love, read, write

I started the book today, January 1, 2012. I finished the book today, January 1, 2012. This is how big--page-turning, and important book this is.

Important, yes.

(By the way, I started writing this post on January 1st, but I didn't finish, which is why the posting date is not the "today" of January 1, 2012, as mentioned in the beginning.)

Well, you can live through life without a book--what good is it to you, that much?
But it really makes you think. And it's from a start that you have an end, meaning at one point, beginning to read such mind-boggling books will influence you and make you read more of the-sort books, and sooner or later, you'll start understanding and seeing the world differently than one who hadn't read the book would.
And quite coincidentally, I borrowed five books from the library, and in the past three days, I've read three of those five books, and I've realized that they all have something to do with psychology. Extreme psychology, almost. Well, one book has something to do with psychology, but not as much as the other two.
To put it in the order of extremes, here they are:
House of Stairs by William Sleator
Invisible by Pete Hautman
The Kid Table by Andrea Seigel

House of Stairs is like a PG-10 book. Invisible is definitely PG-13 (13 because I read it, and I'm thirteen. xD) The Kid Table also definitely PG-13, more than Invisible.

But, quite sadly, I read Invisible and The Kid Table last year, December 30th and 31st (maybe 29th, too...? Not sure). Last year as in two, three(, four?) days ago.
So technically, the first book I've read this year is House of Stairs by William Sleator.
And because I'm lazy, I'm not going to write about Invisible and The Kid Table (probably because I'm not comfortable writing about certain topics, too...?).

I've also decided to apply school-learned topics into "real life" (although, I've never realized there was such thing as a fake life...). So I'm practicing MLA citations.
So, if you scroll to the bottom of this post, you'll see an MLA citation of House of Stairs by William Sleator. :D

After finishing this book, I summarized and told the story to my mom. The summary was not the succinct, to-the-point sort of summary, but just enough to tell her the storyline and main details to her, so that she could get an idea of the book.
And when I had finished, she told me it was like Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (by Roald Dahl?), in a more difficult, hard-to-understand version (heh--I'd never looked at that book/movie that way).
But I had only watched the movie.
Anyhow, she said that (she also just watched the movie, by the way) in the movie, it was like Willy Wonka was testing each of their personalities and psychological thoughts to see who "fit" for the next Willy Wonka.
Sort of similarly, House of Stairs is like that. They are, sort of "testing" the five kids to see how much the conditioning behavior would go.

When I first finished this book, my thoughts were all jumbled up and unorganized, but I still had that feeling that there was something important Sleator tried to get across to the reader in this book. Something hidden, but really important.

I still haven't figured out how to put it in words. It's something to do with jobs, and how humans react daily. And there are smaller things, too.

So, to introduce the characters to you, there is Blossom, Lola, Oliver, Peter, and Abigail. I think the characters were named wonderfully. The names just fit their personality. Although it might just be how I think because I've read through the book and learned their personality through their names and thought that's how Blossoms are like, and Lolas, and Olivers, and Peters, and Abigails. That Blossoms are people who are smart and canny, but easily betraying and always thinking of how to help themselves and not others, because I read the book, and Blossom was protrayed as such character.

And, then, comes the point when you must name the pro- and antagonist. The people who are definitely in the protagonist field are Peter and Lola. It's obvious. Like Cinderella is the protagonist in that story, so are Peter and Lola (sorry for the pathetic simile--it's the only literary reference I could come up with at the time). And the obvious antagonist? The scientist dude at the end, in the epilogue. Dr. Lawrence. Now, the not-as-obvious in-between people are Blossom, Oliver, and Abigail. They were antagonist to the protagonists, but to the definite antagonist, they are the protagonist?
So when it comes to just the five of them--Blossom, Lola, Oliver, Peter, and Abigail, it's Peter and Lola versus Blossom, Oliver, and Abigail. But when it comes to the fact that Dr. Lawrence and his crew were actually experimenting on the five of them, the protagonist group increases three digits, because now it's the five of them versus Dr. Lawrence and Co. But the main point of the story was the experiment itself, because the fact that it was an experiment and that they were being tested on was included in the epilogue, which means that Mr. Sleator did not think that last paragraph was the essential part of the story as to be put in as an additional chapter. Therefore, I will come to the conclusion that--
Wait actually, I haven't come up with a conclusion.
They are all being tested. Although Peter and Lola are strong in personality and go for what they think is right, Oliver, Blossom, and Abigail go for what they want. Although that is their ultimate(ultimate because of Abigail personality change) personality, they are still, in a way, innocent (innocent as in not guilty sort of innocent, not the naive sort), in being dragged to do such terrible things.
So although they have been cruel, the true cruelty was the Dr. Lawrence & Co., because they are the ones who (technically) forced the three of them (O, B, and A just to be lazy and abbreviate) to act so... inhumanely.

Now, if you've just read up to this point, and you haven't read the book, you should read the book and stop reading this, because then it'd just spoil the ending. Technically, it already has.
If you weren't planning to read the book anyway,  read the book anyway.
And... you're still not listening to me. But it's up to you. Spoiled ending or awesome book,  your choice. (Hint: go for the awesome book.)

Anyhow, to continue my rant.

Conditioning, at first, was an unclear subject to me, only because I am slow in understanding, and I took approximately fifteen minutes rerererererereading the page that explained conditioning. Then, I looked it up, (same link as the one before) and I found a rather... easy, more clear example of conditioning. But it takes a while to read. But actually, you can understand the subject after reading just the first part, but I chose to finish the whole page (didn't bother to read the second--I still have some form of a life, you know). Psychology is an extremely intriguing, interesting, and complex subject. I would really like to dedicate some time in the summer to read a few books related to psychology.
(That wasn't sarcasm, by the way.)
(Now you know how much of a life I have--more like, that I don't have.)
(Anyway,) Conditioning is an adjective, I guess. (It's easier when a word is defined in dictionary form). Because the article (webpage, actually) mentions "conditioning experiments". Definitely not a verb. Actually, maybe a verb. Maybe it's a noun-adjective. A noun, that means. A noun-adjective-verb.
Okay, screw the part of speech attempt.
Conditioning is a type of reaction, I guess (not good at this, please forgive me if I define it drastically differently--inform me, too), when you are accustomed to a certain result when you go about making a certain cause. For example, the book. Every time they did the weird dance thing when the light was on, food would come out. The dance was the cause, food was the result. So they were conditioned (see, this time it's a verb!) to dance every time the light was on. The light was an assigned period of time in which they could attain food. I guess this is a form of Variable Duration, although it's not that accurate. Variable Duration is that you do a certain action during a certain period of time, fully, from the beginning of that "certain period" to the end, to bring about the result you want. For example, rubbing two sticks to make a fire. You have to keep on doing that action (of rubbing the sticks) during the "certain period" (which is the time it takes to make a fire) in order to bring about the "certain result" (which is fire).
Similarly, but not so similarly, they had that assigned time, which was the time which the light was blinking and there were random whispering, to dance, which would bring about the food.

Assuming you have read through the article I have given you (technically I didn't give it to you, the Sean@betabunny.com dude who wrote the article did), I will now use terms that might usually need an explanation (I'm probably going to end up describing them anyhow).
So, obviously, the little pellets of meat are the reinforcement. Because how else could you survive in the house of stairs?
Reinforcement (here I go again) is the thing that everyone is after, the thing that will reinforce the people or subjects to do what you want them to do, which in the book, is dance. And in the circumstances of the book, food was a necessity, and so, that was the reinforement.
They became so obsessed in the fact that food was all they needed, they forgot they were just in a building with a bunch of stairs, and that there was a way out, that humans were behind this, and that people were controlling them. They just had foodfoodfood on their mind, which exposed the animal-like thoughts and instincts humans have had, and still do have. We just express them in a more, as we may call it, "civilized" way.
Oh shoot. I had something really important to say, but then I forgot.
Whatever... D:

~

Okay, so I got sidetracked this morning, and I started looking up blogger templates, then I got this whole template thing and I spent half the day editing it and doing the html coding stuff for my other blog, so I am lost. This post must be so cut up.
You probably have no idea what I mean.
Anyhow,
What am I supposed to continue?
ooooh.
Okay. So.
At the ending, it shows that all of the conditioning done to the three of them (Abigail, Oliver, and Blossom), changed them into straightforward people who were coldminded and only intent on doing what they were supposed to do. They seemed inhuman, almost, uncaring, and extremely focused and alert. They did not have open space for affection, fun, or love. Love, as in just friendliness.
They were businesslike.
Here is a quote from page 156, as Mr. Sleator writes:

"[Abigail, Oliver, and Blossom's] terse, slightly crouching posture; the way their eyes slid constantly from side to side; their quick, furtive gestures--when Abigail brushed back her hair is was not a luxuriant movement as it once had been, but quick and businesslike, as though to keep the hand poised for something more important."

It is evident that Abigail has changed.
And this is where I'll start writing about the characters.

Lola, for one. She's the tough one, the independent one, with clear leadership. But there's one downside which has brought all the hatred down on her. She expects competence. She has a short patience. She expects that everyone would think quickly, straightforward as her, and that if they don't, well, they're stupid.
Which is a bad thing, because Blossom goes forth on pinching her every inch of her mental and phsyical body using that little downside of her personality.
She does, however, have the ability to see what she had done. Many a times, she would apologize after yelling at the other four in exasperation, frustration, and impatience.
And she goes for what she thinks is right. She stands strong when others waver against her. She's brave, hard-core, and isn't easily moveable, in terms of changing her mind from what she thinks is right. We see many people like this in society today.

Blossom is the spoiled brat who has to get whatever she wants in her way. This is easily portayed, as her mental appearance matches with her physical. Fat and careless--except for food. Food is the prime. Everything for food, which is probably what brought out her inner evil-ness.
She is canny and quick in thinking out things that will get people on her side, so she can use them to go against the people she hates, and also to get the things she wants. She is very good at persuasion and talking, so she is good at lying, and all sorts of talking sort of stuff.
Ever since Blossom and Lola went out to go to the toilet, I knew Blossom would be the mean one. I knew she would do something bad that would hurt Lola.
Blossom is the quick, canny, businesslike people who manipulate people by making them on her side, and getting what she wants. We see many people like this in society today.


Abigail is what my mom says, the "most dangerous" of people. They don't have a definite thought or choice. They are easily swayed, and easily manipulated. They have half of an opinion, so that with one or two sentences, that person is convinced.
She is one who cares about what others think and not what she should do. She is the person who is afraid easily. A bystander, almost. She will probably do something bad just because she thinks others will dislike her if she does not. She does not go with the thoughts, but "with the flow (of others)." ("Go with the flow" quote does not fit in, I know... /:)

Peter is like the character that changes sides. Not as in from bad side to good or vice versa, but personality-wise. Maybe it's not even that he changes, but that the "inner him" is brought out. Who knows?
At first, Peter is this dull, slightly ignorant guy who's always daydreaming about the 'good old times' when he was with his friend Jasper, who always took care of him. He's extremely dependent and careful of things. When he is in a point of trouble, he always waits for someone to figure it out for him. He is always trying to be on the safe sides, with the least percentage of risk as possible; [Sleator, 5~6] "No, he couldn't go up them; he couldn't go down either. What if he should get dizzy again, and slip, or take the wrong step? No, it was safer to stay here, and wait."
Here is a quote that gives some proof: (This is the beginning, when he is randomly taken to the house of stairs and stuck there) "He wrapped his arms around himself and dropped his head onto his chest, closing his eyes, and tried his best not to move, or to think," (Sleator, 4).
This does not seem to prove much, but this is the reaction of when he is first there. He is not curious to see what is happening, but rather, he decides to shrink back and 'try not to think,' which is a rather idle move on his part.

He goes into a serious trance, that could smother his mind, for he goes into trances that he stays mesmerized in, for perhaps minutes after minutes after minutes, and it would take longer and longer every time to awaken out of it. And only Oliver can wake him. Which is creepy. But makes sense, because Peter is dreaming about the orphanage he was in that was nice, where Jasper was, where he was always taken care of and had no worries. And Oliver reminded him of Jasper.
He depends his mind on those trances to survive.

When he begins to change, it is frightening to him, as Mr. Sleator writes on page 104, "The responsibility was frightening, and heavy to bear, No one had ever depended on him; he had never been strong enough or good enough at anything for that. It was he who depended on others, on Oliver, on Jasper." When he decides to go against the machine with Lola, he is frightened that Lola suddenly says that he is not just a part of, but an essential part of the plan, that without him it would not work.
What really intrigues me is the way that Lola gets Peter out of the habit of trances. It would take a great deal--an extremely great deal--of logical and observational smarts to figure this out. Yet this is what happens when you are scientifically tested. You start doing and thinking things you never would do normally under normal pressure.
She started manipulating things studied by psychologists, subjects that are more complex than just straightforward rewards. It is really amazing that she could be so observant and smart to just know about Peter and his thoughts. She realized that she had to reward Peter in order to keep him out of his trances.
And soon, she found the key. She found the reason he was so determined to stay with her against the machine. "It was several things, all connected. It was the reward of winning over the machine, which he hated and feared; it was the reward of feeling strong and independent, of having his own identity, a feeling he had never known; it was the reward of caring about her, of being essential to her plan and not letting her down; it was even the reward of her caring about him," (Sleator, 126). She realized that although she had those same rewards for her, Peter was weaker, and thus the reward was stronger on him. She realized that he needed to be reminded of these rewards.
It was this that would become his intangible rewards for staying out of trances.

Not only this, but also her method of going about with keeping Peter away from his trances also interested me. She knew somehow that the reward would only work if it was given at just the right time. She would remind him how important he is, how beating the machine would be so triumphant, and how much she needs him. And she would only say this a certain time after he got out of his trance. And every time he got back into the trance, she would say it a longer time after, so that the span in between Peter coming out of his trance and Lola complimenting him widened every time. And in that in-between-time, she would do the silent treatment on him.
With this brilliant idea, Peter began to awaken more easily from his trances, and eventually wake up himself. After a while, he did not have those trances at all.
It was this, the disappearance of the trances, the overcoming of the trances, that strengthened Peter psychologically.


[Not finished yet]
But I'll just publish it. :D


Sean@betabunny.com. A Behavioral Approach to Video Game Design. Betabunny.com, N.D. Web. 2 Jan. 2012.
Sleator, William. House of Stairs. New York: E. P. Dutton & Co., 1974. Print.

^first edition, by the way. :D

This is a very peculiar book, because it's about outside-world things like the fourth and fifth dimension. It requires a lot of thinking and time to think, so I, on one hand, have to read much slower than I usually do.
This is about a Dark Thing that is covering the Earth, which endangers those who live within it, and this Dark Thing is evil--hatred, accusations, hate, murder, treachery, betrayal, whatever that is Evil, that is bad.
The main charater, who's name is Meg, has a brother named Charles Wallace who has extreme understanding skills, and can almost read minds (I'm not sure whether it's actually directly reading the mind or just simply understanding very well), and Calvin, who is able to go into the mind and understand very well.
They must find their father, who is fighting the Dark Thing. Her father had been studying the art of Tesseration, or Tessering, or going into a Tesseract. To tesser is to go from one place to another by simply wrinkling what is in between. For example, if you take a string and hold one end with one hand and the other end with the other hand, and put an ant on one hand and make it go to the other, it would be a long distance to get to the other hand by going on the string. But if you simply wrinkled the space in between the two hands, the two start and endpoints, by puttting your hands together; folding the string, the ant will be at its destination in just one step. That is the act of tesseration, going on a tesseratct, of tessering. Now, you can do this with time and space, and Meg and Charles Wallace (siblings)'s father had done. He had landed not on Mars (which was his intended destination), but on Camazotz, a planet that had given in to the Dark Thing, and had let itself fall under the Dark Thing's rule, whom they called IT. IT had a strict pulse that if you didn't conventrate away from it, your heart would beat to that pulse, everything would beat to that pulse, and everyone would be doing the same thing in the same rhythm all similarly.It's really creepy, how it's written in the book, and right now you're probably wondering how doing the same thing can be creepy, but you have to read the book to know, just so you know. Anyhow, Charles Wallace, Meg, and Calvin tesser with the thre Ms. W's (Ms. Whatsit, Ms. Who, Ms. Which) to different worlds and finally, to Camazotz, where her father is. Chalres Wallace, in his arrogance and pride and effort to try to read the mind of a person of IT, falls into the hands of IT, and becomes like the people of Camazotz, hypnotized (in the most vaguest expression) and beating to the pulse of IT. Charles Wallace becomes not himself, but who IT orders him to be, and Meg and Calvin must try to get Charles Wallace back to himself as well as find his father.
Which they do find his father, only he doesn't understand that Charles Wallace has changed into under the force of IT, and which her father continues to treat Charles Wallace like he is Charles Wallace and not Charles Wallace Under the Order of IT.
And they actually go to IT, which is a oversized human brain that beats an irresistible beat that if you don't concentrate away from it, or relax for a moment, you go under it's beat and force. you have to not listen to it,think of other things, not give in.
That's as far as I got in the book.

L'engle, Madeleine. A Wrinkle in Time.
(forgot how to do the citation).

Why, hello, again. I have returned to my prior habits of giving a small report on books I find interesting.
Well, of course.

Anyhow, I had stumbled upon such book titled The Orange Houses written by the author Paul Griffin. Now, before you assume the book is extremely tiring and the type that would make you sort of droop your eyes without realizing it, you must listen.
It is a very, good, book. very. good. book.
I think--
Well. You'll have to read it yourself to know whether you'd like it or not, wouldn't you? I-mean, shouldn't you?

Now what I am extremely confused about is whether Mik is chubby or not. I don't want her to be chubby. I want her to be pretty (I guess she is, by the way Jae and Gale are acting... ), but then Sha calls her a fat itch.
Hmmm. whenever a word doesn't make sense and it rhymes with a term of profanity, it is then a replacement of the term of profanity it rhymes with. As so in this case, it may be applicable. coughitchcough.
Anyway.
I am also confused whether Mik is... umm... African American or not, and whether Jimmi is, because for some reason, I have that feeling at the pit of my stomach, though they never say so.
So I think she's... Caucasian, but... who knows? Those slang and stuff.
But I'm sure if Mik is Caucasian, Jimmi is, and so on. Because... I don't know.
And I think (pretty sure) that Fatima is Egyptian. Because, they said she was in Africa, and then they said they were going blah blah blah Egypt blah blah blah (I forget the whereabouts of such mentioning).

I am not sure, so I strongly suggest that you read the book that Mr. Paul Griffin read.
I honestly think authors should have a title. Mr., Mrs., Wr., or maybe Aut., No. Au. No.
I think Wr. is best.
So I shall start the revolution.
Wr. Paul Griffin wrote the book The Orange Houses, and I strongly suggest such reading of such sort of literature. As it does have some interesting poems, and it is fairly hard to decipher. I think I shall take a second round of reading it, whence my confusion has caused me so.
(Hey, I like talking like this.)

And I very much took a liking of Jimmi's poems, as though the grammar may not be in much agreement with a Literacy instructor, it has a good rhythm, almost. It's a catchy type.
And catchy means that I want to write like that sort of poems.

Already made some.
They're on my other blog, www.therecipetolife.blogspot.com.
Thanks, and have a nice day. (c)AJ2010

I'm not sure whether I said this or not, but The Hunger Games by Suzanne Collins is a strongly recommended book.
Nothing left to say.
Just to say, Catching Fire and Mockingjay are two follow ups to The Hunger Games and they are three amazing books.

I don't know, but The Hunger Games almost seems to try to give a point across about today's government.
...I forget. While I was reading it, I kind of knew why, but...
Never mind.

THEY'RE MAKING A MOVIE OUT OF IT, TOO!!!!
It's coming out in 2012, I think. I'm pretty sure. Hopefully, maybe, late 2011. But I doubt. Yeah.
I think it's 2012. Since I'm so lazy to look it up, I'm just going to guess.
MAKING A MOVIE. Yay.
Oh yeah, and so is "Uglies." They better get a good Tally.
And a perfect Katniss and Peeta and Gale.
I wish the Katniss and Rue from "Katniss and Rue" on youtube were the actual actors for the movie. Then it'd be perfect. They were great. Just like the book.
I wish the movie would be that good.



Any reading suggestions, please tell me...

It´s one of those books that just are different from the rest, that tells you you should read it.

This is an awesome book, the most amazing book, the best book, so good, you HAVE TO READ IT.
a MUST. absolute MUST. read the book first.
But it's at such a high "goodness-level" that a lot of people might not like it. It has "a meaning behind the lines" that if you don't understand it, well, it's going to sound pretty boring.
I'm not even going to write about the story, the usual summary because, well if I included that, I might as well write a novel.

The characters are so carefully structured, each part of their character having a specific significance and impact on the plot of the story.
I have read so many books that take place in the future, and this one is very... interesting. There's not much detail in the parts that aren't much big-important to the plot. See, they called him a third, and made a big deal about it, how they allowed him to be born, to be a third. Does that mean there was a population law? Only allowed to have 2 children? Or is it just some joke, an insult? Another thing was that the author didn't explain much about how they made the children. Did they play with the genetics, made them geniuses?  The author didn't explain much about how they "made" the children, because they did say that they specifically made them genius, or either that, or they are naturally born geniuses. But what are the chances,  Did they play with the gene3 children in a row, geniuses?
Peter was too brutal, too mean, too self centered.
Valentine was too kind, too softhearted.
Ender was just right, how they did the "in-between" of Peter and Valentine, kind, caring, but forceful and strong at times of struggle.
Just the best commander for an army going against millions and billions of buggers. Scary. I can't imagine them. I mean, I can, but I don't want to, because... it's too creepy a thought. Disgusting... bugs? In human size? With their beady eyes.... EGHHHHHH
no. you know what? Never mind. Let's get off the subject of buggers.

The whole idea of the story is amazing. I mean this is a book that you can't write a blog post on, otherwise I'd be writing up a novel for a year... xD
SOOOO it's about saving the world, and the relationship between three very ingenious but yet different siblings. You could tell they still love each other (especially Ender and Valentine), but even between Peter and Ender, and Peter and Valentine. Peter may be violent, he may be mean, but he is still a loving person.
I think. That's how I interpreted him. But then again, I always give the characters a second chance when I'm reading about their major blunder, or their messed up personality.

The way Card writes it, you'd think that Ender was about 17 or 20 years old, and that all the other kids are about that age. Imagine that, what? divided by 3, divided by 2. He's SIX. then SEVEN. then EIGHT. There was never a scene where he was younger than... let's say, ten?
When he commands, he suddenly turns into a different person. First, he's all observant, kind. Then, commander, BOOM. He's strict, to the point, and critiques them, and says it meanly, in a way, without thinking twice. "What's wrong with you? Is Bean the only one who knows it?" and the way he makes jokes during the sessions, you'd think even more that he'd be 17 or 20 years old.
But there you go, that's a mind of a genius six year old.

The best part of the story was Battle School and the game machine thing in the Commander School. The battles in Battle School was amazing, awesome, fun to imagine in your head. The battles are so cool. Floating around and shooting each other!!!!!! (they don't die, just so you know. :) ) Especially when he's commander, how he wins, no matter what. as someone said in Ender's last battle, "Nothing's fair when you're versing Ender!" or something along those lines. Ender's endless victory is amazing.

and the ending, how Ender realizes his fate, how the bugger's peacefulness was genuine, how the buggers didn't want war... you know what? Read it for yourself. I don't want to ruin the ending. :)

No kidding, you should seriously read it. I mean, there's a lot of hard words there, but it's all worth looking up. Trust me, it is the most amazingest book in the WORLD.

So far. :)

But I'm NOT KIDDING, you should read it, especially in 7th grade. xD HAVE FUN.

As you may have noticed, I made a link to the Missing Series and Margaret Peterson Haddix in the
cOuNtDoWn FoR bOoKs! page. Because she has her own website, where you're always up to date to her books, such as the new Missing book: SABOTAGED and the other new book, The Girl with 500 Middle Names or something along those lines.
I'll give you the url. Just Shift + click (or just click, whatever you like) the following: http://www.haddixbooks.com/ 
(Don't x it out before you get to the actual site instead of the slideshow of her best series and books)

Sooo... Jonah and Katherine are where they don't belong. But Chip and Alex, who are the two main characters, do. Because they're the missing princes of... of... England and France... Chip is Edward the Fifth (Edward V), King of England, and Alex is Richard, Duke of York.
What fancy names. 

       What really scares me is that how they know their past when they weren't even in it. Well, technically, they were. They were 1 years old twice, they were 2 years old twice, 3 years old two times, and so on, until the minute they died, where Hodge and Gary swept them out of their time and took them to "the future." Which is true, but not the future that Hodge and Gary wanted.
       Which leads to what actually happens. They have to go back in time so they don't mess up history altogether. Because if things don't go the way they actually did the first time without disturbance, then the whole world may collapse. Time may be gone altogether. You see, time is a very mysterious element. When you think of time, as in a clock. Okay, it's 12:37. Time. Simple. You're not thinking deep enough. Because Time is WAY WAY more complicated than that. For example, can two people meet in time, as in from different times? Like, say Jonah was there when Gary and Hodge were about to steal Chip and Alex. But Jonah is there years later than Gary and Hodge, where they're the thirteen-years-ago Gary and Hodge who stole Chip and Alex. But Jonah is there thirteen-years-after to save Chip and Alex. Can they meet? I mean, in the book, that didn't happen, but I'm just saying, for example. And millions of others. Like a kid from 3002 can met with another kid from 2078 where they both traveled in time to the same place and same time.Can they meet? Or is there some mysterious barrier which keeps them from meeting?

        Anyway, apart from terribly confusing time theories, the story. 
This is the book that made me borrow the first book, which leads back to finishing that book which leads to here. This book again. Really interesting, because the adventure starts here. The first book was sort of the introduction. Of the whole plot. Get it? Each book is like a chapter, and the whole series is like the whole book. So the first book was like the prologue, where they explain how it leads to...
       Chip and Alex gets swept to their original time period, in the 1500's, and Jonah and Katherine grabs on along for the ride. Jonah, at the last minute, before they disappear into nothingness and back in time. The spooky thing is how they become their old selves, instantly, and the minute they go into their tracers, or their original figures of what they originally did without any time disturbances, they know everything. Their past. Chip instantly remembers how he, for the past month or year or whenever, had been training to become King, in which he already was. His father was dead. Alex, instantly, knew his mother, and was praying for her. They both, instantly, began talking in Old-English, which the Elucidator immediately translated. 
        It is truly amazing how Margaret Peterson Haddix comes up with such brilliant ideas. Where she comes up with them, and manipulates them to become part of yet another astounding story. (Wow, I really sound like the book-review peoples. How wierd, a bunch of fancy words add up to some professional-sounding report)
     It was cool. I'd wanted Chip and Alex to go back to themselves. It gave some sense of... nobility, and respect, as if we'd have to treat them like kings and queens (which they did) but I liked when they were out, back to the twentieth century selves (notice I didn't not say their real selves), where they figured out things. OH I can't explain it! But it's like watching a movie, how Chip and Alex are back to their original people. Edward the Fifth and Richard something... Maybe there he isn't Richard the third or any of that sort. Maybe he's just Richard. Maybe. phew, this is taking a lot of energy... What I'm trying to say is, I like it when he's in the tracer and when he's not. For reasons. No. Not like. It doesn't fit it. It seems right when he's in.. the tracer. Phew, too hard to explain.. taking too much.. energy.. from brain... can't.. explain.... When he's in the tracer, he's ... ARRRGHHHHH!!!!!! Read it yourself. You'll know. Please just read it yourself. And if you already did, then... you'll know what I mean.

      Moving on... It's really funny. The best (funny best, not general best, as in whole-book-best, just best of the funny stuff) part of the book is when Alex and Chip and Jonah and Katherine are sneaking their way out of the castle after (accidentally) revealing themselves to be angels sent from God, saying that he has committed great sin. Well, now that I think of it, I think the King Richard the third or someone, Chip/Edward's uncle, he's not THAT bad. I mean, he offered his crown if he had to! Maybe he wasn't all that bad. Maybe just to be king. Or maybe someone else wanted him dead.
        Same feelings as Katherine. Feel bad for him. But I thought, speaking of the "evil" Richard, when he was forgiving everything after meeting the "angels" (Jonah and Katherine). I wondered, was that man, who was (supposed to be but but ended up being) saved from being executed, was he supposed to die, in the first version? Maybe not. probably not. Because then Jonah and Katherine's whole plan will be ruined.


       I think it's funny how Katherine got Chip to get out of his tracer in the end how she says she likes Chip and all that. And he's like, "you think I'm hot?" and stuff... It's funny. I think I literally laughed out loud. loled. Luckily they found that man who was also from the future or whatnot. Which let them get back to original time and,,,,, drumroll please... JONAH AND KATHERINE SAVE THE DAY!! or save Chip and Alex, but same thing.
YAY.
You'll love the book. i can almost guarantee it. Haddix is a master at writing, let me tell you. I've fallen under her spell more than once. And you will, too.

Yes, I found the book the same day I found FOUND. (Funny. Found FOUND. ) And now that I think of it, when I first entered the library, I was in a sort-of sulky mood, and I'd muttered, "I'm not picking any books... Have enough at home anyway to read..." Yes, it was just for my brother, because he had read all of his books and wanted more. I, on the other hand, had a stack of books (that I sort of did not want to read). The books I'd read were beginning to be boring. Treasure Island, and classics. You know.
But, of course, the mysterious power of books was all over the library, and I couldn't resist looking around. And my mom suddenly whispered fiercely for us to come over. There was a summer reading section place, on the tops of the low-bookshelves, there were, organized, summer reading book for the library's town. (I live somewhere else so it does not pertain to me). But I looked there, anyway. And, long time, no see, there was... HADDIX at the spine of a book. Very appealing. VERY. Couldn't resist... I read the book-cover-flap-about-the-story thing. And I liked it. Only,,, it was the second book. Found the first. Then, I think, as I was looking in the "H" section, I saw Hiaasen. And I knew I had to borrow that, too. Just had to. And did. And guess what that book was...
The very book that I am writing about now.

Scat.

         To tell you the truth, I didn't want to read it. Why did I read it, you say? Because I knew this author was an amazing author and that you can never judge books by their cover. And I had. But I'd just forced myself to borrow that book from the library. Good thing that I did. But the cover WAS not that appealing. To me, I mean. I guess the person put random stuff irrevelant to the real plot to make it sound all exciting and funny, but really, I like summaries straight and to the point, without getting into unnecessary details such as a stuffed rat named Chelsea. That really made me not want to read it. But then, I'd remembered, in Hoot, one of the best books ever, they'd also said;"potty-trained alligators" And let me tell you the truth, those alligators were NOT POTTY TRAINED. So I thought maybe the same person wrote those two things. And I really don't think Carl Hiaasen wrote it, either. And if he did.. maybe he's just kind of bad at writing catchy side-story-abouts (or whatever you call it...)

SCAT.
This time, the word scat was mentioned in the book, quite a few times. And very relevant.

         What I noticed was that both books I've read from him, Hoot and Scat, were... well... along the same topic. So I kind of knew what would happen. It seems he has a strong liking of the environment and the preservation of it. Meaning he wants to protect Florida Wildlife. Which I totally agree to. Don't you? But then there are people who don't care a bit about wildlife and just throw their soda cans on the street...

ANYWAY
I guess the characters are pretty similar, too. Always a boy and a girl, and then there's the one person who started it, who, in both stories, don't care about getting in the media. And then there's the people who prevent it. They're always some company. Of course. Oil Drilling. And a Pancake House.  and.... drumroll... the main animal that's being protected.
         Besides the similarities,,,



         This time it's the panther. A baby panther. At first, I thought it was about a cat or something, because Scat had cat in it, and the cover had a picture of (what I thought was) a cat. An angry cat or something.
         The first chapter was so funny. But I knew, then, that Smoke would be the bad guy. (oops.) But it was so funny how he "calmly chomped the pencil in half, chewed up the graphite..." It is truly hilarious how Carl Hiaasen comes up with such queer character. Though in the end, I pity him and his father.
          Though... I wonder what grade they're in. I mean, now that I think of it, I think it might be high school, but I've always imagined them in middle school. It's easier to imagine like that. But then they said that Smoke was 16 and that he was held back two years, which makes him be with 14 year olds, and he's in the same class as Marta and Nick... so that makes Marta and Nick 14 years old. Oh, gosh.. I can't imagine them that old. I imagined them twelve or eleven.. maybe thirteen...
         
           Mrs. Starch is really... strict. When she dissapeared into the wildfire, which was actually arson (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/arson <-definition), I thought, for a chapter or two, that she was... dead. And I thought definitely, that Smoke started the fire, first of all, because he was suddenly transformed into a total human being. (If you've read the book, you know what I mean.) I thought he did that as a lousy cover story that he didn't start the fire, especially when he clenched his jaws and took a slow, tight breath before you know... apologizing to the teacher. You have to read the book to actually know what I'm talking about, by the way.
           But I began wondering, that's what Nick and Marta are suspecting; that Smoke is the one who started the fire. But it said, on the book cover-flap-story-about, (I'll call it cover-summary for short), that "... No, they figure out the class delinquent, Smoke, has something to do with her disappearance. And he does! But not in the way they think. There's a lot going on in Black Vine Swamp than any one player in this twisted tale can see..." So that means... he's not the one that started it? So that means, he's doing something else that has something to do with the fire. And I knew he did have something to do with Mrs. Starch. But not that way. I'd never imagined they would be in together to protect a baby panther and bring it to its mother.

           On the other side of the story... Drake McBride and Jimmy Lee Bayliss. McBride is the Delinko of Scat (Delinko from Hoot, a dense police officer who wants to be a detective, but isn't up to the smarts for it). And Jimmy Lee Bayliss queerly reminds me of two people from Hoot: the person who was in charge of the construction site, and Chuck Muckle, the person in charge of all Mother Paula's Pancake houses. McBride is very unintelligent to actually break the law to make more money. I'd rather just quit the job, or maybe, with some sense, try to make more money by doing something.. I don't know, I don't have an oil drilling business. But it I do have a strong disliking for oil-drilling. And you'll know, too, why I do. If you pay attention to news (coughBPcough).
            At first, I didn't know if I liked Jimmy Lee Bayliss or not. (I'd decided that Drake McBride was too much of an idiot to be much of my liking.) And anyway... At first, I didn't care. You know, I was like, okay, there's a character, and he has a fairly long name, and he works for this really not smart person, whatever. But then, when I learned how he's the one that started the fire, I immediately hated him. I realized that he was the bad guy of the story, and Drake McBride... well... he didn't know what he was doing. It was all Jimmy Lee Bayliss's doing, who started the fire, who set up Smoke as the arsonist. In which he wasn't. Almost as if Jimmy Lee Bayliss was the boss of the company. And speaking of taking a liking of characters, I kind of like Twilly person. Twilly is such a funny name. I can't help laughing every time I say it. Twilly. hehe... Anyway...
           My favorite part was when they were saving the baby panther. Nice twist, with the split personalities with Smoke, and how the "bad" guys and the good guys came together to become the good guys and that they save a little panther's life.
And great thing, how Jimmy Lee Bayliss and Drake McBride got in jail.Well, actually, McBride, being the idiot he is, ran away from the cops and is probably looking forward to a few more months in jail. At least Jimmy Lee Bayliss has some sense to just give in and go to jail and come out.
AGAIN..
save the environment!!!!!!!!!

I wrote Found in all capitals because it more fits the book. Sort of. Not found, but FOUND. And besides, the book says FOUND on the cover.

Margaret Peterson Haddix. Is one of my all time favorite authors. How could I have forgotten to put her on my list of favorite authors? (on the bottom right sidebar. scroll down to see.) She's the best Science Fiction/Spookyish story writers I've ever read. I don't mean R.L.Stein Scary. I mean, Haddix Spooky. You know? There's a difference between scary and spooky. Scary is more.. solid. I mean, scary is monsters, skeletons, huge people with teeth that bite into skin as if it were just cheese. Or... never mind. Spooky isn't monsterish things. They're ideas. Missing people, dissapearing things, moving objects, talking dolls (who look kind of spooky in a way), you know...

Her books are amazing. She's a master storyteller. Page turner. That's what they say, I think, in reviews. (I read them. Believe it or not, they tell you if the book's good. I mean, if there's the quote thing on them, that means its a good book. Boring books don't usually have that on it. I mean, other than what looks like boring information, it actually tells you that it's a good book. You know that? Try it someday.)

All of Haddix's books are amazing. Her recent series, other than this one, I mean, the one that's recent but finished, is the Shadow Children series. Even the title is spooky... go to http://www.haddixbooks.com/home.html for her official website: news for the latest books, and the Missing series, which I'm pretty sure she's writing right now.

Back to the Missing series. From the beginning, the book appealed to me. First of all, it was averagely thick. And second of all (this should be the first reason), it was Margaret Peterson Haddix's book. I hadn't read her books in a while. So I took it off the shelf of the summer reading section of the library. And, thirdly, the about-story thing on the book flaps were very exciting, appealing. And... It was the second book. So I looked for the first one. Found it. Get it! FOUND it. No, that's not funny. Anyway, I read it as soon as I got it. I think. I don't remember. I did read it within two days. You know, once I get a hold of a book I really like, I can't let go of it. I need to finish it before I look up and say, "Whah?"

I liked her idea. And the characters were good. The name Chip is funny, though. Reminds me of the book Disappearing Acts By Betsy Byars.. Meat. But anyway. The ending was kind of spoiled for me because I saw the second book first and I read the second book's story-about, which kind of told the ending of the first book. I knew more than I should.

The beginning was really cool.. spooky. I liked it. A great book, right from the beginning. Spooky and appealing.

It is so... good. The book. How first, they go to see the FBI person. Or whoever. I wonder if the FBI person even knows about the time travel thing. And then the JB person? I'll call him JB, because that's easier than, what.. Alzono Alfred Aloysius K'Tah or whatever.
And the letters. And the papers at the FBI person's office place. With the appearing and disappearing JB person.
I would want to be one of them. And I mean it. I wish I were some king on England, or an important person of history.
You see, the book, it's about these people from the future, they want to save lives from the past, horrific deaths that can go unknown as death, when actually, they've gone to the past and saved that person's life and made them back into babies and then put them in the future. But they started getting off track. I mean, they started taking royalty. Or children of explorers. Important people. And guess what! There's this other person, JB, who opposes that. They say it's going to change history too much and that everything will collapse. So JB, during one of the other people's missions, diabled the time machine thing. And so they landed in our time, and the thirty six babies were unloaded into our time, by accident. And Jonah is one of them.
Oh yes, I'd want to be one of them... Royalty, princess, or maybe... someone important.
I would want to try to call people, and see someone disappear and appear at will.

The book, in short, is awesome.
Ohhh just everything is good. Exciting. Even reading it over, I can't stop flipping the page.
And the encounter with Angela DuPure, one of the witnesses who saw the airplane (that had the babies) dissapear into thin air. Her theory with the Tachyon Travel error was pretty good. She said that some people were attempting the first of time travel, and the seats were filled with adults at first, but the time travel thing went wrong, so they turned "back in time" and became babies. But it was different. I knew beforehand, though, because thanks to me reading the about-story of the second book first.

And the cave part is very interesting, too. I mean, how they're out of time. But.. all of this time thing gets me confused. It makes me put down the book and think about it for a while before I get some theory that seems to match with the book and I start reading again. And the people. I wish I remembered who Jonah was. And who all the people are. It is kind of interesting. I would want to be like one of those people.
I won't tell you so much, but this is the greatest book yet. You HAVE to read it. PLEASE!!!!!!
Must read.
FOUND by Margaret Peterson Haddix

Not once, not even once, not even in tiny little lettering, hidden in page 134, in the bottom right corner (don't be dense enough to actually check), not even, once, was hoot mentioned in the book. I think. (If you do, well... oh well.) Not that I remember. And when it comes to books, I can almost never forget. (Please note that nobody is perfect therefore I myself am not even sure if I have bookographic memory )

I was smiling almost all through the book. Never mind, not through the WHOLE book; that's a wierd image to put in your head, but anyway, do you know how good it was? I woke up, deliberately, thanks to my loyal alarm clock, to read it. At eight or eight ten or eight thirty or...  around eight. In the morning. And I finished it in two days.

Such a great book.
I would definitely recommend it to anyone who is at the level. It would make you laugh. Beatrice's unexpected loyalty, Roy's sarcastic sense of humor, Dana's stupidity, it all weaves into a funny, hilarious, but yet, a story that can wake you up.

At first, I didn't want to read it. I could have read it a long time ago, when I was looking around. The cover was appealing. Two eyes and an upside-down triangle. Hoot. But then the back cover, the one that tells part-of-the-story, it wasn't that appealing. No, it was unappealing. To me. First of all, potty trained alligators? Snakes with unusually sparkling tails, whatsoever. It sounded like some kind of educational book about the Everglades.
Turns out you can never judge a book by its cover, and that means the back cover and the flaps included.

I liked Beatrice because of her unexpected loyalty. The first impression of her bumping into Roy on the school bus and then being all mean during lunch to not go after the running boy, you'd think she'll never care about him, tell him a thing, or even, negotiate, as Roy says, like civilized people. (I'd thought Roy'd have some missing front teeth by that time, but suprisingly, Beatrice could hold her temper, maybe pour it onto her mooshed sandwich.)

I knew right on that Beatrice had something to do with the running boy. She was so... sensitive about Roy's curiosity about him. Obvious. But never, had I thought, she would be... siblings with him.
          My favorite parts were where Roy, so bravely, "negotiated" with the bullies. Beatrice and Dana. How he dealt with Beatrice in the lunch room, and Dana a few times,,, (hilarious)...Especially the first accountance with Dana at his house. When his mother found out Roy was the "little twerp who messed up his face."
         The best parts were the parts where Roy was in the story. The parts with Officer Delinko wasn't as great.
          I want to be like Roy. He's so... brave, as in daring. And righteous. He's an expert on dealing with thugs or ruffians like Dana. Though I can't believe he has that much power to mess up Dana's face.
 The story's so Random and Funny. I know why, though. I think I know why. 'Cause there's a lot of funny situations.
         The names were funny, too. Actually, only Chuck Muckle. I thought it would be a good name for a clown. If you switched the first letters. Muck Chuckle. Just saying it out loud makes you laugh.

         My favorite part was when Beatrice and Roy and Mother Paula and all the others holding hands, blocking the Chuck Muckle dude from un-digging up Mullet Fingers (Napoleon Bridger Leep). It was so... satisfying, to see them all stand up for what's right and block what's wrong.
        It kind of seemed surprising that so many kids would show up just for owls. But then, that's good, and it shows they all care.
    
I wondered, if news reporters were like that. Because on TV, they seem so... professional and unlikely to be nosy and all that. You would think they just get to the facts, don't bother you, and leave. You would think they'd get all the details right and they're always telling the truth and only the truth.
But in the books, they're always the nosy ones and the ones that make it seem as though they were NOT to blame, as much the damage they did themselves. For example, in Hoot, the news reporter, in the end, said they knew no such thing about how there were owls living in there. Obviously, they knew.
         And, there's the movie Hoot, based on the book Hoot, and it was made in 2006, and I'm having a hard time finding it. (Anyone who knows where to download it without making any usernames or that sort, please tell me!!!!) But anyway, the information is here just so you know, so if you've read the book, always try watching the movie!

         I hope people become to be more like Napoleon Bridger Leep (Mullet Fingers), Beatrice, or Roy, by caring for the environment and standing up to it no matter what the obstacles are.
For one, watching CNN will be more exciting, and for another, the environment has more people on their side, meaning less pollution and less garbage and litter.
      Hope you people out there, learn your lesson, if you did litter or do any of the ignorant things many people do (let's hope I'm wrong, that actually, not many people do this...).

Long Life The World! (and books)

          I am in the midst of re-reading this book. It's the second best book I've ever read. The second best book of the Harry Potter series, too. This one has a lot of excitement, and it's kind of new, sort of, with the Triwizard Tournament.