Deaths That I'll Never Recover From, Fictional and Otherwise?

My love of news, books, gaming and movies, has unfortunately caused an ungodly amount of sorrow in my life,  mainly as a result of death. Anyway, my boredom and love of list making has inspired me to create a list of those whom my heart will forever ache for. Talley ho!

1. Heath Ledger, not fictional, but the one death that will always be "too soon" (for me that is)(I still cry)

2. Charlie, Lost. Hands down my favorite character from the first television series that I watched avidly. Damn it Charlie! Ruin my life why don't you.

3. Chris Miles, Skins. Yup. Skins will make quite a few cameos on this particular list.

4. Cal and Chloe, Harper's Island. Damn. The one couple that I actually wanted to survive. Actually, that's an exaggeration. Basically every death on Harper's Island was a traumatic one.

5. Qui Gon Jin, Star Wars Episode 1. Seeing as Star Wars is my favorite film series EVER, Qui Gon was a killer for me. But then again, it did fuel one of the most emotionally charged scenes I've ever viewed. I'm talking major goosebumps.

7. Every single death in X-Men. Pardon my French, but fuq dat shi.

8. Bambi's mom. Like come on Disney, can't you leave the poor deer alone?

9. Freddie McClair, back to Skins. Praise Shiva for Cook because otherwise I would've shat myself.

10. Ezio's entire fucking family, Assassin's Creed 2 *flips all the tables* 

11. Mikau, LoZ. Seriously Majora's Mask scarred me for life.

12. Dustfinger, Inkheart. I don't care if they brought him back, twas awful.

13. Biggie. I love you my king.

14. Subject Delta, Bioshock 2. Great opening though, can't deny that.

15. The Great Deku Tree, Ocarina😭😭😭

16. Satine, Moulin Rouge. They trick you into thinking that it's a happy ending, and BAM. Lives ruined.

17. Mufasa, Lion King. This is probably the most universally devastating death of all time.

18. John Coffey, The Green Mile. Great movie, even greater actor. Michael Clarke Duncan will be missed.

19. Sirius Black, Harry Potter. I feel like this was sort of an obvious addition though. Ironically enough, my three favorite Potter characters all died. What luck.

20. And finally, the obliteration of every character in Angel Beats! Yup, fml.

And an extra. Basically every single death in FMA. Dudes. 

Psychological Criticism--Did the Right One Slip In?

*There may be spoilers throughout this post

Wow. Just wow.  I would prefer writing my own personal response to Let Me In, by John Ajvide Lindqvist, but alas, I must abide by the rules of my second quarter challenge--to use four different criticisms to analyze four different works.  Both the Biographical and Psychological Criticism would work in the case of Let Me In, but I have concluded that the application of the psychological criticism would work best for this particular review.  Despite the obvious connection between Lindqvist and Oskar, the protagonist, the reappearance of homosexual tendencies and a skewed sense of self, influenced me to focus on the damaged psyche of three of the primary characters: Oskar, Eli, and Håkan. 

The book opens with an account of the bullied Oskar, a child in Blackeberg who is targeted by a group of boys at his school.  As the first chapter progresses, we find that Oskar fantasizes about getting the ultimate revenge on his oppressors--to end their lives.  He compensates for his powerlessness by binging on candy and shutting himself in his room, where he spies on the neighbors with a telescope and acts out sadistic serial-killer fantasies in front of the mirror.  He begins to prepare himself, physically and mentally, in order to take on his bullies: he goes to the gym on Thursdays with Mr. Avila, the gym teacher, and steals a knife from a local store.  He practices in the woods outside of his complex after school, releasing all of his pent-up frustration on the nearby trees.  As he stabs at the bark, he notices a girl watching him from the playground.  “We can’t be friends,” she tells him when they first meet in the courtyard where he likes to sit alone at night.  But of course they become friends anyway, forming a long lasting companionship.  The two are so psychologically damaged, that they find it easy to relate to one another.  Oskar does not judge Eli, and Eli does not judge Oskar.  Ignored by his mother and father, both of whom are separated, Oskar decides to become invisible.  In his mind, Oskar no longer exists.  He stays in Eli's apartment, where the two are able to find comfort in each others arms.  It is later discovered that Eli, has lost her gender identity over the centuries.  She, or he, was once a boy named Elias, but had been mutilated previous to her development of the sickness.  Oskar still loves Eli, even though she is not the girl that he believed her to be. 

The relationship between Oskar and Eli does not even compare to solely sexual encounters in the vampire novels of the modern era.  It is the union of two people, who were once controlled by an intense lonesomeness.  Håkan however, is unable to quell the solitude that he experiences in his everyday life.  Håkan serves as Eli's guardian.  He travels to neighboring villages and collects blood from unsuspecting townsfolk, hanging them from their feet like pigs as the blood slowly drains from their bodies.  Håkan is in no way a likeable character.  He has been attended a series of child prostitution rings, and has a sick obsession over Eli, bringing her blood in exchange for her body.  His psychological state worsens as the novel progresses.  He attempts to kill himself in order to protect Eli, but it can be argued that his attempted suicide was triggered by the hatred that he has for himself.  He later breaks back into the complex, and attempts to rape Eli.  Håkan is so mentally disturbed, that it is difficult for one to even feel sorry for him.  He has, in my mind, not a single redemptive quality. 

In summation, Let Me In was an intense, psychological thriller, that stands apart from Twilight, and Beautiful Creatures, and True Blood.  It was dark, and depressing, and inspiring all at the same time.  I could not help but fall in love with Oskar and Eli, despite their rather dangerous quirks.  I intend to read the remainder of John Ajvide Lindqvist's works, in the hopes that they will be as enjoyable as the first. 

64 Classics Read, More to Come?

I still have many more books that I wish to add to my "classics" list, and will formally address them so that I make a point to live up to my goal.
The Awakening
The Handmaid's Tale
Brave New World
A Street Car Named Desire
Catch-22
The Catcher in the Rye
The Stranger
One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest
Atonement
Rosencratz and Guildenstern are Dead
All the Pretty Horses
The Kite Runner, and more....?

Reader's Response--A Dog's Journey?

*This post may or may not contain spoilers

"Dog is God spelled backwards."  I have loved dogs since I got my first dog at the age of four.  She was a Golden Retriever named Candy.  She was beautiful.  We used to roll around in the yard together.  One day her nose started bleeding.  The vet said that it was a tumor.  Candy is dead now, but I have three new dogs to love and care for; Andy, Ella, and my baby boy Charlie.  Charlie is a mutt (a Shih Tzu Yorkie mix).  I was recommended A Dog's Journey, by W. Bruce Cameron, after my mom bought it from her school's book fair.  I have to admit, I was kind of skeptical before actually reading the book.  I had done something that I vowed to never do--judge a book by its cover.  The little puppy and speech bubble on this particular cover screamed "Young Adult" (and I am not a big fan of Young Adult, excluding John Green that is).  It looked like it would be a quick read though, and I do love dogs.  Needless to say, I caved and read it anyway.  It was amazing.  I cried, multiple times.  This being said (if it was not made obvious by the preceding sentence fragments), I only saw it suiting that I recorded my response to the book in writing.

Before I begin, I would like to give a brief synopsis of the journey itself.  Buddy is a good dog.  After spending several, eventful lives in search of his purpose, Buddy has discovered that he has already fulfilled it--he lives to love and protect his master.  A Dog's Journey  follows Buddy as he lives, dies and returns to life, in the body of another dog.  Buddy becomes Molly, who later becomes Max, who finishes his journey as a sweet Beagle named Toby.  The most impressive part of this story, was the fact that it was told from the point of view of the dog.  Never did I stop to think, "Hmm, this doesn't sound like a dog," because it did, in fact, sound just like a dog.  I was drawn in with this approach, and was made to care deeply about the dogs, the people, and what happened to them.  I cannot always say that I get this involved with the characters, so when I do, one can assume that it was a very well written and heartwarming tale.  In fact, A Dog's Journey was far from just a "Young Adult" novel.  It was a book in which any person, of any age, can love and hold close to their heart.

One question remained after I finished this novel: do we take care of our pets, or do our pets take care of us?  I could not help but think about my little Charlie as I read through this book.  I imagined Charlie's first encounter with a mirror.  I imagined the time that Charlie so excited, that he sprinted around the house, jumping from chair to table in order to release some of his excess energy.  The loyalty expressed by Buddy in this story, crossed all boundaries, and I am sure that Charlie is moved by this same loyalty.  This book is the kind of emotional gut-wrench that makes me proud to care for a canine, and proud of the loyalty that they show to us.  If you are not a dog lover, or not even a dog liker, steer clear of this novel.  If you are like me however, grab yourself a copy of this wonderful book, and prepare yourself to laugh, smile, yell at imaginary people, cry, and seek out love from your furry friend. 

Mythological Criticism--The Shadow People?

*This post may or may not contain spoilers.

You spot something from the corner of your eye.  It seems to be dark and shadowy, yet nothing is there. What was it?  Your imagination? Shia Labeouf?  Or perhaps, a shadow person--those creatures that are seen briefly out of the corner of one's eye. 

According to legend, these entities appear in a variety of forms.  They may simply pass through our bedroom as we sleep at night, or lurk in our doorways--watching, waiting.  These figures have become so widely recognized as paranormal entities, that people have taken up the study of these beings.  Several theories have been offered as an explanation of the origins of the Shadow Person.  They may be demonic entities, ghosts, inter-dimensional travelers, astral bodies, or just a figment of the imagination.  My research led me to the multiple classifications of the Shadow People: the benign shadow, negative shadows, red-eyed shadows, and hooded shadows.  The benign walk through one's room, never straying from their path and never paying the living any attention.  Their only purpose is to walk the Earth for the rest of eternity.  The negative shadows lurk, causing an unnatural feeling of terror.  The red-eyed shadows are a form of the negative, which stare at their victims with glowing, red eyes.  Supposedly the negative and red-eyed shadows feed off of their victims' fear.  The hooded shadows appear to be dressed in ancient garb, similar to that of a monk.  They appear to those who are experiencing an immense amount of rage.  Whatever these entities actually are, they each prove to be equally shocking for a human to come into contact with.

 David Wong made use of the "negative shadows" in his book, John Dies at the End.  People can rarely make out the features of these dark figures that lurk in the corners of your room.  After a shot of soy sauce however, John and David the ability to sense these "people" at all corners of the universe.  According to Mr. Wong, the Shadow People are dark messengers from a universe parallel to Earth.  His adaptation of the paranormal phenomena, described them as malicious, soul hungry beings that sought to take over the universe.  The Shadow People in John Dies at the End were the inter-dimensional beings described by the theorists that I came across during my research.  It is discovered toward the end of the novel, that an alternate dimension exists almost identical to that of the Earth.  The Shadow People from the alternate dimension, had found a way to intrude Earth in attempt to take over it's inhabitants.  The only difference between Mr. Wong's Shadow People and those of paranormal myth, is that they can cause physical harm to their victims.  They prove to be rather dangerous enemies, as John and David attempt to save the world. 

Rather than using the sun or the moon to foretell the end of the world, David Wong used the elusive Shadow People, a figure which many readers can recognize, in order to evoke a universal feeling of fear and terror.  John Dies at the End is recognized as one of the scariest books of the modern era.  Why is this so?  Well, it is primarily due to Mr. Wong's expert usage of myth and archetypes, both of which induce a realistic interpretation of the novel as a whole.  

After I finished the novel, I found myself thinking about the possibilities of an actual alternate universe, full of actual Shadow People.  Shaken by this thought, I set the book down and started a more lighthearted read.  The point of my saying this was to emphasize the effect that the Shadow People in John Dies at the End had on me.  I was terrified.  I found myself checking my back when I took my dog out late at night.  The shadows in the corner of my room seemed to take on a life of their own.  After experiencing that kind of fear, I would say that David Wong's use of a mythological archetype proved to be rather successful. 

Does John Die at the End?

A few things before I begin...
I knew absolutely nothing about John Dies at the End (aside from the title that is) before putting it on hold at the library.
It was a recommended read on a list of books to read around Halloween.
I wasn't quite sure what to expect from the novel, thus had no expectations beforehand.
It turns out that a movie version is hitting theaters this January, so I am naturally curious to see how the adaptation pans out (Paul Giamatti stars as Arnie in the film, hence the picture of Paul)
 

What did you say?  You want a short description of John Dies at the End?  Well, it’s a drug that promises an out-of-body experience with each hit. On the street they call it Soy Sauce, and users can drift across time and dimensions. But some who come back are no longer human.
Suddenly a silent, otherworldly invasion is underway, and mankind needs a hero. What it gets instead is John and David, a pair of college dropouts who can barely hold down jobs.
Can these two stop the oncoming horror in time to save humanity?
No. No, they can’t.

What's in a name?  Mr. Wong understands the importance of a title, and the impact that the title can have on the book, and it's interpretation among readers.  Titles, more often than not, have a direct reference to another work of literature or a pivotal point in the plot of their novel.  They can be taken seriously, or as a joke.  They can encapsulate the underlying meaning of the story.  Most importantly, titles have the ability to entrance a reader within a matter of seconds.  If the title does not catch the reader's eye, the book simply will not be read.  John Dies at the End, as a title, could be received in a variety of manners.  Does John actually die at the end?  Well, that is for you to find out.  Either way, the quirky title was the primary reason that I choose to read this book.

Whom Do I Love Moore?

*This post may or may not contain spoilers.

I have recently read a series of reviews regarding Christopher Moore's novel, Fool, and discovered that many of the readers had met an unfortunate consensus: they had despised this interpretation of Shakespeare's famous tragedy.  These critics described this interpretation as "vulgar," and "written in bad taste," yet I found myself enjoying every minute of it.  Maybe my humor is a bit immature, or maybe I have no censor when it comes to what is considered "vulgar" or "inappropriate."  Either way, I found Fool to be both witty and creative.  I was immediately drawn to the character Pocket, and appreciated him for his sharp tongue and tenacity.

Shakespeare's Fool made a few cameos throughout the course of King Lear, but failed to maintain a stable appearance in the drama.  Moore's Fool, however, was not only the protagonist of the novel, but the narrator.  This is Lear told from the point of view of a ridiculous court jester.  He gave Shakespeare's loyal audience what they had wanted--more of the Fool.  Pocket was everywhere.  He was telling the story (as mentioned previously).  He was a witness to the events that occurred.  He knew the Castle Lear inside and out, and he knew every secret that the royal family wanted to keep hidden.  Moore demonstrates an obvious respect toward the Bard through his interpretation, but does not hesitate while putting his own spin on the plot.  I am ashamed to admit this (due to the fact that Shakespeare is a literary genius), but I preferred Fool's ending to that of Lear's.  I never really saw the point of hanging the Fool in the original, and would have been rather disappointed if Pocket were hung after growing so attached to him.  Bravo Mr. Moore, for your interpretation of Lear was excellent.

I am a sucker for sarcasm and satire (hence my love of James Thurber and Stephen Colbert).  This being said, I absolutely adored Pocket.  Everything from his snarky remarks, such as "love needs room to grow, like a rose, or a tumor," to the equally sarcastic raven that resides by the castle, drew me into a literary trance.  By "literary trance," I am referring to the state in which a person is so enthralled with a book, that they cannot focus on anything other than the book itself.  Moore finds comedy in this original tragedy, a feat which must be very difficult to accomplish.  This accomplishment is part of the reason that I enjoyed Fool as much as I did.  While I very much enjoyed this aspect of the novel, others found it overbearing and idiotic--and not a good kind of idiotic.  Mr. Moore took a risk by throwing "bathroom humor" into his adaptation of a master work, which could be received in one of two ways.  On one end of the spectrum, the audience (myself included) recognized this humor as being characteristic of Moore's style of writing.  On the other end, the audience was rather disappointed with the use of this rather raunchy humor.  I found myself rather disappointed with the reviews regarding the latter end of the spectrum.  I enjoyed Moore's interpretation so much, that I took this negative criticism personally.  At the end of the day, everyone is entitled to their own opinion.  My opinion, however, is the right one.