Now I’m reading The Eye of the World, by Robert Jordan. It follows the adventure of Rand al'Thor who is the "Dragon Reborn" or the reincarnation of Lews Therin who was dubbed the "Dragon" (the guy also kind... of went insane and killed his whole family) Also in the book there are some women know as Aes Sedai who can "channel" the one power. It's kinda like magic but not... Also there aren't any male who can channel the one power since they had all gone insane like Lews Therin-- he could also "channel". Well so on Rand lives in a place called the "Two rivers". Well he his two friends, Perrin Aybara and Mat Cauthon, are then entangled with an Aes Sedai who was at the Two Rivers at that time, Moraine. Moraine was there to find the "dragon reborn" but she couldn't tell which of the three it was so she took all three of time out of the two rivers after telling them that their village would be attck by Trollocs again if they didn't leave after there was an attack by Trollocs. And the three guys with the Aes Sedai with her Warder (kind like a bodyguard but there is a special bond or link between a warder and an Aes Sedai), Lan Mandragon, and including a travelling gleeman (an entertainer?), Thom Merrilin, and Ewgene al'Vere, Rand's childhood sweetheart. They are later follow by Nynaeve al'Meara who was the Edmond Field's (a place near/in? Two Rivers) "wisdom". hehehhe this is a really starting to be a long drabble so I'm just going to cut it short, I'm not even 1/5 of the way done and this is just the first book..

Basically they are then pursue by the Trollocs and they make it to a city called Baerlon and there they meet a girl named Min farshaw. The trio of guys gets these nightmares about a guy named Ba'alzamon. Then this is where they meet Nynaeve who tries to get them back but fails and in the end comes with them. After they leave the city they are again chased by trollocs and have to fight their way out and then they come into a place call Shadar Logoth. Rand and his friends explore the place and they meet a guy name Mordeth. The guy tried to kill them after he learns that they're travelling with an Aes Sedai. But then suddenly the trollocs and beings called myrddaal storm in and as continued bad luck the evil of Shadar Logoth makes its appearance and the whole group of Rand, Perrin, Mat, Moraine, and etc. gets separated from each other.

And I’m going to cut it short here. Although, it’s only been like a week but I have already read more than half the book. (Not really good for Goals...) But so far I’m in love with it! It’s probably one of the best books I have ever read and I know it’s definitely going to be my favorite.

Personally I love fantasy stories, and this book caters exactly to what I need. The plot is thrilling and wonderful. You never really know what’s going to happen next. It’s like one of those toys you get at Christmas and when you open the lid, it jumps right out at you. You knew something was going to jump. You definitely suspected it and yet you’re still surprise when it does because it hits you in the most unsuspecting way. This is why I love this plot. It’s not only refreshing a new from all the other books I’ve read but it has a certain charm to it. It’s funny in all the right places and it’s amazingly thought out in all the other. There’s that wittiness about it that makes me want to read more. It so addicting to read! I feel as though I’m going to implode any second if I don’t know what happens next (again, this has got to be unhealthy!).

Even now, as I’m typing I can’t wait to get back in my bed and curl up with a glass of hot chocolate and continue my adventure with Rand. I can’t wait for what’s to happen next!

Ariana Franklin's Writing style

Ariana Franklin’s writing style is perhaps one of the best I have ever read. She is one of those talented authors who with the uncanny ability to compress tons of information and meaning into very few sentences and yet still be able to achieve the effect of conveying every single detail and even the simplest nuances of information. Not only that but her writing style, is easy to follow but not extremely simple as well. It’s like the feeling of floating down a brook. The current guides you along but sometimes you still need to propel yourself forward to get where you want to go. This is exactly what it felt like to read this novel of hers. At times, there were moments when the suspense kicks and the currents of information and words just flood you with details and meanings and yet it is so easy to decipher them all. However, there were parts where her style of writing becomes more complex and I needed to reread a couple of things here and there to get the complete picture. But it was worth it to be able to understand the beautiful world of Adelia’s in which Ariana Franklin weaves. Her plot flows through seamlessly and you can’t detect any loop holes at all. Its like gliding on silk, so soft and smooth and leaving you craving for another touch. Not only that, but Ariana Franklin has an amazing ability to create suspense even when you don’t realize. Nearly thee-fourths of the book was a built up to the climax and when it hits you, you suddenly get the moment of realization and go “Oh! I should have seen it coming!”. And yet you don’t. the plot is created in such a way that you know what’s going o happen but you really don’t because you keep on second guessing yourself and this in turns creates more suspense because you want to know whether or not you right in the beginning at all.

Overall, I’m absolutely in love with this book. The rich details are amazing. The plot is sewn together flawlessly. This has got to be one of the best novels, I have ever read!

Adelia and Sir Rowley Picot

I for one never thought (even now I can’t believe it...) that Adelia would in the end for in love with Sir Rowley Picot. For one thing, they never appealed to me as a couple. Also, in the beginning of the book, Adelia detested Sir Rowley Picot while Sir Rowley Picot quickly found himself at odds with Adelia. They hated each other. They loathed each other. They abhorred each other’s presence as if it were a contagious disease that could infect them just by sharing the same air. Okay, maybe it wasn’t to that much of an extent, but still they really did dislike each other.

Sir Rowley Picot had at first hated Adelia because he felt that she was too cold. He felt that she was too unemotional as shown when she had diagnosed the corpses of the children and yet somehow still managed to remain calm while any other sensible young lady of her time would have gagged their breakfast, lunch and dinner out. And then should have quite possibly fainted. But Adelia on the other hand, was seemingly unnerved as she probed the body for clues. And for that, Sir Rowley Picot hated her. Even he had shown disgust at this “inhuman procedure” and dishonor of the dead. And yet Adelia was neither disturbed nor disgusted in his eyes. To him, she was too professional and in that professionalism she had lost her “humanity”. Because she was too calm, sir Rowley picot thought her to be too uncaring and too unemotional.

However, this is proven to be very much untrue. Throughout this entire scene we could see that Adelia was barely keeping her stomach in check. She had only managed to get through with the procedure by repeatedly telling herself that she wasn’t looking at children’s corpses but at the body of dead pigs. While, this may be seen as cruel and uncaring in Sir Rowley Picot’s eyes, this was the only way for her to remain calm and appear as he thinks “undisturbed”.

Then from Adelia’s point of view, we can see that she dislikes him because he treats her coldly because he believe that she herself is cold. Ironic, ha? Not only that, but in her eyes, he is also a suspect for murder. While he serves as an indispensable ally, he could also be the killer. And I wouldn’t blame Adelia for thinking that at all. Even I as I read though the chapters had my suspicions about him. And it was a big shocker for me to realize that it actually wasn’t him at all. And it was an even bigger shocker, when he would become Adelia’s love interest. Like I had completed ranted on about before, these two don’t seem to fit each other too well. However, now that I think about it, in a twisted type of way they do. Like magnets. The negative and positive don’t seem to match each other at all but somehow they are attracted to each other. And I guess Adelia and Sir Rowley Picot are a perfect example of this. Two completely different persons who in the end by a series of mystery and murder become inexplicable close.

Night and The Book Thief

After reading and finishing Night, I found numerous of similarities between that book and The Book Thief. While it both deals with the holocaust, it was the basis of humanity in both stories that really got to me. In Night I discovered the worst of humanity but I also uncovered the preeminent of it as well. While, at times there were those who abandoned their love ones to survive, there were also some instances in which their better side won over their selfish desire to live. For example, for numerous of times Elie Wiesel had given up his ration of soup to his father. Although, Wiesel had abandoned his father some other times as well, by giving his father his ration of soup it shows that Elie did truly care for his father and desired for him to live. At those moments he forfeited his instinctual yearning for self preservation to save someone that he really cared about. And this is the same moral basis that I find in The Book Thief.

In the beginning The Book Thief, Liesel mostly cared only for herself as well as a few others she found truly close to her. She had stolen a book from a fire burning because she was curious about it and she hadn’t even given any thought of how that would affect her family. She was selfish for that reason. Not only that, but she had stolen food for numerous of times to satisfy her hunger without giving thought to who she stole the food from. And when she had gotten money from selling some chestnuts, she used that money to buy candy instead of giving it to her mother to buy more food. For all these reasons I find Liesel indefinitely selfish.

However, just as Elie Wiesel was, Liesel still had her good points. While at many times, it only showed how she care for herself and her own self preservation, there were other times when it showed that she cared for others and put their wellbeing in front of her as well. For example: when she had given out bread to the Jews. Although, she knew that if the SS soldiers found her that she would be severely punished she still had given bread out to them. Not only that, but once when she had gotten food she had shared it with her fellow friends. Not only that, but possibly the biggest important “good” thing she did was help hide Max. And this wasn’t just her, but her entire family. They knew the consequences for helping a Jew. They knew very well that they could have died and yet they still helped him. In a society where the most hated person was a Jew, they had decided to go along with their better ethics and helped Max. Because of this, I found a whole new respect for Liesel.

And also, because of this I found that these two books were very alike. Not only did they represent both halves of humanity but the both taught me to understand that not everyone in the world values self preservation as their top most priority. There are still people out there who value morals and ethics as well. And sometimes the good people might not be who you expect. These two books really reinstated by confidence in humanity.

Religion in Society

I find that religion can play a huge role in society. It started the Crusades. It caused millions of Jews to die in the Holocaust. It causes numerous of genocides and deaths. And yet, religion is a requisite necessity. It is something that the world cannot live without and it is something that humans desperately need. Because when everything is gone, taken away, destroyed the only thing that is left is that measly bit of hope and the crumbling beliefs that a better time will come. While, the role of religion in society has already been discussed many times in Night, I still am compel to “rant” more on this because I feel as though the few times we had gone over this in Night was definitely not enough to satisfy my hunger to understand.

In the mistress of the Art of Death, religion first fueled the animosity for the Jews of Cambridge by the Christians. Not only was it that, but it even fueled the rivalry between Christianity itself. The monks from Saint Augustine were displeased with the nuns from Saint Radegund’s while the nuns over in Saint Radegund harbored an aversion for those from Saint Augustine. And this was only because these two for from two different monastery. They shared the same faith, the same religion, and the same cause and yet they disliked each other because the other was not them. Because of “religion” people were divided up and conflicts could easily ignite from any single spark.

And when that single sparked was created by the murder of the four children, people didn’t bother to resist the temptation of accusing each other to consign the other’s importance and greater their own. Many accused the Jews because they were easy targets. They became the scapegoats so that in a way these people could avoid suspicion them selves. According to the people, the Jews were the one who had killed Jesus Christ and so they were just as evil as the devil himself. And if they were truly that evil then why should it not be their fault? This was their logic. And because of this, innocent people were condemned to death. Other innocent people lost their homes while some lost their parents, or siblings, or relative. Because of religion, many innocent people died. Because while religion might be a good thing but in the hands of some people, religion could be turn into the greatest of all weapon because no one dares to disclaim it for fear of being accuse them selves.

Because of this, religion becomes a part of humanity that can never be extinguished. No matter what, religion will always impact society as long as society remains.

Crucifixion of an Angel

In the Mistress of the Art of Death, murders are committed throughout the town of Cambridge. And even more sinfully, the deceased are children. In one of the first murder committed, an apparent witness claimed that she saw the child crucified. I find this important because this alludes to one of the most powerful events in history, the crucifixion of Jesus Christ.

However, instead of seeing the child as the one crucified, I find that the murder seems to be more like a crucifixion of an angel. In a way that is what it symbolizes to me. A child is pure and untainted by the evils of the world because they are still young and naive, much in way that angels are perceived. By murdering a child, it is almost like murdering an angel.

Not only that, but the death of this child sparked outrage among the people of Cambridge. After this incident, everybody turned their hatred on the Jews because the Jews were the one who had “crucified Jesus”. This death caused people to turn a blind eye on what the basis of their religion even tells them do - which is to do good and not evil. And yet, ironically, for their religion they fuel their hatred for the Jews and accuse them of this murder. In a way, not only had a child died but so did humanity or rather the ethics of humanity - that of which is the center of all good. And in a way, this is also the murder of an angel that of which symbolizes all good.

Adelia; Part 2

Adelia is a tree! Well, not really. But sometimes I feel as though she’s the reincarnation of one. In my previous post, I stated how she was just like the modern feminist who’s strong, reliable, and independent. Even now, several chapters later, I still feel as though she hasn’t changed at all.

Now, about the tree... Well, when you think about it, a tree is strong and capable. To me a tree symbolizes strength because no matter how much the rain may pour or how much the wind may blow, a tree can always remain standing. No matter what it goes through, a tree will usually still be deeply rooted into the ground. In a way, a tree symbolizes how Adelia is so firmly rooted. It shows how independent and strong she is.

Not only that, but it also depicts that weaker side of her. No matter how strong a tree is, without water or sunlight it will still die. Even though, it may be strong and can withstand any obstacle, in truth it is very dependent on something else. Just like Adelia. No mater how strong she think she is, in reality she is very dependent on the people around her. Even though she may want to deny it but just like a tree she can only remain firmly on the ground if there is water and sunlight. She needs other people to care for her. Either directly or indirectly, she needs people to look after her. She has people that she is dependent on.

Adelia; First Impressions

So far, what do I think of Vesuvia Adelia Rachel Ortese Aguilar? Well, I think she is the embodiment of a modern feminist. She is strong, independent, and she doesn’t need male to help her. She is able to stand up for her own, however though, at certain points in the book it is clear that she is weaker than she cares or want to admit. For example when she was on the hill alone and Sir Gervase was coming towards her, she knew she needed help but instead of screaming for help like any other sensible young lady of her time then she had held her pride in higher priority and stood her ground. Brave of her to do so, I must admit, but it was also incredibly stupid and unreasonable. If her “bodyguard” Mansur wasn’t there with the slinging axe, then it would have been very apparent that she would have been undeniably hurt. It was also when I got to this point that I decided that Adelia is a very proud person. Or would arrogant be a better word? She puts pride above many of her other priorities and even the risk to her own personal safety could not persuade her to lift her head down a bit. Not only that but Adelia prides herself with the respect other gives her. She thrives on being able to assure herself that she is strong all by herself. She doesn’t want to have to depend on anyone else, which is rather imprudent of her I think. Even though I know the feeling of wanting to accomplish something by your self, I still believe that working together as group is not anything disgraceful. Relying on help is okay, especially when you need it. Refusing it is what would be stupid.
Another thing, I don’t think of Adelia as just someone who commands respect. She is also a person with a good natured but too professional heart. She truly cares for her patients but she acts too aloof, too professional like and that is even to people who are not her patients but people who are her colleagues. There is just something about her that just screams “Get away from me, I don’t need you!” Her persona though truly kind shows off as too cold. She is just too emotionally distant from her peers. It seems as though she wants to detached herself from them in fear of getting too close. Or perhaps she just doesn’t want to think of herself as weak by relying on people, which means she can’t be friends with them because that would be like saying that she needs their friendship which completely destroys the whole “I’m strong. I’m independent and I can do whatever motif.”

However I could be wrong about her. I had thought that Sophie Neveu from The Da Vinci Code was too detached as well, but Sophie had slowly started to change and perhaps Adelia will too. Perhaps later on, Adelia will find that one person that could make her accept wanting to have other people there for her.

The Mistress of the Art of Death

At first when I only just began to read the book, I thought it was one of the most amazing books I had ever read. Yes, the writing style was marvelous. Actually, in truth it was truly in all honesty superb and the even vocabulary use was amazing- just by reading the book I had found most of my vocabulary words for my vocabulary goals. And not only had that but the writing style really fit the type that I had always liked. It wasn’t too complex so I didn’t need to die of my brain imploding but it wasn’t preschool easy either. Actually I had to go back and reread some parts even but somehow even though I had to go through the book more than once it was written in a way that I went back to read for emphasize and not for clarification (confusing, ha?). The author is just one of those types of author that can craft brilliant plots with intricate details and great writing. I have to say, reading this book has now made me an avid fan of the author (and I’m only 1/6 of the way into the book). Even though I haven’t gotten far, I’m really in love with this book. It’s like a mixture of CSI and historical nonfiction but not gouge my eyes out boring. Also the author is able to craft suspense beautifully into the plot that it made me latched onto the edges of the pages like a leech. I had to pry myself from the sheets of thin paper in fear of paper cuts before I finally let the book down. Overall, this is a really interesting book that I have very high hopes for. I can’t wait to read what’s next. Even now, my mind is filled with images of rolling hills and murdered bodies as I contemplate what will happen next.

Rudy's death

Even though Rudy’s death was foreshadowed in the book numerous of times I still could not prepare myself for his death. I had known he was going to die. I had known that from the beginning. And yet knowing was not enough. Nor was it enough to overcome the surge of emotions that overwhelmed me as I gripped the pages of the book hoping, wishing, desperately pleading that my eyes had betrayed me and Rudy Steiner, poor Rudy Steiner, did not die. And no matter how delusional I could be, it still wasn’t enough to overcome the knowledge of his death. (Can anything ever be enough?) I mean really it was written out in plain English. As plain as could be. Even if my eyesight did fail me, I could still read enough to know that he had died.

However, that was much contradicted right? Isn’t it not? Knowing not enough to overcome hope and hope not enough to overcome knowing. Hmmm. I’m not making any sense, but yet I am. I guess what I’m saying is that while I hope that he didn’t die and I still know he did and nothing will ever change that (of course unless the author decided to miraculously raise him from the dead, however, I highly doubt the possibility that Markus Zusak will ever do it. Or will he?) But still, it was so unbelievably unbelievable that Rudy Steiner had just died. (Now I’m being redundant...) I guess perhaps I just can’t believe it because of my deep rooted love for him. No, I don’t love him like that, but it’s rather that I love him as a loveable, easygoing, and good natured character (okay, maybe the last part is a bit of a stretch but Rudy does have his good points here and there). And for some reason I just hate to see characters go. No hate is too wrong. It should be more somewhere along the lines of a passionate loathing or abhorrence for character deaths. It’s the one thing I absolutely hate to have to tolerate in books. Maybe, I’m just way too attached to the characters (that’s an understatement). And perhaps I am (extreme understatement). But Rudy really shouldn’t have died. He was such a good person. He was a great neighbor. He was an awesome friend. And yet he died. Rudy Steiner really did not deserve to die such a pathetic death. Actually, he doesn’t deserve to die at all. He should have been able to live a happy rest of his life. And he should have a great future ahead for him. More so he should have a great future for him and Liesel (This couple is way too cute together. And when Liesel kissed Rudy after he died only fueled my love for this pairing even more. However that fueled my hatred for his death even more as well.)

And all in all... as you can clearly interpret from my long rant, Rudy Steiner really does not deserve to die. He was one of the few characters I absolutely adored in the book. I even liked him more than I liked Liesel. He’s was that charming spark of life and charisma in the book. He was even my favorite character in the whole story. And it really sucked that he had to die. It really sucks a lot...

Liesel and Rudy's relationship

As Death had said Rudy and Liesel were destined to become friends. Rudy was the type of guy who enjoyed being around girls. He was the type who actually wasn’t afraid of cooties and embraced the opposite sex fairly well. Liesel was the tough girl. The new girl on the street who was the only goalie that ever managed to deflect his penalty kick. It was like a friendship waiting to happen when the first snowball was thrown in the face.

I find that the friendship between Liesel and Rudy was forged fairly quickly. After a soccer match, some snow, a school walk, and a marathon which ended with them encrusted in dirt they were already friends. However this friendship seemed to be the type where both would only acknowledge it only to themselves. They enjoyed each other’s company and cared for the other but they expressed in the form of verbal abuse. Rather then declare their fondness for each other to the rest of the world; they hide their friendship in a rubble of insults. Every time one would call the other a “saukerl” it was their way of saying “my friend”. Not only do they enjoy insulting each other they also like to tease each other as well. Rudy would always ask Liesel for a kiss and Liesel would reply with either a form of insult or physical injury. If he was lucky, she just ignores him. To me, it is a strange form of friendship but it was their unique own way of expressing to the other how they care. It’s as if they don’t know how to express it in any other way.

Symbol of Books

As the title has already suggested, one major component of this novel centers on books. Books are the primary drive of the plot. Books are first mentioned when Death remarks that he saw the book thief three times.

The first time, one of the gravediggers- a fourteen year old boy- had accidently dropped his book on the cold snowy ground. Minutes later The Grave digger’s Handbook was in the possession of Liesel Meminger, marking the date as the start of her book stealing career. Although Liesel had no prior education since she had often skipped school in her younger years she had absolutely no knowledge of reading but yet she still stole a book. I believe that at that time, she didn’t steal for the sake of stealing but for the sake of having something. When her brother died, it was like Liesel was left with nothing but an empty void. She needed something to hold on to; something to fill in that empty gap. And so she took the book as her only possession. The book was the only thing she had and it was also a symbol of remembrance to her dead brother. At that time when she had nothing to remember him by, the book was the only object that connected him to her. The sight where she first stole the book was also the sight where her brother had been buried. To Liesel the book served as a treasured memory. Even if she couldn’t read, the book was an important part of her.

Books also symbolize Liesel’s passion to improve and her achievement in this area. When she had first arrived at the Hubermann’s doorstep she was uneducated and could not read nor write. But after the humiliation of being place in a younger class and the sudden need to be able to read The Grave Digger’s Handbook, she begins to slowly advance. Her passion for this is shown through how she always manages to stay up into the late of night just to have reading lessons with her father. We can clearly see Liesel’s love of reading and the books that she soon devours afterwards are the merits of attaining her goal. However though, books seem to also be the root cause of her crimes (apart from stealing apples or potatoes from farmers or ham and eggs from priests).

Liesel’s passion for reading goes so far that she would steal her second book from a Nazi book-burning. Liesel’s obsession with book stealing though is rather ironic considering her place in Nazi Germany. At that time, books were mostly condemned and many were burned. However Liesel instead obsesses over them. They are her most prized possessions. In a country where the Fuhrer was everything, there was a girl who only loved books, her family, and friends. Not only that, but Liesel finds a strange merit in stealing books. To her stealing them is a twisted way of rightfully earning them.
“She couldn’t tolerate having it given to her by a lonely, pathetic woman. Stealing it, on the other hand, seemed a little more acceptable. Stealing it, in a sick kind of sense, was like earning it.”

Colors

In the book, there are numerous of times where “color” is referred to. In the first few pages Death tells us that he likes to use color as a distraction- his saving grace. He wants to be able to enjoy every one of them, every single unique color of the spectrum (although his favorite is chocolate in the form of chocolate colored skies). This he says helps him cope. It helps him relax; to remain sane. But well of course from what? Certainly his job, but what else? Is it the just the monotony of it? Or the sheer annoyance that accumulates with time? What does Death need a distraction from? It can’t be us humans that are giving him a hard time. But this is precisely what he uses color to distract him from. Us. The ones still living, left behind by others who moved on ahead. Like the faded colors of a painting, still clinging desperately to the oil slick canvas while the bright ancestors were washed away from the passage of time.

Normally when humans perceive color, we remember the brightest one of all first. We are inclined to think of the neon yellows, sparkly hot pink, the light forest green first. Natural human perception this is. Remembering what stood out the most. However the colors that Death remembers are more basic. No shades of hues of different pastels but just the basic white, black, and red of the world.

White, Death claims is a color where as in the absence of color makes the color a color itself. (And you don’t want to argue with Death!). When one thinks of white, many think of nothingness, for isn’t white nothingness in itself? But then again is nothingness a something, an anything, or just a nothing?

Black is next. So what is black really? Others claim that black is the true absence of color where there is no hues of anything that it is just a void of nothing, just black empty black. So if black is the true nothingness, then white must be everything, right? Or is white the void and black the mixture of everything? Well, let’s talk in the metaphorical sense, no need to get scientific (but if you want then I can). In the book, I most definitely think white was the void of emptiness. This was when Liesel was left alone with nothing (Liesel Meminger is a young girl who was abandoned by her mother and left with her new foster parents on Himmel Street, the Hubermanns). You can argue and say that at that time she still had her mother, but I don’t think her mother really was there. Well, again, in the metaphorical sense. Her mother’s body was there; physically she was still with Liesel. But she wasn’t completely there. She was like a hollowed nut only the tough cracked shell remaining but the contents were all gone. However this leaves black. Black was when Liesel had everything. She wasn’t rich but she had everything she needed (again metaphorical sense, food does not fit in this equation). She had finally gained a family; she gained friends; she gained people who were still there, people who were in fact her whole life, her everything. But black is also when there was everything, but everything was all mixed up and spew out like a chaotic puzzle. You had the pieces, but you just couldn’t put them together. This was also when Liesel’s life was in a messed up jumble as well. The roads of her future, the paths of her past, and the inevitable present were all tangled up and the colors of each part of life were bleeding into each other creating the pit of black. But without the blinding white of her past, she would never get the black. These two colors are like the base of every pair, the perfect complements of each other. Without black there is nothing that is white. Without white there is nothing that is black. They are like the concept of yin and yang. You can say that without one there can certainly not be the other.

Finally this leaves us with red. How does red fit though? Black and white would be in everything. Every color had a bit of black or white. But not red. Red is untouched. It is in a different category of its own. Many people associate red with death or rather the passage of dying since red was the crimson color of blood. But to me red is linking between black and white. It was the middle of both extremes. With red, you would have something and you would have nothing. Red is the crossroads of one’s existence.

Death as the Business Man

Somehow I feel as though the persona of Death goes hand in hand with a businessperson. Death had already stated once that he was the average “Death” people love to associate him. He wasn’t the type to go around in a hood with a giant scythe. (However, I still love the giant scythe idea). Also sometimes, the book describes the act of passing on as like a business deal. It’s too systematic, too planned out. It’s almost like an assembly line type of work. A person would pass their life through the assembly line and at the end they would just be disposed of when they grew to “old”. But whenever someone would be disposed of, there would always be another person to take the original person’s place. It’s an endless cycle of birth, life, death, birth, life, death, birth, life, death, birth, life, death, birth, life, death, birth, life, death, birth, life, death, birth, life, death, and so on.

Somehow I feel as though life is too systematic. Death is too inevitable. This is why I always see death as like a business man. He always goes around in his suit arranging new deals, creating more factories, and more assembly lines. Each new deal seal would be another person dead. And then he would just collect the souls and another person would be born to fill the place. Too systematic, for my taste.

Death

One of the most interesting things about the book “The Book Thief” was that it was narrated from death’s point of view. I must say that this has got to be the first time I read such a quirk. However, since the narrator is death we get a very different point of view on the events in the book then we would get otherwise. And it adds a bit of humor (in a twisted deranged way) to a book centered on what was one of the most tragic events in history. And mostly it was just plain amusing.

"I am all truthfulness attempting to be cheerful about this whole topic, though most people find themselves hindered in believing me, no matter my protestations. Please, trust me. I can most definitely be cheerful. I can be amiable. Agreeable. Affable. And that’s only the A’s. Just don’t ask me to be nice. Nice has nothing to do with me.” [The book Thief, pg. 1]

At first I was a little more than surprise that the “I” who was talking was Death. But after the initial five second surprise I found that I rather liked the interesting plot twist so early in the novel. Death in this book was portrayed rather differently from what the general population’s idea of death. He was not a cruel devil who stole the souls of tormented humans but rather a guide carrying the lost souls on to a new life. A guide who loathes the monotony of his job, but ironically craves for color as a distraction to the curiosity of human nature.