Hi Everyone!
Mrs. Nelson and I are looking forward to getting to know each of you during our journey into American history and literature. We hope you'll find our introductory summer reading activities both enjoyable and meaningful. Please feel free to contact us through email or through our blog if you have any questions: our summer experience is designed to be rewarding -- not stressful!
Please start your reading with THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO LARRY; with its focus on teen experiences, the Internet, relationships, and consumerism, we believe you'll find it a great read. Larry does some name-dropping of some pretty amazing world figures and places...be aware! See who you know! We hope that many of you will take part in our FHS Book Chat on July 22, but if that doesn't work for you, we'll be chatting right here!
Enjoy the summer...and reading, too!
Mrs. Hurt
So I guess I am on?! This is my first blog. The date is June 23.
ReplyDeleteI have started reading The Gospel According To Larry. So far I am not confused but may actually like this novel! Josh seems like a very down to Earth boy. His life so far is easy to follow. I like how Josh constantly gets closer to telling Beth his secret, but at the same time keeps it farther away from her than he accepts. I think, because of the rate at which I am reading, I will have this book down with before my birthday, July 15!
I am glad to hear you're enjoying the book Megan! (And congrats on your first blog:) Josh does seem "down to earth" and I'm wondering if you could elaborate on what down to earth means to you? I guess I view the words as meaning practical and logical in his approach to life. And yet, when I write my definition, I'm suddenly not so sure these words really fit Josh. If he is so down to earth, why keep the identity secret from Beth? One of the nice aspects of this book is its readability, while at the same time having much in-depth discussion potential. I look forward to hearing more of your insights into the books and encourage others to join us in discussing these and other ideas!
ReplyDeleteThe words down to earth mean to me the person is reasonable, simply living, and pleasent to be around. I think that describes Josh very well. The way you put it, Josh is very practical in the way he lives and looks at most aspects of his life without Larry logicly. I think he keeps his secret from Beth because Josh doesn't want Beth to look at him differently. If Beth knew Josh was Larry she might act differently around him. I don't know how, but I just think she would. Thank you for responding to me! I was wondering if I had done something wrong!
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Megan on what she says being "down-to-earth" means, but, I don't think that Josh would be classified as down-to-earth. I classify people as "down-to-earth when they go with the flow very easily. I think that Josh's Larry Site would take him out of the "down-to-earth" category. Off of the down to earth topic, I see Josh as a typical person trying to change the world. He strongly believes in what he says, and he wants people to follow him on his quest to change the world. Josh created Larry to spread the word about life's deeper meaning, without having to worry about what people think of him. I think it was a great decision, and a wonderful idea. I also agree with Megan's prediction on how Beth would act towards Josh if she knew he was Larry. Beth would most likely act as if Josh was a whole other person, and not the friend that she had known for years. Although Josh says that he does not want Beth to find out, I think that he secretly does want her to find out so that she will think of him as more of friend. He is always imagining what relationship level he and Beth would be on if she knew that he was Larry.
ReplyDeleteThe Larry site was a great idea, I do agree. I feel bad, though, that Betagold has to constantly try and find him out. I mean, there was excitment in not knowing. Why destroy that?I agree with Alison about Beth and Josh's relationship level if beth knew he was Larry. That opens up a ton of doors. I just read to the Larryfest. What a great idea! that would be way too cool in real life! I wonder if it could really happen. I am, personally, really in to camping and music so that would be a blast.
ReplyDeleteSo far, I really enjoy this novel! You've discussed the definition of "down-to-earth," and I'd like to comment on that. I have to disagree with Alison's thoughts of the meaning of "down-to-earth." If someone is down-to-earth, they wouldn't necessarily go with the flow. They would be stead-fast in their ideas, whether or not the "flow" is going in a different direction. Now that I reread through the different posts, I would have to agree with Mrs. Nelson's thoughts on the definition. A down-to-earth person is practical. I believe that his Larry persona is more down-to-earth than Josh actually is himself. I would like to bring up two other subjects that I'm interested to hear other's opinions. On page 11, Josh's dad expresses to him that he had heard about Larry. He stated "Some guy bashing our culture online. Anonymous coward." Do you think that the people who do not agree with Larry's ideas disagree only because his ideas are uniquely different? Do you think that they are just intimidated by these new thoughts? Also, I don't know if this idea changes the farther that you read into the book, but, so far, I do not think that Josh thinks like Larry naturally. Quite frequently, Josh mentions what he is feeling. Then, he states that he needs to, simply put, forget about those thoughts and think like how Larry thinks. I can't find the several pages that this is mentioned on. However, what do you think about this question. . .Is Larry maybe who Josh wants to be and think like, not who he really is genuinely? I don't know if this question is worded correctly, but does anyone have any thoughts on this?
ReplyDeleteI disagree with Megan’s definition of down to earth, and to some extent, Billie’s definition. I would not describe someone as “down to earth” if they live simply and are pleasant to be around. To me, this really doesn’t apply to the phrase down to earth and are just Josh’s other traits. I also don’t think that the phrase really means being steadfast to ones opinion, as Billie says. These are all just other traits that Josh has but don’t really mean down to earth. That phrase, to me, means someone is conscious of reality when living, and can be realistic about things. In other words, practical, like Mrs. Nelson said. I can agree when Billie says that Larry is more down to Earth than Josh. I view Josh as someone who strives for an almost unattainable goal. This to me says that, in some ways, he isn’t all that down to earth. Larry on the other hand speaks to the public and connects with them. I think this would indicate he is down to earth and practical.
ReplyDeleteWhen describing a character such as Josh, "down-to-earth" is one quality that would not cross my mind. Sure, Megan, the traits in your definition describe Josh; but does it really describe the meaning of down-to-earth itself? To me, being down-to-earth is to be logical & practical, like Mrs. Nelson implied. In otherwords, putting it as simply as possible; realistic. Down-to-earth people are real, their minds are earth bound & not floating in clouds of idealism. Now, think about it; who is the boy hidding behind a screen name with, like Austin said, "an unattainable goal". That's right, Josh; little idealistic Josh. But, I can agree with Austin & Billie with saying Larry is more down-to-earth than Josh.
ReplyDeleteNow, Billie, I do believe that a good amount of people dissagree with Larry simply because he is different. Countless people today are so close-minded & not open to new ideas at all. Rather if they were taught to believe one thing at an early age, or if they are simply just stubborn & won't let themselves be persuaded; some people just roll that way. There are probably some that actually do believe Larry but are afraid the public may judge them for their ways of thought.
To answer your second question, I believe Josh doesn't think like Larry naturally, but I also believe he does; it's confusing & somewhat contradicting. I think Josh believes in what Larry believes; their thoughts are the same, they are the same person. Personalities are what differ, in my opinion. Larry is outgoing & is like Josh's voice. Josh is more of a shy character, hiding behind Larry. Josh is using Larry to voice his opinion because he can't do it himself, or he just doesn't want to because he doesn't want the attention. In a way, Josh is forcing the bad parts of voicing his opinion on Larry; the attention. In otherwords; I believe they think alike, but they have different personalities; if that makes sense.
I believe that people disagree with Larry because they are so used to what they call the normal, and Larry is really going against that. Why Josh hides behind his screen name makes sense to me. there is a sense of adventure in hiding from the world when you're completely out there. Josh dosen't want everyone to know who Larry is because of media. I mean, do you know any big satrs that are not followed by the media? Larry became a really big star. The media couldn't follow him because they didn't know who he really was.
ReplyDeleteI do believe Josh and Larry think alike. Josh implies many time that Larry is his alter ego. In some definitions of the word alter ego it means another part of one's self. So they do think alike but Larry has more self confidence. I think Larry is more of what Josh somewhat wished he could be but he could never reach those standards. With his 75 possesions he probaly wouldn't last in that crowd. Although many times thoughout the book he says him and Beth never wished they could be part of the in crowd, but Beth always goes off and dates guys that put her in the in crowd. I think Josh is the "same" way. except through Larry.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Mrs. Nelson’s post, I do see down to earth as being practical and realistic. I do not view Josh as down to earth. Josh, although brilliant, fails to see his own boundaries. In failing to acknowledge his own limits, he is allowing himself to have, as Austin said, an “almost unattainable goal”. While agreeing with Austin on the topic of his goal, I disagree on his views of Larry being down to earth. I believe that Larry is down to earth but not because he is outspoken and relates easily to others. I believe that Larry is down to earth simply because he has his own practical opinions and stands by them. A person who is down to earth is exactly what the phrase says: someone who is, as Mimi said, bound to earth mentally and able to see things for what they truly are and not what they wish them to be.
ReplyDeleteResponding to Billie, I agree that Josh and Larry think alike. Larry thinks exactly like Josh and Josh thinks exactly like Larry. Larry is just Josh’s means of sharing his opinions with the public. In the book, Josh says that Larry is outspoken and opinionated. Josh himself is equally opinionated or else he would not have created and used Larry to put his views out there. In addition to that, I think that Josh thinks like Larry naturally, but he does not act like Larry naturally. I think that Larry is exactly who Josh wants to be but, in a lot of ways, already is. Josh longs for the charisma that Larry possesses.
Still in response to Billie, I believe that people can be very set in their ways and may react poorly to change, whether it be positive or negative. A lot of people are raised with certain ideals that can be hard to break. It would be easy to say that most of the negative feedback that Larry received was from people who were narrow-minded and fearful of change. Josh’s goal, through Larry, was to change the world, which is not a very easy thing to do. It makes me wonder, did Josh think he could change the minds of people who were already set in their opinions, or was he only hoping to move the people in his same mindset to be active in supporting their ideas? After reading the sermon following the “Larryfest”, it seemed as if Josh thought he could change people’s thoughts. However, I do not think he realized he cannot change the minds of people who do not want to be changed.
Allex in reponse to you;I think Larry was tring to show people his opinion. I don't think he was tring to tell them to change. Although he says he was tring to change the world, he also says he is tring to save them from themselves. So I think he was tring to move people toward his opinions. But, once again I say, I don't think he was tring to change the world's mind when they already have their opinions. I think he does relize he can't change the people who don't want to be changed. Josh/ Larry was about changing the world one step at a time. At first only a few people followed him, then the numbers grew. With the more people who agreed the bigger his goals became. He started out wanting to infulence the world and ended up wanting to change the world.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAllex brings up Josh’s methods on changing the world. I think that Josh’s blogs were aimed to bring the public’s attention to corporations. It’s likely that he has been rallying followers with similar beliefs with his blog. However, I think that Josh’s sermons were meant to be bringing new mindsets to undecided people. Josh could have managed to change the world with a large amount of like minded followers, but I think that if he was targeting a single group, it would be people who haven’t formed strong feelings on the topic. Josh often asked the reader questions in his blogs, like on pages 12 and 13. When I read these, I felt like they were trying to point out things that we wouldn’t otherwise notice. This brought me to think that Josh didn’t think his readers were even aware of how involved corporations are in their lives. It didn’t appear to me that Josh wanted to have a following of like minded people. I don’t think Josh really wanted to, (or even think he could) change people opposing his opinions either. To me, his sermons felt more intended to bring corporations and consumers to the attention of the general public.
ReplyDeleteMegan, I think you are contradicting yourself. If Josh is trying to move people towards his opinions- it's practically the same as persuading them, correct? To persuade is to change a person's mind. Then you write, "I don't think he was trying to change the world's mind when they already have their opinions." Forgive me for misunderstanding, but could you elaborate on the topic a bit more? None-the-less, I love how you brought up, "He is trying to save them from themselves." It was a good observation & it's true. I think Josh just wanted to show our oblivious, brain-dead, zombie country the truth that we've been too blind to see all along.
ReplyDeleteAustin; I really enjoyed your comment! It's true, he has been attracting people of the same beliefs & I agree with you when you say he was attempting to bring new mindsets to the undecided people as well. Also, I don't believe Josh was attempting to change the people with different opinions on the matter as well. Simply said; he wanted to get his word out & expose the truth about the corporations.
On the subject of Josh being down to earth, I must say I don't believe Josh is down to earth. To me, I see down to earth as someone whose vision of reality is not clouded. (if that makes sense) I guess what I'm trying to say that it is someone who sees reality for what it really is and doesn't try to change it or escape it. Josh is trying to change the world, he wants things to be different. He does see reality for what it is, but he doesn't accept it. Josh doesn't just give up thinking that he can't change the world. While there were some people who are so set in their ways that they won't change (like Josh's dad for example), many people did listen. For those who did listen, their lives we're changed, the way they now see reality is different than that of which it used to be. At the end, Josh tries to escape reality by faking his own death. He does this because he doesn't like the sad reality of our world. The reality that people seem to care so much about other people (celebrities) that they slowly loose themselves over time.
ReplyDeleteAnna, I agree with your definition of down-to-earth completely. I never thought of it before, but you are right; someone down-to-earth would except reality & know they are trapped within it & would not try to escape it. He would know that would be idealistic; it would be him against the world, really. Now, when you say, "He does see reality for what it is, but he doesn't accept it." I think he does accept it; that's the way people are & that is reality, but he does want to change it. If you meant "he won't tolerate it" when you say "doesn't accept it", then I do agree with you.
ReplyDeleteWhen Josh fakes his own death, I don't believe it is because he want's to escape the sad reality of the "world". He has been tolerating the world's reality for his entire life & that is why he created the Larry site. I think he "killed" himself because everything was going wrong with his life personally. Beth was leaving, he was being attacked by reports & paparazzi, his dad was mad at him- everything was a mess, not necessarily in the world's reality, but his own reality, if that makes sense. But, I love, "The reality that people seem to care so much about other people (celebrities) that they slowly loose themselves over time." It is a very true statement.
In response to both Anna and Mimi, I do not believe that Josh stage his suicide to escape reality. I believe that Josh had always been someone full of ideas that needed and wanted a way to share them with the world, hence the creation of Larry. The pseudocide was only Josh’s way of going about getting what he wanted once more. All that he wanted was to rediscover the part of him that he always worked to develop, and that was his “solitude”. On page 174, I think you find some very important supporting evidence as to why Josh worked so hard to fake his suicide. The exposure of Larry was everything he detested. It consumed his privacy and was the epitome of worshipping celebrities. Josh had never hoped for Larry to become a celebrity; he only wanted his ideas to be seen and acknowledged by the public.
ReplyDeleteThat being said, I disagree with what everyone seems to think the sermons were about. Initially, the Larry site was just something Josh was doing for fun. He had not realized in the beginning the potential for the site. As the site gained popularity, he started putting more thought and definitely more of his own values into his sermons. I do not think his sermons were geared towards exposing advertising companies. Using the advertisements definitely helped him distribute his message, well, what I thought his message was. I believed that he just wanted people to see where the world is today and what roles they played in it. Of course, advertising is huge in our world today, but I think Josh wanted people to realize exactly who they were, see their own faults, and work to change them. In turn, this would be one step in “changing” the world.
I am quite impressed as I read through your various comments gang: WAY TO BLOG-IT! I see much high level thinking, and the gentle debating causes all of us to think, and perhaps re-think, our ideas. Here's a question: Are each one of us part Josh and part Larry? Perhaps we all harbor a hidden aspect of ourselves, sheltered from the craziness of the world? And further, are the Betagold "seekers of truth" actually good for us as they probe to find out who we really are, forcing us to confront that indeed we possess many aspects to our individual characters?
ReplyDeleteIn response to Mrs. Nelson's questions, I can confidently say that everyone is part Josh and part Larry. No matter how open a person is, everyone has secrets. Everyone hides a part of themselves for some reason, they may be embarrassed of it, afraid of it, or they even just might not be ready to expose it. As good as a friend Josh may be to Beth, he doesn't tell her the truth which is important when it comes to friendship. He keeps waiting for the right time to tell her, and nearly does at Larryfest. However, when he felt that the moment had been broken, he decided not to tell her. Instead, he waited to tell her, and kept waiting until she found out Josh was Larry because of Betagold. We've all seen it in movies or on TV, a friend is told something that his/her friend should have told him/her. No matter how strong their bond is, it almost always ends in the relationship being ruined. This is why we need all the Betagolds in the world. They uncover the real person that we are, the person that everyone else deserves to know that we are. Some of us need to be given that small (or large) push into revealing who we are. Beth should not have found out the truth because of Betagold, but she should have found out from Josh. She deserved to know the truth, but because Josh didn't tell her, Betagold did. Then, the whole world ended up knowing who Larry really was almost as a punishment for not telling Beth himself.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, Megan, people disagree with Larry's philosophies because the majority of the people in our society do not take lightly to being told they are doing wrong. When Larry bashes celebrity worship and buying brand name clothing, most people would be offened that some annonymous person is trying to tell them how to live their life. Then, just because of what Larry said, people go out and buy brand names just to rebel. The people that live in the world in this day in age are very stubborn. If they have grown up living on materialism, they are not going to change just because someone on the internet says it's bad. Our generation is lazy, we don't want to change ourselves unless it is absoulutly necessary. I can understand Larry's desire to change the world, but I also realize that it is a very large feat. Most people are not going to change their lifestyle just because of some text they see on a generated screen. People want hard evidence, and that might be tough for Larry to come up with. All I have to say to Larry is keep trying to complete your goal, and good luck.
ReplyDeleteMrs. Nelson, I think that everyone has a side of their personality that they save for being alone or when they are around people they are extremely comfortable with. Our world today has formed a certain personality that we consider "normal". If someone's characteristics stray from the norm, they may not be accepted. I think that might be why Josh created the pseudonym Larry, because some people might not respect his personal characteristics. He might have done it subconsciously, but that might have been a contributing factor. However, Anna, I think that the inner side of people deserves to be kept quiet. In Josh's case, the whole reason he invented Larry was so that he could get his ideas across without people criticizing his whole person just because of his point of view on that topic. The people in the world like Betagold are looking at things (such as Larry's sermons) for the wrong reasons. It's Larry's ideas that count, not who he really is. People who are looking to oust the inner-most parts of other people are probably hiding a secret side of themselves, too. It's a way of making themselves feel more comfortable, more correct in hiding their own character traits. The things that people choose to hide from us should be respected and left alone.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Mrs. Nelson's question, I do believe that everyone has certain hidden aspects of themselves they want to keep a secret from the rest on this crazy world. I know, for one, that I have many aspects of my life that I do not wish to be "out in the open", as I am sure everyone does. In agreement to Andrew, I think that a person's feelings and secrets should be respected. Although, I disagree with Anna to an extent. Obviously, Josh has wanted to tell Beth about his "secret identity". Betagold would have been condisered a better character in my point of view if she just pushed him hard enough so that he would finally tell Beth, not the entire world. If Josh had opened up to Beth, I believe that he would have eventually built up enough confidence to tell the world. If the story would have gone like that, I do believe that Betagold would have been more of a "helping character" with Josh's secret.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with Andrew on another point that he mentioned. In reality, people look at one another, and automatically classify them as either "normal" or "not normal". I believe that Josh created Larry to be a mystery. If no one knew who the real Larry was, they would not be so quick to judge him. In order for them to judge him, they would have to take action in really getting to know him, such as reading his sermons, blogs, and participating in fan clubs or online chats. Josh did this to make sure that people were hearing him out, and not judging him by his personality or appearance.
In another point that Andrew makes, I agree that people look for the secrets of other people to sort of make themselves feel better, such as Betagold. Maybe she exposed Josh for the fame, or maybe she did it to feel like the hero of the "uncovering Larry's identity" frenzy. People like Betagold feel that if they expose someone else's secrets, then it would get their mind off of their own hidden aspects, and focus on someone else's. Or, it would make it possibly be okay to "slip in" their own smaller, less important secret while everyone is caught up in something else.
This is my first blog. Took me a while to figure out how to get in here. Don’t laugh. I am not a computer geek! In response to Mimi’s blog about Josh’s “suicide”, I think that he “killed” himself because the world had become the opposite of what Josh had envisioned. He wanted a world that was free of big corporate consumerism and for Larry/Josh to stay safe. He got half of his wish, and the consumerism slowed. Then the nightmare began. After betagold discovered Larry’s creator, Larry was now a product, which is what Josh did not want. On page 150 he says “Larry was now, officially, a product. And you know what happens to products. They get consumed.” After that his world went downhill. Beth would not talk to him, his dad messed everything up, and Larry is now a world-wide obsession with T-shirts and propaganda everywhere. Josh never intended for Larry to become a product. He wanted Larry to change the world as an anonymous person who hides behind the “Face of Larry.” Josh decides to get rid of this consuming world, or as Mimi said “our oblivious, brain-dead, zombie country” by committing suicide and becoming Gil Jackson, a boy with no recollection of Larry and his/Joshes past. What do you think??
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI don’t feel I can agree with Alison’s thoughts on betagold. Betagold was very self serving, but not in the sense she was trying to justify hiding some sort of hidden personality trait. Personally, I think betagold wanted to destroy the Larry façade for fame and self worth. Betagold seemed to be someone who was with Larry’s blog from the beginning. This gave her time to consider what she could gain from it beyond Larry’s sermons. With revealing Josh’s secret, she gained fame, and many people followed. In a way she started this idea. Everyone seemed to want their share of Larry’s fame. His classmates, friends of friends, guidance consoler and even his preschool teachers like on page 170. With the large amount of people riding off Larry’s success, it’s understandable for that to be a motive for betagold too. Betagold was eventually revealed to be very elderly. At such a late point in her life, it’s also understandable that she may want a kind of fulfillment in her long life, and fame for an accomplishment. Larry may have given her that opportunity. She even goes as far to demand that she deserves to know if Larry is alive in the epilogue. Betagold’s worth complex and fame may have been driving factors to reveal Larry’s identity.
ReplyDeleteCarl, I see the meaning of your analogy. It does a great job in connecting Josh and Betagold to a real life situation. Because of that, Betagold is my least favorite character in this novel. Betagold pushed Larry so hard, and Josh was not going to give in to her. Using Carl's analogy, it is kind of like the dog climbed up the tree itself, giving the cat no choice but to be caught. In response to Betagold exposing his secret, Josh pretends to kill himself (on page 193) because of all the pressure. With that, I have two points to make. I believe that if people still had as much of an interest about what Larry had to say as they did before they knew who he was, Josh would have handled his fame much easier. Instead, people were more interested in Josh's own personal life. If people still had an interest in his anticonsumerism theme, it would have been the same, except people would have known who he was. That was why Josh never wanted to tell anyone. He was afraid that his message would be lost if his fans knew who he really was. My second point, although shorter, is the most important. I do not think that Josh would have pretended to kill himself if Betagold would have just backed off. I believe that the media got more involved with the situation because Betagold exposed his secret, not Josh himself. Since more press got involved, it made life much more stressful for Josh. If Josh himself had told the world that he was Larry, he would have had more confidence with facing the press, fans, everyday people, etc. With my second point made, I do not believe that Josh would have pretended to kill himself if it was not for Betagold.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Mrs. Nelson’s questions, I think that yes, each one of us has a bit of Josh and Larry intertwined within us. I like what Anna said, “No matter how open a person is, everyone has secrets.” I think that Josh hiding behind his virtual self, Larry is a very good example. Josh always wanted to keep a part of him away from the world, which is the fact that he is Larry. He always hid behind the shadow of Larry, and he dug himself a deeper hole every time he would not reveal to the world that he was Larry. At Larryfest, he was very close to telling Beth, but he was too much of a coward to do it. Even in Betagold’s emails, suggesting other names for the festival such as Cowardfest, and Hide-behind-your-screen-name-fest, were true as Josh would never tell the world he was Larry until Betagold revealed him. Also, I think that the “truth-seekers” are as good for the world, just as they are bad. Sometimes, they probe too much into our lives so that we can not live anymore, like what Betagold did to Josh. Or, they can just scratch the surface of our lives, like a CD, without leaving a lot permanent damage. Later when you listen to that CD, it skips over that part, like the way the person wants to forget that particular moment in their lives. Betagold was to Josh, like a dog is to a cat. The dog chases the cat too high up a tree and the dog sits there under the tree, waiting to see what the cat will do. The cat is totally scared out of its wits, (like Josh was) and is forced to make the decision of its life. “Should I leap for it and see what comes out of it, or do I just sit here like a coward?” To you see the connection, or is this too peculiar of an analogy?
ReplyDeleteI think that when Larry's true identity was realized, he became one of the celebrity's that he had been criticizing in all his sermons. One of the big inner troubles Josh has is not to be a hypocrit, not go against what he has protested all along. On page 89-90, Bono from U2 starts to endorse Larry's ideas. This event makes Larry think carefully about what to do. There was no way he would cross his own words about celebrity worship, but this attention from U2 could help Larry in the long run. He let's the band endorse him, and it all works itself out. When Betagold reveals him, he becomes the celebrity being worshiped. If all the Larry fans would like Larry/Josh and not droll over him like an ice cream sundae, everything would be fine. But his words seem to be lost in all the fame & attention he is getting. Maybe one of the reasons Josh pretends to kill himself is because he feels he is changing the world for the worse now. Everybody is turned on to the latest buzz of Josh's personality. The world is getting out of control with celebrity worship. Josh wants all of this to go away, maybe so he doesn't feel like he is the reason everyone is now going against what Larry once stood for. He thinks that Larry's original mission has been twisted and turned to be the complete opposite of what his ideals are. He wants it all to stop, so he pretends to commit suicide. I do not think that was the most rational thing to do, but that's just me. What do you guys think about that? Should he have taken his worship like a man, or did he do the right thing?
ReplyDeleteIn response to Andrew's question on my thoughts of Larry's pseudocide, I do not agree with Josh's desicion to commit suicide. Josh thinks that running away from the situation is going to make it all go away. But, the truth is, it will just end up getting worse. Once the media hears of this tragedy, Larry will continue to be consumed, as any new market product would. The news of Josh/Larry's death will eventually die down, as our own pop icon Michael Jackson's death will soon as well. Josh Swenson will soon have to return. He can not just mold into the role of Gil Jackson for the rest of his life. How does Josh expect to come back into the world and not attract attention? It will be virtually impossible, as almost everyone on the planet knows about the exposition of Larry's true identity. If Josh would have taken his worship like a man, as Andrew stated, the Larry news would have become old, as some other hot item steals the spotlight. Then, Josh would be free to live his life. He would not have to worry about reappearing into the world. Josh is not going to be able to hide forever. His pseudocide idea is considered one if his worst in my opinion.
ReplyDeleteAustin; I love the way you described Betagold. I, too, find Betagold to be a very greedy person & hungry for money & fame. Though, it's completely ironic because Betagold is doing everything Josh is against. She is pretty much stalking him & by revealing his identity, making him a big celebrity- as well as herself; attention, attention, attention! Also, like you said, it wasn't only Betagold who fed off Larry's increasing fame. His family, friends, people he hardly knew fed off it as well; all of them failed to understand the meaning of his sermons. Josh always critized the celebrities, like Andrew had said. It really is ironic how he becomes one. It's true; everything would be perfectly fine if the people liked Larry/Josh, but didn't, as Andrew put, "droll over him like an ice cream sundae." I loathe Betagold with a burning passion. It baffles me how someone can be THAT much of a stalker as to spend, I'm guessing, nearly every waking moment trying to reveal the identity of Larry; even if there was fame involved. Now, just for that, I think Betagold my have some "mental problems" perhaps; though, she is undoubtably brilliant in an evil-genius sort of way.
ReplyDeleteIn reply to Andrew's question; I think Josh should not have commited fake suicide. Actually, I think it is one of the stupidest things he could have done! In the words of Alison Decker, "Josh thinks that running away from the situation is going to make it all go away. But, the truth is, it will just end up getting worse." Why would someone as smart as Josh go about killing himself & expect everything to be better when he comes out of the depths of disguise? Well, I suppose it's not fair to jump to such conclusions; when people are stressed, they sometimes do ridiculous things. Josh had thought about faking a death for a good time before he put it into action. It was a very well thought out plot, indeed. Sure, the news of his death will eventually die down, but when he emerges into the "real world" again, I can just predict the people will be twice as bothersome to him as they were before. If he had just "taken his worship like a man", then I do believe the paparazzi would eventually slow down & move on to bigger & better celebrities. Now, when he emerges from his "fake death"; that's another story. Not only is he still this big-shot Larry character, but now he is this guy who faked his own death & lived life in disguise for months. I just know that story would sell big in the magazines.
Alison, when you say Josh thinks it will all go away with his false death, I don’t agree. You mention several times that, fake death or not, the Larry novelty would have worn off. If this were this case, I’m sure Josh would have suspected. Actually, he considers this in the novel on page 174. Josh’s pseudocide was definitely an extreme solution, so I think this would be something he put much consideration into. This makes me think Josh would’ve considered the possibility of a worn novelty. My thoughts are that being a celebrity at the level of global sensation is nearly irreversible. While the original hype may have worn down, Josh can never outlive Larry’s media shadow. It’s something that, once exposed, becomes a permanent part of his life and person. While selfish and stupid, abandoning his identity was probably the easiest, most straight forward way to go about finding himself again.
ReplyDeleteI was looking back on “The Gospel According to Larry” and I came up with some questions that I could not answer, and the answers that I did come up with were obsolete. My questions are; What would have happened if U2 had not created Larryfest? Would Josh have been discovered by the grandmotherly person who dropped their toothbrush in the mud? If Betagold had not discovered Josh, would he have committed a pseudocide? And what would have happened if Josh never created Larry? I could not come up with really good solid answers for these questions, but I think that I have the Larryfest question one figured out. When Bono and U2 created Larryfest, they had produced, what Beth said in the book, a Larry Woodstock. Josh almost immediately received a message from Betagold telling him that if he went, she would discover him. Even though Josh was a little concerned, he felt confident that he could not be found by the mysterious Betagold. In the book, on page 116, he said “There was no way Betagold could track me down in Maine. There were already 230,000 people signed up; I would just be another face in the crowd.” If U2 had not created Larryfest, Josh might not have been discovered and his identity would have been safe another day.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Allex’s post on July 7th when she said that Josh created Larry so that he could share his ideas with the world. Continuing with that idea, I feel that Josh created Larry because he was to shy to speak out to the world. He never spoke out his ideas from Josh Swensen’s point of view. He always spoke his ideas secluded away from the world as Larry. I also agree when Allex said that he put more into his sermons as the site gained more popularity. To get away from that topic, as you read the book, you can be surprised (I was) that Beth never came up with the idea that Josh was Larry. Whenever Beth did something wrong, hurtful, or mean to Josh, he would include subtle hints as to what she did in his sermons. He sometimes wrote the sermons that day. When Josh created Larry, he never envisioned that it would become one of the most talked about web-sites ever, and having his deceased mother’s favorite band, U2, endorse his web-site.
ReplyDeleteLike I said before, Josh kept on digging himself a bigger hole every time he wrote out a sermon that pertained to whom he was. When Betagold came along and started to stalk him, he created a hole that he could not get out of, even if he tried his very best. Also, Josh wanted for Larry just to be a guy with good ideas that only a handful of people read. He knew that he wanted to change the world, but he was not sure how he would come about doing that. He became more ecstatic about the web-site as it gained more and more popularity. He went into the department store to talk to his mother so that she would know about his happenings, and even though she was not there, a customer would say the thing that Josh would want to hear from his mother. It was almost as if God put those words in the customer’s mouth when Josh needed them the most.
Carl, I have to agree with you on the first question. Without Larryfest, one of the most important events in the book would not have happened. Betagold would not have found out who Josh was, and in turn neither would Beth or the rest of the world. Not that Betagold wouldn't have figured it out eventually, but it wouldn't have happened in the same way. In response to your second question, I don't think Betagold would have found out Josh was Larry as soon as she did if it weren't for Larryfest. However, like I said before, Betagold would have figured it out eventually. Josh committed his pseudocide to try and end all the Larry hype. He was getting attention that went against everything he stood for. No one cared anymore about what he had to say because they were too worried about what he was eating for breakfast. If Larryfest had never happened, and Betagold had never exposed him then everything would have been the same as it was in the beginning. As for the last question, I think that if Josh hadn't created Larry then people would be living like most people do today in our world.
ReplyDeleteIn reply to Carl's first question; I'm sure Larry would have still been exposed as Josh if Larryfest happened or not. We're talking about Betagold here- this woman was determined & she was going to reveal him for who he really was if it was the last thing she did. Now, I really can't think of a way Larryfest would help her find the true identity of Larry. Josh was just another face in the crowd; it's true. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I fail to think of anything that when you look at Josh makes you think, "Oh! That's him! That MUST be Larry!" I believe it was by coincidence Betagold had a small encounter with him there & both were oblivious to the other's identity. I doubt that little run in effected how his secret was publicized at the end. I know Betagold told him if he went, she WOULD track him down, but was that just talk in attempt to scare him? Anyone care to elaborate on their views to why it would have effected the way he was exposed?
ReplyDeleteTo answer your second question, Carl; I'm sure he would have been exposed eventually. If Betagold failed to expose him, I'm sure someone else would eventually come along & do it. People can't respect other's wishes & privacy, it's just that way the cookie crumbles. Someone was bound to ruin his life & I think he would have committed a pseudocide even if it was a person other than Betagold exposing him.
In response to your third question, I think Anna sums it up pretty well, "I think that if Josh hadn't created Larry then people would be living like most people do today in our world." He effected a lot of people with his website & sermons; how would the lives of those people be altered without Larry?
In response to josh "killing" himself, I think he did it to just be done with the media. He had this idea that he could just reappear some years later, but he knows all along that can not happen. I really understand why he "killed" himself too. Josh did it as a last resort. He was just done with the media. Like have you ever been in a fight with someone where you shouldn't be losing, but you are? Then, suddenly, you feel like just throwing your hands in the air and saying 'I am done with this! Think what you will, but i am done!'? I think that's what Josh was feeling. Like the final crunch.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Carl's forth question, if Josh had never created Larry there would really be no story, and he never would be as close to Beth as he was. I agree that even if betagold hadn't figured him out at Larryfest she would have found him through his cell phone. He may have been safe for another few days but she would have found him. If Josh had never done anything to help influence the world those people would be living their lives just the same as pre-Larry.
In response to Carl's questions, I have many points to make. I believe that if U2 had not created Larryfest, Betagold would have still found him. I do not think that Betagold was able to track Josh down because of Larryfest. I think that Betagold's words of "I will be there, Larry. I will find you." on page 115, were used as a mere scare tactic. There is no way that Betagold could have tracked Larry down at a place with 230,000 people. The only clue Josh gave out was stated in Sermon #271 on page 118. "P.S. I'll be the guy with the T-shirt and the smile." gave nothing but a hint of a simple T-shirt and smile, as thousands of others would wear as well. Without the Larryfest, I am amost certain that Betagold would have discovered Josh in a matter of days. With that being said, I do not think that Larryfest made much of a contribution to discovering Larry's true identity.
ReplyDeleteIf Betagold did not expose Josh as being Larry, I do not think that he would have commited a pseudocide. There would be nothing to run away from. All the fame, stress, and media would not be in his life. His life would have been the exact same as it was before. We see now that Betagold is to blame for Josh's decision on commiting a pseudocide. There were hundreds of thousands of people that did not want Larry to be discovered. That was the best place for Josh's secret identity, hiding from the chaotic world outside his walls.
As an answer to your last question, there is not much to say. I like how Anna put it, "I think that if Josh hadn't created Larry then people would be living like most people do today in our world." I completely agree with Anna on her statement. Many of Larry's fans would still be spending money on "junk", as Larry classifies items that are not needed. The marketing advertisements that Josh exposed on the Larry website would now be circulating their televisions, computer screens, radios, etc. I truly do believe that there would be more marketing without Larry, as his millions of fans rebelled against the market's every move. We Americans spend money on useless items that we vow to someday use, which never happens. We have begun to think that money now grows on trees, and that a few dollars here and there won't hurt anyone. Without Larry, the world inside that novel would be much like the world we call our home today.
I agree with Andrew when he said that after Josh was discovered, he became one of the celebrities he was criticizing. When Betagold discovered Josh, he no longer was Josh Swensen. He was Josh Swensen, the Creator of Larry! He became a global celebrity. The world he lived in after the discovery was the world that he feared the most. A world filled with consumerism, and everybody just buying junk. He criticized celebrities in his sermons; the ones that made the world go crazy and buy propaganda pertaining to them. Before, the country was changed by the anti-consumerism figure of Larry. Then came the discovery, and the country and the world flipped up-side down and plunged into the BUY, BUY BUY country that leaves nothing behind. After Larryfest, the world was disappointed because they did not discover Larry. Little did they know that they would soon find out the truth about Larry.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Anna when she said that Betagold would have found out who Larry was even if Larryfest never existed. Betagold was a determined woman and was very headstrong in finding Larry. She never gave up on her search for Larry and to me that the quest to find Larry was her lifelong dream, even though the website was only one year old and she was around eighty. Mimi, I think that Betagold put in her message that she would track him down, not only to give him a little scare, but to also make him feel more confident with himself that he would not be found, be because he “was just another face in the crowd.” She knew that she could track him down; she just didn’t know how she was going to pull it off. Also, when Betagold dropped her toothbrush in the mud, she looked up and saw Josh, and somehow she knew that he was Larry. I don’t think that I can correct you on that Mimi. She just knew. I agree with Alison’s post on the 12th, when she said that Betagold was her least favorite character. What makes Betagold MY least favorite character is what Alison said as well. Betagold found Larry even though hundreds of thousands of people wanted Larry to stay anonymous. She always wanted to find Larry, no matter how infamous it made her.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Carl and Allison, I have to somewhat disagree about Betagold. While I am not a huge fan of Betagold, I do think she was important. I am glad that she exposed Josh only because of the fact that Beth deserved to know. Josh needed to tell Beth that he was Larry, but since he didn't Betagold did. So I am glad that Betagold was in the story. Also, as wrong as she might have been in exposing Larry to the world, I think that she did just have good intentions. Betagold could have never foreseen Josh committing what she thought was suicide. I do agree that Larry's identity should have been kept secret, but not to Beth. She has been Josh's friend for a very long time and should have known his secret. In fact, I don't think it was believable that Beth didn't even think for a second that Josh was Larry. Beth should have been able to make the connection between what was happening between them and what Larry had written in his sermons. I just find it hard to believe that Beth, Josh's best friend, could not make the connection between Larry's sermons and the situations they got into.
ReplyDeleteAlison, I agree with you completely on your views of Larryfest. It really did not contribute to the revealing of Larry as Josh. With that said, Betagold would still have found him, Larryfest or not. I think the festival & the events that occurred with it were simply to make the story more interesting & give a little twist at the end. Now, Carl, I don't understand; you say Betagold just "knew". Okay, how did she just "know"? In a festival with 230,000 people attending, how is it possible to look at one person & say, "That's the one. That's Larry; I know it." Are you implying you believe Betagold has a psychic ability of some sort?
ReplyDeleteAnna, I somewhat agree with your views on Betagold. Though important to the story, my hatred towards her is not erased. I can also agree with you about her good intentions, to an extent. She is an obsessed woman on a mission to expose Larry for who he truly is. My opinion about this is not set in stone, but I believe she thought she was helping him by revealing his identity. I recall her saying he was a coward & I think she believed he needed to open up. Betagold wanted to help him. But, my views are contradicting themselves, because at the same time, I think Betagold wanted to have her moment of fame... but did she really? Was it really fame she was after? Carl says, "She never gave up on her search for Larry and to me that the quest to find Larry was her lifelong dream, even though the website was only one year old and she was around eighty." Perhaps it was her lifelong dream, that's another thing to think about. Now, what does everyone else think? Was Betagold determined to reveal Larry to give herself fame? Was she trying to help Larry because she thought he was a coward? Or, maybe, it was her lifelong dream to be a stalker & do something big, such as exposing an internet sensation?
Mimi, in response to your questions, I think there are many views on these topics. First, I personally don't think she did it for fame. I think it was the fact that he was hiding his identidy that was driving her nuts. The only thing Betagold seemed to be doing was tracking down Josh, so we could infer that she does not have much interest to her life. It is possible that she takes Larry's secret identidy as a challenge. However, it can also be seen that Betagold does do it for fame. Perhaps she wants to be known as the one who exposed Josh for who he really is. After she exposed him, she was famous. We don't know this for sure, but isn't it possible that Betagold has always wanted to be famous? That she wanted to be a movie star or something ever since she was a little girl? Now that she has become older and is nearing the end of her time perhaps she realizes that this is her last chance to be famous.
ReplyDeleteAlso, in response to your question to Carl, I do think it is possible. Sometimes we do just get that feeling and know that "this is the one", whether it be a pet, a peice of furniture, or a person. I know that I have felt that feeling before and am positive I'm not the only one. Josh did say, "I'll be the one with the t-shirt and the smile". Josh is the one who gave Betagold a toothbrush after she dropped hers in the mud. Maybe she dropped that specific item for a reason. Why not a shirt? Why was it specifically a toothbrush? Maybe Betagold made a connection between the toothbrush and what Josh said before. It's hard to describe what I'm thinking but hopefully you can understand what I'm trying to say.
In response to Mimi's question, I believe that Betagold exposed Josh for the fame. I do not think that someone who wanted to help Larry out of his "coward-like" personality would send threating messages, as that would only make Larry afraid of being discovered. Betagold sent many messages to Larry, such as on pages 86, 115, and 131, all related to the theme of discovering Larry. Betagold took this incredibly seriously, as she noted on her page 86 message, "Rest assured this is no game to me". She was going to do whatever it took to out Larry. With that message being quoted, I believe that Betagold has been a Larry enemy from the very beginning. If Betagold was really trying to help Larry, I think that she would have put her mission to rest once she knew that Larry did not want to be discovered. If she was really a Larry fan and friend, she would have done everything in her power to stop the exposition of the phenomenol "preacher". I think that Betagold has wanted her moment of fame since the day she knew what fame was. I think that she just has that attention-thirsty personality. Once she saw an opening of Larry's identity through his sermons and photos, she ran for it, and was not going to stop until she reached the end. She enjoyed every minute of chasing Larry's identity, and felt as if she was the detective at the end of a mystery who outs the suspect. There is one question that I have been itching to know, but, I just can not think of a good answer. Do you think that Betagold feels bad that Josh/Larry commited suicide, which, we all know is fake? Or, do you think she is happy that he is gone?
ReplyDeleteIt is very odd how things can tie into each other unintentionally. Last night, I was watching the Tour de France, and the TV switched into a commercial. I was surprised to see U2, and they were performing a song. Incredibly, the first line of the song was “Every generation gets a chance to change the world.” The first thing that came to my mind was “The Gospel According to Larry.” Seeing U2 talking about changing the world when we are learning about it is just mind-boggling. On a different note, in response to your questions Mimi, I don’t think that Betagold wanted to reveal Larry for the fame. I think she revealed him so she could be famous in her own sick, twisted mind. Also, I don’t think that she wanted to help Josh with his shyness. And Anna, I don’t know why Janet Tashjian specifically had a toothbrush as the item Betagold dropped in the mud. Maybe it was the first item that came into her mind. I really don’t know. Allison, in response to your question, I think that when Josh committed his pseudocide, Betagold was both happy and sad. She was happy that the world would be downed by the loss of Larry, and that she could be the “bright” light in the world at the time because she was the one that discovered him. In reply to your question Mimi, I think that Betagold wanted to discover Larry because her life had gone by, and now she has nothing really to do exciting except to stalk Larry. What do you think? Do you think that Betagold stalked Larry because she wanted to, or was it the fact that it made her happy in the end?
ReplyDeleteOh, thank you, everyone, for responding to my question; I loved hearing your answers!
ReplyDeleteAnna, Carl & Alison, I love the responses! You all gave very good answers. After thinking about it for a good while, I've decided Betagold did not do it for fame. Now, honestly, I believe Betagold isn't in her right mind & there is some sort of mental disease at hand. What does everyone else think; is Betagold perfectly sane & just determined to find out the identity for money & fame? Or, is Betagold not in her right mind & perhaps old age is getting to her? We must remember she is old & when people come of a certain age, their brains may not be as crystal clear as previous years. I kind of like what Carl said, "I think she revealed him so she could be famous in her own sick, twisted mind." That was nice; it was a good way to put it.
In reply to Anna, I do understand what you meant when writing about the situation when Betagold just "knew" it was Josh. Though I understand why you would believe she just "know", I still don't think that actually happened. Sometimes, you can "just know", but, really; how often does that happen? Also, in a group of 230,000 people- there is a 1 in 230,000 chance that the kind fellow picking up the toothbrush was actually Larry. Really, I think it was impossible for Betagold to pick out Larry in that crowd. Even if you knew what he looked like, there is a chance she wouldn't even had seen him. With that said, I still believe Larryfest did nothing to change the way Betagold found Larry's identity. Another thing I picked up on, when Betagold went to Josh's house, she told him she thought he'd be older. Does that mean that was the first time seeing him when she knew his secret?
Well, Carl, your question is interesting, being as I don't think Betagold particularly stalked Larry because it made her happy or because she simply wanted to. Like I said above, I think Betagold has a mental problem. I think she was completely obsessed with finding him. Why was she obsessed? I don't know, but I think it was beyond her control & she simply was, if that makes sense. I guess it's fair to say it was because it made her happy in the end & it was because she wanted to, actually. When you are obsessed, you really want to do something & once you achieve your goal, you feel happy. It may sound contradicting & confusing, but if you think about it, it does make sense. Back to the point, I believe you can fit the entire reason of why Betagold was stalking him under one word; OBSESSION.
Carl, in response to your question, I would have to disagree with Mimi on her thoughts of Betagold having a mental problem. I am sure that Betagold she has some sort of fixation on Larry. I believe that, as I have said before, she has always wanted to be famous. At first, before she was on the full-blown hunt for Larry's identity, I think she was trying to feed off of Larry's fame. Then, I think that she realized that if she could uncover the "Larry mystery", she could finally have her fame she had always dreamed of, and not have to share it with anyone else. She is attention starved, and she would do anything to get that one moment of fame. She is almost like an addict; anything to get that one fix, even if it means destroying a world wide sensation.
ReplyDeleteThis is off of the subject that we all are discussing, but, I believe this book has changed the way I look at the world. When I go to buy items, I always think of the needs and wants factors. I weigh my options, and think of what Josh would have done. He is an incredible person, and I admire his character for his confidence and determination. I doubt that any of us here would be capable of creating such a thing. Instead of focusing on the smaller parts of the book, let's focus on the entire novel. What do you think of the book overall?
Mimi, I don't think you should entirely rule out the possibility of Betagold doing it for fame. We really don't know her background so anything is possible. I have to agree with Allison, I really think that it is highly unlikely that she has a mental illness. Betagold just seems too knowledgeable to have mental issues. From what I can tell she seems very intelligent. If she did have a serious mental illness, she would most likely be living in a place specialized for her needs. I doubt that the place would allow her to stalk an internet sensation.
ReplyDeleteAlison, I really like your explanation of why Betagold did what she did. It really makes perfect sense that "she was trying to feed off of Larry's fame." I totally agree that then from that point on, it just kept escalating until it got to the point that it did. Betagold seems like a stubborn person who wants things done her way. At first, she might have just been trying to scare Larry into revealing who he really was. When that didn't work, she became determined to find it out herself. Maybe not only for the fame, but just to have it done her way. Betagold is not the kind of person to give up on anything too quickly.
On the subject of the entire novel, I feel the same way as you Alison. It really does make me think whenever I buy something, "Do I really need this?" Of course I could never be like Larry. Only seventy-five possessions is something I could never do, I probably have seventy-five items that I need just for horses. I am, however, able to only get the things I need. My views on the big store names like Hollister and Abercrombie have always been the same as Josh's, but now they are even stronger and I've applied those feelings to even more stores. This novel is not just for enjoyment, it at least changed my perspective on how I see things in this crazy world.
Mimi, your post was interesting and well reasoned, but I think differently. Betagold seemed to have a very much clear head. I doubt that a senile person could effectively track down an internet sensation via cell phone modem. It seems a bit daunting, even with new technology from recent years. You also imply betagold’s determination could be perceived as a mental illness. I don’t feel betagold was obsessive compulsive about Larry. She had reasonable motives to reveal him; most mentally ill people would most likely have nothing to support their obsession. I wouldn’t describe betagold as a mentally ill, senile internet stalker. I am much more inclined to say driven or selfish.
ReplyDeleteI found Alison’s post interesting, if self contradicting. Alison described betagold as attention starved. While I suppose you could interpret it this way, I don’t think betagold was like that. Its true, betagold was seeking fame. But, attention starved seems to be a bit overanalyzed from what we really know about betagold. We know betagold had motives to reveal Larry, like fame. Going into why she would have these motives in the first place, in my opinion, really can’t be determined. There’s just not enough character development on betagold to really support any of the possibilities. The contradicting part comes to me when you say “like an addict”. Yet, the post began with disagreements on having a mental illness. An addict surely has a mental illness, so I am not quite sure what that post implied. I have to disagree that betagold is mentally ill, and I think this would rule attention addiction.
ReplyDeleteHi Everyone,
ReplyDeleteI've been keeping up with your commentary and been very pleased at your insightFULL conversations! Have most of you blogged before? Your exchanges are right on -- responsive to each other, supported, searching for validation about comments that don't quite coincide with your initial views, but always moving forward, nudged by peers' perspectives! Great job!
Remember that our blogging deadline is next Wednesday, July 22nd, the same day as our Book Chat at FHS...feel free to stop by, say hello, introduce yourselves, and even pick up a book from FHS library!
As you keep chatting here, I'd like to learn more about your evaluation of THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO LARRY...a good choice for a summer read? Why? Why not? Did you think the book would be a religious read? Was it? Tashjian has other books involving Larry; are you interested in following his story?
How relevant is this novel to you? Do you ever find yourself "fed up" with society's attachment to "things?" Are you familiar with the working conditions of many of the employees who create the clothes, etc. we purchase? Or, is this a problem just too big for us to even contemplate?
Have you noticed any of the big names / places Larry mentions? (See my introductory post). Any importance or symbolism related to these "biggies"? Do you attach any significance to them and Larry's teachings?
Finally, did you pay attention to the novel's point of view? Remember. p-o-v is NOT attitude, but how the author chooses to share a story, involving narrator, his/her knowledge, etc. Consider: who "tells" the story? Does this speaker share the story with us directly? Why / why not? In other words, is there any connection with the story's themes, ideas, and the p-o-v Tashjian selected?
Lastly, please be sure to let us know if you have any questions about TRUMPET (here, by email, or jotted down, ready to ask on Monday, Aug. 31st, the day before Ms McCarthy's visit to FHS). Make sure you're ready for a great discussion! Invite your parents to join us, too!
Anna, I can agree it is possible Betagold could have revealed Larry for fame, but I am bound to think it was an obsession that she had to fulfill. You are right when saying we don't know her background & anything is possible, most definitely. Like Austin says, Betagold's motive could have been fame, but it could have been several other things as well. As I read the book though, I really felt as if Betagold didn't want fame for herself in particular. All I felt was her strong determination to reveal Larry for who he truly was. This determination could have been driven by anything that us, as readers, may never know because- like said above- Betagold's background is unknown. It could have been for fame, money, attention, perhaps a lifelong dream; anything. We can only assume.
ReplyDeleteAlison, when I read this book, I felt I could relate to it more than any book I have ever read. I felt so in tune & connected with Josh. The moment after the book implied he was a vegetarian, we became more & more alike in the ways we think & occasionally, the ways we act at given situations. Since I could relate to the book, I was automatically hooked. I thought it was fantastic & very well written.
Now, I feel extremely stupid admitting it, but I shouldn't be ashamed to share my thoughts. I can honestly say I thought Larry was a real person for the longest time! The moment I started reading the introduction, I was hooked into believing the entire story was real. Very few books make me cry & this one did; I thought it was a true story & I felt so connected with Josh I actually felt his pain. By the end of the book, I believed it was true 100%, no doubts. A few days later, I realized I probably would have heard about the Larry up-rise. I decided to google my question, only to realize the sad, sad truth; the Josh Swensen I had looked up to through the entire book turned out to be a fictional character. Words can not express my true & utter disappointment.
Austin, I did start out my post defending thoughts of Betagold having a mental illness, and I still disagree with that thought. When I mentioned Betagold was "like an addict", I was stating my feelings on her personaltity alone, not her mental level. Many people have addictive personalities and become "hooked" on, in example, a video game, television, the internet, etc. I personally know many people that have that type of a personality, and they do not have a mental illness. I am sure everyone here has had once felt a slight addiction to something. I for one, know that I have. With that being said, I think that you connected two of my opinions as being two different views, when they were not supposed to differ.
ReplyDeleteMrs. Hurt, I think that you and Mrs. Nelson made the perfect choice for a summer read. THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO LARRY was such an interesting, well written book, that I had times that I did not want to set it down! I do not think that this book would be a religious read. I am not a very religious person, and I still felt in many ways, connections and agreements to the theme of the story. I am very much interested in following Josh's journey by reading the other books. Truth be told, I believe that this has been my favorite school-read book I have ever had to read!
I am very "fed up" with what our American society has come to. I am very much familiar with the working conditions and salary that those workers receive. After reading this book, it has somewhat "taught" me to be more of an anticonsumerist. As I have stated in my previous posts, I now consider the needs and wants factor that we all grew up hearing from our parents. I do think that we can change the way our society works, but, it will take a lot of people. Not trying to have the negative attitude, but, truthfully, one person is not going to make a big enough difference for us to change our ways.
The one "biggie" that I have noticed a lot more of in the past few days is the band U2. I think that Janet Tashjian included them in her story to reflect and make a connection with a real life person and Josh. U2's music and image seem as though they are a real life Larry. Their music uses the most basic of instruments; a guitar, a voice, a tambourine. Their image seems so practical in a certain music video "With or Without You". They are wearing jeans, plain Tshirts, and eyeglasses. Not like the big music stars that you she today. U2 goes for everything that Larry has taught his fans. Be practical, smart, and do not look at yourself as any better than the people around you.
I did pay attention to the point of view! I believe that Janet Tashjian used her own knowledge and feelings about anticonsumerism to write this novel. I think that she created Larry to be somewhat of a male version of her. She made herself into a character of the story, and that was one of my favorite points of this book. I think that the speaker, in this case Josh, tells us the story. He adds his thoughts on everything that happens at the bottoms of pages. I like how Janet added Josh's thoughts to the pages, because it makes me feel as if Josh is right in front of me telling his story. I believe that almost everything that happened in the book connects. The obvious being it all has something to do with the anticonsumerism theme. The not so obvious that I have noticed is Josh's job at the hardware store. He works at a place where there are needs, not wants. People need screw drivers, wrenches, hoses, etc. Maybe that is just me, but I somewhat see a connection with Josh's thoughts to his job.
Mimi don't worry, the same thing happened to me. It took me quite a while before I realized that Josh was a fictional character. The character and the story was so believable that I just got lost in it. I had hoped that the story was real, but then I also realized that I would have heard about the Larry hype if it was a true story. It really was a good book and I think it was a good summer reading book. It was shorter than some other books I've read but that's okay for summer reading I think. Even though this book was on the shorter side, it was full of meaning and that's what matters. Sometime I would really like to read the other Larry books. Maybe not right away but sometime. I'm really interested in seeing what they're about. I just hope that they are as good as THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO LARRY, that book sets some high expectations for the other books.
ReplyDeleteThough I feel it's very important to be open & honest, I felt extremely stupid posting my thoughts of Josh being a real person. Anna, you've given my hope that I am not the only unbelievably gullible person here. I would love to know everyone else's thoughts about the subject! Did you believe Josh was a real person & the entire story was true? Or, maybe, you knew it was fictional all along & didn't fall for one bit of it? Perhaps it's supposed to be obvious it was fictional & I'm just naive. It was just written so well & it was such a persuasive book. I just couldn't help but to believe!
ReplyDeleteIn reply to Mrs. Hurt, I agree with Alison; this was beyond the BEST book I have ever been forced to read for school! It's a horrible thing to do, but I tend to judge books by the cover & title. I was filled with utter & complete dread when I found out we would have to read "The Gospel According to Larry". I thought it would be boring beyond reason until I began to read. I was hooked; if I wasn't busy at the time, I would have read the day away! Anna, I agree, it's true; the book was on the shorter side. Now, I'm not going to complain- I enjoy short books- but it was the meaning that matter most of all & that's why I loved it. Nothing dragged on & my mind never wandered away from the story. I think it was fantastic for a summer read! I hope the TRUMPET book is as wonderful as LARRY.
I don't believe Larry was a religious read at all. When I was judging it by the title, I figured it would be but I was pleasantly surprised it was not. It's like, Larry isn't making his own bible of religion, which is what I figured. More so, he is making a bible of the world & how people act, if that makes sense. A website of sermons to make people think differently about the world. It's like a bible, yes, in the meaning of spreading ideas & opinions. All & all, I don't think it was a religious read.
I'm definitely interested in following the other Larry books. I already have "The Meaning of Life" one that I plan to read. I'm currently debating whether to read TRUMPET or the next Larry book first! I predict they will both be spectacular!
Mrs. Hurt and Mrs. Nelson, I think that you picked out a VERY good choice for us to read this summer. I remember finding myself reading it for hours on hand. THANK YOU! It was an incredibly remarkable book, and I hope that you use it again for future freshmen. Mrs. Hurt, just to let you know, I have never blogged before! In response to your questions, I think that this book is an amazing summer read because it addresses problems mostly seen in the summer, when teens have more free time on their hands. It addresses consumerism, and if you go to the mall today, you can see that almost as soon as you walk in. I also don’t really think this is a religious read. Even though the title says “The Gospel,” it doesn’t really mean the Bible. Do me, it means the book is Josh’s Bible. Although there are passages from the Bible in the book, I don’t see this book as a religious read. If Janet Tashjian has more books with Larry, then yes, I would be very happy to read them.
ReplyDeleteI think that this novel is relevant to my sense of being green. I always want to be as green as possible, same as Josh. Also, I find myself fed up with today’s consumerism. I hate that today everything is generated around “stuff.” The Super Bowl should not allow commercials, especially when they cost $3 million to put on the air! And yes, I do feel bad for the people who make our designer shoes, American Eagle and Hollister shirts. Only the 3rd World country citizens want to take on a job like that. I bet that most Americans would not be caught dead working there, but hey, somebody has to do it. Today, relating to that topic, people working on the World Cup stadiums in South Africa are going on strike because they are not paid enough. Some people say they are being paid $4 dollars under minimum wage! One of the HUGE biggies in the book that can not be missed is U2. The band perfectly represented Larry in their quest to help the world too. They seemed laid back, and easy going.
I also paid attention to the POV! I agree with Alison when she said, “I believe that Janet Tashjian used her own knowledge and feelings about anticonsumerism to write this novel.” She used her own ethical morals about the world today to help her with the writing. She also created Larry the way Josh created Larry. She wanted to express her ideas through another person. I liked how Josh added his personal thoughts on the bottoms of the pages so he could give more insight to the readers. Without his thoughts, I don’t think I could have understood the book as well. I see your connection too Alison, to Josh’s job. He worked at a place where people only shopped to buy things they absolutely needed, not wanted. It’s not just you Alison, I see the connection too. Thank you Mrs. Hurt and Mrs. Nelson, for letting us read THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO LARRY! It was an amazing book! Don’t worry Mimi; I also thought that Josh was real in the beginning. You’re not the only gullible person here!
In response to Alison's question on the 15th, I liked the book overall as well. I, too, look at what I what to buy versus what i need to buy. I thinkthe economy also ahd something to do with that. In response to Austin's post on the 15th, I agree. We can't tell very much about Betagold, we don't even know where she's from. Just because she says she from one place doesn't mean anything. We don't have any family history which sometimes causes people to do things. So we just don't know.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Mrs. Hurt's questions, I think it was an excellent choice for a book to read over summer. I don't think it was a religious book. They had referance to God and psalms but the psalms really had more to do with the chapters ahead then with God.
I too thought Josh was real and I kept wanting to believe it. My mind would push out reasoning and just let creativity and imagination flow. when I finished the book my reasons sank in. The whole story was kind of like magic, after I knew Josh wasn't real the magic was somewhat lessened. That may sound wierd but I'm for real.
Carl, you're right about the personal thoughts at the bottom of the pages, it made Josh seem like he was telling the story right to our faces.
Mimi, I too thought that Larry was a real life person for the longest time! I really do not know when I finally figured it out. In the "Note to the Reader" in the beginning of the book, Janet Tashjian tells the story of how she met Josh. When I read that, I felt fear for Josh, thinking that he was in hiding for some sort of important reason. I wondered why Josh did not want to take credit for his own written work, and why he was living in the woods. Once I really got into the book, I began to think the same thought as Anna and Mimi. Why had I never heard of this sensation? Surely it would have lasted a while, it was definitely more worthy than a one time newscast. I thought that maybe it had happened before I was born, and Janet Tashjian chose to publish the book later to make sure that no one was forgetting about Larry. Once I figured it out, I felt extremely naive. Mimi, you are not the only gullible one around here!
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, the Gospel According to Larry was a great book for any literature class. It had a lot of very debatable topics that are good for classroom discussion. While it was a great assignment, I didn’t really like it. I really enjoyed the writing style in the way it was in the first person, insightful in a comedic way (especially the footnotes), and almost a little sarcastic. The footnotes gave a good insight into what Josh thought, and made the book fun and enjoyable. I really enjoyed those aspects of the book, but the story itself just didn’t appeal to me. I didn’t really expect this is to be a religious read. My mom did though, just because of the stigma attached with the word gospel. For whatever reason, I didn’t take the word in that sense, but I got the feeling Josh would be giving some sort of preaching. I don’t really feel too compelled to continue with Larry’s story, since, I didn’t like the story.
ReplyDeleteAs far how this book has changed my thoughts on consumerism; it hasn’t. I don’t feel a great impact on myself as a result of this book. Larry did a lot of criticizing of our society and economy. In the sermons included in the book, he never gave any alternative or solution. Pointing out flaws made me aware, I guess, but didn’t push me toward anticonsumerism. The specific topic of Third World workers though, I feel is worth discussion. I’m definitely not an expert on the topic, but when the book describes how unfair their pay is, and how consumers are furthering the companies that employ them, it almost makes me feel obliged to not buy from these overseas companies. I feel exploiting a Third World country for workers who may not realize how unfair their conditions are is immoral. Many third world countries may have political instability, making jobs in a sweatshop or factory that much more appealing. Abusing that poor condition seems so unfair to me. I don’t feel it’s a topic too big to contemplate like Mrs. Hurt says, but something that’s very debatable and easy to discuss.
Larry’s name dropping, as Mrs. Hurt calls it in the intro, was prominent in the book. I felt a bit like I’m either too young, or even unaware of pop culture to understand some of this. Larry often makes some comparisons like “cool and ironic in a Kurt Corbain sort of way” on page 12. I think it’s even a bit ironic or hypocritical for him to write this, and go onto celebrity worship. I actually didn’t understand the reference so I felt like the book was dating itself as an early 2000’s book, or dating Josh as a 80’s and 90’s kid. In some cases the name dropping might appeal to her target demographic of teens, like the Survivor reference. I suppose it both helps elaborate on Josh’s age and personality, as well as connect with young readers.
ReplyDeleteThe point of view was in the first person. I personally enjoyed that, and think it did help connect some themes of the book. The whole “gospel” was about anticonsumerism. This is something that is Josh’s opinion, and the first person point of view helps support the idea it’s his opinion. There was definitely some of Janet Tashjian’s opinions and knowledge behind the Josh character. I would assume writing a character like Josh would require some strong opinions on consumerism and insight on how a teen might think. The first person point of view also allowed for footnotes in the way she used them. I think it helped support who Josh was, as an opinionated teen.
I may be going out on a limb here, but why did the author write the story about her meeting Josh? I know she wanted to make Josh seem real but did she really have to make that up? Why couldn't Josh be real somewhere, and only the last part of the story be made up? I mean we all would have heard about Larryfest, and the suicide, and the whole media sensation. But what if Josh's blog was real and Betagold was real and that sort of thing? I don't know, and maybe I'm just wanting to believe someone is out there tring to take a stand against the world we live in today. If the whole thing was real, I think I would follow the blogs. All in all I liked the book and the ideas. If Josh was out there I would be happy to meet him.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Mrs. Hurt, I think the "The Gospel According to Larry" is an ok read. Larry has a lot of good points and a very insightful view of his world. But, this is not the same type of book that I would normaly read. My favorite types of books are action, mystery, and sports. This book does not contain any of the above, but it has it's own way of getting it's point across. Most novels that I read don't require me to think much, they are more self-explanitory. This book demnaded that I take time to think about what I was reading. I also don't think that it would be considered a religious book. Most of the keys points reviewed in the book don't have much to do with religion. I think that this novel is more of the type of book that tells about problems in our world by describing a fictitious world.
ReplyDeleteI am responding to the rest of Mrs. Hurt's questions. I usually am not the type of person that contemplates all the aspects of what goes on behind closed doors. I can understand where Larry is comming from by trying to make a better world for other people, but don't you think that is their battle to fight? If they didn't like the conditions they work in, I think they should say something. Now I don't know what happens behind company doors, but whatever it is, it's not going to keep me from buying the clothes that I like. Buying a new shirt or pair of jeans isn't usually a major debate for me, like it is for Josh, so I am not thinking of these things as I'm walking through the check-out isle. Maybe that's not right, but that's just what I do. Also, I think that today's evolving status requires us to increase our collection of "things". The "stuff" I am talking about are not luxurious things. Certain things need to be possesed in order to get jobs done. I can understand how buying random junk just to say you have something is bad, but nessessity's should be owned.
ReplyDeleteI agree with what Carl said. I think that the book's topic was created the same way that Josh created Larry in the story. The ideas she had needed to be expressed through someone else, not Tashjian. Her own ideas were said through the characters she created throughout the book. You can tell from the text of the book that the sermons Larry posted came from Tashjian's own point of view. She is very strong in consumerism, and you can tell. Also, if you are really paying attention, she makes some connections from Josh's world to ours. She's is trying to get a point across through a type of story that mostly all of us can relate to. Even if we aren't thinking it, we are all self-consiously getting a taste of what consumerism is really like, and that's why I think Mrs. Nelson and Mrs. Hurt picked this novel for us. To let us feel first hand what consumerism is, in a sort-of fun way. This book is not told in the usual informative book text. Tashjian is still making her point, but she also created characters that we can relate to throughout the story. In my mind, there are two aspects of this book. The part that contains information about consumerism and what is. Then there is the part that tell's Josh's story, just like any other usual fiction book. It is sort of a combonation of two types of books. For those reasons I thought this book was a pretty good choice for a summer reading novel.
ReplyDeleteMegan, in response to your questions, I liked the fact that she put that part in the beginning. It kind of set the scene for the whole story and it also gives us motivation to read the rest of the story. That first part gives us questions that we want to be answered. For example, "Who is this kid?" and "How did he get to be in this condition?" It creates a whole mystery that can only be answered by reading the book. If you think about it, Larry is real in a way. Tashijian created Larry and all of Larry's ideas, so in a way she is Larry. Megan, I'm sure there are people out there like Larry in the world, they just keep it to themselves. I hope that one day Larry does become real, however, I hope that the Betagolds will keep their thoughts to themselves. It would be such a pity for someone to actually have to go through what Josh went through after his identity was exposed.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Mimi, I think that the reason betagold took so much time to find out Larry's identity is in a way jealousy. When Larry's sermons hit it off big all around the world, betagold obviously didn't like the idea of an annoymous person bashing the economy. Everybody seemed to like what this person had to say, and they were all enthrawled in his words. Betagold must have been thinking that if she revealed Larry's secret identity, people would not respect him anymore. They might not think of him as the same person that wrote all those sermons. Maybe if he was brought out into the light, the connection between Larry and Josh's personality might not be established. People would think that some kid was just trying to make a name for themself, and they wouldn't like the kid anymore. I think that this is what betagold was trying to accomplish by revealing Larry's true identity. She wanted people to think of him as a coward that hides behind his screen, not a person that was making major points that could change the way we live today.
ReplyDeleteI think the reason that Tashjian chose to make us think that Josh was real is because it made the story a lot easier to relate to. Throughout the whole book, I was thinking about how I might have handled the situations that Josh/Larry went through. It really made me think that what happened in the story could actually happen, and it just made everything in the book more real. I was also contemplating the courage it would take for a person to come clean about something like what Josh did. If I would have not read the first part of the book, my whole perspective on it would be way different. It made me think of the book as someone's actual experience, not something that was just made up. I was really able to connect to Josh's story. I think that the way Tashjian chose to portray Josh's story made it a way better book than most others I have read.
ReplyDeleteHello everyone, I'd like to kick-off by answering the introductory of Mrs. Hurt's questions. The Gospel According To Larry was and is a fantastic novel as our first and foremost summer read. The entire book was simply the best and most well put-together narrative I have ever read. The book is almost entirely based upon Josh Swensen's own opinions and views, which was appealing to me as I am a very open-minded person, and new and growing ideas almost always interest me. I (probably unlike most people) wish the book was much longer. I was kept on the edge of my seat when the ruthless Betagold finally surfaced the identity of "Larry" as Josh Swensen, in the climax of pages 139 - 141. I was incredibly disappointed to see that this book had an inevitable cliffhanger, as with most stories. On the bright side, I am glad to know that Tashjian has published other sequels to Larry. I don't at all believe this was a religious read. At first sight I would never have guessed this book to be about the negatives of materialism and a young man's quest to change the world via a blogging website. Though there were biblical verses included within, I don't believe they were entirely necessary to prove the thesis that being "fat-cat food" is a drawback in today's world. Overall, The Gospel was a compelling and opinionated story that proved many important points. I, as well as many others, believe this was a fascinating and terrific read. With the positive feedback this book has been getting, I predict and hope it will be continued to be read for other generations of students. Thanks.
ReplyDeleteThough the entire novel was based on intriguing opinions and important topics of conversation (true in the beginning 2000's as it is today)I did not entirely relate myself to the views expressed within the pages. I do respect Josh Swensen's opinions nonetheless; I just see myself as an easy-going person (By the way, my definition of down-to-earth is not easy-going, but smart and practical in a simplistic kind of way) that could care less about corporations' plans to "brain-wash" us.
ReplyDeleteIn the recession of today's America, it only makes sense for top companies to send their employment over-seas in order to make profit off of third-world countries that work almost five dollars less than minimum wage. Though corporations that force individuals working in these conditions, and with less than reasonable pay do make me a bit annoyed, it is a smart option for them to take anyway. I don't think boycotting things is a good idea because, in order to get out of this recession, one step we must take is to increase our level of consumerism. Without the general public keeping up a steady level of buying products, our economy will continue to drop.
Anyways, I believe that, with the resources corporations have and the amount of third-world workers they employ, trying to hit and sink the corporate battleship is futile. Though there were some very large corporations like Nike, Pepsi, (Owners of Mountain Dew) and various news shows, I didn't see to much symbolism involved with them. They were only big names attempting to transform Larry into a substantial ad campaign, while at the same time making Josh incredibly aggravated and annoyed (Because the companies trying to get deals with him very-well knew that he was against them all). Overall, big companies, materialism, and consumerism, do not really in the least bit bother me. Thanks.
I finally figured out how to do this!
ReplyDeleteI think that people need to spend less on things that they really don't need. I mean, you go to the store, and you see a cool remote control truck that you supposedly just need. I think people by things like that every day just because thay have the money to spend (no offense to anyone here). There are other people in the world who can't afford things like that. You just don't need stuff like that. Now, I understand when people buy a toy for a Christmas or birthday present, but when people buy things just because they think they can't live without it, that's crazy! Really, commercials and ads make it even worse. The companies who make the advertisements for a certian shoe try to make it look so good on the television so that people will by the products. You may see a cool commercial on the tv about some kind of shirt, and you go buy it because it is an awesome shirt. Then you take it home and the instant you go to try it on, it rips. That was just really a waste of money. Some commercials don't even tell the truth about an object because they just want to sell them. I do not like advertisements that much because a lot of the time they are just not trustworthy.
Mrs. Hurt and Mrs. Nelson,
ReplyDeleteSorry that I am answering these questions a little late. Instead, I have been responding to the questions that were in the back of my book. This is the first time I have ever blogged, so I just finally figured out how to work this. I am truly sorry about everything. You can check my answers on the fhshonorsamlit-history page. I am sorry about the confusion.
Megan Hulings
MRS. Hurt and Mrs. Nelson,
ReplyDeleteWhen I read the letter sent to me, I believed that we were supposed to start today, not finish! Is there a way to make all of it up? I hope so. Either way,my other post will be to comment on somebody's response to prevent a total bomb.
In response to Dan Kilmer, I agree that consumerism, while sometimes a little annoying, is still necessary. Without consumerism and ads, there would be much less buying and selling, and cash flow would soon slow down and possibly stop. If that happened, the economy would entirely collapse and we would be left in a poor country, like the third-world countries. Not only that, but we need to buy eventually, right? If we never bought anything, how would we get necessities, like food? I believe that consumerism is necessary but should not be overdone. If consumerism is overdone, then the same effects could happen as not enough advertising. If companies advertised too much, people might begin to get annoyed with the massive amount of advertisement in their lives and just boycott everything altogether. I know that's not the most likely thing in the world, but it's possible. I suppose you could say I both believe and reject Larry's idea at the same time. I hope this post may inspire other latecomers to respond.
ReplyDeleteMegan, I am referring to your very first responses. For me, "down to earth" means that someone is living their life and does not have their head in the clouds. Josh does fit in with that description. A few times, it seems that he does have his head in the clouds, for example, when he talks to his mother at the beauty shop (pg. 26-29). True, it is because he probably felt alone after his mother died, but a lot of people would think he was crazy. Still, he does not let his head get clogged with nonsense. So Megan, I think Josh fits into your "down to earth" definition. You also made another good point when you said Josh is, quote, "simply living". He does not waste his time wanting things that he does not have. Josh only has seventy five items, and he said that whenever he wanted something, he would trade for it with one of his belongings (pg. 45-46). Describing Josh as "down to earth" was a good idea, Megan.
ReplyDeleteI don’t think we can be both Larry and Josh. They are just so different. Josh likes to be left alone, just like a lot of other people. I mean, he has his own pit in the woods. Josh also has his ups and downs, just like everyone else in the world. Larry, on the other hand, doesn’t seem to have any ups or downs until Betagold learned his secret identity (pg. 139-141). I think that people who are like Larry tend to be very opinionated. Josh doesn’t really speak out at school. Larry, on the other hand, seems to feel very strongly about his opinions in his sermons. I think people who are like Larry also speak out against things. Everyone is different, just like Josh and Larry.
Megan Hulings
I think the book was a good choice for summer reading. I was easy to read and somewhat enjoyable. At first I thought it would be religious because of the title, but as it turned out, it wasn’t. Josh does add some biblical versus at the beginning of each section, but it still did not have much to do with religion (sections #1-6). I don’t think I would be interested in following Josh’s story. It was an okay book, but I prefer Historical Fiction. The story was pretty good, but it did not have the ending I expected, which was okay. In all, the book was good.
ReplyDeleteI recognized a lot of the companies Josh mentioned. Josh mentioned Nike, I think. I did catch a part where people said that he helped with the bombings in Oklahoma (pg. 212). I can’t really see any symbolism connected with these two events, though. He did go against the companies who came up with advertisements, like where his stepfather works. “Larry” did take company advertisements and turn them into things that went against the companies (pg. 70-72). He targeted a lot of the logos and twisted them so that they went against their owners. Really, it was not the greatest thing to do, since he will get in trouble later in the book (pg. 98-100).
I don’t think this novel is relevant to me a lot. One thing I do not really like about society is how we advertise things and the products do not work. I mean, it does not really bother me unless the object breaks or does not work. I also do not like how people waste money on the most unneeded items there are. Sometimes I am fed up with society’s attachments to items, but not often. I am somewhat aware of the conditions that the workers overseas are not the nicest. Just as “Larry” says, almost half of the world lives on less than two dollars a day (pg. 64-65, sermon #137; pg. 89). That is not a very good thing happening. We could probably help those people and make conditions better for them as long as we put our minds to it. If we could get our own nation to reunite after the Civil War, then we just might be able to deal with the horrible conditions people work in overseas.
I do not think “seekers looking for the truth” are a good thing. Everyone has the right to keep their identities a secret if they want to. If Josh wants to keep his identity a secret, then that’s fine with me. A lot of people like to keep their identities a secret whenever they are on the internet. I don’t think people like Betagold are very good people. They don’t seem to have an imagination (no offense to anyone). It makes no sense when people want to spoil other people’s fun (pg. 124-125). I think that everyone hides a small bit of themselves from the rest of the world. Everyone has their secrets that they want to keep hidden from everyone else. Secrets, I think is the small part of ourselves that we keep hidden from the rest of the world.
I didn’t really pay attention to the book’s point of view. Josh is the one who tells the story. Janet Tashjian, the author, didn’t exactly write the story. She helped Josh put the story together. At the beginning of the book, Janet tells us that Josh gave her a story that he had written about himself (pg. 7-10 Roman). “Larry” isn’t a real person, but Josh is. I think Josh shares the story directly by using first person. If he had been using third person, then his thoughts would not have been as clear. By using first person, Josh is able to share his thoughts with a lot of detail. I think there is a connection, because everything is in more detail than third person.
Megan Hulings
I am posting this as a new thought because it is intriguing to me. Sometimes it's not a good thing to do everything you can to make your dreams a reality. It's like the saying, "Too much of a good thing". While Josh/Larry trying to spread the word about anticonsumerism is an honorable task, picking Peter's lock to get the new company ads (pgs. 70 to 73) is not very honorable at all. If you're trying to do something honest and beneficial to the world, why be dishonest and do inappropriate or illegal things to do it? For example, say your one dream was to make a million dollars, and you'd do anything to see your dream through. What could "anything" mean? Could it be good, like working hard and earning it? Or, could it be illegal and inappropriate, like embezzlement and theft? While Josh was doing a good thing by spreading word of anticonsumerism, I believe he went a little overboard in his attempts sometimes.
ReplyDeleteThis is in response to Andrew Gibson waaaaaay back on July 11th. I agree that all people do have secrets. I also have this to add. If you were a roughneck who hated everyone in public, how do you think people would react if they knew there was a different "you" under all that grit? Would they accept that you really love animals and own a rabbit? They might accept it and embrace the other "you". However, they may also laugh and never treat you the same again. I think people do not tell others their innermost thoughts and selves because they are afraid that they will be shunned for saying it. Like Andrew said, the public has designed a "normal" personality that most people follow. However, that is not how many people really are inside. They do not show their true colors because it is not "normal". The "normal" personality is so dominant in public that anyone that is not that personality is classified as a weirdo or a psycho. Think of Spider-Man, for example. Spider-Man, as we all know, is really Peter Parker. But, his classmates do not know that. They all think that Spider-Man is totally awesome and cool, but would they think that if they knew that their hero is really wimpy Peter Parker? That is why superheroes have secret identities: They are afraid that they will not be accepted if people knew who they really are. In the Gospel, Larry can be considered the superhero and Josh is his secret identity. All of his classmates think Larry's sermons are awe-inspiring, but would they think that if they knew Josh wrote them? However, it is generally a good idea to let a few people, your closest friends, in on the secret, so you have someone to go to in times of stress. If Josh had told Beth he was Larry at Larryfest or otherwise, the whole "Larry is teenage boy" scandal could have been easier on both Beth and Josh. All the publicity would have been unavoidable with betagold, but Beth would not have been so shocked and their relationship might have remained. But, since he didn't, he was forced to fake his own death just to escape. He had no one to talk to in his stressful time. I think, if Josh had told Beth he was Larry, Larry would have been able to live on a little longer.
ReplyDeleteIn response to another of Andrew's blogs, this one on the 12th, I believe that Josh being discovered to be Larry was the worst thing that could have happened. Like Andrew said, he turned in to the celebrity-type person he has been criticizing. That is kind of ironic, don't you think? What's worse, when Larry was still anonymous, everyone took his sermons to heart and put them into action. But, when he was found out, he gained massive publicity and people completely ignored his sermons. As Josh/Larry said on page 150, "Josh isn't interesting. Larry's work-that's the story." When Josh/Larry told the journalists that, they just laughed in his face. But, seriously, is the public so stupid as to follow Larry's sermons when he was anonymous, but the day he's ousted ignore them and ask what kind of underwear he wears? (pg 149) Larry may have fought the media, but they fought back- with his one weakness- ads that he a) never endorsed. b) never liked. and c) went against all he was working on. All the useless talk about garbage like the underwear he wears didn't help either. I think that's what drove Josh/Larry to "kill" himself- just to end his madness.
ReplyDeleteSpeaking of pseudocide, I think Josh/Larry faking his own death was actually the most appropriate thing he could do to end his current situation. It shows that Josh/Larry's beliefs were too strong to stand being a celebrity he hated and criticized so much. It shows that beliefs, if strong enough, can cause you to do rather extreme things just to keep them alive. It also shows that Josh/Larry didn't give up on what he believed and worked on, even when things seemed desperate. He wouldn't give up on his beliefs and go against them, even with the offers of huge popularity and money offers for endorsements. This would work if your beliefs were good and honest, but what if he didn't have those beliefs? What if he believed in other, less-than-appropriate things? Would it be worth it then? Since no one else is posting, I will ask Mrs. Nelson and Mrs. Hurt this: what would you do in Josh's situation?
ReplyDeleteI am responding now to Mrs. Hurt's "how was the book" question. The Gospel According to Larry was a decent book and probably one of the better choices as a summer read. The story, while fictional, was made to be incredibly realistic with Josh/Larry's point of view. It added a whole other perspective to the story. Hearing Josh/Larry telling about everything that was happening to him is much more interesting than some featureless, toneless narrator.
ReplyDeleteAs for the story itself, it was very well thought out and suspenseful. I was shocked when Josh/Larry decided to commit pseudocide just to escape from being the unwilling celebrity. (pg. 172) The story on Josh and Beth's friendship was interesting and moved the story along smoothly. Also, Josh's spiritual connection with his mother was unique and creative. Overall, I give props to Janet Tashijan for writing this book.
In response to Austin on the 12th, I agree that betagold is just a fame-hungry money hunter. Why would betagold spend so much time trying to figure out who Larry is otherwise? It is unethical to spend your whole life just to make yourself famous by ruining someone else's life. Betagold should have just done what the other Larry fans did- take the sermons to heart and protest the media and ads. Still, I must admit that she did a really good job in figuring out Larry's identity. If I were betagold, I never would have figured it out. But, then again, I wouldn't be crazy about finding him out. What I don't understand is, why did betagold try to oust Larry even before he became famous? This question surpasses my knowledge. Maybe we'll discuss it when school starts up again.
ReplyDeleteFor my final post, I will respond to Carl on, oddly enough, the 12th again. I understand the analogy and what you were trying to say. The cat is totally freaked out, like you said, just like Josh/Larry was. The cat had to choose: do I do something risky, like jump, and save my life (maybe), or do I sit here and endure this torture indefinitely until it goes away? I feel that is exactly what Josh was thinking when considering pseudocide. Josh was thinking, do I do something risky, like pretend to kill myself by jumping off the bridge, or do I sit here cowardly, waiting for the indefinite torture to stop? It's a pretty tough choice to make. I have another analogy to exemplify this: a cat has a mouse backed into a corner. The mouse is thinking, do I take a chance and jump and maybe live, or do I take the slow, painful, guaranteed death? Mrs. Hurt and Mrs. Nelson, which do you think makes more sense. Also, what do you think Josh's life would have been like without Larry? Would he have gotten Beth to be his girlfriend? Let's discuss this when school starts again.
ReplyDeleteThis is my first post (by the way, how to I get my post to read 13deyevk as the screen name?) - a little late, might I add - about The Gospel According to Larry. Once briefing through the past eighty three comments, I saw that the question about 'what down-to-earth really means' was really prevalent. I would like to respond to Megan's second post. Well does broadcasting anti consumerism really necessarily have to mean that someone is down to earth? In my opinion, no. Wether Josh is trying to or not, his sermons are being consumed just as much as some other things are. In some way, Mrs. Tashjian almost creates a situation in which a young adult tries too hard to protest against an idea, but ends up representing that which he was trying to undermine. If Josh was so down to earth, then why did he broadcast his philosophies online. Why did he not just write his views down into a personalized journal? Why did he play with the idea of posting his seventy five items on the internet, creating the chance that someone would find out who he was. Maybe their was a part of Josh, who knows how dominant that part was, that enjoyed the thrill of the publicity. On page eighty nine - just one of the examples of how Larry's ideas were becoming more popular - Josh explained about how one of his posts was discussed on various chat rooms across America. If he was so down-to-earth, he would have put an end to it as soon as possible. No, he wanted to have some type of publicity. We learn *SPOILER ALERT* in Tashjians next book, Vote for Larry, that Josh even ends up trying to run for president. Possibly Josh's narrative did not convince me that he was really anti consumerist. Maybe he was just trying to market himself. I do not think that, by the definition of down-to-earth, that Josh Swenson falls into that category. He, on the contrary, is a sophisticated, shy, and political savvy mind inside of a regular, mediocre body.
ReplyDeleteAs my second post, I would like to brief about Mrs. Nelson's accurate question? What does down-to-earth mean? Unfortunately, this question is all relative according to opinion. One's perspective on this matter may be openly contradicting another. In this case, fortunately, there are several guidelines that one who is down-to-earth usually follows. First and foremost, this person must not act excessively outgoing and social - which would classify them as almost completely the opposite. Josh is quite reclusive when it comes to his daily life. On the other hand, as Tashjian implies, Larry is not. Second in importance regarding this topic comes the fact that this individual, without question, can not be a risk taker. How many 'daredevils' do you know that consider themselves, in any measure, down-to-earth? Posting your personal items online for random access could hardly be considered down-to-earth (neither would going to a 'second Woodstock' that is all about you in which someone may guess that you are an internet phenomenon). For a third and final classification of this type of person, one would have to be accepting and nonjudgmental. Josh does seem exceptionally nonjudgmental. One could not say that about Larry. All in all, we realize that it is almost as if Josh is running a split personality. On page sixty one, Begatold writes on a bulletin board 'Come out, come out wherever you are. Larry, why are you hiding behind your anonymous screen name? Who are you? Afraid that no one would listen to you if we all knew what a loser you were?' Josh keeps to his own self mostly, but Larry is active and has a voice that resounds across the nation. Josh could be considered down-to-earth, but Larry could not. Since they are the same person, the only conclusion to come up with is that Larry is not down-to-earth. This is just how Tashjian's novel affected me, not necessarily right or wrong. I believe down-to-earth person is a simple, open minded, and to their self person that does not overly covet items.
ReplyDeleteTo begin on my third post for this book, I would like to express my opinion about what Mrs. Nelson has said in her second post. I agree entirely on your statement that there is a 'Josh' and a 'Larry' in each of us. Janet Tashjian used this principle and that is why this book has such a wide appeal amongst young readers. Josh is a signification of what humanity is in everyday life and the struggles that are prevalent in today's society. Larry is a representation of the slice of ourselves that looks upon life a little differently and strives to change the world in some way or another. It is natural to have at least some of these characteristics inside of ourselves. Which are we more like. Are we down-to-earth, or are we retaliating against the forms of advertising that are subject to in the lives that we live. On the subject of Begatold, you posted 'the truth finders'. Are they a positive type of people in this world in which we live? Is it possible that just as you have pondered that we might all contain a Josh and a Larry, we all might have a part of us that is a Begatold? That is no question. Whenever there is something 'heard through the grapevine' or 'I guess what I know about your darkest, deepest secrets' we are on the dot to find out what that is. As long as there are secrets, people will eventually try to seek them out. The Gospel According to Larry definitely shows this to the extreme. Beth states on page one hundred and five 'You don't think that...Mr Lynch...you know, he's Larry.' Everyone was trying to find out The Great Who's Larry Mystery, except Begatold is a little more into it than the rest of society. Now I pose this question (it most likely will not be answered because the rest of the Honors Communications class is already finished with their blogs). Are you a Begatold? How eager are you to find out hidden places? Only we can answer those questions. Tashjian, I digress, was absolutely sharing her views and philosophies with the world in her book. Here is another interesting spark - If Larry actually had a real website and everything that happened in the Gospel According to Larry happened, would you follow his ideas? Would you try being like Begatold and find out who the 'real Larry' was, or would you mind your own business and be 'down-to-earth' like an average human. Or is there that part of you that just wants to change the world. I believe that this was a really great book. Does anyone oppose this statement? Like Foxxy (Tyler Fox) said, we will discuss this once schools starts again. XD
ReplyDeleteI am responding to Tyler's third blog, 'Too much of a good thing'. I entirely agree with that statement. If you go too far to carry out your means of getting rich/famous or whatever you are trying to do, it is an exceptionally dreadful thing to do. However, in this scenario, I do not agree that going into your stepdad's folders in order to expose the advertising industry for what it is could be considered this. When, in times of war, spies were on the edge of information, and they could often determine who won the war. Whether the cause is noble enough to outway the consequences of your 'wrongdoing' one must decide for themself. Tashjian does not really address this topic that much because in the narrative, Josh evidently thinks what he is doing is in the right. I believe that, in his shoes, anyone might use those assets to further better themselves also. On pabe 83, Tashjian writes that The Gospel According to Larry Website was gaining ninety percent of an audience every day. As an addition, the advertising companies are embezzling money by the millions, so it is pretty much ludacris to say that trying to bring the truth out could be considered in the least 'too much of a good thing'. When I had finished reading the segment about Josh reading his stepfather's papers, I thought that this was the best action that he could take at the present time. For a different note, is it maybe possible that Josh was a little bit hypocritical about what he said in some of his sermons? Did Josh live up to what he posted on his website? I do not think so. That also will most likely be answered when school begins.
ReplyDeleteI am responding to Mrs. Hurt as my fifth blog. She had asked 'How relevant is this novel to you? Do you ever find yourself "fed up" with society's attachment to "things?" Are you familiar with the working conditions of many of the employees who create the clothes, etc. we purchase? Or, is this a problem just too big for us to even contemplate?'. This novel is exceptionally relevant in my life. Every day, I process thousands of advertisements. On the news, I hear about the working conditions that foreign immigrants are forced into. Most of society is fed up with it to a certain extent. That is probably why most people can relate to this novel on a deeper level (despite the simple writing style that Tashjian uses). And I definitely say that, yes, at some times the subliminal messaging and all of the advertisements are sometimes too much to contemplate at some times. That is why we are so susceptible to the merchandise. They are trying to psych the population into willingly buying their products. If there was a figure that resembled Larry in this world, he would be extremely popular. Janet Tashjian definitely hit the nail on the hammer by writing this book. About the author's style and voice, I have to add that at certain points during the story, I almost had to ponder whether this story was actually real or not. Tashjian blends her voice and opinions with those of a teenage boy. She also cleverly wrote that note at the beginning of the novel that precisely interleaved fiction with real. Tashjian is quite the skilled author. Maybe it is worth it to read all of the books in this series. What do you think?
ReplyDeleteI would like to respond to Tyler as my sixth blog. Tyler, I do not believe that pseudocide was Josh's highest option at the time. First of all, nothing is permanent. He know that eventually something would blow his cover. It would just make him look quite silly in the long run. Also, Josh had in mind that he was going to publish his story. It is pretty much impossible to run away from publicity. For all practical purposes, pseudocide was just a temporary fix. If people found out where he was for the second time, the consequences would be even more dire. Page x, Janet tells Josh that if The Gospel According to Larry is published, people will know that he is still alive. Josh hears this and responds 'It's really important for me to be honest right now. I just want to write about the truth.' It doesn't make sense. When Josh says this, you have to wonder - if Josh was just going to tell the truth, why did he not do that instead of committing pseudocide?
ReplyDeleteMy seventh blog is responding to Dan Kilmer's second post. To tell you the truth, I could almost not agree to that statement less than I do. I am a little confused actually. So apparently the recession could be fixed up more by sending the jobs overseas and paying the foreigners less than what is reasonable? I am pretty sure that that idea is the kind of mindset that Larry was fighting against. My main reason for thinking so is this: Leading analysts express that in order to repair America's economy, a main helper would be to bring back factories in America like they were before. Shipping the jobs overseas is more expensive for the consumer, but less expensive for the employer. The rich in America becoming richer, and the poor losing all of their money. That would damage the economy so much more than it already is, and we are seeing the results of it at present. Boycotting companies that used overseas factories would bolster their decisions to move back to America again. On page sixty four Larry writes 'Our STUFF lives better than some people do.' What could be truer? Is it possible that this is what Tashjian was trying to tell us? Thankfully, she made her point ultra pure clear.
ReplyDeleteAs my eight and final blog, I would like to conclude with an answer to Mrs. Hurt's 'Point of View' question. Janet Tashjian decides to use the point of view of a seventeen year old boy that has problems that every teen faces at some point in their life. It is a lot easier to listen to someone who is your own age because you do not feel as if you are being preached to as much as if an adult was speaking to you directly. Tashjian was able to expertly emulate a teenager in all of the narrative. Though it was almost as if a young adult was speaking, at times, you could tell that it was not only a story. It was also a calling for action in this world that we live in. The bible verses kept it true to its name, The Gospel According to Larry. As far as books go, this novel affected me positively, and in some ways even nudged me to cogitate pertaining to the difficulties that others are facing right as you are reading this. Janet Tashjian's novel will leave an everlasting impression on me, and I do not regret reading it. Thank you Mrs. Hurt and Mrs. Nelson.
ReplyDeleteThis is my first blog although it is overdue. I plan on pretending that I was blogging with everyone else even though in reality, I am not. This book was extremely easy for me to read. It was very realistic and relatable to the time period that we live in. There were computers, blogging, and opinions without having to live in fear of being brutally bullied. As the beginning blogs discuss, I would like to talk about my definition for “down to earth”. For me, “down to earth” simply implies that the person is always relaxed and well grounded. They know what they are feeling and they express it in healthy ways. Down to earth people are not easily angered because they try to view things from a different angle and understand what someone else is feeling. Josh Swensen is an intelligent, friendly, passionate, and understanding boy, but not necessarily a “down to earth” boy. On page 8 and 9, he doesn’t try to understand the way that Beth is feeling about the Larry club, the meetings, or Todd Terrific. But I suppose that shows his passionate side. He likes Beth too much to feel what she is feeling about the jock. I don’t believe that Josh or Larry are down to earth people.
ReplyDeleteGoing off of what Megan said about Beth changing the way that she would feel about Josh if she were to find out about Larry’s true identity, I would like to disagree. Beth has an admiration for Larry and his way of reaching out to people. She seems very passionate about his website and his opinions. Why would she throw away that passion just because she found out who was masked behind the sermons? They have been best friends (page 7) for a long time and best friends do not throw that away because they had one secret. They would try to understand the reason for the secret and believe that they are telling the truth. Anyways, she would be able to discuss his sermons in depth with Josh, the true identity behind the words that inspired Beth to become the individual that she is now. That should make her closer to Josh than before and the new found honesty will tie them together. I suppose that Josh does make it seem like he doesn’t want Beth to find out about Larry, but I would have to agree with Allison that he secretly wants Beth to know. This would bring them closer since it would be another thing that they have in common. It may even spark a relationship between the two of them.
ReplyDeleteI would like to comment on Billie’s statement of a quote from page 11 of Josh’s dad talking about the Larry website, “Some guy bashing our culture online. Anonymous coward.” I do think that people who disagree with Larry’s ideas only disagree because his ideas are different and unheard of for them. The Larry skeptics don’t seem to believe in change. The people were raised to think differently and stick with their minds no matter how outdated their thoughts are. As Mimi said, they are very closed minded and not open to new ideas. They seem to fear the new ideas unless they know who is “enforcing” them. Since Larry is a disguise for someone that is too secretive to show who he really is, the older generation tends to not want to listen to him. They want to know the face, mind, and reputation of the influence upon them. Take for example, if all the candidates in the election had a secret name for campaigning, never showed their face, and didn’t even speak using their own voice, would the same number of people of the previous generations want to vote as opposed to an open, publicly campaigned election? Most likely not. A large amount of people that have grown up with undisguised elections want to know as much as they can about a person that will be leading their country. Now, downsize that example to an internet blog led by a seventeen year old boy. The older generation, ones that actually have read some of Larry’s sermons, may not accept his ideas as easily and openly as their children would. They are too concerned about the looks and identity of Larry to actually focus on the bigger picture, the true meaning behind his sermons! Their children have grown up in a world full of all equals that are different. Everybody is original! They all dress in their unique styles, express their opinions differently, listen to several types of music, and pretty much everything else about them is different. One thing that brings them together is their opinions of feelings and ideas. They don’t care who is behind Larry, all they focus on is his voice, his way of thinking. All in all, the people that contradict Larry’s ideas are not open minded and they don’t want to believe anything that they can’t match to a face.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Mrs. Nelson about everyone being part Josh and part Larry, I would like to say that I would agree with that. Every person has a part of them that they do not want to expose for their own reasons. Maybe they would be embarrassed, terrified that they won’t be accepted, worried that it would destroy everything that they have worked to build, or just the fact that they can’t accept that secret themselves and they are trying their best to hide it away. No matter what the reason is for the harboring of the hidden characteristic, it should be kept that way unless it is of danger to other people. The person should tell their secret to whoever they would like whenever they are ready. If someone like Betagold were to greedily dig and snoop around for the secret, something bad may really happen to the person. They may go into shock, depression, and their whole lifestyle would change. That may drive them to become suicidal, sort of like Josh’s pseudocide. I agree with Allison about agreeing with Anna to an extent. Betagold dug too far and showed the secret to too many people. It came as a shock to everyone especially since they had to find out through someone that had no real connection with Josh. If she had just pushed him enough that he would tell his secret to his family and Beth or even just Beth, then, as Allison stated, Betagold would seem less evil and more of an aide to Josh and Beth’s relationship.
ReplyDeleteI would like to comment now about the Larry secret and the reasoning for it. In my opinion, I think that Josh created this “Larry” identity to make it easier for his ideas to get across to his viewers. Another, because he probably didn’t want his views to be judged because of who wrote them before they were even read. If an older, judgmental person came across Josh’s website that actually had his true identity and information, they most likely wouldn’t even bother reading his sermons due to the fact that he is seventeen years old. They must think that they don’t want to be told what to do or change what they have been doing all their lives because of what a seventeen year old said. Coming to a different reason, maybe Josh didn’t even want people to know it was him that was becoming a huge hit on the internet. He wanted to tell Beth, maybe so that he didn’t feel so alone and overwhelmed with his secret and the attention that his blog finally receiving. If he told everyone else, then the attention would be nonstop and he didn’t even want attention as dictated on page 149. Big brand name companies would go to him to have him advertise their products and he would be just like those celebrities and campaign advertisers that he “bashed” on his blog. It would go completely against everything that he started out with. The identity was a protection shield for himself. He just wanted to have his voice heard and guide people to make a better place for everyone to live in. Without the attention, he would still know that he helped and it still would make him feel good inside that a young, teenage boy like him could make a difference.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Alison Decker’s entry, I would like to disagree. I do not think that Betagold would have found Larry’s true identity within a matter of days. Just think of how many people there are in just our country and then, imagine the world! I would think that tracking someone over the internet is exceedingly difficult without the correct equipment and knowledge. I don’t think that the equipment comes easily to an average person, but maybe to federal organizations like the F.B.I. or the C.I.A. Knowing the identity of Betagold makes it harder for me to actually believe that a senior citizen would have the accurate technological knowledge (please excuse me if I’m stereotyping) to triangulate signals, I.P. addresses, and use all the gadgets precisely. Her words, “...Larry, I will find you,” were a way to make him scared and worry (page 115). I am still trying to figure out how Betagold managed to track Josh/Larry down at the Larryfest. The only obvious clue that he released was “P.S. I’ll be the guy with the T-shirt and the smile,” on page 118 of the Sermon #271. But then for some reason, the Larryfest, to me, seems like it made all the difference in the reveal of his identity. Like Betagold had already begun imagining what kind of person Larry would be like or she was spying on people’s reactions to her petition (page 124). It makes me curious to know how Betagold did it!
ReplyDeleteAs an answer to Carl’s question, I believe that Josh would not have committed pseudocide if Betagold had not ragged him out on his secret. The whole reason behind his pseudocide was that he could not take the attention anymore! As I stated before, the book even told us that he was not seeking attention on page 149. With the attention, his whole lifestyle was turned upside down. Josh did not want to have to deal with the pain of Beth ignoring him. She was only blocking him out because she was upset that he had kept “the secret” from her. Even though Josh was going to use the attention to spread his word to the millions of people that didn’t receive access to the internet, the interviewers had different ideas. They wanted to know about Josh, not anything to do with Larry or the whole process of how he became Larry. The show’s producer even said, “You’re the story, just you. People want gossip; people want sizzle.” (page 150) Josh must’ve been upset that he couldn’t take the bad part of his secret being known and put it to good use. At home, Peter was even upset with him. “My own stepson-manipulating the minds of millions!” No matter how hard Josh tried to explain to him that he was trying to make the world a better place, he wouldn’t bother listening. Josh had an idea of what would happen with the fame that he would acquire from his secret from the very beginning, that’s why he tried hard not to let his secret out. With the secret published and his life flipped inside out, Josh couldn’t take it anymore and he wanted to make it easier for everyone that was important to him. The only way out, he thought, was pseudocide.
ReplyDeleteThis is my evaluation of THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO LARRY. I, personally, thought that it was a very good choice for a summer read for us. However, I read through this book too easily which is more of a good thing than a bad, just unanticipated though. It’s a good thing since summer homework is usually never much fun. Although, I found reading this novel entertaining. I had anticipated a much more demanding read having seen my sisters go through this class’s summer reading, and they’re books took them much longer to finish and comprehend. I suppose that that may have been true for them seeing how they read different books that were set in time periods way before the present. I liked the fact that it was set in the present day. They didn’t use any accents or slang terms that I couldn’t apprehend like they do in LAY THAT TRUMPET IN OUR HANDS. I would not consider this book to be a religious read. Sure the author included some relevancy to religious teachings like the introductions to each part and calling each of Larry’s blogs a sermon, but other than that, I have no recollection of religious connections. I would be interested in following this story if it gave me answers to all the questions that I was left with after concluding this book. The ending was tremendously unexpected which is a plus since usually, I am able to predict the endings to most teen novels. All in all, I liked this novel and the readability.
ReplyDeleteThis novel is not as applicable as I thought it would be. I don’t usually blog or read “sermons” about anti-consumerism and that was a prominent part of this novel. The only way that this novel was germane to me was the fact that they had internet, blogs, Barbara Walters (page 149), festivals, cell phones, and all the things that are popular at this time. Some of the items that were mentioned in this book, I own. I do, occasionally, find myself fed up with society’s attachment to things and “junk” as Larry calls it. A few of the things that I wish people would stop buying is water bottles. Most people don’t recycle and they end up in landfills. Spend money on a good quality aluminum bottle, it’s better for your health and the earth. I am not familiar with the working conditions of the employees who make the goods that we purchase. I never see or read anything about it on the news or the newspapers. It’s a problem that has yet to be recognized, but I don’t think that it will be too big for us to contemplate and straighten out.
Janet Tashjian did do quite a bit of “name dropping” and I did pick up on some “biggies” while reading this novel. I noticed a few big newspapers such as the Boston Globe and the New York Post. Some television shows that I recognized were Larry King Live and 20/20. Pokémon, Beanie Baby, Sony Playstation, iMac, Nike, Gap, Reebok, and Adidas were only a few of the brand names and products that I could identify to those that are present in our lives today. One of the main “biggies” that stood out was U2. They are a band that is popular now. One thing that I would like to point out about U2 is that they don’t go for everything that Larry has “preached” to his fans. They are an advertiser for Blackberry. The author makes it relatable with the fact that they used product names that some of us have in our daily lives.
I thought as I read the book that Josh was the speaker. I, somewhat, believed that it was a true story, but I was wondering how Josh would continue to live his secretive, multiple identity life if he had it published as a book. Then, that made me realize that it was a fictional story. I do agree with what Alison said about Janet Tashjian using her views and traded it in to be a boy for the story. It was her way reaching out to teenagers and tell us about the way she feels about anti-consumerism.