The Liars' Club

For my non-fiction book I read Mary Karr's "The Liars' Club". Let me just say, before I start talking about the actual book, that I have the highest respects for Miss Karr. This book is a powerfully written memoir based off her own childhood. At first, I assumed it was going to be a typical book about a little girl who might learn a life lesson by the time I turned the final page. Surprisingly, she learned/experienced more things than I personally think a seven-year-old girl should have to.

Throughout a good duration of the book, Mary Karr spends her time in Groves, (she calls it Leechfield) Texas in 1961. She lives with her two years elder sister, Lecia, (pronounced: Lisa) her father, an oil refinery worker, and her mother, an amateur artist/drunk.

In the beginning, I was afraid I was never going to get through the book because it didn't exactly leap off the page. Like most books, it introduced all its main characters and explained their backgrounds. To be honest, I don't think I got into the book until chapter two or three, where she, her sister, and her mother are trapped in a car that is ambushed by thousands of locusts.

But later on, the book started to turn grim. Mary Karr spends a lot of her time talking about the process her grandma was going through while experiencing cancer. I knew I was in for details when she described the odors of mustard gas, and the sight of her grandmother's blackened stump that used to have a leg where the cancer lived. By chapter four, I think, her grandmother had died. Mary herself was the first to find her grandma dead in the bed. She didn't say anything; she only waited for her mom to walk in the grandmother's bedroom to find her lifeless body sprawled out along the bed sheets.

Speaking of Mary's mother, she was quite a tormented character herself. Of course, she only claimed to be tormented by life because she always blamed her husband, Mary and Lecia's father. In the beginning of the book, we learn that Mary's mother has never really been satisfied with the man she's been with. She would sleep around with a guy, say she loved him, got wasted like no other, blamed the man, and then bailed. Mary Karr never let go of the subject that her mother and father were always fighting. The mom would get drunk, blame everything on the dad, go berserk, then they would just shut up until the next chapter. Mary Karr always mentioned how her mother threatened to leave her husband, but never committed.

It wasn't until about chapter ten I want to say, where the family took a trip to Colorado. By the end of the trip, her mother said she wasn't going to leave. Mary's father said he had to go back to Texas, so that was the end of their marriage. The girls decided to stay with their mother, mainly because they knew she would never be able to survive without someone watching over her.

Personally, I found that to be an unfortunate responsibility for two little girls. Then again, I figured it would be best the parents split up because before the family went to Colorado, they spent Mary's birthday fighting. The fight was so extreme, Mary's mother tried to kill the family by almost driving the car over a bridge, in spite of hating her husband.

After the parent's split up, the chapter wasn't even finished. Mary still had to mention that her mother had found some hard-drinking bum named Hector. I remember the end of that chapter very well. Mary's mother saying all sunny, "Say hello to your new daddy!" and the girls response, literally, "Oh, sh%$!"

I'm not going to get too detailed with the section of the book where the girls spent their time in Colorado with their drunken mom and their low-life "step-father". All I'm going to say is the girls decided to leave their mom and go back to their dad after she pulled a gun on Hector and threatened to kill him for being such a "useless sonofabitch". (this is literally how the book spelt out son-of-a-bitch).

Mary Karr's father was definitely my more favored parent in the book. He always called Mary "Pokey" as a nickname. Even Mary and Lecia favored their father more, I believe. I felt bad for the dad because I kept getting the vibe that he wished his daughters never had to see and experience the things they did during their parents' fights.

In case you thought this book couldn't get anymore uncomfortable, you're dead wrong. The whole children witnessing one-too-many fights was just the tip of the iceberg as I read this novel. Okay, most of you might agree with me that a lot of kids these days lose their virginity at some point in their teens. But how would you react if I told you Miss. Karr lost her virginity to a teenage boy, on some cushioned ground in a garage, at the age of seven? Well it's true; Mary Karr was taken advantage of by a thirteen year old boy. She definitely didn't shy away from description during the experience, either.

If that wasn't bad enough, the sexual activity didn't stop for her at such a young age. During her time in Colorado, she was taken advantage of by a much older man. But they didn't engage in intercourse, no, more like oral sex. I can remember cringing while reading this part of the book; mainly because Miss. Karr once again didn't shy away from description. I swear, I felt like I was reading an erotic novel during those two pages of description. Yes, two pages of describing the point of view of a nine-year-old girl giving some guy oral.

Lecia's most interesting experience in the book was when she got attacked by I think either an octopus or a jellyfish. While she and Mary were hanging out at the beach, her leg was snagged by some kind of creature of the deep. The tentacles that wrapped around her leg supposedly stung her like no other. This was the one time during the book where Mary had to be the strong one. It was sad, I believe, because the younger sibling usually looks to the big brother or big sister for guidance, just as Mary looked at Lecia. But this was the one time where she had to try to play big sister.

Mary's personality as a child was very hardened by the tough life she lived at home. It says how she would never shy away from using swear words; and she never cared about the consequences of constantly getting into fights. However, she did have a very intelligent side as well. In the beginning of the novel, it said she was very good at beating upper classmen at chess.

Like I said, when I started reading, "The Liars' Club" I was afraid I would never get through it. I don't read a lot of non-fiction novels. Mainly because I like reading stories that are completely made up by the author. I think I do this because the make-believe world is always more compelling to me. Of course, this book, based off the real life experiences of a seven/nine-year-old girl, can be just as unbelievable and breathtaking as any fictional story. I highly recommend this book, because I never gave away the ending of the story (which Mary Karr said made even her cry). So if you aren't hesitant with reading stories that you thank God you can't relate to, then pick up "The Liars' Club", because it's a real trip.

The Prevailing Opinion of a Sexual Character Discussed

There were three things going through my mind when I started reading this essay: 1. I wasn't sure if this was going to be about feminism or a sex addict. 2. When I found out it was about feminism, I feared I was going to be reading an essay written by some negative hippie woman from the 1960's who will never be satisfied until all men are on leashes. 3. When I realized the essay is over two centuries old, I was afraid I wasn't going to get through it because it would be old and outdated (not to mention long).

There was one thing I especially had an opinion on from this article. When Mary Wollstonecraft mentioned how women are treated as the lesser sex, I remembered during her time, women didn't have the same rights as men. Even today, in some places of the world, women have less rights and privileges.

Later on I thought back on my idea of Mary Wollstonecraft being some feminist from the psychedelic era. She mentioned how everything about women is "needless" unless they are beautiful. A lot of women nowadays believe that is how they are treated, today.

Personally, I think women wouldn't find themselves treated like that by men if they themselves stopped flaunting their looks. Some women don't realize that they will never be treated seriously if they don't dress seriously. Now I'm not saying women have to wrap up every inch of their skin in order to be respected; but more so they should stop thinking they only need to use their outer beauty to get men's attention.

Another part of the paper I found interesting was that (stereotypically), men have to teach women how to do stuff because they never got a proper education. I couldn't help but laugh because it sounded like men have to program women's brains like robots. This is not the case, seeing as even without an education, women have the capability of making up their own minds.

There was another part of the essay where Miss Wollstonecraft said women degrade themselves. By this, they make themselves more attractive so men give them some attention. This, once again, is not men's fault. Sure, I'll admit, some men are total tools and only pay a woman any attention when she's dancing on a pole (too blunt?). But there are also men who actually care to hear what women have to say.

You see, sometimes women get the idea themselves that they have to be sex symbols in order to be appealing. But really, all they have to do is socialize with men that can relate to them. Seriously, it's a lot easier, I'm sure, for some girls to want to talk to a guy with the same interests and hobbies then put on a short skirt.

Is Google Making Us Stupid?

Before I even started reading this essay, I was entranced by it. The title itself actually made me question my own thoughts on Google. Is it making me stupid? Or is it making me lazy? By that I mean, is it forcing me to use it as my only resource for information?

Nicholas Carr seemed to talk more about the Internet in general than just Google in this essay. This, thankfully, did not disappoint me because it expanded my thoughts and questions I had earlier when I thought he was only going to talk about Google.

In a way, I think he's right about our reliance on the Internet. For instance, I'm a teenager who uses the Internet everyday. It's not like I lack a life, but more so I want to either learn stuff (simple stuff that I wonder about) or I want to stay in contact with my friends and family. The Internet is sometimes considered a gateway, if you will, that opens us all up to a world where we can access infinite knowledge. But if this is true, then why is Mr. Carr proposing that it lowers our intelligence?

He brought up an interesting topic earlier in the essay about how Scott Karp, a blogger, confessed that he no longer reads books even though he is a literary major. Mr. Karp admitted to using the Internet more often because he is able to learn information within minutes rather than spend hours in a library searching for a book with the same information. Personally, even though I found this example to be interesting, I also found it to be a bit unrelated to stupidity.

Nicholas Carr started giving me the idea that we as people become more "lazy" than "stupid" when using the Internet. It is a much quicker source, so why not use it? But then again, are we being fair to those librarians?

Before I even finished the essay, I came to my own conclusion on this topic: the Internet for people is usually a form of entertainment more than it is a way of obtaining information. Sure, we can learn about stuff by using the Internet just as much as we can with books; but there are only a select few of people who can get the same joy out of reading on their own as they can chatting with their friends on Facebook, Myspace, Twitter, AOL, MSN, etc. When people use the Internet for these purposes (Not judging them if they do or not. I know I talk to friends on Facebook) rather than grasp knowledge about the world, they are basically finding a substitute for the television. In fact, I kind of wished Nicholas Carr would have written an essay focused all about watching T.V. I know I would have found that to be even more fascinating.

At the end of the essay, I couldn't help but laugh when I connected the dots and realized that a man writing about how the Internet is making us stupid is actually using the Internet to have us see it. I found it cool because it was almost like he knew people would only get a glimpse of his opinion by using the very source he was griping about. Ironic, isn't it?

Skunk Dreams

When I began this essay, I'll admit I had high hopes. It seemed like such a peculiar story when the author, Louise Erdrich, started it off by telling us that she was lying in a football field as a skunk crept its way onto her. I thought to myself if I was in that situation I would be afraid of the skunk spraying me. Since I've never smelled a skunk's stench, I wouldn't know what to expect, and that is what fascinated me during the beginning of this essay.

Unfortunately, I couldn't help but find the story to go down hill from that point on. Louise Erdrich started jumping around so much, I had to re-read the paragraphs just to make sure I didn't lose track of where she was going with this essay. When I realized the problem wasn't me, and more so her sprawled out writing style, I felt reluctant towards reading on.

At one point, I started to get the feel she was a little obsessed with the whole fence ordeal. The barbed wire description fortunately encouraged me into reading on. I think it was because even though her main direction with the essay seemed a bit sloppy, she had a nice talent with description. But that pro became a con much faster than I expected. She started dragging on and on about trees, wildlife, etc. so much I had to roll my eyes. I'm always up for a writer to add in description, but when the description is so detailed it pulls the reader away from the main focus of the story, the whole paper goes down.

I will admit I did like how she was getting at being bored with a place that incarcerated so many animals after visiting one too many times. It reminded me of times when I used to go places for fun, but after spending too much time at those places, they started to loose their spark. When the spark of a "special" place starts to fade, the whole point of going to that place becomes utterly pointless. So I will applaud Miss Erdrich for using tactics that make the reader consider relating to her personal story.

The really interesting part of the essay was when she crossed paths with the wild boar. Naturally thinking, I assumed the boar was going to be the conflict in the story. The part where (at the time I hypothesized) maybe she would have a near-death experience with this boar. I predicted this on the soul reason for her comparing death and dreaming. Since the essay is called "Skunk Dreams" I thought this was going to be the part where she would almost die. Grim, I know, but it was just a theory; which, by the way, I wasn't disappointed to be wrong about. The boar just drifted off, which made it seem less wild than it was described as to being. I think that part was to remind the reader that they are reading about a dream-like experience.

In the end of the essay, Miss Erdrich said that if she could be any animal in the world, it would be a skunk. At first, when she mentioned this, I felt like she was telling us her answer to some quiz she was taking. Yah know, "If you could be any animal in the world, what would you be, and why?" Well she explained her reason: because skunks are fearless, brave, and do not fret over being captured. This, the author believes, is a sign of not fearing death itself. Of course, what I don't think she realizes is that death isn't afraid of the skunk either, because death does not have a sense of smell.

Talk Of The Town

To be quite honest, when I started reading this essay, I thought Adam Gopnik was talking about the Columbine High School Massacre. "The cell phones in the pockets of the dead students were still ringing." That line opened me up to an uncomforting feeling. But when I read on and understood it was about gun control, I got a little reluctant to read on. I personally don't have much thought on the subject, so I feared my blog was going to end up dry and dull. But then I said, "What are the positives and negatives of this topic?"

The essay thankfully opened up to a very bizarre mentioning of a mentally ill person purchasing a gun. I remember making a 'what-the-French toast' face when reading that part. How can a mentally ill person even buy a gun? At work, one of my co-workers, who is a bit mentally ill, isn't even allowed to help customers sign up for a new store card. My thoughts almost instantly were that the seller of the gun was one of the following: dumb as a mule for not learning information about the customer, was working their last day on the clock and didn't care who they sold a gun to, or sick themselves and wanting to see public chaos. Knowing some people today, I would have to guess they fell under the first category.

When reading about several other countries raising the bar on gun control after having some troubles of their own, only to successfully decrease the numbers of shootings, I guessed it would be only positive for the U.S. to follow in those other countries' footsteps.

When Susan Sontag chimed in with her preaching about war, our "robotic president", and the troubles with our government, I instantly labeled her as a nag. Surprisingly, I wasn't sure why. Maybe it was because her writing was a little too preachy for my taste. I can't stand people who spend all their time making ironic comments about other people when they themselves aren't doing jack squat. Then again, I don't know Ms. Sontag, so I can't say she hasn't tried to make changes with this issue.

Her focus was on the U.S. of having some kind of "superpower". Not sure at first what she meant by that, I immaturely thought she was comparing ol' America to the Man of Steel. Then I managed to realize she was saying America thinks we're on top. (By which I mean we're on top of all the other countries.)

This made me start to see America as a self-absorbed child--or maybe even a sheltered, self-absorbed child. Our country is always hearing about only itself. Yah don't believe me? Go watch the news and realize we only hear about how great our country is. I personally have nothing against America, I just understand we don't get much knowledge about how the rest of the world is doing unless it involves us.

Even though learning about ourselves and how our country is growing each day is important, it might not be such a bad thing to understand everyone elses' status so we can learn and understand this big rock we call Earth.