MY OWN STYLE

I think I don't really have a style like poeple of some youth groups have it. My style's quite normal I think. For example my hair, which looks the same since years, however I don't want a new haircolor or a new cut cause I like it as it is. Also my clothes are not very exceptional.
I prefer to wear Jeans and T-shirts most of the time. It's quite typically for me that I wear my clothes upon the other, which’s called "Onion-look" in German. I like the combination of shirts with T-shirts and trousers with skirts. Most of my clothes are colorful but also black’s a coulor that becomes to me. I also like to wear embellishment, which I often take as a souvenir from holidays. I already have a lot and some quite special things. I like to look trough fashion magazines and also go to fashion shows, which inspirates me. I’m a fan of traditional clothes like liveries and I would really like to have a churchgoing outfit, like we had it in the past although I wouldn’t wear it (here in Austria) because I think I’d look like "Mickey Mouse" in a Western film. I think it looks interesting to wear some "oriental" clothes in combination with our "normal" clothes and I really like it when people have their own style or wear traditional clothes of their country. So I'm a person who prefers to mix styles.
Other than the mentioned also my outlook on life is quite “mixed”.
For example when I think about religion. I am a Catholic but I don't feel like one, nevertheless I don't want to have a other religion. It may seem a little bit strange but I have my own religion.
I like some ideas from Buddhism for example but also from Islam or Jewery. I take out the things I like, but them together and mix them; it’s like mixing a cocktail.
Trough all my life I was "something between".
As regards to my notes, my outlook and also my favourite style of music. I'm not a fan of hip hop or rap but nevertheless there are some songs from these styles of music I like. So all in all I’m a hotchpotch from tip to toe. Maybe that’s the reason why I'm so liberal opposite to other cultures and styles and why I would never ever say your style of music or clothes, your religion or ideology isn't good or isn’t right". All of the things I mentioned influence me, which is good because in the end that's what makes me who I am and that's what I love about myself.
That's Anja.

Description of Charlie

Emotional, desolate, clever and smart are all words that could be used to describe Charlies personality (which changes a little bit until the end of the novel). Charlie is a rather shy person which automatically brings him in the position of a wallflower, in the position of an outsider. Aut of this position Charlie is able to notice things which maybe aren't important for other people or things which the others want to hide. I don't really have the impression that he's a real wallflower because if there happen something Charlie's often the first who knows about it and although he might look rather a bit reserved he still experiences and knows many many things! He likes to eat with fingers out of napkins and he really likes to read books several times which shows that he must have quite a lot of free time. Charlies favourite band is "the Smiths", he likes to read music magazines and by his friends he's known for making music tapes for them which is something he likes himself too. Because of his special and interesting character he's also got other good qualities as for example that he's a good listener, which his friends admire at him. Charlies birthday is at the 24 of December and his "favourite" aunt Helen is the only one who gives him two presents, what he really likes. It was very interesting to read about his life, how his past always persecutes him and therefore how he acts with this. A very special person.

Review / The perks of being a wallflower

The perks of being a wallflower by Stephen Chbosky is a novel that really took me by surprise. The strange title of the story caught my eye and after reading it I can truly say that it's a must read for all teenagers! The novel was written in the 1990's and first published in 1999 by MTV. The story explores topics such as introversion, teenage problems (sexuality), abuse... It's also is about drug use and the main characters experiences with this. The story takes place in the USA during a school year, when Charlie, the wallflower of the book, is a high school freshman. Two other important characters are Patrick (who's homosexual) and Sam (his sister); in short his only and best friends! Other characters that have important roles are Mary Elizabeth (Charlies girlfriend), Brad, Bill and Charlies older sister and brother.
At the beginning of the novel Charlies best friend Michael commits suicide and so Charlie hasn't anyone to hang out with. His teacher Bill and above all his new friends Patrick and Sam open Charlie a world in which he experiences things, which include both good and bad experiences, which he never would have done if he hadn't found them. We also got to see how Charlie deals with all the family gatherings that happen throughout the year but the main subplot involves Charlie and Sam which "friendship" involves much about love and romance.
What I personally really liked about the novel is that it's straightforward and that his story shows, how it REALLY is in high school. I like that the author wasn't afraid to talk about controversial topics like sex, drugs, alcohol, abortion, homosexuality, rape... and I also really like the letter format in which the story is written that's unusual but good I think.
I would recommend this book to kids over 14 years because of the topics the book discusses. I think for teenagers up to parents this novel is a "must read“!

Exam correction

Violence is one of the most discussed and always curent topics in our society. Nearly every day we hear or see violence. Michale Medved is opposed to the violence on TV and I agree. I think it isn't true that violent movies ar just harmless entertainment and I think of course there is a evidence that they influence the puplic, so I totally agree with Medved's opinion. Medved made several interviews with people who said the shot at other people because they had seen this in "Natural Born Killers", and they thought that it's cool, which confirms that it's not juts harmless entertainment. I also agree with Medved that it's wrong that violent films just reflect reality, as it is because that's totally nonsense I think. The "movie-makers" say that they just give the public what they want which is absolutely rubbish! The real "money-makers" of 1995 for example were all films like Pocahontas, Toy Story or Lion King who partly made three times more money than for example this violent films from Tarantino! Which is, I think, a piece of evidence that teh people "not only" like violent films! Likewise the "statement": "you don't have to watch volent films, if you don't want to watch them", that's also a very naiv statement I think. Medved said too that you don't have to watch such films but he said that neverthelss you hear about such films or be 'connected' with violence with media, and also at this point I totally agree with him (Medved)!

There are many reasons, why there is so much violence in our society, however I don't think that it's mostly caused by violent movies or violent media! One thory, or one fact is for example that the family life of children, their upbringing influences their attitude to violence. "That violence doesn't influence everybody doesn't meant that it doesn't influence anybody", an absolutely correct statement I think! Many, many children have stars or sportathletes as their "heroes" who are a big role model for them, which isn't good because especially sprot is often connected with violence!

It is important that we reduce violence among children. Some people believe that it would be good if there were stricter punishments for people who sell e.g. alcohol to children, others claim that alcohol has nothing to do with violence, which I don't think! I also think that the media influences children more than they and their parents think! As you can see for example at experiments, Medved made with children, where they knew everything about seveal extremely violent films although they've never seen them before and they answered that they just know all this terrifying details from the media! And that's quite scary I think! Therefore I think there should be a much strikter censurship on medias as there it is by now!

Finally violence is frequently caused by negative emotions like hate and I think that we really have to do with the agressive and brutal sort of violence how we can watch it in films! So I really think that there's something to do!

Essay writing - pros and cons of a ban on violent scenes in movies

Violence - one of the most discussed, most difficult and always current themes around the whole world. Everyday we're confronted with violence and especially in the last years even more and more! Violent movies are getting more and more sucessful in our society, and it's controversial if there should be a ban on it or not.

There are three major arguments from people who are against such a ban:
Firstly, we don't turn into a non-violent society just because we don't show violence in movies - because violence is everywhere! Secondly, most of the films shown in cinemas or on tv are so unrealistic that a normal person wouldn't copy or imitate those (mostly total nonsensical) violent- scenes they saw in films. And thirdly, according to researches and surveys, the majority of the people doesn't get violent just because they watch such films.

But there are also powerful arguments wich are in favour to a ban on violence in movies. Firstly, there are also many very good non-violent films which are sucessfull too. Maybe because so much violence, how it's shown in most of the films today, isn't realistic anymore! Secondly, it's proved that exactly violent movies have got an extremely high influence on people, especially on children under twelve years. They unconsciously become more and more violent to others. Thirdly, the imitation of violent scenes e.g. if ther's a amok-run shown in a film, the viewers maybe think of violence as a solution!

Finally, I can't imagine a general ban on violence in movies. In the majority of cases violence has got a negative influence on us, and I would wish, there would be stricter censorships of violent scenes, but I unfortunately think, it's already to late for making a general ban on violent movies.

SNOW FALLING ON CEDARS : All the evidence against the accused Kabuo Miyamoto

The trial started one day before the anniversaire of the bombing of Pearl Harbour, on the 6th of december 1954. It all happened on San Piedro island, Kabuo Miyamotos place of residence.
He's a Japanese-American fisherman on trial for the murderer of another fisherman, a white man, named Carl Heine. All the people there assume that Carl was the victime of a murder.
A trial followed in which the community an the court want to discover the true causes of the victims death. Kabuo, the father of three children, is in the dock. Of particular increst in the trial is a batterey that was found on the boat of the death - what wouldn't be extraordinary; but they found out that it's definitely not that type of battery Carl uses normally, it's of course the type of battery Kabuo uses on his boat! Which naturally lead to a motive for Kabuo. By examining the corpse it became sure that Carl died from drowning but they found no appearances for an agony. They also noticed a strange wound on Carls head, which looked quite similar to wounds they noticed during the war against Japanese soldiers which used kendo - an art of stick fighting, and Kabuo was known as one of the best kendo fighters on the whole island.
But also others had motives to be the murderer. For example his wife or the racist mother of Carl. Many years ago, Kabuos parents leased acre from the Heines but because of the war they weren't able to pay the last two rates and so the Heines reclaimed their acre. There was still a conflict between them - but one day before the victims death, Kabuo said that Carl has already agreed with selling the acre to him (Kabuo). But afterwards, by searching the boat of Kabuo the sheriff discovers a blood-covered gaff - Kabuo got arrested directely!
The relatively rare type of blood matched with Carl Heines. Kabuos type is 0 negative and so they suspectet that the gaff could be the weapon that caused Carls headwound.
Now Kabuo was definitely decried as a murderer. But there was the reporter Ishmael Chambers, the school day friend of Kabuos wife Hatsue. He found out that it wasn't a murder and although Hatsue said she hates him, he helped them, told the court the true story and that Kabuo didn't told the truth from the beginning on out of fear of being judged unfairly because he's Japanese. All the evidence against Kabuo were a contretemps, it wasn't a murder.
It was a accident. Carl Heine had tied a latern to his mast because there was no electricitiy; but then a wave came and he fall off the mast.
So Kabuo, by contrast, was the villain but also the victim of the story. In the end the new facts changed the original evidence, the truth came out and Kabuo was acquitted of the murder.

Correction of the first exam

For me art is something, which conveys feelings, emotions. I think art is something quite relative, something you can't really describe. Yet, I think that nevertheless not everything can be art.

I don't think that this picture is art. Maybe it's art for some people, but not for me!
I think that art has to be something that not everyone is able to do. It's the same as when you cook something: not everyone has got the talent to cook but anywhere there surely is a person who likes the meal. I think that's quite comparable with art. It's very alike. For my taste, there aren't enough points in the picture, which you can think about. It's nothing special to me. It's a photo that anyone could take and so it isn't art for me!