Perks of being a Wallflower - CHARLIE

At the beginning of the novel „The Perks of being a Wallflower“ the shy main character Charlie is 15 years-old and a freshman at an American High School.
He always stays at home to read books twice, which gives him his teacher Bill. Charlie doesn’t have any friends first, because his best friend Michael committed suicide a year before High School starts.
He’s no geek at school although he’s not popular. A lot of people look at him strange, because he’s very emotional, so he cries a lot, which doesn’t change during the book. He gets straight A’s, which is the wish of his parents. They don’t have a lot of money, so maybe he would get a scholarship.
So he’s not really interested in going out and he’s also scared to do something forbidden.
During the book, when he gets to know Sam and Patrick, who is gay. It’s the turning point for his character. For the first time he feels how good it is to have such friends. He falls in love with Sam, which he never did before with any girl, not even with his first girlfriend Mary Elisabeth. He starts to going out, drinking, even taking drugs, lying to his parents and such stuff. Until the end of the novel he can’t say what he thinks and also can’t say no, which changes in the end of the book. It comes out that he was abused by his favourite aunt Helen, who died in an accident, and that’s the reason for his mentally disorder. So he comes into therapy like he was when he was a little kid.

Sa Verbesserung

Nowadays there are a lot of different opinions whether people are influenced by violence and vioelnt media. In this essay I want to show you some points from each side (advocate and the opposite side).
The first paragraph is about the 4 big lies of Hollywood. Medved claims that the violence in the movies is only harmless entertainment. That's definitive false, because, for example, children can't know what's harmless and what's critical. So the next lie is that violence doesn't influence children. But everybody know in the time of uncensored media there is a lot of more crime in our world. He also says that the violence in the media reflects our worlds and most violent filmds are too exaggerated. But a lot of people take such films serious. Such people become copycat.
I personally believe there are various seasons for the violence in this world. To stare with, there are 3 seasons that are frequentli mentioned, namely we leran it, we are born with it and we turn violent because of frustration. I think it's self-evident there's a grain of truth in each theory. In addition I thinkg it's the result of being stupidity. Violence is frequentli cause by negative emotions like hatred.
Next I want to find proposals to reduce the violence among children. First of all the parents should do more for their family life. Children wouldn't be as violent if their family life were okay. A critical point for violence is a lot of heroes of the children aren't good role models at all. Sport stars, movie stars, should be a good role model for the children, because a lot of children emulate their heroes. Pete Doherty takes drugs in public, Paris Hilton drinks and drives. What should the children learn from them? The whole society should set an example. Then there would be defentive less violence.
To sum up, as I've treid to show in my essay there are various factors that contribute to the violence in the world. It's a result of learning and frustration, but of course it's also innate. Therefore, we can diminish it by helping people to act out their aggressions without any danger to the public, by teaching people to communicate and by reducing the violence children are exposed to.

ESSAY

These days violence is a big problem in our society. In the newspaper, tv, radio, etc.
always tell us about acts of violence. The question is, should there be a ban on violence in movies?

There are 3 reasons for such a ban. First, in a lot of movies are so much violence and so much blood, for example in Quentin Terentino's "Kill Bill", which cannot be realistic anyway.
A lot of scences in horrormovies are to exaggerated, so a lot of people will have nightmares.
Second, non-violent films are successful, too. Probably because there are so much horrormovies on the market with no background. These films are only brutal and after watching a few of these films, nothing can shock people anymore. So people prefer films with a good story and not films where people will be killed one by one.
Third, a lot of people imitate the murderers in movies, that's a violence theory. For example in "Nightmare on Elmstreet" Freddy Krueger kills a lot of children. In fact US-teenagers like such powerful characters and this has the result that everyone of them loves Freddy Krueger and maybe they will imitate him because of this cause.

In contrast, there are also 3 reasons against a ban on violence in movies.
First, most horrormovies are so unrealistiv that a normal person doesn't copy it. The people know that this is only a movie and they will not run out of the street to kill some people just like in the film before. Second, the majority of people doesn't get violence because of a film. Maybe a violent person watchs horrormovies, but then they were violent before. We should think about what went wrong in the live of a copycat, a character in a brutal movie will only be the catalyst.
Third, we don't turn into a non-violent society just because we don't show violence. Violence is a real part of our live and we shouldn't euphemise it. Violence exists everywhere anyway. No matter if people watch violent films or not.

There shouldn't be a ban on violent film from my point of view, because violence is a part of the human being whether violent movies were showed or not. But it's absolut necessarily to have age restrictions. No child should see to much violence in movies, they could be influenced and parents should project their children from this.

SNOW FALLING ON CEDARS

The japanese man, Kabuo Miyamoto, is accused because of the murder of the fisherman Carl Heine. Carl was found at daylight in his own fishing net with the lights on of his boat, drowned. He had a heavy head injury and the bone was broken in some parts of the skull. So the justice thinks that this could be, because somebody has banged his head, maybe with a long, flat object. But there were no really evidences of a fight. The head injury reminds of the war, often seen at Kando, a japanese stick fighting. Stick fighting is to kill someone only with sticks and Japanese learn this already in their childhood.
A murder motive could be the thing that the Heine family sold land to the Miyamotos, but then the Miyamotos didn't want to pay the last 2 rates. So the Heines took their land back and sold it Ole Jurgensen. A few days before the murder happened Kabou stood in front of the door of Carl and shouted at him because he wanted his land back.
Another argument who militates against Kabuo is that on the fishhook was blood of the blood type B+ and the blood type of the accused is 0.
Other suspect things are that there were batteries of Kabuo in Carl’s battery holder, altough they didn’t fit in. After the charge, Ismail discovers the real story. The death of Carl was an accident. In this night when Carl died, he wanted to take down the laterns from the top of his boat, but he fell. That's the reason why his skull was broken. He fell in his net and couldn’t get back on the surface. Kabuo was scared and he knew that everyone will think that he has killed Carl. So he took some batteries of himself and put it on the place of the missing batterie.
The wound on his hand was because Carl has cutted himself with his fisherhook.
The jurist finds Kabuo not guilty. Nobody should be accused because of his nationality. The most important point is fairness and justice.

Correction

Task2:

In an internet forum there is a discussion whetheter this is art or not. Add your own thoughts and say:

• What do you consider art?
• Is this picture art for you?

In my opinion art has to say something for everyone. You can call nearly everything art, because for yourself a photo, a painting or a sculptur can be art.
But I'm sure that pictures from children cannot be art. Their pictures are abstract and there is no main idea behind the pictures. I think every art work should evoke feelings in people. Abstract art is something different for everyone. That's why I really like abstract art. I also like some photos. A photo should emphasize something special. In my opinion this photo isn't art. Everyone could have made this. The colours aren't special and the subject is boring. I can't understand why this photo is part of an exhibition. I'm quite certain that nobody wants to see the feet of a woman in the garden.

Correction

Task1:
Write a letter to a friend! Describe the picture "The Problem we all live with" on the next page to him! Tell him what the artist wanted to express in your opinion! Tell him about your own thoughts and emotions about this picture!



Dear Markus,
The painting "The Problem we all live with" shows us four men who are Deputy US Marshall. They are white. Two of them are on the right side and the other two on the left side. They wear suits. A little, black girl is off centre. Looks as if she's on her way to school, because she has an exercise book and some pencils in her hand. The girl is between the men. In the background you can see a wall. I'm certain that at the top of the wall is a faded graffiti called "Nigger". Below this word you see a red smudge because somebody hurled at the litte girl. At the bottom of the painting there is the name of the artist. The painter's name is Norman Rockwell. The artist wants to provoke our thoughts. All people are equal no matter which colour your skin is. You should respect everyone. When I look at this painting I get the impression that the artist is against racism. Maybe he has his own experience about racists. I really like the main idea and I also like the monochrome coulours.
You cannot say that people are better only because they are white. Think about that!

Yours, Jana

What happens when we die?

I believe that there is something after death, but I don't know what. Life after death or rebirth is nonsense in my opinion. The Christians believe in heaven and hell, but I think this religion only wants that nobody does something wrong. So they say that you will go to hell if you do something bad. In my opinion it's very naiv and I cannot believe in those traditional things.
Maybe there is nothing more after life. So your life is finished and that's it. Nobody know what will happen until we die. The more I think about this topic the more I'm at a loss.
So the result is that i don't have a clue what will happen.
But I'm not really scarred of dying, because everyone has to die and I think I will not die in the next few years.