Blog Reflection

When I first found out in the beginning of the year that we were starting our own blogs, I was extremely eager to begin to write my opinions/conclusions on the books I was to read throughout the year. It was something that I was surprised I hadn’t thought of doing for myself beforehand, and so when I learned we were to make one, I thought it was such a cool idea. Personally, I really enjoyed blogging this year, and the entire experience was generally positive for me.

One of the benefits that came along with creating a blog was that, in my opinion, it’s different than writing in a notebook. I feel that it’s different because when you write in a notebook, there are some limitations in terms of the way the writing looks. For example, in many of my blog posts there are sentences where I put italics on some words, to emphasize that word more than the rest. But in a notebook, if someone were to just read it normally, you would have no way of knowing which words are supposed to have more emphasis than others. I believe this is an important thing, because it can not only change the entire way the sentence is read, but it can also portray a specific personality or style of the writer. Another thing is that when writing in a notebook, I tend to constantly reread what I'm writing and change the tiniest details. Whereas when writing a blog post, I tend to either feel more comfortable with the very first thing I write, or I'll think more about what I'm going to write next before doing it.

I learned that I tend to pay attention to some very similar things when writing a blog post about a book. For example, I really seem to be interested in character relationships, as I have written about them both in one of my posts about the book "Perfect" by Ellen Hopkins, and in my post about "Fangirl" by Rainbow Rowell. Another thing I tend to take note of while reading, and then later write about, is author's craft. In another post about the book "Perfect", and a post about the book "Burned", also by Ellen Hopkins, I mention different things she does within both books that in fact make it more interesting. Another separate thing I learned about myself while keeping up a blog was that the part of each post I either do best in or have the most to say in is towards the end, when I get to state my opinion. This is usually because I have a lot to say either to strongly agree with or strongly oppose what the author of a book or article is saying. I have also found that this part of my posts, from my perspective, is the most powerful and thought-provoking.

I don’t imagine myself keeping up with this blog specifically, only because it is entirely devoted to posts about books and articles. However, I could definitely see myself creating another blog, and keeping up with that. This is because, for organization preferences, I’d like to keep this blog for my schoolwork, and possibly make another for something else. I would make my second blog about something such as a personal blog, in which I just write about things I’ve done or things I find interesting, or I would create a blog devoted to product reviews. In fact, I have already made a blog for the second one, alongside Chloe in 804. We have been writing about different products we like and dislike, and why. My opinion on blogs in general is overall quite favorable. This is because, for the most part, I find that blogs are a way for people to express themselves and their opinions, whether it’s about books, products, or anything in between. It doesn’t matter if you use a pseudonym, or even if you portray yourself in a more fake way, because you’re still getting to share your thoughts and feelings to the world.

In conclusion, I truly loved having the ability to have my very own blog this year, and I feel that it was a great experience for more possible online writing in the future.

Non-Fiction Critical Analysis

    In the article “American Girl’s All-American Success” by Amey Stone, the author wants the reader to know how the American Girl industry is currently thriving and even put other stores, like FAO Schwarz, to the test. Stone quotes people such as Richard Hastings, chief economist at retail consulting firm Bernard Sands, Michael Silverstein, head of the consumer and retail practice at consulting firm BCG, Ellen Brothers, Pleasant Co.’s (the company that produces American Girl) President, and Chris Byrne, an independent toy consultant. She uses these people to help prove her point about how greatly American Girl and its products are booming. Throughout the entire article, Stone continuously makes points that are either positive towards American Girl, or just show its success.

       Within the article, Stone mentions the positive aspects of American Girl over other toy brands, as well as their new advance in popularity. For example, Stone says, "...American Girl is thriving while selling toys and accessories exclusively for young girls at premium prices." This shows how although the dolls and all of the things that come with them are expensive, they are still incredibly fun for girls ages 5-10 (or any other age) to play with and to love. Also, the author later says, "Silverstein believes the real secret of American Girl's success is its status as a "New Luxury" item, where despite premium prices, customers perceive that they're getting a good value for their money due to high-quality materials and skilled marketing." This helps to prove the point above by showing how because the dolls and everything that comes alongside them are so well-made, they are worth those high prices if your child will love them. An example the author gives about American Girl's achievement is, "American Girl doesn't disclose its earnings, but it did $350 million in sales last year, up almost 17% from when it was acquired five years ago." This proves how American Girl is arising as a new and well-known toy company that could (if it wanted) even dominate the entire industry. Although on the more negative side, there are other popular toy brands that American Girl could have a hard time beating out such as Barbie, Lego, Playmobil, and more. But, as the author says,"...FAO Schwarz, sitting 10 blocks north and boasting an aging floor keyboard as its major draw, seems to be an endangered species." This proves that it seems American Girl has already scared one huge and popular toy store, only leaving people to wonder who they'll scare next.

       I may have a little bit of bias when stating my opinion about American Girl and Stone's article. That bias is that when I was younger, I myself had not just one or two, but eight American Girl dolls. I was totally obsessed with their cuteness, but also I loved how they were so life-like and I could do whatever I wanted with them. I used to sit in my room for hours playing with them and setting up all my furniture I had for them. So, personally, I'd have to agree with Stone that American Girl is undoubtedly a constant success. Stone already did point out specifically what makes American Girl so great, such as their quality, uniqueness, and lack of advertisement, but I think it's more than that. I feel that the fact that American Girl is able to take each and every doll they produce and give them a story. Sure, if you get one of the look-like-you dolls, it'll be entirely up to you, but with all the historical characters and girls of the year, American Girl manages to make one doll so extremely special. When you buy, say, a Barbie doll at the store, sure, one would probably be excited, and yes, maybe there will even be a little description on the box. But disregarding that, the Barbie doll you're purchasing has no story, no full-length book about her, no lesson about a historical time period, and is no different from any other Barbie doll you could buy except look wise. All in all, American Girl is an amazing company, and I fully agree with Stone and her opinions. 

       

How Ellen Hopkins Uses Author’s Craft to Portray Messages Relating to a Character’s Conflict and to Connect Characters

The book “Perfect”, by Ellen Hopkins, is a book written in verse about four young adults, Cara, Sean, Kendra, and Andre, who are being faced with different problems every day. The four of them all connect in some way, even if they don’t know each other in the book. Aside from each of them dealing with conflicts each day, they also all have an overarching internal issue that seems to either cause or relate to their little daily problems. Hopkins weaves different writing tricks into her book to show these different overarching ideas, and also to relate one character to another.

The author uses creative writing styles to explain characters’ main issues in many different parts of the book. For example, at the start of one of Sean’s chapters, the top line is “I’m okay.” But the words Hopkins chose to put on the left side of the page, as the book is written in verse, are “I’m really not okay.” This is a very clever way for the author to explain Sean’s true feelings. This is also helpful to the reader, because Sean is a very stereotypical boy character who won’t open up about his emotions. So by Hopkins putting the specific words “I’m really not okay” on the left side of the page, if a reader were to notice it they could easily comprehend Sean’s internal emotions, without the author having to make him say it. Another example is, at the start of one of Kendra’s chapters, the top line is “Empty.” And if you were to add that to the words on the right side of the page, which are “you can soar”, then you’ll get the phrase “Empty you can soar.” This sentence has two meanings. The first is that of the actual plot, meaning that Kendra has taken pills that make her not want to eat any food, so now she has an empty stomach but does not feel hungry. Her reasoning for this is that she is an aspiring model, and needs to stay skinny. So Kendra is saying that now that she doesn’t need to eat, she can stay skinny and impress photographers so they’ll want her for shoots. The second meaning is more hidden, and it is that Kendra will soon soar when she is has emptied her feelings for Connor, her ex-boyfriend who she is still very in love with. But, once she has rid of those feelings, she will be able to 100% focus on her career, and hopefully find someone new.

The author also uses creative writing styles to link different characters together. For example, at the end of one of Andre’s chapters, he says, “...wondering why I don’t feel like I can share my private dreams with the girl I’m so in love with.” Then, on the next page, at the beginning of Cara’s next chapter, she says “Private Dreams. Snare you. Swallow you. Make you feel like you’re all alone...” These two lines from Andre and Cara show that even the though the two of them don’t really know each other, they have this conflict connection with dreams. Also, at the end of Cara’s line when she talks about dreams making you feel alone, that has a link to Andre because he is incapable of telling his girlfriend, Jenna, about his dreams, labeling him alone in that category. Another example is, at the end of one of Kendra’s chapters, she addresses a woman, “I’m okay. Please. Can you take me home?” Kendra has just gotten in a biking accident, and the woman was trying to help her and offered to take her to the hospital, but instead Kendra denies. On the next page, at the beginning of Sean’s next chapter, he says, “I’m okay.” Although Kendra and Sean do know each other (through Cara), they aren’t really friends, so this gives them more of a connection. They are both telling someone else (Kendra) or themselves (Sean) that they’re okay. But as readers can tell, they are both truly not okay, whether it’s internally (Sean) or externally (Kendra).

When I first started reading this book, although I was extremely engaged in the story itself, I failed to notice all the ingenious writing devices Hopkins placed all over the book. As soon as I found that first string of words on the left or right side of the page, I went back through the book and tried to find all of them. I feel that this adds another whole layer to the book, because now that there are these little messages, readers can understand a character’s internal thoughts that they may not express, or they can learn things themselves. Personally, I also find the little messages to be incredibly moving and thought-provoking, because it is usually something dramatic that I would never think or have the need to say myself. As for the connections from the end of one character’s chapter to the beginning of a different character’s chapter, I believe that those are very appealing as well. This is because most of the time, the characters being connected have none or very little social interaction with each other, so it is nice to see that they have something internal in common. I have also wondered if all of the four characters will ever meet altogether, and if that does happen will the internal connections be discovered amongst themselves, or will it stay just as something the reader witnesses? Overall, Hopkins is a very stimulating writer, as I have also viewed in some of her other books I have read, and I am so excited to finish this one.

Predictions for Different Characters' Futures in "Perfect" by Ellen Hopkins

          The book "Perfect" by Ellen Hopkins is a book written in verse about four teens, Cara, Kendra, Sean, and Andre, all of whom have new experiences such as questioning sexuality, family problems, love, alcohol and drugs, self-image, and more. These four teens all have some sort of connection; whether it's dating, family, or friends, they seem to have some sensible reason for possibly bumping into each other at any moment. In the future, the character Cara will get closer and closer with Dani very quickly, but then she will have trouble keeping it from her parents as well as Sean. The character Kendra will either a) go visit Connor in Aspen Springs, and/or b) she will drop out or purposefully screw up during one of her pageants. The character Sean will, after finding out about Cara and Dani, throw himself into working out, because that's also what he did after his dad died. The character Andre will somehow be faced with the decision of Jenna or dance, and he will pick Jenna, even though dance is the smarter choice because he's worked so hard at it.

          Each of the characters will do different things or make different choices in the future, and this is why. Cara will get close fast with Dani, but then have trouble keeping it from Sean and her parents, because it is most certainly not what her parents or even Sean expect from her. For example, in the book, Cara says, "I don't say that falling in love with a girl doesn't fit well in my master plan." She is proving that not only is this something that doesn't go with the rest of her lifestyle, but she's saying something that makes it more likely for her to not tell anyone, especially Sean or her parents. Kendra is either going to 1) visit Connor in Aspen Springs, and/or 2) drop out or screw up on purpose while in one of her pageants. This is because 1) no matter how much she denies it she is still in love with Connor. For example, in the book, Kendra says, "I think about Connor all the way home.". She also may drop out or purposefully screw up during one of her pageants, because she is sort of sick of and fed up with the whole business. For example, after being asked by her mother if she still likes pageants, Kendra also says, "Does she want the truth? Do I want to give it to her?". This proves that Kendra is most definitely thinking that she isn't as into pageants as she used to be; all the more reason for her to drop out or purposefully screw up. For Sean, as soon as he finds out about Cara and Dani, he's going to get extremely angry and only focus on his working out. This is because he obviously isn't great about expressing emotions, so he puts it all into constant weight-lifting and body-building. For example, Sean says, "Focused completely on the gain. It can't happen overnight. It takes hours every single day...". Although this doesn't prove much about him pushing down his emotions, Sean is saying "focused completely on the gain" meaning not focused about anything else, especially not his feelings. Finally, Andre is going to somehow be faced with the decision of Jenna or dance, and he will pick Jenna, although that isn't the right decision, considering how much work he put into dance. This is because, when Andre says, "...the girl I can't seem to get off my mind.", he is talking about Jenna. Coincidentally, he is in dance class when he says that, and actually starts messing up the routine a little because he's thinking about purely Jenna.

          I believe that these characters will do these things or make these decisions in their futures for 

the reasons above. Although I do realize that these predictions are mostly negative, there is a certain 

reasoning for that. That reasoning is that Ellen Hopkins seems to like to give characters a shocking, 

negative spin that makes the reader only hope for the best. I know this also from reading two of her 

other books, "Burned" and "Impulse", and because of the way she set the characters up in the 

beginning. Cara started as the perfect girl who got perfect grades and a perfect personality and a 

perfect look, so obviously that has to crumble at some point. Kendra started as an anxious beauty 

queen who still couldn't get over her ex-boyfriend, of whom is currently in rehab (Connor).  Sean 

started as a body-building obsessed, sports lover who is the all-star jock at his school, dating the all-

star girl (Cara). Andre started as a well-raised, spiritual kid who hides his true dreams from his 

parents, because he fears they won't approve, which they most likely won't. All of these first 

impressions are practically set up for destruction in some sort of way; now it's just about finding out 

in what way they'll get destroyed. 

Non-Fiction Critical Analysis

In the article “Horoscopes - Fun But Utterly Fallible”, by Peter M. Nardi, the author uses many examples and biased vocabulary to persuade readers to believe that zodiac horoscopes are completely untrue. Nardi uses examples of experiments and quotes from psychologists, such as Bertram Forer, P.T. Barnum, and Charles Reichardt, as well as researchers, such as Richard McFall and John McGrew. Nardi also gives his own zodiac sign, and uses examples of things he’s seen on the internet about his own sign. He also states, along with other psychologists that he mentions, that horoscopes generality makes it so anyone can refer to themselves as what the horoscope says.  Throughout the entire article, the author consistently denies any truth that could lie in horoscopes.

Within the article, Nardi describes a few experiments performed by psychologists or researchers that help to prove that zodiac is inaccurate. For example, the first experiment that Nardi explains is one performed by psychologist Bertram Forer in 1949, “...subjects completed a personality test and received a written assessment of their results. Forer asked them to rate the accuracy of their personal profiles; the result was very high ratings (an average 4.26 where 5 is "very accurate"). However, each person received the exact same assessment that Forer took from a newspaper horoscope: ‘You have a need for other people to like and admire you, and yet you tend to be critical of yourself. While you have some personality weaknesses you are generally able to compensate for them. You have considerable unused capacity that you have not turned to your advantage.’" This experiment was very smart, considering that if a person had just seen this in a book or on a website when looking up traits of their astrological sign, they would most likely believe this statement to be true. This is because, as Nardi later states in the article, if people read something positive that is supposed to represent themselves, they will probably believe it to be true, if it’s general enough that it could apply to just about anyone. That, as the article explains, is how horoscopes are designed, according to those who are anti-zodiac accuracy. Another example of an intelligent experiment done is one performed by another psychologist, Charles Reichardt, “Intrigued that the horoscopes on an online website suggested that Taurus, Sagittarius and Virgo people tend toward conservatism, he looked at 40,637 respondents in the GSS dataset and found no statistical difference in identifying oneself as liberal, conservative or moderate among the 12 zodiac signs. Using several other measures, Reichardt concluded that ‘astrology provides little if any basis for accurately describing individual human differences.’" This experiment also proves that horoscopes are untrue. But this experiment has another aspect, which is that people are categorized to be certain things based on their zodiac sign, but a lot of the time that isn’t really what they are, as the experiment proves.

Honestly, I’m torn on whether or not I should agree with Nardi and his idea that horoscopes are always utterly untrue. On the one hand, I think astrology and zodiac is just a fun thing, and I personally love it and love to read about it not just for myself, but for other people too. Among doing that, I have come across both horoscopes and zodiac descriptions that did represent myself or someone else, as well as ones that didn’t. Sometimes I have found that ones I read, particularly about myself, are revealingly accurate. But then again, I do believe (agreeing with Nardi) that if people read positive or hopeful horoscopes, they will most likely believe them because people always want to think good things about themselves. A certain part of me wants astrology and all of it’s theories and horoscopes to be true, a) because it gives people something to believe in and discover, and b) because it’s a plain fun thing to have faith in. On the contrary, another part of me thinks it could just be hogwash that astrologers made up because they either created it but don’t have reasoning with not enough scientific backing, or they wanted people to have something hopeful to believe in, if say they weren’t religious or just unsure about themselves. This brings up a couple questions that I have. The first is: if zodiac is all hogwash, why does it somehow end up to be relatable and sometimes fully accurate? Although the second is: if zodiac was just created for people who were unsure about themselves, could it possibly force people to believe they’re someone that they’re not? Overall, I feel that this article, although stating an obvious bias, was very intriguing and most definitely made me question my past belief in zodiac.

Perspectives Missing in the Book Burned (Revised Literary Essay)

The book Burned, by Ellen Hopkins, is a story about a girl named Pattyn, and how she struggles with family, boys, and religion. She and the rest of her family are all Mormons, so when Pattyn begins making more rebellious choices, it causes her trouble. The entire book is told in verse from Pattyn's perspective, but the author failed to include the perspectives of Pattyn's mother and father, and this affects the entire story.

   

The first perspective missing from Burned is that of the father. So far in the book, Pattyn's father has most definitely made life quite hard, but there are points where it may be beneficial to read the father's thoughts. For example, there is a dialogue between Pattyn and her father which is, "Dad will you miss me?" Pattyn asks. Her father responds, "Miss you? I don't even know, Pattyn." (Hopkins 173). This conversation, which is already important, but is also definitely a place where it would be compelling to read what the father is thinking. For one thing, Pattyn's father is practically saying he will not miss her, even though he isn’t saying those exact words. Obviously, no daughter would ever want to hear that from her father, so even just implying it is hurtful. Also, maybe there's more to it than just what the father says. Maybe he really will miss Pattyn, but doesn't want to admit it because he doesn't feel comfortable with showing emotion, which is actually shown earlier in the book. Another example is when Pattyn is now staying at her Aunt Jeanette's house for a portion of the summer, and Pattyn says (referring to her father), "He didn't bother with good byes, which only hurt a little." (Hopkins 192).The author made this sentence depressing to help the readers comprehend that Pattyn is still a little girl inside who only wants to be loved by her father. On the other hand, the author excluded the father's point of view in this section especially because if we had heard his thoughts on this, it might make Pattyn's statement less pitiful, and cause the father less blame. A final example is when Pattyn's father is punishing her for being romantic with a boy named Derek, after the the father has slapped her she says, "Defiance rose up like vomit. I swung back and yelled, 'Don't you ever do that again!' He caught my arm. Held it midair, and I found in his eyes conflicting emotions-something almost like apology, and something very much like satisfaction." (Hopkins 148). This page is very interesting, because at this point the author almost does give us a little of the father's perspective, but still through Pattyn. It would be so engaging to know how the father felt in that moment, considering it is so powerful. The father would most likely be feeling the emotions that Pattyn describes in his eyes, but it would be preferered to have the father himself put his feelings into words. If this were to occur, it may even unleash some of the father's notions for slapping Pattyn in the first place.

The second perspective missing from Burned is that of the mother. The mother seems to always be busy with her large family (Pattyn has six sisters), and obedient to her husband when he is nothing but rude to her. For example, Pattyn questions the things that happen in her family, "How, no matter what happened the night before, the next day Mom and Dad would be tandem in bed?" (Hopkins 35). The question Pattyn is asking is could also be speaking for what the readers may like to know. If the mother's perspective was shown here, then maybe she would have something to say about that. The reason that Pattyn's mother is still even married to Pattyn's father could be two reasons; the first is that she feels she needs her husband's money and protection to support her family, and the second is that a part of her still loves him and remembers him the way he used to be when they married. Another example is when Pattyn is reminiscing, "...But this tiny piece of me kept thinking back to another, happier time, when Mom loved Dad. And me. And Dad loved Mom. And me." (Hopkins 52). This line is very strong, because it gives readers a glimpse of what Pattyn's life was like before everything became troublesome. But, it could be helpful to read what the mother thinks of all this, because she most likely wishes it was like it was in the past all the time.

The fact that the story lacks these two perspectives of the father and the mother greatly affects the story. One reason for this is because if the perspectives had been there, it is possible that Pattyn's point of view wouldn't attract as much sympathy. Not that the parents' perspectives would outshine Pattyn's, since it is a book for teens, but it would prove some of her points wrong and cause the blame to fall less on the parents, and more all three of them. Another reason for this is that the mother and father are very significant characters in the story, but in many scenes their opinion is not needed, since the story is centered around Pattyn. For example, whenever Pattyn is at school or outside of home, there really is no input for the parents to make. And finally, when teens read young adult books, they usually like to read about someone around their age, like Pattyn. If they were reading about the mother and father's points of view, they may not understand or find it less interesting because it is much harder to relate to it. But, it still would be interesting to sometimes get a taste of what the father or mother's thoughts are once and a while, because it could 1) add alternate perspectives besides Pattyn's, and 2) add more depth to the story as a whole.

Overall, Hopkins made the right decision by not replacing Pattyn's entire perspective with that of her mother's and/or father's, but she should've included a bit of it where it was needed, or even just where it would make the story more gripping. All YA books that include a powerful conflict between the child and the parents should include a little of the parents' point of view. Maybe if this were to actually start appearing in some or all YA books, it could be used in comparison to other things related to the same family conflict, like books about divorce, or books about child abuse. Also, it is in fact true that some parents do not like their child reading these especially disturbing YA books so maybe, (and this is a bit of a stretch), parents would be at least the slightest bit more comfortable with their child reading the book if the parental characters in the book got to say what they felt. In conclusion, Burned by Ellen Hopkins, despite it lacking some perspective of the parents, is a fantastic book, and even without the parents' perspective it still locks the reader in and forces them to keep turning one page after another.

Link to old blog post: http://natashasbookblog26.blogspot.com/2014/11/perspectives-missing-in-book-burned_30.html

Significant Family Differences in the Book Eleanor and Park by Rainbow Rowell

(note: I haven't finished the book)

         The book Eleanor and Park, by Rainbow Rowell, the two main characters are Eleanor and

Park, hence the title. They meet on a schoolbus on the first day, and Eleanor is a new student, so she gets embarrassed by other students. So Park, being the nice boy he is, lets Eleanor sit with him to end her humiliation. For a while, they don't talk to each other and just sit there. But then they start reading comic books together, talking, and things start to evolve until they are together in a relationship. Once they're a couple, Eleanor starts going over to Park's house a lot, but it gets complicated because Park is never allowed at Eleanor's house, because of her difficult family situation. Although Eleanor and Park have a great relationship together, they do, however, have very different family situations.

    Eleanor's family lifestyle and Park's family lifestyle are very different from one another.

For example, "Eleanor had assumed that Richie threw all her stuff in the trash a year ago, ten

seconds after he'd kicked her out...Her mom reached out and touched Eleanor's shoulder, justfor a second.'The little kids will be home in twenty minutes or so,' she said, 'and we'll eat dinner around four thirty. I like to have everything settled before Richie comes home.'" The "little kids" are Eleanor's four younger siblings, and Richie is her harsh stepfather. This makes it very hard for Eleanor to get the attention she deserves, especially because of how unfairly Richie treats Eleanor versus the little kids. The worst part is that Eleanor's mom is too afraid to stick up for any of her children, because Richie already hurts her and she doesn't want to make it worse for all or any of her kids, but that's still unfortunate for Eleanor. Meanwhile, Park's family is pretty close to perfect. For example, "'Mindy?' That's how Park's dad came home every night, like the dad in a sitcom. (Lucy?) And his mom would call out from wherever she was, In here!...His dad barreled into the kitchen and scooped his mom into his arms. They did this every night, too. Full-on make-out sessions, no matter who was around." This shows how sweet Park's parents are to each other, and how severely different they are from Eleanor's. Another example about Eleanor's family is that they are pretty poor, "Their mom carried the duffel bag with Eleanor's stuff into a bedroom off the living room, and Eleanor followed her. The room was tiny, just big enough for a dresser and some bunk beds. Mouse ran into the room after them. 'You get the top bunk,' he said, 'and Ben has to sleep on the floor with me. Mom already told us, and Ben started to cry.'" This proves, even with this one small scene, that Eleanor's family is scraping all of what they can get at this point. They have small children sleeping on the floor every night, including an infant. Later, Eleanor mentions how she doesn't even have room in the dresser to fit her own clothes. But at Park's house, he probably has an entire dresser all to himself, because his family is in much better shape than Eleanor's, financially. Park has a large house, and he and his brother, Josh, each have their own room. Park's grandparents also live right next door to him, which is both fun because he and his family can spend lots of time with them, but also important in case an emergency were to occur and Park's parents weren't home.

    Overall, I feel that Eleanor and Park definitely walk into very different scenarios when they walk through their front door after school. It's not like Park is trying to have a better home life than Eleanor, which he's not because he loves her, but it just worked out that he does and Eleanor really suffers at her house. It must be extraordinarily hard for Eleanor, considering that their stepfather hurts her and her mom, gets drunk all the time, has the money but doesn't pay for enough stuff, and at least the little kids no nothing better than what they have at the moment, whereas Eleanor has seen at Park's and has lived when she was younger, a better home situation. I understand that there isn't much Eleanor's mother can do, considering that if she were to try to stand up to Richie she'd probably receive harsher punishment than ever before, and she could lose all of the current money and belongings she has because of him. I wish that Eleanor could live with Park, because that way she'd be with someone she loves and be living in a safe, large home. But there are many flaws in that plan, such as the fact that Park's parents probably don't want a third child to take care of, and it would be a little weird because Eleanor and Park like each other. I am not done with the book yet, so there is still hope of a happy ending, which I would love to be able to read.