these might be some good books

 In Black Swan Green by David Mitchell, Jason Taylor explores the life of being bullied in school. He is not very high in the social hierarchy, but not the lowest of low. In this spot, there isn't much you can do to improve or really drop in ranking, but if you start acting cool and confident and make  people notice you, then you might shift.  Just like in BSG, real life has these hierarchies as well. In my years of school, I have noticed certain people tend to "shine" more than others, and it made me really take notice of the social construction around me. At every school, there are those core people who stand out more than others, and everyone seems to know them. In BSG, that is the exact same thing we see. I believe that there are very defined cliques in BSG as well, and in our real life setting of Uni. People tend to stick to their groups, not really branching out to other groups, but with Uni there is a little flexibility. Everyone knows each other, and it isn't

 In Fun Home , by Alison Bechdel, a lot of topics in the novel are related to her upbringing, and how it shaped her life in the future. One thing I did notice though is the way that she was raised really affected her life choices in her later life. Being raised to model someone who is straight, dresses like a traditional girl would, and overall act like a straight woman, while knowing deep down that she is none of those things truly shaped her. The way Bruce raised her was so that she wouldn't end up like him, he was worried, but this merely delayed her from finding her true self. I kind of thought about it like reverse psychology. The more someone tells you not to do something, the more you want to do it. The more Bruce raised her like a straight woman, the more she wanted to be herself and explore. He only delayed the inevitable, not prevented it. I think he was more concerned about her becoming a version of him, which he didn't want, as he was doing some shady things behind

 In The Bell Jar by Sylvia Plath, we see an early representation of mental health institutions, and how bad they were compared to now. If we look at mental health institutions now, we don't typically see electroshock therapy being used, more things are focused on bettering the person instead of electrocuting them until they conform to society's standards. The use of lobotomization is also a much more frowned upon practice, as they were done very unprofessionally in their early days, where they were named icepick lobotomies, super ineffective and unsafe, and especially unsanitary procedures that would be a tool, most commonly an icepick, being placed through a patient's eye and going through to the brain, and disconnecting certain nerve endings. No anesthesia was used in these procedures either, and we see a character in the novel who has undergone a lobotomy and it completely changes a person's behaviors and mannerisms. I believe if this book took place in more modern t

 Holden Caulfield dislikes a lot of people, and deeply likes a select few. But how does he choose which people make it into which group? I believe he judges people based on their perceived innocence. For example, he dislikes Stradlater because he knows that guy sucks, he's a real piece of work, and believes he can do anything he wants to any woman he wants. He doesn't like that at all, especially when it involves Jane. He perceives her as one of the more innocent people he knows, even though he hasn't actually interacted with her in a while. He wants her to be like how she was back in Maine at their vacation homes, but he doesn't even know if that is what she's actually like now. He is preserving the memory of her innocence, the little things about her that make him actually like her, like keeping her kings in the back row in checkers. The same can be said about the kids he meets after leaving Pencey. The kid singing that he sees is an example of innocence he sees a

     While reading Albert Camus' The Stranger , I began to think about the interpretation of the court vs. Meursault, how the court was biased not necessarily towards Meursault for killing the Arab man, but how they were biased to not focus on the actual crime, but why Meursault is the way he is. It seems a bit strange to be in a court, on a jury, be prosecuting someone, and barely mention the crime whatsoever. I just thought it seemed a bit off. The fact the prosecution focused on who Meursault is in his own head is fascinating, as a man was murdered on the beach, in a cold-blooded manner if I do say, yet the prosecution seems to not care at all. While yes, he is sentenced to death, during the trial it just seems like the main focus is on Meursault's brain, not his actions.  Some of this though, I feel is not real. A real court in a real country would still focus on the crime taking place, and while I understand at this time and in this location the crime may have been less fr