Emerald Star

   I was just chillin' in my school library and doing English coursework when this conversation happened in my head:

Seventeen year old Kenny: "Golly gee, I'm bored! What can I do to remedy this?"

Inner child Kenny: "I know! Why don't you read Jacqueline Wilson's latest book and reminisce about being my age?"

Seventeen year old Kenny: "Thanks, Mini-Me! I'll do exactly that."

   So, on this whim, I checked out 'Emerald Star'. It was around circa 2004 when my love for Jacqueline Wilson was born. I was obsessed and devoted; I read all if not most of her books, from 'Bad Girls' to 'My Sister Jodie', 'Double Act' to 'The Story of Tracy Beaker', you name it and I've probably read it. Therefore, my inner child was quite excited about reading Emerald Star.

  Emerald Star is the third and final book in the Hetty Feather series which is set in Victorian England. It follows the life of young Hetty Feather who goes by other invented names such as 'Sapphire Battersea' and the book's title. Hetty/Sapphire/Emerald was raised in the Foundling Hospital from the age of five, a harsh place that actually existed for less fortunate children that were often born out of wedlock. This particular section of the trilogy tracks the character's search for her real life father and returning back to her foster family that looked after her until she was five years old.

  I'm sad to admit that the book disappointed. To me, it isn't Jacqueline's best and some scenarios in the book are just totally unrealistic. Some examples include how the titular character found her biological father, the book's ending and a certain romance that I won't spoil. Hetty/Sapphire/Emerald also annoyed me as a character. I found her irritating, boastful, often rude and quite immature which goes against the time period that the book is set in as children in the Victorian era had to take on way more responsibilities than children today. However, I applaud Jacqueline Wilson on her unique way with words and the way she excels in breaking things down for her younger audience and educating them on how life was during the Victorian era. In fact, Jacqueline Wilson has collaborated with the Foundling Hospital Museum and there's 'Hetty Feather's Victorian Trail', where the books are used as teaching resources to aid in studying the time period.

 Maybe the looming thought of final A Level exams and university has turned me into a cankerous teenager. Maybe I didn't enjoy Emerald Star because I am seventeen years old and the book's intended audience is ages 9-11. Maybe. I do know that I won't be in too much of a hurry to indulge my inner child again and next time I decide to do so with Jacqueline Wilson, I'll stick to her better  older material.

Rating 2.5/5 **

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Emerald-Hetty-Feather-Jacqueline-Wilson/dp/0857531050

Les Misérables

  Last weekend, I saw the new Les Misérables film twice and it moved me so much that I need to do a post on it in order to get some closure. The story is Victor Hugo's and it is set in 19th century France and it is the well known tale of the ex-prisoner Jean Valjean and his quest for redemption whilst being pursued mercilessly by the Inspector Javert for nearly twenty years, a man who is eager to put Valjean back in prison.

  I shall be seeing the musical in the West End later this year and I am currently on page 43 of 1232 (!) of the book itself. I'm being lazy and reading it in English instead of the original French and it will take me quite a while to finish it as I am reading other books as well but I WILL finish, even if it takes me a year!

 To me, Les Misérables is chock-full of religious allegories and symbolism. First of all, the priest that saves Jean Valjean from being sent back to prison in the beginning of the story represents God, who redeems Valjean and inspires him to live his life as an honest man. This really touched me and the priest inspired me to be a better person, to forgive others and to not be so quick to judge others. This is because he accepted Jean Valjean into his home when the prisoner was condemned and judged by everyone who met him, when his only 'crime' was simply stealing a loaf of bread to prevent the death of his sister's child. Despite being the antagonist, Inspector Javert is not a villain- he is just a man that believes he is doing God's duty. This raises the question of what truly makes a person 'good' as sometimes, human opinion on this is different from God's own ideas.

  Another key theme is the power of love. This is especially evident in the love that the impoverished Fantine has for her daughter Cosette and this same love for Cosette adds to Jean Valjean's redemption and makes him want to live a better life for her, his adopted daughter. Love is everywhere in the story; whilst watching the film, my heart ached for the doomed character of Éponine and her unrequited love for Marius and I swooned over the love (albeit it quite sudden) between Marius and Cosette. Eddie Redmayne is beautiful.

  The religious allegory that stuck with me the most was the symbolism of the barricade. On a deeper level, the barricade represents passing into heaven, to a world where there is a flame that never dies, the sun will rise and people will live in freedom in the garden of the Lord. I won't ruin the film but the final image of the film had me sobbing my eyes out, as well as the lyrics to the finale song, which I am listening to right now and tearing up to.

  In all, Les Misérables the film was absolutely fantastic. In fact, it was more of an experience than a film and even though it was nearly three hours long, I was never bored. It is definitely a 9.5/10 and the only reason why it is not a 10 is down to Russell Crowe, whose singing was the musical's weak link in my opinion. The star studded cast lived up to their names and the music was made even more believable as the actors were all singing live- no pre-recording so in a way, that theatre essence was still kept. It really deserves to sweep the Oscars next month.

  I recommend it to everyone and remember, to love another person is to see the face of God.

The Rose Petal Beach

   Don't you just hate it when you read a book and you like absolutely none of the characters and you are unable to connect with them? That's exactly how I felt reading Dorothy Koomson's 'The Rose Petal Beach'. I can't even summarise what the book is about as I personally felt that the story was 'meh' in parts so here is the book's actual blurb from Koomson's own website:

"Who would you hurt in the name of love? Tamia Challey is horrified when her husband, Scott, is accused of a terrible crime – but when she discovers who his accuser is, everything goes into free-fall. Scared and confused, Tamia is forced to choose who she instinctively believes. But her choice has dire consequences for all concerned, especially when matters take a tragic turn . . . "

How ambiguous is that? I know a blurb isn't supposed to give away spoilers but come on...

  Anyway, the main reason why I didn't really like The Rose Petal Beach was because the multiple narrative style really bugged me. I'm not against multiple narrators by the way. I'm a fan of the technique when it is used successfully, for example in Nicholas Sparks' 'The Last Song'. With this novel, I felt that the technique could have been used better and reading some of the characters' inner monologues (Beatrix) didn't help my growing annoyance with them. I've noticed that I tend to find characters more irritating when I don't agree with their choices and also when I find their choices totally ludicrous and unbelievable. Unfortunately, this was the case with The Rose Petal Beach. Again, I don't want to give away too much on the book's plot but I scoffed many a time in incredulity. There is just too much going on.

  In addition, I did not particularly like the way that Koomson presented flashbacks and past events. Instead of introducing a flashback with 'seventeen years ago' or 'not very long ago', I think Koomson could have given actual years and dates for events to stop the reader and people like myself from having to strain to do the mental maths to work out the novel's time frame. Having to do this made me lose the novel's plot at times which further annoyed me. I still don't know what year the novel is set in! Furthermore, I personally believe that colloquialisms in books are a massive NO-NO unless they are used correctly and I am still cringing from the fails that I read in The Rose Petal Beach. 

  For me, the only good part in the book was the ending for two reasons; 1) it was such a massive twist that I did not see coming at all and 2) I was glad to finally finish the book and never have to read it again. I also liked the book's beautiful cover but that deceives you into thinking that the book itself will be as good and it is sadly not. 

  All the opinions expressed here are my own and if you completely disagree and think the complete opposite to all my aforementioned points, well, to each his own. 

Rating 2.5/5 **

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Rose-Petal-Beach-Dorothy-Koomson/dp/1780874960/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1358520213&sr=1-1

I feel like Carey Mulligan.

   If you've ever read or watched the film version of Lynn Barber's 'An Education', you'll understand exactly why I feel like Carey Mulligan. No, I was not seduced by a middle aged man and then encouraged to continue with the relationship by domineering parents. I'm talking about what Carey's character achieved at the end of the story: acceptance into a certain university. Yes, a certain university.
  
   This particular feat has never ever been achieved  at my school so they're all kinda making a really big deal of it. I'm still in shock. I found out on Friday, and I was literally in hysterics and jumping around the living room with my Mum. This is all God's doing, of course. He really does have a plan. Now I just need to get those all important grades!
  
   Pembroke, here I come by God's grace.

Sons and Lovers

It is safe to say that DH Lawrence definitely had some 'Mummy' issues.

  'Sons and Lovers' was published in the early 20th century and it explores the lives of the fictional Morel sons, William and Paul, the latter especially and their relationship with their mother, Gertrude Morel. The novel delves into the heavy influence that Mrs Morel has over the lives of her sons, an influence that hinders them from forming lasting relationships with other women.

  Whilst writing the novel, Lawrence was well aware of Sigmund Freud's 'Oedipus complex' in psychoanalytic theory. This can be summarised as the idea of children (boys in particular) not losing the emotional attachment that they have with their mother during infancy as they grow up. The theory states that this emotional attachment can develop into incestuous feelings, where boys begin to feel sexual envy and hatred towards their fathers for having their mothers. Freud also mentioned that as a result of this complex, a son will feel that he belongs only to his mother and he will also have the desire to sexually possess her. This theory is very evident in Sons and Lovers, which is why it is slightly disturbing that the novel was partly based  on Lawrence's relationship with his own mother.

  The novel was very controversial when it was first released as some critics claimed it was 'obscene' in parts. Reading Sons and Lovers as a 21st century teenager, I found it quite mild in terms of sexual descriptions compared to some of the supposed 'literature' of today. Lawrence used a lot of naturalistic imagery for such moments with 'blossoming' and 'blooming' flowers that are red and pink to allude to sexual intercourse and parts. However, one critique of this is that I found these descriptions too ambiguous at times and it was sometimes hard to follow the story. Lawrence also utilised a lot of opposites in the novel's language, e.g; light vs dark which sometimes acted as pathetic fallacy and love vs hate to showcase Paul Morel's conflicting feelings for the women in his life.

  The character of Gertrude Morel really annoyed me because I found her quite selfish. In my eyes, she is simply a woman that is dissatisfied with life and with delusions of grandiose. As a result of this and the fact that she no longer loves her husband, she transfers these marital feelings unto her sons, treating them more like lovers than sons (hence the title), not wanting to 'share' them with other women and this leads to serious emotional consequences for both sons. All of the other characters irritated me in some way or another as well; Miriam with her weakness, Mr Morel for failing to do something about his wife's unnatural attachment to their sons, Clara Dawes with her faux superiority and so on.

  Sons and Lovers is a very interesting read and despite some saying that it is 'boring' with no story, there is in fact one, albeit it an infuriating one. I see why it is seen as a masterpiece of English literature and I really recommend it if you want to know more about Freud's Oedipus complex.  However, it definitely left me feeling slightly uneasy and I won't be re-reading it anytime soon.

Rating 3/5 ***

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Sons-Lovers-Penguin-Popular-Classics/dp/0141197722/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1358092487&sr=8-3

Bye bye, 2012!

  This will be a very short one as I am off to go see the new year in at church! What a year this has been. I only started Year 13 in September but I can honestly say that Year 12 and January to about May were some of the most stressful months of my life. Highlights of 2012 include being in There Is A War at my local theatre, my tenth and final production, raising money for and doing work experience with the International Medical Corps, going to 'La Defense' in Paris during the summer to help me get over the disappointment of my AS results, meeting Justin Bieber for the SECOND time, getting interview at my dream university and making friends with brilliant, 'perfect' people.

Another highlight of this year has been this blog; I really feel like its doing its intended purpose of making me a better student! 2012 has been tough but awesome and I am very thankful to God for getting me through it.

Bring on more incredible things in 2013 and Happy New Year!

Guest blog: Facing and moving on from disappointment

My twin sister, Tai, has had quite the year and she wanted me to share this. Enjoy!

  Not going to lie, 2012 has been one of the toughest years of my life so far. Looking back on it now, getting through Year 12 sure was difficult, but here I am about to enter 2013 and penultimate term of my school life. I survived.

  As the title of this blog suggests, this year hasn’t been without disappointment. I’m not going to go into much detail because I don’t want to dwell on the past, but I had a couple of setbacks. I was really down for a long time and went through an internal depression and sadness. That period made me realise that it is possible to be both ecstatic for the success of your loved ones, yet deeply melancholy at the same time.

  So how did I snap out of it? By making Jeremiah 29:11 my motto and going back to it when things didn’t seem to be going my way.

   Life won’t always go how we expect it to. There will be ups and downs and you will get thrown curveballs that will leave you reeling. Instead of crying about it and feeling sorry for yourself (which I certainly did), look to the future and be comforted by the fact that things happen for a reason. God has our best interests in mind, and much better things in store for us than we could ever dream of, so as the Avril Lavigne song says, keep holding on.

   I don’t know about you, but I’m heading into 2013 with my chin up and looking forward to seeing what God has in store for me. I hope to get into medical school, but if He has something else planned for me, then so be it. This is terribly cliché but goodbye, 2012 and hello, 2013!

 I leave you with this:

Jeremiah 29:11- For I know the plans I have for you,” declares the Lord, “plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Gcrx2Ab0FM