THE PERKS OF BEING A WALLFLOWER

DESCRIPTION OF CHARLIE

The main character in the novel named Charlie is a very interesting and likeable character. Emotional, diffident, and small are all words that could be used to describe Charlie´s personality at first, but as the time rolls on, some of Charlie´s personality traits to change somewhat.
At the beginning he sees his environment through the eyes of a child and discovers so contradictions in things over which normal people no longer think about, they are simply routine.That brings him a lot of problems and he also doesn´t know why he is different. Charlie is burdened with some emotional instability. He often cries, for what most people would things see as “stupid reasons”. Charlie is trying to figure out the world, and how everyone works. He tends to sit on the side lines and just watch people, wondering what is going on in their life. He does this until his teacher tells him that he should try to participate, in stead of just observing. When Charlie meets his new friends Sam and Patrick, he tries to participate more, and observe less. From now on he starts to go on parties and he starts smoking and taking drugs. He lies to his parents, what he didn´t do before, he go on dates, learn about sex, homosexuality, friendship and other things. Through Sam and Patrick Charlie experiences things that he never would have done if he hadn´t found them, also negative things. Till the end of the book he developes to another person.

words: 250

Correction of the 2nd exam

Violence and violence in the media

There are many discussions about violence in the media, because whenever there is a horrible crime people start to blame movies. Violence is part of our daily lives, but where are the problems and what can we do ?

Michael Medved is an opponent of violent movies. He says that Hollywood tells us four big lies. In some points I agree with Medved´s attack on the media, but I´m also critical of one. The first lie which Hollywood tells us is that these violent movies don´t influence us. So I totally agree with Medved because everyday you can read in the newspaper about “copycatkillers”. They imitate some scenes of their favourite movie, because of curiosity. The second lie is that violent movies only shows reality. Medved claims that it´s absolutely wrong to argue that violence in movies only show the reality and I agree with him. Often the scenes are depicted far too exaggerated and unrealistic. In addition it´s also nonsense that only violent movies are succesful, which is the third big lie. Everybody knows that non-violent films are often much more popular and the evidence of this are Disney films. So finally to the last lie which say that you don´t have to watch violent movies. In contrast to Michael Medved I think that it is possible to escape this violence and reading about such films in magazines is quite different to watching them.

We also have to think about why we are living in a violent society. Theories say that violence is something that we learn. We hear about violence, see it, experience it and also imitate it. In addition it is also an instinct, it will always be with us and it is necessary for survival. Moreover, violence is the result of frustration. When we don´t get what we want we become frustrated,and this frustration leads to aggressive behaviour.

Nowadays we can notice that more and more children get violent. In my opinion we can reduce this violence if parents start to forbid their children to watch violent movies, instead of that they should spend more time with their kids. I think that parents have to be only good role models.

To conclude, I want to say, that we will never live in an absolute harmony, but we really should try to do it.

A pro/con essay
a ban on violence in movies / against such a ban ?

Violence is part of our daily lives and always has been. Every day when we watch TV, listen to the radio or read the newspapers, we hear about acts of violence all over the world. I thought about the fact that people maybe could get more violent when they watch movies which comprehend a lot of violence. This took me to the questions if a ban on violence in movies would be better and which arguments argue against such a ban ?
To begin with arguments for a ban on violence in movies. In my opinion movies with to much violence aren´t realistic anyway. Sometimes the scenes are simply to exaggerated and to hard and maybe people could get anxiety and have bad dreams afterwards.The most film directors always think that their movies should comprehend scenes with violence to create tension for the people and I think this isn´t needed. This takes me to my next argument. Non violent films are also successful and popular, because there are so many films with violence and for example a romantic film or a film with a regional background are a variety to this. Beside this you could learn of such films and you can take something for your life. Violent films shows the opposite to this, because in many cases it leads to imitation and bad experiences. I think this is the strongest argument for a ban on violence in movies. Even children and teenagers are effected, because the dangers are unknown for them sometimes. Violence is something we learn. We hear about violence,see it, experience it and imitate it and as I say for the children it is unknown and I think through films with violence this could be added.

However, in case the majority of the people doesn´t get violent, I only see danger for the children when they see to much violent movies. Grown up people have more experiences than children and they really know how to act when they have a conflict or other problems. Moreover the most films are so unrealistic that a normal person doesn´t copy this violent scenes, because when it comes to violence in movies, it is usually that films come in for the most criticism for their vicious content. I also think that violence is an instinct that we all have. Violence is necessary for survival and will always be with us. People will always experience frustration and aggression will always exist. In other words I think that we don´t turn into a non-violent society just because showing non-violent movies, because violence exist, wether if people watch violent films or not.

Therefore I think that a ban on violence in movies would not be better for our society. As I already mentioned violence will always exist with or without violent movies, because it is an instinct that we all have. As a final sentence I want to say that we all can get rid of violence if we want to.

ѕnoω ƒαLLιng σn cєdaяѕ

David Guterson

David Guterson gives us an insight into the conflicts between the Americans and Japanese in San Piedro in his novel.
We see how the love life of Ishmael changed and we could notice similarities and differences during his growing up.
Ishmael grew up with the japanese girl, Hatsue and as a kid they were just good friends, but by the time they fell in love. Both Ishmael and Hatsue knew that it was very difficult to have a relationship in this way, but Ishmael never gave up hope. Hatsue´s mother always wanted the best for her daughter and she insisted on that Hatsue have a japanese boyfriend. So they weren´t friends in public, because of their fear and the gap between the Americans and Japanese sides and this situation didn´t change when Ishmael got older. Ishmael always met Hatsue in the wood under a cedar and there he kissed her the first time. When they got older Ishmael wanted to marry Hatsue, because he really was determined to keep the feelings for her forever but in contrast to Ishmael, Hatsue knew that it wasn`t possible.
She left Ishmael and after some time she married a japanese man, named Kabuo. By the time Ishmael began to hate Hatsue and he recognize that she didn´t want him any more, but on the other hand Hatsue only married Kabuo to get over Ishmael and to put him out of her life. After a long time he met Hatsue in a courtroom, because her husband was a defendant of a murder. Ishmael noted that Kabuo didn´t was a murderer and that the man died just because of an accident. At the first time Ishmael didn´t say anything, but he knew the truth. He thought that Kabuo got arrested and that it might would give a chance that Hatsue turned back to Ishmael.
Nevertheless he told it to the judge and Kabuo got free. Ishmael just wanted the best for Hatsue and that she felt happy, although she didn´t come back to him, but afterwards he had a good feeling.

cσяяєcтισn σƒ тнє ƒιяѕт ωяιттєn єχaм

Task 1:

Dear Magdalena,
Yesterday I was in an art exhibition with my family. There we saw a painting that really fascinated me. The name of the picture is “The Problem we all live with”. In the center of the picture you can see a young black girl, who wears a white dress and white shoes. In front of her there walk two policemen, which call Deputy US Marshall and behind her there walk two more policemen. In the background of this painting you can see a wall with tomato spatter on it.
I think that the artist wants to express that a lot of people of another culture and who have another skin colour or when people just live differently to us have a very difficult life, because they can´t integrate very well. In every part of the world there are racists who treat such people very horrible. So this picture shows me that a foreigner needs a lot of protection.
I am totally against racists, because I think that everybody should accept these people how they are, it´s horrible to see how these racists treat them.
I thought about this picture when I went home yesterday morning and asked me the question what the artist really wanted to express with.
What do you think about when you hear such things ?
I hope you have a good time in England !
Please write back ...
Yours Marina
xxx

Task 2:

In my opinion this photo taken from the internet isn`t art, because I think that everybody can take a photo in this way. Although it might be that this photo is art for many people, for me this photo hasn´t any expression and I don´t know what the picture will show us. Art is when you create something and not just only takes a photo.
When someone creates a picture you can see how it is made and what the artist want to express. You see how he feels and thinks in this picture.
Apart from this, I think it´s a beautiful photo, but in my opinion it would be better for a postcard or such things, but not for an exhibition.
By the way everybody has another opinion about what art is or is not so there will always be a discussion about this.

Lιƒє αƒтєя dєaтн

A lot of people think about life after death, but nobody has any idea what really happens and it is also impossible to find out.
I think that death is not the end and our life will go on. Some people think that it will be nothing afterwards. But I totally disagree with this statement. In my opinion everybody raise up to heaven and than we will get reborn, but we remain our person, I mean that we remain our identity with the same human knowledge and with the same characteristics and personality traits.
I am not scared to die and there is nothing to be afraid of, because I think that we can start our afterlife new and we will know a lot of things better than in this life.

Lєттєя тσ тнє єdiтσя

Dear editor,

I read the article about “Giuliani forced into climbdown“ in the yesterday´s newspaper. I didn´t understand the row between Mayor Giuliani and the Brooklyn museum about Ofili´s Virgin Mary. Giuliani was against this art exhibition and I totally disagree with him. The painting distinguish from the others, because it´s a kind of “shock art” and in my opinion the people also want to see other kinds of art. I think that the picture is very interesting.You see that art can express the feelings and it also says something about human passions. For me, “shock art” is something special because it´s a different kind of art and you can´t see it everyday. Artists shows you another kind of art and how they express for example their dirty thoughts or such things. Finally I want to say that “shock art” shouldn´t be forbid and I´m happy that the museum won this battle.

Yours,
Marina Klien