Guest blog: Going to an all boys school

My sister, Tai, is still using my blog as an outlet. Enjoy!  

 Reading back the two blogs that I've written on here has made me realise that I come across a bit too serious and a bit of a downer. So I think it's time I remedy that with a post that tells anyone who reads this a bit more about me.

   As the title suggests, I go to an all boys school. Due to the fact that not many people in my school chose to go down the sciences route like me (yay for medicine), I go to the boys school for some lessons and I'm the only girl in my Maths and Chemistry classes there. I spend the majority of my time there, and have been for over a year now. Yupp.

   At first, it was so intimidating and scary. The constant stares were unnerving, being avoided was lonely, and asking for directions to the female toilets sure was awkward! After a while though, the lads got used to me and I made friends who are lovely and still my pals to this day. I love going to the boys school as I'm more challenged there than I am at my own school sometimes, and I think going there has given me more insight on the enigma that is boys and how they function.

So what HAVE I learnt?

1. Boys definitely have more banter than girls. I think they're not as sensitive and don't take things to heart as much, so jokes can freely be made without fear of anyone getting offended or emotional about something.

2. Boys have no respect whatsoever for promiscuous girls. Sure, they love the 'favours' they can receive from such girls but in their eyes, they are just easy.

3. Intelligence makes boys instantly more attractive to me. Boys who are good looking but as dumb as bricks are definitely not cute.

4. I know how to talk to boys better, so I gravitate towards them when I meet new people because I'm now better at relating with them. Well it's that or maybe I'm a slut so I think I'll go with the former.

5. In ways, boys are better than girls. If boys don't like you, they won't do the annoying thing that girls do and pretend to be your friend then talk about you behind your back. They also give you straight yes/no answers instead of saying the ever annoying "I'll let you know" or "I'll see what I'm doing".

   I could keep going but I think those will do for now. I've still got a couple of months left at the boys school before we go our separate ways so will I gain some knowledge of the male mind? Will my budding misogyny grow? I guess time will tell. Well that or whether or not I will be bothered to do a follow up blog to this. Stay tuned.

The Fault in Our Stars

  The first time that I heard about John Green was in a Charlie McDonnell video. I think it was his 'Dear Future Charlie' video and Mr Green made a cameo towards the end. I didn't know much about him at the time (though he is a HUGE deal in the vlogging world- 'VlogBrothers') and I didn't dwell on it. Two years on, my friend Charlotte says that I must read 'The Fault in Our Stars' as it's 'absolutely amazing' and a 'weeper'. My interest was immediately piqued as I love books that make me cry. The boys in my 'other school' (see here for more info) now believe that I am masochistic because I purposely read books that evoke weeping and sadness in me but that's not weird, right? I mean, everyone needs a good cry every once in a while...

  Anyways, The Fault in Our Stars is about Hazel Lancaster, who is suffering from a terminal cancerous tumour and totally disillusioned with life until she meets and begins a relationship with the extremely handsome Augustus Waters, changing her life irrevocably. Novels with characters that suffer from cancer are always hard to read as the reader knows that disaster and or death is inevitable. However, this novel was made even harder for me through Green's real descriptions of the horrors of living with cancer. And as the novel is written in the first person from Hazel's teenage perspective, nothing is glossed over or glamourized. Jenny Downham's 'Before I Die' is another book that I feel describes well how truly awful it is to be suffering with cancer, again from the point of view of a teenage girl.

  The Fault in Our Stars also made me think a lot about life as well as raising this question in me: is all the struggle in life really worth it if the person will be forgotten after death? Gangs of New York, which I watched recently also explores this question at the end. As a Christian, I personally believe that the struggle is worth it as there is the reward of eternal life in heaven after death, but for the atheist or agnostic reader, this is a question that would be quite difficult to answer. Although The Fault in Our Stars is very thought-provoking, my one critique of the book is that the characters (Hazel and Augustus especially) come across as pretentious and unrelatable at times with their manner of speech. I found this manner of speech unbelievable for sixteen year olds (too much of John Green himself); it was sometimes too philosophically convoluted with a risk of missing key point plots. But that is just a minute flaw in a brilliant book- no book is perfect.

  As well as the theme of being remembered after death, Green also looks into love and its scars, both physical and figurative, how one can live his/her mark in the world and the issue of star crossed lovers with the dynamic between Hazel and Augustus. I also liked the use of the 'book within a book' technique with 'An Imperial Affliction' and like many of the others who have read The Fault in Our Stars, I too wish Green would release it as an actual book.

  In all, The Fault in Our Stars is great, I did cry and I was up till about 4am in the morning as I couldn't stop thinking about life 'and stuff' after reading it. The book made me appreciate being alive as that is something that we often take for granted and in my eyes, it is miles better than Jodi Picoult's 'My Sister's Keeper' which aggravated me immensely. Good job, Mr Green.

Rating 4/5 ****

http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/0141345659

Why I don't date.

   As today is Valentine's Day, I think it is an appropriate occasion for me to state the reasons why I don't believe in dating at this age. I find that many people my age only want relationships to conform to society and be like everyone else. I genuinely laugh out loud every time I see a status on Facebook like 'So lonely need sum1' or 'I love my baby more than anything in the world, don't need anyone else' etc. If you consistently jump from one relationship to another, claiming to 'love' each person, then you don't really know what love is. Don't even get me started on this new trend of 'seeing someone'. I find that people are blurring the lines nowadays between lust, which can mean being attracted to someone (sometimes sexually) for their physical appearances and love.

  This is going to sound completely cynical and pessimistic but most teenage relationships do not last and they can be pointless. Here's a scenario: boy and girl start going out at the age of 14. If they're lucky, they'll continue going out till about the age of 18 (which is really rare) and then when it is time to go to university, they will break up, leaving unnecessary heartbreak and pain that could have been avoided if they didn't go out in the first place. I've seen this happen. What is even worse about teenage relationships is that they can even hinder you in life. Another scenario: girl goes out with a boy that is older than her by about a year. The girl is very intelligent but the boy is mediocre and and chooses not to go to university. Due to becoming all about her boyfriend, the girl's grades at school begin to suffer and even though she could get into numerous top universities, she decides not to go because she wants to stay with the boy, ruining her life in the long run. And get this, the boy lets her do this because it is unspoken between them that if she decides to go, he will break up with her. I've also seen this happen. Is this love?

  Academic reasons aside, I also think that relationships at a young age can tempt you into doing things that you should not. As a Christian, I don't believe in sex before marriage but if you start dating too young, it would be easy to get carried away and do 'things', using 'love' to justify them. People will say that I am prudish (they have) but I would rather be respected for my innocence than to be known as a girl with loose morals. As I spend most of my time in an all Boys school (long story), I have seen for myself the lack of respect that the other sex have for girls that they call 'sluts', but I digress.

  I'm not claiming to be this rock of strength and refusal when it comes to relationships. I have been asked out a few times and there are times when I really really want to say yes because I really really like the boy. Notice I say like and not love. I can honestly say that I am 17 and I still don't know what love is. Is it admiring someone for their brilliance, intelligence and 'Perfection'? Is it wanting to kiss someone when you see them or thinking that a person is extremely good looking? I don't even know.

  What I do know is that I will grow as a person and learn for myself the true meaning of love. I won't rush into relationships now and do 'things' that I'll later regret just to be like everyone else. As a teenager, life without your boyfriend/ girlfriend might seem impossible but you are young and still have so much to do, many experiences to have and so many other people to meet. When I am ready to settle down and get married, that is when I shall have a relationship. Another thing that hinders me from dating now is that I am very picky and I've read a lot of epic romances so maybe deep down, I am probably still waiting for my own Mr Darcy. Ha. Well, I will wait for him and when I do decide to find him, he'll be great.

 Again, everything here is what I personally think and you can choose to agree or disagree with me. The amazing poet, Janette Ikz (who I met two years ago and it was AWESOME!) eloquently says all I've tried to say. Happy Valentine's Day.

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.