urgals. One man even assassinated three urgals in their sleep and was protected by other rascists of the Varden to not be charged. This was an extremely hard decision for Nasuada because she could not save both parties. But over the books the relationship has grown to be better.
In conclusion, the world of Alagaesia is very alike to ours. There is still rascism and still tension between races. As time goes on these fudes are dying out in both worlds, and eventually we will all be truly equal.
Tuesday, March 27, 2012
Monday, March 26, 2012
Hunger Games the Movie Review
The Hunger Games book was an amazing story, with a good plot, characters, and theme. But the movie seemed as if you needed to have read the book to see the movie. Emotions were not shown at important junctures and I felt as if I could not relate to the characters at all. Katniss and Prim were the only characters that I had a view of. Peeta was unrelatable and so were many of the Capitol characters as well as Haymitch. I also didn't get a feel for the torture and evil of the Capitol. In the book they make slaves called avoxes that have their tongue cut out to shut their blasphemy. In the movie it never even mentioned avoxes or what they were. The only real treachery of the Capitol was the hunger games and what that involved, but in the end the movie could not express what the book showed.
Rue was a very important character in the book, not only because of her young age, but also because she became friends with Katniss in an arena where you are forced to kill each other. The districts are seperated and some are stricter than others, but in the end they have no way to communicate. So this sharing of information is a very important part in the story. But unfortunately, in the movie there was no connection whatsoever. They meet for about 30 seconds and become instant friends. I was very disappointed because I think Rue and Katniss becoming allies was an extreme point in the storyline. You can't disregard scenes with such importance and turn it into nothing. Her and Rue shared their stories in the book for what seemed like hours, but in the movie it was about 1 minute. The scene was extremely rushed, and when you saw Rue die, you wouldn't feel much at all. In my opinion this part could have been done better.
In conclusion, the Hunger Games movie was not as good as the book. At times you had to rely on your knowledge from the book to make sense of a characters emotions, which was not fun. That means that some scenes would be strange to people who have not read the book. I think that the movie was made assuming that most people read the book, but just because a lot of people have read the book doesn't mean some people haven't. In addition, most of the characters were impossible to relate to and feel their emotions. This is probably because the book was written using first person and the movie couldn't really work that in. The book and movie were different in many ways, but then against, when is a movie better than the book?
Rue was a very important character in the book, not only because of her young age, but also because she became friends with Katniss in an arena where you are forced to kill each other. The districts are seperated and some are stricter than others, but in the end they have no way to communicate. So this sharing of information is a very important part in the story. But unfortunately, in the movie there was no connection whatsoever. They meet for about 30 seconds and become instant friends. I was very disappointed because I think Rue and Katniss becoming allies was an extreme point in the storyline. You can't disregard scenes with such importance and turn it into nothing. Her and Rue shared their stories in the book for what seemed like hours, but in the movie it was about 1 minute. The scene was extremely rushed, and when you saw Rue die, you wouldn't feel much at all. In my opinion this part could have been done better.
In conclusion, the Hunger Games movie was not as good as the book. At times you had to rely on your knowledge from the book to make sense of a characters emotions, which was not fun. That means that some scenes would be strange to people who have not read the book. I think that the movie was made assuming that most people read the book, but just because a lot of people have read the book doesn't mean some people haven't. In addition, most of the characters were impossible to relate to and feel their emotions. This is probably because the book was written using first person and the movie couldn't really work that in. The book and movie were different in many ways, but then against, when is a movie better than the book?
Tuesday, March 6, 2012
Mercutio's Curse
As Mercutio lay on the ground, blood flowing through his wounds his final voice shot from his mouth: "A plague o' both houses!". He then is pulled off the stage moaning helplessly and dies.
Mercutio was always an extraordinary character, and sometimes even a little hectic at times, but his words had meaning and half-witted wisdom in them. His famous Queen Mab speech really shows his role in the story as an exquisite philosopher of fate, fortune, and dreams. He also tries to make everyone have a good time, and helps inspire and bring the mood up. But overall he is somewhat of a Neutral man, that in the long-run always knows what will happen. When the party is over and Romeo wishes to visit Juliet, Mercutio is objecting to it and jest Romeo for his love, when Mercutio is the one that wanted Romeo to love. He is such a hypocrate with actions and words that give a foreshadowing for the future. He and the Friar are both very important characters when it comes to fortune and fate. Especially when Mercutio curses the Capulets and Montagues. He knows that their love will never work and that both families will lose members. He commends Romeo and Juliet to death, because he disagrees and predicts.
In conclusion Mercutio plays a key role in Romeo and Juliet. He kind of reminds me of a fortune teller or a foreshadower, always knowing whats next. The curse he places on the families determines the end and the tragedy of Romeo and Juliet.
Mercutio was always an extraordinary character, and sometimes even a little hectic at times, but his words had meaning and half-witted wisdom in them. His famous Queen Mab speech really shows his role in the story as an exquisite philosopher of fate, fortune, and dreams. He also tries to make everyone have a good time, and helps inspire and bring the mood up. But overall he is somewhat of a Neutral man, that in the long-run always knows what will happen. When the party is over and Romeo wishes to visit Juliet, Mercutio is objecting to it and jest Romeo for his love, when Mercutio is the one that wanted Romeo to love. He is such a hypocrate with actions and words that give a foreshadowing for the future. He and the Friar are both very important characters when it comes to fortune and fate. Especially when Mercutio curses the Capulets and Montagues. He knows that their love will never work and that both families will lose members. He commends Romeo and Juliet to death, because he disagrees and predicts.
In conclusion Mercutio plays a key role in Romeo and Juliet. He kind of reminds me of a fortune teller or a foreshadower, always knowing whats next. The curse he places on the families determines the end and the tragedy of Romeo and Juliet.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)