The end of this movie completely destroyed the image that the book was trying to create. Through out the book Arnold Friend played the role of the devil, where this was completely dismissed in end of the movie. The mythological being that is personified by Arnold Friend is not an entity that just comes knocking at your door and then leaves you alone. Imagery of the book was trying to suggest that when Connie finally accepted her fate she was instantly drug to hell. Being devastated from the night before Connie took her own life allowing herself to meet face to face with the devil. This image is completely ruined when it was put into the movie version though. The movie ended by Connie letting Arnold friend have his way with her, and then accepting what happened. In making it so Connie's actions didn't haunt her for the rest of her life it made it so the movie version of Arnold Friend could not possibly be the devil. A pact with the devil is not something that doesn't readily go away, and essentially that is what Connie has created in giving herself to Arnold Friends. How is it possible for Arnold Friend to be the devil if Connie has no long term consequences. I'm really trying to make the point that the imagery of the movie is opposite of the imagery that the book was trying to create. Arnold Friend becomes nothing more then a mere petafile. When all things are said and done the book personified him as something more then human, where the movie just makes it so he is some creep that happened to swoo Connie.

Imagination, something that i have been trying to capture for the last 19 years of my life. We always talk about imagination, but what does it really mean. Are you imagining something if you are being suggested to? I'm trying to say when i read a story is it my imagination that tells me how the characters look and act, or is it the imagination of the story to teller to convey this message to me? If the latter is is true then I don't think that I have ever really imagined anything original. Has anyone really. I mean all stories and based off the principles of other stories. Even this blog was conveyed off an idea that was probably given to me by someone else somewhere in my life. I think that is why reading books is critical, and why understanding them is even more critical, its not about learning to create our own brand new scenario, but instead to be able to manipulate a preexisting one in a way to stimulate peoples interest. If everyone imagines the same things based on the stories that we read, then really isn't our society in some way based upon these images? Doesn't using an archetype that we all understand, such as Arnold Friend mean that really we all have an imagination construct based off the way we were raised? Everyone in the class has come to the conclusion that Arnold Friend is suppose to be the Devil, but if our experiences were of a different tradition (such as eastern based stories) would we come to this same conclusion?What I'm really trying to ask is do stories define a culture? 

Why are killers always villianized

Though the corse of reading one begins to see that that the villain of these stories is always kind of a weird guy thats only real purpose is to cause ruckus in the world. There is a flaw with this logic though, isn't the murder just playing his crucial role. He is just there to create the story, with out him no critical event would happen, meaning there would really be no story. Instead of instantly blaming seducer shouldn't we take into account the one being seduced. The common theme in these stories is that some kind of weird guy picks up an innocent girl and then has his way with them. A crucial fact that we always miss is that the girls are willing picked up. There is never a struggle, the girls happily go with these murders. The funniest part about it is that none the murders seem to be charismatic or even good looking. These girls are often looking for trouble, and trouble just happens to find them. There may be a better case to say that the innocent girls are the villains, not there murdering counterpart.

The girls are the ones that hurt their families, not the murders. This is shown by Alleen Rowe. Alleen had a perfectly fine life, she was smart, pretty, and had a good mom. This was obviously not good enough for her though. Instead of being contempt with life, she had to push the limits, she hung out with kids that she obviously shouldn't have been around. She was hanging out with 19 year old boys when she was only 15. Its pretty obvious what type of person a 19 year old hanging out with a 15 year old is. Really nothing good can ever come out pf this type of situation. In the end Alleen was dead and really it was her own fault. Instead of waiting for herself to grow up, she tried to jump the gun and act more mature then she really was. She ended up dying because of this. Alleens death hurt her mother but was it really the serial killers fault? There are always going to be killers in the world, thats just a fact of life, so isn't it our job to not get stuck in a situation where someone will potentially hurt us? In the end these girls where looking for trouble and that is just what they found. So maybe it is more important to look at the flaws of the innocent girls then those of the serial killers.