Seventy-six days before it happens, the prank war becomes more intense, and Miles experiences his first bout of homesickness. Intrigued? Then it’s time for Mark to read Looking For Alaska.
seventy-six days before
I will admit that I am kind of distracted by the casual use of the word “bitch” so often from the Colonel without anyone telling him to knock it off. To be fair, he only says it when Alaska isn’t around, and I imagine she’d tell him to shut the hell up if he did use it in her presence. Truth is, despite how gross that word is, there’s a better word to describe what’s going on with Sara and the Colonel: THEY ARE BOTH ACTING QUITE IMMATURE. The fact that they based the vast majority of their relationship on fighting is sort of beyond me, and I genuinely don’t understand how a person can miss that.
But that’s just my upbringing; my mom taught me to never call a woman that word or she’d slap me into a parallel universe.
I like that the Colonel is now starting to enjoy Dr. Hyde’s class as well, and it’s also neat that Green includes a bit of the man’s lecture in the text, too. The topic for that class’s final does seem a bit obvious, though. I mean that in the sense that like Miles’s obsession with the labyrinth, I think the topic of his exam will play heavily into the narrative. I don’t get the sense that Green just drops all these random things into the story without answering them.
And then this “chapter” ends on one horrific note: Kevin and his buddies re-routed the gutters to flood Alaska’s room, ruining most of the books she owned as well. I’m starting to get the sense that whatever the “prank” is that opened the book is going to be unbelievably risky and dangerous. Kevin is grossly escalating his attacks on this group, and they’re clearly not meant as gentle prods or moments to inspire a good laugh. They’ve all jumped straight to property destruction, and they are downright mean. It’s disturbing to me because they all take this culture of ratting so seriously that they’re willing to do horrible things to one another to send the message home: do not ever go to the Eagle.
God damn.
sixty-seven days before
It’s nice to get more of Takumi in this chapter, especially since he’d always been the fringe member of the group. I knew the least about him, and he was involved the least in everything except eating bufriedos while talking. Plus, this marks the very first time that Takumi has ever spoken to Miles alone. Of course, I’d like to spend time in the heads of all the members of this group, but I’ll take what I can get.
Even right off the bat, Miles acknowledges just how weird this is:
And then I didn’t know what to say. Takumi knew a lot about hip-hop; I new a lot about last words and video games. Finally, I said, “I can’t believe those guys flooded Alaska’s room.”
At first, I just assumed that Alaska and the Colonel were busy, and I’ve not heard of Miles ever hanging out with anyone else, so he sought out Miles. But when he hesitates before taking Miles to a new place to smoke, it was clear that there was another motivation for this.
“Alaska ratted out Marya,” he said. “So the Eagle might know about the Smoking Hole, too. I don’t know. I’ve never seen him down that way, but who knows what she told him.”
And so Takumi, overwrought by the guilt of what he knows, begins detailing out all the “proof” he has that Alaska is partially responsible for a lot of what is happening to all of them. It explains why Alaska made that snide remark to him about getting his own life and scorning him for thinking everything was a “mystery.” I bet she knew he’d figured it out. But what I’m fascinated by is how so many people all play a part in this, how the complex the network at Culver Creek is. Alaska, first of all, was the one trying to sneak off campus and got caught by the Eagle, and she’s the one who chose to rat on her friends rather than get expelled. But it’s hard to ignore the fact that, as Takumi says, the Eagle “needs rats to do his job.” I wonder how aware the Eagle is of the culture he’s created, which spawns a healthy dose of mistrust of him and caused the students to develop a social contract for how to interact with one another because of it.
Of course, now Miles’s perception of Alaska has changed, and I’m worried where this is going to go from here. The Colonel has no idea his best friend was the catalyst for this prank war, and Takumi insists that Miles should never tell. But this means something different for Miles, though:
I finally understood that day at the Jury: Alaska wanted to show us that we could trust her. Survival at Culver Creek meant loyalty, and she had ignored that. But then she’d shown me the way. She and the Colonel had taken the fall for me to show me how it was done, so I would know what to do when the time came.
Well, that’s not good. “The prank” is going to be terrible, isn’t it?
fifty-eight days before
“Pudge,” she said, faux-condescending, “the sound is an integral part of the artisitic experience of this video game. Muting Decapitation would be like reading only every other word of Jane Eyre.”
THIS IS MY KIND OF FRIEND.
Given the reveal in the chapter before, I thought I had a better understanding of Alaska, or at least her behavior towards Miles. But one of the very first things she says to him when he wakes up to her playing video games is that she already knows Takumi told Miles that she ratted out Marya. Well….that’s unexpected. And perhaps her moodiness could partially be tracked back to this: she’s conflicted about her actions, and her emotions are directly tied into that.
I also don’t think it’s necessarily that simple, and Green’s painted Alaska in a much more complex way than that. I admit that I simply don’t understand what it is that Alaska really wants from Miles. It’s hard to ignore that she’s flirting on some level with him, and it’s impossible to deny that they’re friends. I like how Miles frames it, uncertain of what he should do: he cares enough about her to alleviate that uncertainty.
And so, after Alaska presents a comprehensive list of why Miles should stay behind with her on the Thanksgiving break. I will say that I enjoy when the two of them are just being nice to one another, but I’m also biased towards puppy dogs and kittens, so who cares what I think? But it’s why I was just so…grossed out? Yes, grossed out by the inclusion of the erection line. THIS IS A PUPPY DOG MOMENT, DO NOT BRING BONERS INTO IT.
Miles does decide to agree to Alaska’s list and calls his mother later to ask if he can stay for Thanksgiving. And this happens:
I hated cranberry sauce, but for some reason my mom persisted in her lifelong belief that it was my very favorite food, even though every Thanksgiving I politely declined to include it on my plate.
THIS IS ME AND STUFFING. Y’all, this was the first year ever that I was not offered stuffing. IT’S A GODDAMN BREAKTHROUGH, I TELL YOU.
Anyway, Miles’s decision to stay behind is immediately questioned, and this made me laugh. How long had it been? Like two hours? Then the Colonel strolls into the room and in a matter of a minute or two, he determines that the primary reason that Miles is staying for the Thanksgiving break is because he wants to make out with Alaska, which he strongly, strongly advises against.
“It’s not because I want to make out with her.”
“Hold on.” He grabbed a pencil and scrawled excitedly at the paper as if he’d just made a mathematical breakthrough and then looked back up at me. “I just did some calculations, and I’ve been able to determine that you’re full of shit.”
Bless. I mean, it is that obvious to me, too. So Miles, awash in a weird sense of regret, calls his mother later in the day, looking for some sort of affirmation that can give him another reason besides Alaska for him to stay, and he does get it: his parents are going to England for their second honeymoon now that Miles won’t be around. Well, fuck, that was fast. And I get how that can seriously uproot Miles, and I understand even more how that makes him feel instantly homesick. Of course, his parents would have had no idea what their son was going through, and I’m sure they were ecstatic to be able to take the time to do something just for the two of them. But it hurts Miles because now he’s not sure what he’s doing.
And while Alaska’s portrayal is odd, and I haven’t quite figured out what John Green’s point is with her, I think I do get one aspect of her: she can be a damn fine friend. While I’m starting to think her characterization might be flawed in its execution, I’ll love the image of her coming to Miles’s side after the phone call and assuring him that things will be just fine at Culver Creek, because she’ll be there.
That’s nice. I’d like more of that, please.
Your unpreparedness is a thing of beauty. I may be enjoying it more, because I was spoiled for this book. So seeing things unfold through your eyes is a treat.
Miles and cranberry sauce, you and stuffing, me and peeps. Man, every year my dad put peeps in my Easter basket and every year I reminded him that I didn't like them and every year he'd ask why I didn't just tell him that. He has this weird selective memory thing going on sometimes. So every year my brother got twice the peeps. I couldn't even trade them for anything because those things last forever, and he knew he could just wait me out.
For me it's turkey. You wouldn't believe how many times I've had to argue with people that no, your family's magically-prepared bird will not heal my turkey-hating ways. When spending the holidays outside of my immediate family, I just quietly accept a sliver of breast meat, and push it around my plate to keep the peace.
Ham for me. I’ll eat it if I have to, but uuuugh it just grosses me out. Every. Single. Time we have ham it’s “Since when did you not like ham? Why did you wait to tell us now? I’ve already made it”. The one time somebody remembered, they thought it was my sister who didn’t like ham and made her a special non-ham dish, while I got ham. And then she wouldn’t trade.
When I was little my grandmother refused to believe that I didn't like ham. Part of it was that she grew up during the Depression so the idea of rejecting food was just blasphemous. Part of it was just her belief that pigs are the most delicious animal. Pork, bacon, ribs, prosciutto. How could I not like ham? She made me eat it every time I saw her until I eventually acquired a taste for it.
haha, I like your grandmother's determination! I was fine with ham until someone told me humans taste of ham, and that just RUINED it. It probably didn't help that I was also going through my Charlotte's Web stage so the though of eating people AND WILBUR was just too much.
I can definitely see how that would destroy the taste of ham for you.
WHAT. HOW DO THEY EVEN KNOW THAT. WERE YOU TALKING TO HANNIBAL LECTER?!
(also, I never liked ham either. or bacon. It feels like the entire world is obsessed with bacon these days and barely anybody I know understands the utter revulsion it provoked in me even BEFORE I stopped eating meat.)
I HAVE NO IDEA. MAYBE SHE WAS HANNIBAL LECTER REBORN? O_O As a young girl? At day camp? IT COULD HAPPEN
Eddie Izzard would disagree.
I miss Eddie, what has he been up to lately?
Eddie! <3
Argh, I HATED the "since when don't you like [blank]?" thing growing up. Since forever. I have hated mayo, ketchup, eggs, bologna, hotdogs, and turkey SINCE FOREVER. They caught on about the time I left for college and it no longer mattered.
I'm pretty sure that my sister slathered extra mayo on everything when I was around just because she remembered how much I hated it. Sisters, man.
Family just seems to have that magical ability to not remember these things. My sister hates chicken, yet my grandmother fixes it for her EVERY TIME. She often forgets I'm a vegetarian now, too. So on and so forth.
I just suffered in silence for years until one night my mom was trying to decide what to make for dinner and I made a face when she suggested ham. Turns out half my sibling disliked it as well so I havent had to have any since.
I hate marshmallow anything, so I hear you on the peeps. My family was more the chocolate-egg type at Easter, though, which suited me just fine. Nom nom nom.
"Your unpreparedness is a thing of beauty."
Ain't that the truth.
V'z nyzbfg jbeevrq ubj Znex jvyy pbcr jura ur ernyvfrf jung npghnyyl vf tbvat gb unccra. Rfcrpvnyyl jura ur guvaxf vg'f whfg tbvat gb or fbzr xvaq bs cenax…
You don't like stuffing? SHUN THE NON-BELIEVER!
Okay, my notes are so random and disorganised for these…I don't go into it with specific thoughts like for other stuff you read and watch. Maybe because even though I've finished this book, I'm less familiar with it, and not sure how to avoid the pitfalls.
1) yeah, of course you need sound on a video game! I mean, unless that game is tetris (an awesome game, I must assure you) you're going to miss out on musical score, background dialogue, and just noise ques, that can be really helpful. I mean….I can't imagine doing the Portal series without sound.
2) The word bitch; in all honestly, I've never seen anything wrong with using it, beyond the fact that its obviously a rude word. For me, its like a distaff counterpart to 'bastard', so I just use it for any woman whose rude or mean. That said, I know that opinions on these types of things can vary wildly, and many see it as a sexistly charged term, so I don't use it excessively.
3) You know, I really don't mind Alaska (as a character, although I the reader was often slightly infuriated by her). She seems like a genuine character, albeit one that falls into some already formed tropes, but then most characters do.
When topics like this come up, I like to bring up that fact, that for many writers (not exclusively guys), its more difficult to write females. Not because there's anything intrinsic so the gender, but because they're being scrutinized so heavily by the audience. They have to be active and competant enough to be strong, but any stronger they get labeled as 'Mary Sue' or dominating the story. I think its a lot easier to call a female character for being flawed in some ways, and while obviously that doesn't excuse female characters that are badly written, I try not too look into these things to harshly. I try to ignore gender; the characters are characters first, and when I do that, I don't see too much of a difference between Alaska all the others.
But hey…its all subjective, right?
1) Damn, I seriously cannot *imagine* playing Portal without GLaDOS' voice in my ear. That's half the fun! That's arguably the best bit in either game! You'd miss out on so much of the atmosphere.
2) There's a really big difference between 'bitch' and 'bastard' though, and that is the way 'bitch' is used very specifically to demean women *for being women*, or men for being *like women*. Bastard doesn't really have that for masculinity, at least not in my experience. A woman who is a bitch is either 'too aggressive' (for a woman), or 'too whiny/obnoxious/catty' (all stereotypically female). A man who is a bitch is somehow weak/submissive (like a woman). Making someone 'your bitch'. People referring to 'getting bitches'. Etc.
They're really just… not the same, at all. The entire fact that you use it for women specifically, like you need to correlate their flaw and their being female, is kind of the problem?
3) I think that approach can either work really well or really badly, depending on the book and character. Sometimes ignoring gender can reveal, like you said, that you were being really unfairly harsh on female characters and holding them to higher standards (absolutely guilty of that myself, and it's really counter-productive). Other times, gender can be kind of important, because the implications are different for male and female characters? Some things have more baggage depending on the gender. I think the issue some people have with Alaska is that a male character mostly driving another male character is different than a female character driving the male character, because it happens so *often*. I don't know. I can't really judge it, to be honest.
On the bitch thing, I guess intent really matters, because words can have so many varying meaning. To me, when I (rarely) use the term, I'm just saying that someone who is a woman is a bad person. Of course, there are poeple who use the term like "they're overly feminine/ have feminine qualities, that's what makes it bad". So I guess…its all circumstantial.
Funny, because I'd say the exact opposite. Well, not so much that it doesn't matter *at all*, but ultimately, you can't choose to just erase hundreds of years of sexism and oppression that word has propped up, or even just the way *most people* use it, because 'that's not how I meant it!'.
Like, when someone 'doesn't mean it that way', it doesn't change the fact that most people use it that way, and that normalizing it encourages them to do so, or the fact that it reinforces the idea that gender has to be brought into a discussion about being a bad person as though the two are connected, it doesn't change the fact that it can be a massively *triggering* word to use. You can't take a word that was essentially created and used specifically as a way to demean women and just decide that it doesn't mean that anymore. That isn't how words *work*. If I wanted 'pie' to mean 'green' and I wandered around saying that, would me meaning 'green' change the fact that everyone reacted as though I meant 'pie', and would it be reasonable for me to expect them to?
Which is kind of a ridiculous example, true. But the general principle is the same. You can't put the onus on other people to psychically know what you mean. It's not really… fair, is what springs to mind.
I see where you're coming from, but by their definition, words change.
Lets take the classic example; 'gay'. A couple hundred years ago (I'd say less than that, but I'm not sure), it meant happy or colourful. Now, of course, it refers to a sexuality. Now its also taken on a third meaning of being bad- one which is sometimes saying "you are homosexual-esque, therefore bad", but also just "you are bad", completely independent of the sexuality part.
Personally, I never use the term gay to mean something bad, but I know many people, who are gay themselves, who do. Its part of language that the meaning of words change. Problems like this are created when several meanings stay around at one time, meaning there is ambiguity in what the word means.
Remember…I'm a woman, and a feminist. So its hardly as if I have any bad intentions.
"completely independent of the sexuality part"
Okay, stop RIGHT THERE. That is never, ever true. NEVER. EVER. No matter who is using it (it is perfectly possible to internalize bigotry against your own group, by the way, so use by other LGBT+ people does not prove a thing). The use of the word gay as an insult is ABSOLUTELY related to its use as a word for homosexuality and I am boggling at the assertion it isn't.
Like, it is a word first and foremost *currently used* as a sexuality label for a group totally despised, and you're seriously going to say it's a coincidence that at the same time, use of it to mean 'bad' popped up?
I've known people who would describe things as gay to mean bad, and then list other synonyms/slurs for gay people. I've known people who would use gay to mean bad, and would very explicitly say 'yeah, it's cause it's bad to be gay'. And yes, I've known people who did it without thinking that- but the fact they weren't thinking that did NOT stop me, the LGBT person in the room, being reminded every time they said it that what I was equalled 'bad' in most people's minds. The fact they didn't 'mean to hurt me' didn't change the fact they did.
It isn't about the (usually straight) person using it, it's about the people hearing it who are being hurt by that reminder, because again, if they decide to change the meaning of it, how am I supposed to just KNOW they've changed the meaning?
Also, that part about how you can internalize stuff? Yeah, being female does not prevent you using sexist words, and self-describing as a feminist doesn't either. I'm both too, and I've definitely made plenty of mistakes. I used to use the word 'bitch' all the time! So, you know, I don't see the relevance?
(And for the record, the original meaning of gay was adapted to the sexuality label very deliberately. It was an actual decision by a group who adopted it as a label to a) say 'screw you, we can be a good thing' and b) say 'sticking out isn't bad'. While it's true words can change meaning, they do so for a reason, and that reason is usually based on the *original* meaning. Semantic shifts are not absolute and connotations often remain long after the meaning shifts themselves. Words change according to patterns, and you can trace those patterns back, and they inform future use of the word. If a slur changes meaning to something more general, it doesn't stop being a slur, it just means it's become a subtler one.)
Please understand that I mean absolutely no disrespect here, at all. At all. Personally, I never, ever use the term gay in a derogatory term. Ever. I myself am not straight, and yes, I know people can be derogatory to their own group. I know how charged words can be. I don't want to give the impression at all, but merely wanted to start a discourse on the topic of changing meaning of language.
I'm sorry if anyone misinterpreted my words: I was not using it as an example of it being okay to use sexist, homophobic, racist, or any other 'ist' language. I am sorry if anyone interpreted it this way. I simply wanted to make the point that these topics are subjective. I have seen hundreds of varying opinions on the subject. That was all I wanted to make clear: that there is no clear cut answer. I've met people who are offended if I avoid these terms around them.
I….just wanted a rational debate, not anyone taking it as validating prejudice.
I think that the fact that there are hundreds of different opinions about an occurrence can't necessarily be taken as evidence that the harmfulness of that occurrence is a matter of opinion. The link is specifically about sexism, but I think it works for pretty much any comparable situation:
'“Hold on.” He grabbed a pencil and scrawled excitedly at the paper as if he’d just made a mathematical breakthrough and then looked back up at me. “I just did some calculations, and I’ve been able to determine that you’re full of shit.”'
People can say what they want about his writing, but they can't deny that John Green has written some lines that are absolute perfection.
My mom taught me not to swear at all, but that worked as well as telling Hera not to run away from Mommy and Daddy.
I don't know if I can get over this affront to stuffing.
Checking in as I do my modly rounds, and – YES MARK I AM RIGHT THERE WITH YOU. I think I'd like stuffing more if it didn't have onions and celery, two things I tend to have textural issues with. I hate celery and am damn picky about when I can tolerate onion. Of course, the people in my family who make the stuff overdo it on both. 🙁 So I choke down a little to be polite (whilst picking out those things) and load up my plate with other stuff. Like mashed potatoes. My plate this year was half mashed potatoes, with a teensy bit of stuffing, some cranberry sauce, and bread. IT WAS GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOD. <3
Not big on celery's texture, but oh, onion is heaven. I can't imagine stuffing without onions.
I had a rather embarrassing cooking disaster once where a soup recipe was not clear on the terminology for how much celery, and then the food processor failed to properly puree everything, so what should've been asparagus soup came out as celery soup… with a texture that reminded one strongly of stuff that had been through the garbage disposal. 😡 I haven't been able to stomach celery since.
I can handle onions in some things – soup, onion rings, salsa – but in a lot of other stuff the texture gives me the oogies. I can't explain it. o.0
I think I just like bread more than most things. Someday I'll make a stuffing that's ALL BREAD. xD
I feel like I'm going to get yelled at here, because all of my friends think I've lost my mind when I say this…. but I HATE mashed potatoes. I don't like turkey or cranberry or really any of thanksgiving dinner, but I cannot STAND mashed potatoes. I have yet to decide whether its the texture, taste, or both… but either way, I have to choke them down at thanksgiving and it is painful. Pretty much at thanksgiving I eat one tiny sliver of turkey, a DROP of mashed potatoes, some stuffing, and lots of rolls and gravy.
I would never yell at anyone about food preferences! Seriously, I used to be a super-picky eater as a kid, and now I don't eat meat and there's still some veggies I dislike, so I have no desire to be all judgey-judge on someone over what they do or don't like. I've been on the receiving end of that too many times NOT to sympathize.
I wish everyone else had that belief! You would think that I had killed someone or something when I mention it to most people, how angry they get! Like there could never be anyone in the world who doesn't like them. Heads up, people, different preferences of food happen all the time!!
I hate mashed potatoes, too. They're just so bland and boring.
Mashed is my least favourite version of potato, after potato salad. It doesn't disgust me or anything but compared to my other options it seems like such a weak form of potatoes' awesome powers. Maybe I'd feel differently if I ever ate them growing up though.
OMG HOW COULD YOU NOT LIKE MASHED POTATOES?!?!
Teasing, teasing 😛
HAHA THIS IS WHAT I GET FROM EVERYONE.
but they're serious 😀
I dont like stuffing either but since i have become and "adult" no one has really tried to make me eat it.
I do love celery though, especially mixed in my tuna fish sandwich. Or just eating it on its own (burns calories!) or with peanut butter. If I thought my mom wouldnt give me a funny look I would ask for her to get celery for me to snack on.
[Thinking about it, celery would probably also be good in mashed potatoes since cabbage has a similar texture and I love Colcannon.]
I always liked celery with cream cheese on it instead of peanut butter. It doesn't pair as well with raisins for "ants on a log" but it's delicious on its own.
I always eat so much mashed potatoes that I never see the point of trying the stuffing, which I'm never sure I'll like. I mean, if I can have as much as I want of MY FAVORITE FOOD EVER, why would I try foods I might hate?
YES TO THE STUFFING. And cranberry sauce. Those are the two Thanksgiving things I simple do not like and you cannot convince me otherwise!
Also. Mark. You are so not prepared and I'm wriggling in my seat thinking about your umpreparedness.
All I have to say is: I AM WITH YOU ON THE STUFFING. Why does that stuff even exist?! OK, no, that's unfair. Why does that stuff even have to exist in my vicinity? Ewww.
I have never had turkey with stuffing. I do, however, have a deep and abiding love of turkey with dressing. ^_^
*unrepentant Southerner representing!*
I disagree about the "puppy dog" moment between Miles and Alaska. It was a nice moment, but I felt the erection line was almost necessary given the situation. Put any teenage boy in that position, with a girl he is very attracted to, and most of the time the thought will at least cross his mind.
You are right. The hypocrisy on this is too deep to even try to wade through. A Christian deity is open to any and all scorn and debasement, but any question or comment on a non-Christian deity, personage or icon can get you literally and/or figuratively lynched. We can call on God to damn something but we cannot call on God to Bless anything. If you don't believe in a "God" fine, but as you do not believe why are you always using the word in your vocabulary?
Consider the "N" word, blacks can use it, whites not. I get it, it is something personal, cultural, and in any other venue a grievous insult. To me God is the same, if you believe then it's yours to use. If you do not believe then you have no claim on the word.
Comments have been deleted from this site for using demeaning, humiliating and insulting language. Good. I do not think we can ever get "God" off the site, but maybe we can get some of us to pause and reconsider our words or at least how lazy we are with our exclamations and reactions.
Offense is not the same thing as harm. Mark's (and others') use of the words "God" or "Jesus" may be considered offensive to some people, but it's nowhere near the same thing as using the n-word. The latter is something white people are called out for saying because there's a centuries-long history of white people using it to inflict harm. Does the former have the same history? No? Then they're not comparable.
Also: when in the world have you seen people here being figuratively (much less literally) lynched for their comments or conduct w/r/t non-Christian deities? I don't think I've even seen any other deities being mentioned on this site, except in connection to American Gods and perhaps HDM, where ASAIK none of the comments took to mocking those beliefs.
WHAT THE FUCK IS THIS COMMENT. Please read the linked conversations and come back afterwards. Reclamation of a racial slur is not and never will be the same thing as blasphemy.
"literally": I don't think that word means what you think it means.
I will admit that I am kind of distracted by the casual use of the word “bitch” so often from the Colonel without anyone telling him to knock it off. To be fair, he only says it when Alaska isn’t around, and I imagine she’d tell him to shut the hell up if he did use it in her presence
Honestly I think this depends on the kind of person Alaska is. My circle of friends (largely women) all use the word pretty freely in multiple contexts, with no offense given or taken. It can be an offensive word, but it doesn't have to be. Alaska might not even care.