Embedded Files
Sample RRJ Responses
Dos and Don't of the I.R. Entry
Dos:
-Write a date on every entry
-Include and underline book title
-Watch your margins while writing
-Use the back side of your paper
-Make sure your entries are neat, well revised and edited
Don'ts:
-Tell me how many stars the book is worth
-Skip lines
-Tell me that "I have to read the book in order to find out about it"...I want you to tell me
-Write "Reading Response", "The End", or "I.R. Response"
SAMPLE ENTRIES
WOLF KING
Wolf King by Joseph M. Lippencott is about a young wolf's life and how in
growing up it makes friends and enemies. Joseph M. Lippencott writes realistic
fiction about animals. I have only read one of his books, that is Wolf King,
but just from knowing the other titles of the other books, I have an idea of
what they are about.
I have noticed that Mr. Lippencott likes to make you feel that the animal you
are reading about mainly is the focus and the others are merely creatures
floating around. For example, in Wolf King, you feel so sorry for the wolves
and greatly dislike the dogs, or you would not care about the bears who are
not even mentioned frequently. Another book of his is titled Wonderful Coyote.
I read the summary of and it seemed to be about a coyote who got lost in the
snow. But just from reading the summary, he turns the vicious coyotes from
Wolf King into sweet animals.
I liked the King from the book (the king is the main character) because his
personality fit him so perfectly. The author describes him as a black wolf
that towers over others and looks ferocious. But his character is a mix of an
intelligent student, short tempered but brilliant professor, and continuous
awareness. I like this book because it is well put together in its order of
events, and more importantly, just like the king, each character's personality
fits him/her just right.
on BRIAN JACQUES AS A WRITER...
Brian Jacques tends to repeat characters and create descendents. For example,
the abbey warriors, first Matthias, then Mattemeo, and now Martin. You can see
the courage and sensitivity in each one, yet each one has their own style. One
is very calm and hates death. Another you can get him going very easily. The
last keeps to himself. Then the Abbotts and Abbesses are all very independent
and very brave under pressure. Yet some live through the book and others
don't. Some even go insane! Yet Brian Jacques's style is always the same.
Heros, villians, tragedy, and triumph. I also know I can expect a good book
from him.
on comparing books/authors
I have been thinking about the good books I have read in the past. One
similarity that I observed about some of them is that the author tends to
leave you hanging, or else pulls off a quick, low quality ending which is
highly unsatisfying, after reading a long, intricate book. Unfortunately,
sometimes this causes me to think poorly of the book, instead of remembering
how good it was up until that point. Take Bridge to Terabithia for example, it
was very interesting until the ending, where the author suddenly said that the
girl died. Even though it was a sad ending, (which I mentioned I liked in one
of my earlier responses), it was just too sudden for me, just like what you
said in class about "slamming the door in the reader's face". On the other
hand, even if they do end the story smoothly, you are unhappy because it was
so good you wanted it to last forever. This problem sort of reminds me of hot
fudge sundaes. You want them to last and last, you try to hold back, but you
end up eating it very fast, and before you know it, you're staring down at
what used to be a tasty treat, only now it is an empty dish. One book that was
like that for me was Starring Sally J. Freeman as Herself, by Judy Blume. Even
though it seemed to last for a long time, I was sad when it ended. Also there
is something I don't think I have seen any author do other than Sharon Creech.
In her two books, Walk Two Moons and Absolutely Normal Chaos, she told about
what was happening to two different families at the same time, except, instead
of cramming it all into one fat book, she split it into two, medium-sized,
interesting books that you could enjoy at two different times. One thing that
I noticed is that you are hardly ever happy when you finish a good book.
THE WITCHES
(on character types)
It's my opinion that Roald Dahl repeats certain character types in his novels.
For example, in The Witches, the Grand High Witch is cruel and a terrifying
creature. Also in Matilda, Miss Trunchbull is a horrible and despicable
person. The farmers in Fantastic Mr. Fox are malicious plotters. On the other
hand, the Norwegian grandmother is kind, caring, smart, and a good
storyteller. This kind of character appears in Charlie and the Chocolate
Factory. Grandpa Joe in particular is a loving grandparent to Charlie and a
great storyteller. Miss Honey in Matilda is another character who is
understanding and caring.
One reason why I think Roald Dahl is a very good storyteller is how he puts
the characters of his own life into non-realistic books. I know this because
in BOY, an autobiography, you can see how he would come up with cruel
characters like Miss Trunchbull and nicer characters like the grandmother in
The Witches. These extreme personalities like the ones in The Witches, make
the story fun to read.
SHILOH
I thought it was interesting how the author described the Preston family's
fear of Judd Travers when he came looking for his missing dog. When Marty
heard Judd's footsteps it made his "bones feel like icicles". Shiloh stuck
"his tail between his legs" and everyone stopped eating their dinner and
"froze to death in our chairs". The Preston family was afraid of Judd's anger
and the author made the reader feel this. I think it's nice how the author
compares being afraid to being cold.
One thing I liked about this book was that Marty was determined to get Shiloh
back from Judd Travers. Another thing is the next day Marty sees Judd kill a
deer out of season. I predict Marty will get Shiloh and make a deal with Judd.
Page updated
Report abuse