* See the comments for continued discussion between author and book club members. Meeting was a great success!
We will be discussing this novel on Wednesday, October 28, 2015 at 8 am in the Library. Please bring your copy of the book and your iPad to participate in the discussion. We will be posting comments here on the blog as well.
Some questions to ponder prior to the meeting:
Discussion Questions
1. The book was set in 1991. How do you think growing up in high school then
is different from how it is now?
2. Do you think growing up in that private school is anything like O'Hara?
3. How do you feel about the people Peter surrounds himself with at school?
4. Although stealing is wrong, could you understand what drove Father
Mercedes to steal the money?
5. Hector is the only African American at the school. Is the treatment that he
received what you would have expected?
6. Brutal Youth brings forth the idea that people who are mistreated often
mistreat others. How is this not true for Stein?
7. How did you feel about the relationship between Hannah and Mr. Zimmer?
8. Although Sister Maria can be frustrating, did you respect her more or less
after she covered up for Stein's absence?
9. Do you feel like the author accurately shows what a Catholic school is like?
10. Stein believes that, "following the rules and doing the right thing aren't the
same thing" (Breznican). Do you agree?
Questions 1, 4-6, 8, & 10 from readinggroupguides.com
Reading Group Guides. St. Martin's Griffin, 2 June 2015. Web. 18 Oct. 2015.
Ms Crawford
43 comments:
We are all gathered for our discussion and logged on to the blog! Participants will be commenting.
The fact that this book is set in 1991 is a lot more startling than it should, especially the lack of "modern technology" and how it affects life at St. Mike's.
1. At first I expected that it would be the same because how short of a time ago it was but it wasn't. The school was completely different from I am used to. I think it was like more like a school where the older kids knew who the newbies were, and weren't too nice....
I think it's different from high school now because there was no cell phones and no iPads like in our school so all these rumors had to be spread by word of mouth. I also think another difference was that private schools are smaller and aren't so chaotic.
I think that growing up then and growing up now there is a drastic change. Then hazing and bullying was more physical because that seemed to be the only way you could reach your target, but today there's all these different forms of social media that can be used to reach a person and break them down more mentally and emotionally. That time period was more based off of your physical strengths and how you can humiliate and manipulate a person physically. Whereas today it's more mental and being able to manipulate a person more emotionally and mentally.
Even though the story takes place in another time, the similarities between the students at St. Michael's and my own school, St. Mary's High School, were striking. I graduated in 2003, but as I read the novel I could picture each room as one of my own and it called to mind the crumbling walls that surrounded me for my four years of high school.
Hannah is incredibly relatable in her own way, having inner struggles that most people can understand on a certain level. But Breznican is intelligent in the way he sets up Hannah's character. She is down to earth enough for people to relate to, but mysterious enough to leave the readers wondering about her motives.
I don't think anything is similar to O'Hara other than the fact that it was a private school. The teachers are way more then involved with the students and everyone is usually kind to each other.
I believe that doing the right thing and following the rules are not the same thing. Not every rule is right. There are some rules that don't exactly correspond with your beliefs and what you believe to be right. Doing the right thing, in my opinion, is following or doing what you believe is right for yourself and what you will bring the best outcome for your situation. The right thing isn't necessarily the thing that goes along with he rules or with what everyone else thinks should be the order.
Even though I graduated in 2003 from a small Catholic school, the similariies among the students, teachers and the building were striking. As I read the book, I could vividly recall classrooms and hallways at St. Mary's that were in the same disarray as St. Michael's. There was a bathroom at my school that would have been perfect for the movie version when Sister Maria demolishes the bathroom to cover up the attempted suicide.
I also believe that following the rules and doing what is right aren't the same things. There have been many times where rules weren't for anything good so I think it's better to do what is right, even if that means sometimes not following the rules.
I don't think this book is anything like the school in brutal youth, I think that some similarities in this book because there is always a cast system, which separates us a little bit. But there are no staff like the ones at St. Mike's. The staff is the kind that doesn't care about the students, and the kind of priests and nuns who couldn't handle the students
I don't really see that many simularities between O'Hara and St. Michael in the book. The teachers are more involved with the students and O'Hara is actually more diverse than the school in the book. Our people are more diverse and the cultures we have in this book are more diverse as well.
If I were to write a book about O'Hara, it would probably be reminiscent of Brutal Youth in the way that the cliques interact with each other. In both schools, different groups regard each with wary eyes. Even though O'Hara has great diversity, there is still a certain animosity towards other groups that is prevalent.
I think Peter took whatever he could get, he got friends at first, who turned out as good friends. So it turned out great.
Did you intentionally tell the story in small snippets to indicate that all these things happen at the same time?
As an adult and teacher, I had a hard time relating and even trying to understand Mrs. Bromine as I have worked with many teachers that seem to be more concerned with their own agendas than the well-being of the students. It is sad that teachers like Mrs. Bromine still exsist in education today. Additionally, Sister Maria's role is also seen in school's today, especially in the Catholic dioceses. School leaders and teachers are doing the best with what they have, but are faced dealing with the corruption from above. Is isn't funny? Breznican writes of a different decade yet it is reflected in education today.
Honestly I feel,that the author did try to accurately show Catholic school typically is but not really in depth. I think this book encompasses the attitude of a wealthier Catholic school, but shows the physical traits of a poorer Catholic school.
Hi guys, I'm the author of the book, and Ms. Crawford invited me to say hello. I think all of your comments are very astute, and I'm deeply grateful to you all for reading it. I'm glad it's not like O'Hara! I wrote it because of ideas and fears I had about the forces that can make someone selfless and caring (as it sounds your teachers are) or selfish and lacking empathy (which is, let's face it, the way a lot of people in the world behave.)
I thought of St. Mike's as a dysfunctional family, overseen by a father (Father Mercedes) who had given in to his own reckless and selfish instincts, and a mother (Sister Maria) who wants to do the right thing, but is overpowered and has come to learn that compromise doesn't always fix a bad situation, but it might make it slightly better. Everyone in the story is a "child" of St. Mike's, even those two. The teachers and some of the parents are former students, and the new generation is getting pushed around by these "big brothers and sisters" on the adult level. (I thought of Davidek's parents like two older siblings who resent their babysitting duties.)
It's a simple idea: You learn what you are taught, and if you see people being greedy, careless, self-involved, you start to think that's okay -- especially if that person goes unpunished for such behavior. (I wish I had greater faith in karma, but we all know terrible people often get away with it from sheer force of will.) So it starts a cycle of cruelty.
But that's a hopeless story, and I am an optimist -- believe it or not! I wanted to show what it would take for someone to break the cycle, and for all this flaws Davidek does break it. He reaches a point where he wants to hurt the people who hurt him and his friends, but Hannah's bizarre plan is actually a surprise kindness, a gift to empower him as he moves forward through St. Mike's. You'll notice, Davidek spends this power immediately, like a dollar that's burning a hole in his pocket. No sooner does he earn everyone's love by "refusing" to read the notebook, than he lashes out and trashes his admirers' plans to humiliate Hector Greenwill.
He's still angry, but he learns that you can't banish that pain by passing it on to someone else. You have to save another person from pain, and somehow, miraculously, it alleviates some of your own. When I talk to students at bullying seminars, the advice I often give to those who feel harassed is to stand up for someone else when you see them getting pushed around or mocked. You may become a target yourself, but you will have made a friend -- and maybe someone will stand up for you.
Really, that's what Stein did. He constantly put himself in harm's way for others, absorbing pain so they wouldn't have to. He took on so much, it nearly destroyed him, and he suffered greatly to spare the people he loved from having to endure it. So, I ask you, fellow Catholic school kids … Whose example does THAT sound like?
Part II:
The cautionary tale in all this is Lorelei, who comes away with exactly what she wanted: She is embraced, she is safe, she is beloved and accepted. I leave her fate open to interpretation, but I love Lorelei with all my heart. It's not stated explicitly, but I feel she learns by the end that popularity doesn't matter much if you don't like yourself.
So, again, I'm glad your school isn't like this. St. Mike's is just an example of a kind of psychosis that can afflict a society: we can become cold and fearful and angry, and that feeling just spreads and grows until it consumes us. It's the hardest thing in the world to push back against it, but I believe each of us has to do that in our own hearts.
At the end, Davidek stops expecting the people in charge to be better. When he tells his mother "it was just kid stuff," that's not him dismissing everything that came before. It's him deciding he will stop asking for her help, after she let him down so many times by simply not listening, not believing, or not wanting to be inconvenienced.
That's very sad, but I think there is happiness in the ending, too. He has decided not to seek her help anymore because he knows he can handle it on his own. He can take what's coming, whatever life hits him with, and he has figured out that he doesn't need to hit anyone back.
Anyway, didn't mean to ramble on. All your comments got my wheels turning!
I'd love to hear what you think (my interpretation is no more valid than any readers). And if you have any questions, I'm happy to answer them.
Anthony
My question is what if the anger had consumed Davidek? How would have changed the ending along with the character?
Also, why did you choose to save Davidek from that anger, when in fact you could have let it consume him?
I agree with the fact that we all must overcome the anger or darkness that does consume us. The problem is, that some people choose that anger instead of their option of happiness. I believe the reason people choose the anger is that they get a sense of purpose. The anger creates a sort of anchor to hold on to. The only problem is, they die inside because that anger burns up what is left of the human inside.
Place yourself in Davidek's position as a character in a story. Would you rather be consumed by whatever angers you, or would you have the author right to save the person inside of you and save you from the darkness that wants to consume you?
would you rather be consumed by whatever angers you, or would you want the author to write to save the person inside of you and save you from the darkness that wants to consume you?
Lorelei studies teen magazines, movies, and even creates a list of "rules" she hopes will help her become popular. What advice would you give someone if they were trying to start over like Lorelei was?
I love thinking about the idea that the characters in this book were like a dysfunctional family because it is really what they are like. Careless parents, brother and sister fueds, and no one really there to look out for each other like a family should. I like the idea that we must get over anger before it consumes us. I've personally seen it happen and it leads to a very dark and lonely road.
My question is how you think you would have handled all the chaos of this school if you were Sister Maria? Obviously her efforts didn't seem to do much, so how would you have acted differently?
Also, not necessarily being in a position where you have become a really angry person, it's easy to say that it's an easy thing to get over. The case usually isn't that easy. It's like what Sarah said, it's like an anchor, it's a place to go when you don't know how to show any other emotions. It's easy to become an angry person when so many things get hard, especially when you are getting bullied at school wih an administration who does nothing to solve the problem. I was glad to see that Davidek could get over that anger and just realize he needed to handle the situation himself.
Hi Sarah, well, I have to say, I didn't save Davidek. When writing these characters, I often found myself surprised by them. For instance, I intended to give Lorelei a redemption by the end, but it rang false to me, so I decided she was someone who would need to sit within the world she created before any new revelations hit.
With Davidek, I wrote a few variations on that final scene. In one, he lashes out, bitterly dismissing his mother and ending with him telling her to "F' off." When she starts to retort, he silences her with "Do I need to repeat it for you?" Which, of course, throws her old line back at her.
I didn't like this version of him. It felt wrong to me. I didn't save Davidek, but Stein did. Hannah did. Mr. Zimmer's work with Clink did. They showed him what kindness was, what sacrifice was. He still harbors anger, but isn't looking to unload it on next year's newcomers. He would get no satisfaction from seeing Green humiliated on stage. And he's not looking to be consumed by his hard feelings, either.
I decided he was a strong enough person by the end to not have to hurt someone; even if they had it coming.
So a new version of that ending was written. As it stands now, Davidek considers unbuckling his belt and throwing his arms around his mother, but at the last moment decides not to, and instead tells her that what went on back at the school is nothing she needs to worry about (and no longer her business, frankly.)
But … in between I did a version that pushed it the other direction. He does take off his belt, wraps his arm around his mom in an awkward hug, and confuses her mightily as they wait at the stop light. He doesn't explain, he just holds her, and the narration explains that he's giving this to her not because she deserves it, but because she needs it. She doesn't know how to care about someone else, but he feels sorry for someone that lost.
Ultimately, I felt this was also not the way the character would behave. He ends up feeling that impulse, but he's still too raw and angry to make such a gesture. Much of my thinking about how to end the book plays out in the final pages, as Davidek thinks about Ms. Bromine and how a person becomes like that, or his mother and father, who have neglected him but still expect love and respect. He's trying to figure out what he thinks about all this. His conclusion is that you can't blame people for the pain that makes them who they are. But you don't have to welcome that chaos into your life either.
So … he does what he does. And after taking a few wrong turns, that felt right to me.
Good question! (I hope I answered it.)
Another good question, Sarah: "What advice would you give someone if they were trying to start over like Lorelei was?"
This is a pretty simple answer: Don't try to be something ELSE. Just figure out who you are, and be THAT.
The way Lorelei's mother treats her is not her fault. The abused is never to blame for the actions of the abuser. But other elements of Lorelei's heartache are self-inflicted because she has bought into the idea that she is worthless, undeserving of love, and all the terrible things her mother has (literally) beaten into her head.
She desperately wants to be somebody else, and she's trying to tailor her appearance and personality to be something that everyone will love. That never works. People can smell the desperation. But we are drawn to confidence and strength.
If you can find a way to be happy with yourself, including your flaws, and cease needing others to fill some kind of unfathomable void, you'll find people who like you, respect you, and love you. That's because they'll finally see YOU, and not the facade you are presenting.
If you don't love who you are, no one else will either.
Hailey, what a GREAT question. What would I do if I were Sister Maria?
I have to start by saying, I love Sister Maria as a character (because I love conflict within people, and there's a battle raging inside that woman.) But I find her MADDENING as an administrator. I modeled her after the kind of politician who we love because they stand for the things that are important to us, but then we get so frustrated with because they get into office and then it's just compromise, compromise, compromise.
They feel that incremental change is better than none at all -- and maybe they're right. But that pragmatism drives us firebrands nuts. Fight! Stand up for what's right! Stick your neck out!
She is a good person, down to her core. But that's part of her problem. She lacks the ruthlessness that makes Father Mercedes so formidable. People like him will always sink lower than she's willing to go.
Sister Maria is one of those people who thinks they can "change the system from within."
Now, I'll tell you -- if you add up Davidek, Lorelei, and Stein, you get me. I feel like each one of them is a side of myself, and I connect strongly to each of them.
I love Sister Maria, but she and I are NOTHING alike. I am way more confrontational than her, and so if I were in her shoes, I would not be trying to steady things and keep order -- I'd be waging war to expose Father Mercedes and Ms. Bromine as the toxic influences we know them to be.
My favorite scene in the book is when she breaks bad and spray paints the bathroom to cover up Stein's attempt on his life. I believe (and you could legitimately interpret this otherwise) she was trying to protect him -- and not merely protect the school, although that was a nice side-effect. And I love the idea of this good woman having to recalibrate her brain to think like a vandal and troublemaker. All for the sake of doing the right thing.
This plays off of something she was told by her former principal: It's easy to go wrong trying to do right.
In that moment in the bathroom, Sister Maria does right by trying to do wrong. By the end of the book, I think she has figured out that sometimes you have to bend or else you'll break.
The hardest decision she has to make is whether to step down and thus spare Mr. Zimmer from Father Mercedes' attack, or see her friend and protege get fired on a false charge so that she can remain in place as a protective force for vulnerable students.
I do believe she chooses to stay because she thinks she can help others. But would I make that choice? No, never. I would step down. Then I would tell Mr. Zimmer to step down. Then I would advise every teacher not he faculty to do the same, and go directly to the parish council to tell them the priest was trying to blackmail a teacher to gain even more control of the school.
But that's tearing down the system. And remember, Sister Maria is the kind of tries to "fix it from within."
"not necessarily being in a position where you have become a really angry person, it's easy to say that it's an easy thing to get over."
Well, Hailey, ha ha … All I can tell you is I am a VERY angry person! I've had to endure some of the things that happened to the characters in the story, and yeah, they've left their mark. So believe me, I don't think it's an easy thing to get over.
The experiences we have growing up -- especially if they involve an out-of-control parent, or some kind of institutionalize harassment -- shape who we are for the rest of our lives. The best we can do is try to correct that, and not make it worse or pass it on.
So I just want to agree. It's not easy.
Doing the right thing is a life's work, and it's easy to get lost along the way. All we can do is hope we have other people, other lights in our life, to guide us back.
I agree with you on how you say you would have reacted to certain situations if you were Sister Maria. It makes me so angry when people hold the power to make a change, yet they do nothing. We're given these opportunities of power to change the things around us for the better and to help the situation, not sit back and watch the world around us crumble. I did enjoy how she did help Stein, I do believe that she did in a way save him. In a situation like that, we need people to come save us from ourselves. But I think there's time where when we depend on people too much, we stop having self dependency, which is extremely important. You never really know who in your life will stay around, especially when times can get tough, so I think we all need to have a sense of self dependency. I think that's also where self love comes in too. If we rely on other people to make us feel loved and good about ourselves what do we have left if they leave? Nothing. We're left in a huge mess of anger and denial that the thing that made us happy left. So I think if people can grasp the concept of self love, they can fully put forth all the love they can to someone else, along with being happy with who they are.
Mr. Breznican,
You wrote "if you don't love who you are, no one else will either." I want to know if you think if it's possible then, to love others even though you do not love yourself? I am a true believer in this theory. You can love others and try to believe them when they say they love you back, but at the same time completely hate yourself. Others may see you and think that you are a person worthy of all the love in the world, but they don't really see the person on the inside that truly hates themselves. On the other hand the person could love everyone in their lives and would do anything for these people, but would not do anything to save the life the person inside of them.
That person can love people, but they just simply do not know how to love themselves. So I guess we must ask ourselves then, does that person really know what love is?
My answer is yes. They know what it is like to love others, but they are not able to grasp the concept of self-love. They only know self-hate.
So do you believe that Lorelei ever really grasps the concept of self-love, or do you think there is always going to be that self-hate inside of her?
Sarah, I think you make an amazing point. Yes, I agree with you, it's totally possible to love others and not love yourself. I don't think the two thoughts are mutually exclusive. I think hating yourself makes it harder for others to see what is wonderful about you, but oftentimes they still do. Some light peeks through the bushel hiding it. For example, I think of people I've known who have lost their lives to drug or alcohol addiction, despite the presence of people they love who love them back. Those people often hate the part of them that can't break the addiction, but they do love the people in their lives, even as they're hurting them -- and themselves.
This is a tragic circumstance that all-too-many people feel. They don't see the worth in themselves, even though they have much to offer the world around them. Maybe it's depression, abuse, or addiction that has clouded their view. Maybe it's something else. But what you say is absolutely true, and I think it's a remarkable observation.
As for Lorelei, I think by the end she wakes up and realizes what it means to truly dislike herself and what she has done. I think she sees that she did something self-destructive and wants to remedy it somehow, although she's not sure how. That's why she gravitates toward Seven-Eighths, who seems to be someone who needs a friend. I believe she realizes that her fear turned her into another version of The Boy on the Roof. Only instead of shoving statues over, she pushed Stein.
She has a long journey ahead of her (and I hope to be able to write a sequel to show some of it.) But I envision redemption for her. I believe she wants to do something that makes her worthy of love. The love of others, but also herself.
Mr. Breznican,
So you said that you think that Lorelei will accomplish something that she feels is worthy of love. Do you believe that she will ever really find that reason inside of herself that is deserving of love?
In my opinion I think Lorelei will find the ability to love herself and feel that she is worthy of love, but I think that it will take a while. I don't think that Lorelei will instantly feel loved once she decides she's worthy of it.
It takes time for a person, who is so used to hating themselves, to feel love. They don't believe that they will ever get to feel love, whether it be from themselves or from others. Once they do feel love, it eventually tends to wear off. They go right back to feeling the self-hate and the feeling of darkness that surrounds them.
To create some of the characters in the book, did you ever draw onto any feeling of self-hate inside of you? Or did you draw that darkness from others in your life?
I think that society feels that the people that do feel self-hate are worthless. Do you think that there is a beautiful person in them or are they worthless?
To Mr. Breznican: do your characters carve out their own path in the book according to their personality, or did you set up their stories and give them a personality to match? You talk about how you made certain decisions for Davidek because they didn't feel like him, but don't uncharacteristic choices make a character more interesting? Davidek is a great character, but I feel like it would've been great for him to face his mother in the end.
Mr. Breznican, what do you think would happen if Davidek had gone to a public school? Do you think things would have occurred in the same way, or would a public school affect the tension that seems to always accompany St. Mike's?
Sarah, I think there is something good and worthwhile inside everybody, although some can make it hard to see. I'm not sure what Lorelei's future will hold, but I think as soon as she stands for something besides herself, she will discover how good that feels and find it gives her purpose.
I tried to make it so that even the most despicable characters in the book had a moment or two when you feel for them. At the end, the hammer comes down on Mullen and Simms, but just before it does, I wanted the reader to see them as slightly sympathetic. Their karma bill came due, but in the moment before that happens, you see what they meant to each other as friends, how they will someday grow apart, and perhaps see what might have been if they'd chosen a different path.
When my wife read the book again in its final stage, she said: "Damn it … Just when I was ready to enjoy these two getting their comeuppance, you made me feel sympathy for them!"
The same goes for Father Mercedes and Ms. Bromine. There are times in the story where I want you to see the kind of radioactive core that results in such toxic emissions.
Michaela, I think "surprising" and "uncharacteristic" are very different things. For Ms. Bromine to suddenly show up with a heart of gold would be surprising, but it wouldn't fit with her character without some explanation. I often felt surprised by Davidek (and hope you did, too) but I had to keep him true, at least as true as he felt to me. The reason he doesn't fight his mother at the end is, he knows that fighting isn't the same as resisting. He doesn't need to fight her. She won't help him, but she can't hurt him anymore either. He parts ways with her in that moment, but he doesn't need to destroy her to be free. He just needs to go.
I'll give you an example of something that fits, but is also surprising. When writing Hannah, I knew I wouldn't spend much time on her family or homelife. She was deliberately enigmatic. But then, as I approached the end, I had a plot hole: Why don't the kids just forcefully STOP her from going to the picnic? The fix for this was to have them show up at her house and corner her to physically take her notebook. That meant putting her home in a cul de sac, where she couldn't drive away out the back, and that also meant we would see where she lived.
At the start of that chapter, I had some choices to make: What kind of parents did she have? What did her house look like? Was she wealthy or poor? Did she have brothers or sisters? I knew I needed her confrontation with the other students to happen without witnesses, so no younger brothers or sisters. But I also wanted her home life to be different from the other kids we'd seen. I wanted her to be loved instead of abused. I wanted her to have money instead of be struggling.
That meant a big, glorious house with two loving parents. But why would they have this big house? What was in the other rooms? That's when I realized she had a younger sister who didn't survive.
Suddenly, that missing piece completed the puzzle: It explained why she felt worthless (survivor guilt), it explained why her parents were unaware of her school troubles (they're detached and forever grieving), and it gives her alternating appearance and assumption of a fake name (Claudia) a psychological basis.
I was as surprised as anyone! But it fit so perfectly with her character. It's almost like it was there all along and I just happened to discover it at the end.
Michaela, what would have happened if Davidek had gone to public school. Wow. GREAT question.
I think he was in a volatile state. He was pulled to be brave and fight for the right cause, but he had not yet found his courage or cause.
In public school, he wouldn't have been isolated, because all his old friends would have been there. I think Davidek would have found it easier to hide, and perhaps would have gone unnoticed by people who were looking for someone to push around and vent some anger on.
In that way, he might have gotten what he wished: an easy, uneventful year. No waves, no drama. Not much that he did would have mattered. He would not have faced as many struggles, but he also wouldn't have benefited from any special kindnesses. (Not that public school is easy for everyone, but it would have been less eventful for him.)
I imagine he would have slipped below that still water and disappeared.
You can look at his experiences at St. Mike's as negative and painful, but he made some new best friends, and his time in that furnace forged some iron in him. He felt passion that year, and came away strong. In that way, I think it's a story about how adversity can lead us to become our best selves.
I'll try to remember that myself the next time the going gets rough.
As a writer, Mr. Breznican, do you feel as though you have to give your characters justice or a good resolution since you become so connected with them during the writing process? Or is it easy to emotionally separate yourself from characters you've worked hard on for so long?
Mr. Breznican,
At any point, do you think someone should give up on somebody because they aren't worthwhile anymore? Do you believe that any of these characters weren't worthwhile in the end?
Why would you want us to see how important Mullen and Simms were to each other, if in the end they grow apart?
If you ever write a sequel to this book, what would readers see change in the characters and would stay the same?
Hi Mr. Breznican, i really liked your book and it was very well written, but I do have questions about Father Mercedes and Sister Maria, have you encountered anyone like that in your life that influenced you to create such characters? And, if you didn't what helped creat their personas? Also, did you too go to a catholic school? If so where?
My goodness! All this dialogue is incredible. First, Mr. Breznican, thank you for taking the time to respond to our students and for giving such insight into your thoughts and characters. As one of the teachers in our book club, I am finding myself living like a kid once again through your book and getting a chance to chat.
A few thoughts and questions:
Davidek-I agree with your final decision for this character as lashing out would serve no purpose. His mother would not change, and where as she could be hurt and take his actions to heart in private, he would never receive what he needs as a child. Mostly, I understood from a personal level. Perhaps, because I know the feeling of wanting to reach out to that parent to feel what I yearn...even if I forced it or even if I knew it would be fleeting...I kind of wanted him to do the same and then turn back knowing that was it. My heart would have bled for him a bit more.
Sister Marie- I felt she has a silent strength and self-sacrifice about her. She knew many things were out of her control but held onto the idealism that she was able to help the majority. I see this in our school with administration and staff. I wonder how our diocese would be if the nuns still had a strong presence? I wonder it often.
However, I was pissed when she covered up the suicide. I understand why. I understand the school and its reputation was on the verge of crumbling, but the "sweeping under the rug" bothered me, but I do agree that is enthralling to see such a character have to alter her views and actions while justifying she is helping the greater good. Maybe it was just her persistence on keeping Davidek out of the loop. I dunno?
Lorelei- I liked her because I understood her. From my experiences and observations, all humans develop some distortion of their self worth whether that be from social pressures, experiences or what...but there is such a darkness to the human spirit that it makes me question why we work so hard to keep it a bay...to ignore it...to suppress it? I am by no means saying I agree with indulging in every temptation and saying violence or self-harm is okay, but perhaps it should be discussed more often, especially with teens. How can that darkness and sadness be channeled for greatness?
I have had my own redemption moments after certain periods of time during high school and in my early twenties, and so I would love to see the path Lorelei ends up taking. So questions for you:
Do you think people truly change, or do they always carry a bit of whatever they are trying to change with them? Can they ever escape some of the sadness or darkness that creeps up time-to-time?
People like Stein, Davidek and Hannah are considered to be heroes in a sense and in very different ways. Do you think a person's ability to rise above and the way they do it is based on their home life? The situation in which they were born into?
Hannah- lost a sister, but her family had money. She was essential "well of", yet resisted and took a stand in a silent way? A strategic and intelligent way?
Stein- his strength was more overt, risky and loud, and yet he also came from a loss and a decent family.
Is that making sense?
Finally, would the characters have acted differently had you not had them as "shadows" the year before to witness the "boy on the roof?" Would they have had the same courage?
I know I am late in joining this conversation, but I appreciate your response. Thank you!
What a great time we've had discussing this book. Thank you, Anthony Breznican, for stopping by and for providing us with more insight through your comments and responses to questions. We definitely will look out for your next book!
Post a Comment