In the beginning of the book Stanley is overweight and unpopular at school. Stanley changes
during the story. How do you think his classmates will view him when he returns to school in
the fall?

I think that Derrick will stop bullying Stanley, after he sees his muscles. And if he doesn't, Stanley will probably teach him a lesson and Derrick will then find someone else to bother. Other than becoming stronger, I think Stanley's classmates will view him as pretty much the same, because they don't know why he really went to a camp. They think that he was just sent to a camp where you have fun. If somehow they found out that he had been accused of committing a crime, then Stanley's classmates might be a bit scared of him and Stanley would still be a loner, only in a different way. Instead of being a loser loner he would be a freak of nature loner.

When Stanley returns to school in the fall, I also think that Derrick will stop bullying Stanley, or at least he'll try and then he'll probably fail. Also, it's possible that once people see that Stanely can beat up Derrick, the other kids will see him in a new light, sort of like protecter.

I think that his friends will be impressed since he lost so much weight while digging all those holes. Also, I think that he must have had a pretty darn good tan from that much sun..........very nice.

O ya, he'll also stop being bullied by what's his name??..........Derrick now that he's got those super nice muscles.

I agree with everyone that Derrick will probably stop bullying him. I also think that he will get made fun of a bit when the kids find out that he really didn't go to a camp at all, but a camp for bad kids.

Well then heres a twist. Maybe he will become the next Derrick. He has obviously become alot tougher and we already have stated that he's become stronger at Camp Green Lake, so maybe first he'll get Derrick to stay away from him and then get made fun of by the kids at school when he went to a camp for bad kids. Then he would maybe beat them up and become a bully. It could happen.

I agree. Wow! I never thought of it like that......... maybe turntablist is right. ya........cool.

I bet that since Stanley "worked out" so much by digging holes, he's a lot skinnier, and stronger than he was, and that way, I doubt that Derrick will mess with him. Maybe, he will become like the strong dude or something. I think that he will have more friends and be at least a little more popular.

I think that his classmates would view him as more of a regular person, which is what they should have done in the first place. I think that Derrick might try to bully him again but he will see how Stanley has become fitter and more self confident (i think) and then hopefully, he won't pick on Stanley anymore. I also think though, that if Derrick keeps bullying Stanley, the other kids might keep on making fun of him even if it is just behind his back for fear of Derrick. Or, as turntablist said, if Stanley becomes the "bully", than maybe derrick will be in that situation, but from Stanley'S personality, I don't think that that will happen. (and i should hope it won't because i think that from being bullied, you should learn that its not nice, nor a good experience and so you should treat other people the way you would like/would've liked to be treated)

I don't think that Stanley will become a bully, because he had a lot of problems at school before going to the Camp, and if he became a bully he would also become the exact same person he hated.

Hm....good point Kuliogirl.

I think that that is a good piont kuliogirl, and I agree that that would be becoming exacly the same person whom he hated. But then again, you have to think about the fact that he hates the people who bully him, and if he becomes bigger/stronger than they are, then he might feel like getting back at them and that would be bullying in its own right. so hopefully he won't become a bully but then again, would you if you were in his position? I know everyone's been taught, don't bully/be mean to anyone but if you wanted to be mean to just one or two, people, that would still be bullying, just not everyone. So just think about it. hopefully no one would and hopefully stanley won't, but you always feel as if you have a good reason even if you know you shouldn't.

247reader, I agree with you when you say that he might feel like getting back at them, the bullies, but I think he's learned better then that at the camp. After all, he did spend nearly the entire summer there. I'm confident that he's confident in himself now, confident enough in himself that he doesn't need revenge. Nobody really has a reason to tease him anymore, because he's lost weight and he's stronger, not to mention he's rich and his dad's famous. I'll bet that seeing Derrick not able to taunt or tease him anymore will be enough for him not to bully Derrick or anybody else. If that makes sense.

ya, if i were stanley yelnats, and i had new found muscles, I know for sure that I'd wanna get back at that bully who was mean to me...

I think that kuliogirl has a good point and i agree and i really hope that stanley has learned that and doesn't bully the bullies back just because he's strong. But then again, he might think that now that he's strong, he can do pretty much whatever but I agree with you when you say that you think he's learned better from staying at the "camp" because I think that he has as well. But you could make a really good argument for both scenarios and I think that either would be very likely and I think that Stanley would be justified either way although, you should really treat people the way that you want to be treated and I would hope that Stanley, or nobody for that matter, would choose to bully just because they had muscles and had been bullied before.

Even though I understand what you are saying, I'd like to contradict your thoughts. Because STanely went through such a hard time in Camp, I doubt that he'll become mean or act like a bully. Remember how he carries Hector (I think that's his name) up the mountain?
Anyways, if anything, I think he might become a little stuck up, but never a bully. I seriously doubt that he'll ever bully anyone, ever. He knows that he's better then the guys who attempt to bully him, and I don't believe that he'll stoop down to their level.

One of the themes of this story is to remain hopeful even though the situation is bad. Which instance of this feeling struck you? Do you usually feel this way?

I'm afraid I don't understand this question very well. Can anyone explain it?

"Which instance of this feeling struck you?"
Does this mean what part of the book with this feeling struck you?

There were several instances in which this happened and which one of them struck you the most. That's what the question means. Umm...i'd have to think about that one and I don't have the book with me right this second so i'll get back to you on that one. Do I usually feel this way, I'd have to say probably not. For instance, I always say, and grown-ups say as well, to always be optimistic about things, and so I seem to be optimistic and looking at the bright side, but inside, and my actual thoughts generally think, "I don't think so." Anyways, sometimes, when I'm in a good mood though, I'll really be optimistic but that isn't that often since most of the things that I hope for, are huge accomplishments that will take a lot of work. But I do take a postive approach to them, even if I think that I won't be able to do it, I'll work towards it anyways, and if I don't accomplish it, i'll say, i'll do it next time, and work all the harder. So in a way, I do take an optimistic approach to things, just like the book's theme is saying.

Okay, I'm not certain if I am answering this question correctly or not, but here goes. A part in Holes where I thought Stanely remained hopeful even though the situation was bad was when he and Hector were climbing up the mountain with no food, no water, and Hector sick. He carried on, and everything ended up being okay in the end. They found the onions and water, and when they got back to camp, all the events from then ended up becoming a happy ending for Stanley and Hector. As for me, I suppose that I keep a little hope even if a situation is difficult, like if I have a test the next day and I haven't studied, or if I have a large project due the next day that I haven't finished. In those sort of situations, although I panick severely, there remains a little portion of my mind that says in a miniscule voice, "You can do it! Stay up as late as you need to, just make sure you get it done!" That voice helps me out a lot sometimes.

I'm sorry. My question was not clear. Thank you, 247 Reader for restating it. I was thinking about the time when Zero was off on his own and Stanley was hoping that Zero would find the Big Thumb. Stanley, against great odds, told himself that it was not impossible

Usually, I am like that, too. I see the glass that is half-full, not half-empty. I prefer the excitement and energy connected with thinking things will turn out well, as opposed to the anxiety and negativity involved in planning for the worst. When I am right, great. When I am wrong, I try to make the best of it and move on.

Well........I sometimes just see the glass as too large........
But I agree with kuliogirl about it striking me most when Stanley and Zero are climbing Big Thumb. It also especially struck me when Stanley drops the bag down the mountain but goes back to find it and pick it up again.

I don't know about me seeing the glass as half full rather than half empty. As kuliogirl said, when she said that the miniscule voice says "stay up as late....just get it done". Well, I kind of have a lot of experience from doing things last minute. I procrastinate tons. I never do anything until it needs to be done. I have managed to adapt to that habbit by being able to get anything done in as little time as possible. I always get things done with about 2 minutes to spare and so I kind of have that little voice that says to me, "you've done this soooooooooo many times before, don't worry cause you're gonna get it done now". I generally do things like that. So in a way, it's looking at the glass half full, but in another way, its something totally different.

I guess I never give up. I try to remain optimistic most of the time too. Turntablist said this too, but it struck me most when Stanley drops the bag and he goes down to find it.

I have an odd way of optimism... it's that the glass is half empty.. of tomato juice, and half full of some liquid that I enjoy drinking. I am sort of like Nonsense that I try to remain optimistic, but sometimes, even when I have time to finish homework and projects, I slack off and draw or something like that. It's often problematic.

I am hardly ever optimistic about anything. I always procrastinate. I try to think about things in a positive way, but its very difficult sometimes. You know what? This is starting to sound more like a "Procrastinators Anonymous" group than a book discussion group.

I agree with Turntablist, this conversation is off on a tangent.
I suppose Stanley never really had a reason to be optimistic before, because he and his family always had bad luck. (his dirty, no good pig stealing great great great grandfather or something like that was their reason for this), but after he carried Hector up the hill, his luck changed...I'll bet that if Louis Sachar cared to make a sequel, Stanley would be a more confident, optimistic person.

Who is the most important character in the book? Why?

Go to <http://www.kidsreads.com/wordscrambles/word-holes.asp> for a word scramble with the names of many of the characters in the story.

I think the most important character is Stanley because the whole story is about him. He fights with his feelings, friends, and the people that accuse him of stealing the shoe. He saves Zero and finds and guards Kate Barlow's belongings. This story is about his life from when the shoe dropped on him until he goes on the commercial with "Sweet Feet"

I agree with Nonsense. Stanely Yelnats is probably the protagonist, the main character, in this story. He is described the most, and as Nonsense said, the whole story is about how he starts with no luck, and ends up nearly becoming a millionaire.

I agree with everyone in that Stanley is the most important character. Without him, the book would never had taken place and the boys would still be at the camp, diging holes. However, since the book is a huge web, with two stories that interweave, every character is important. If you try to take out one character, you see that X would never have happened, and then Y would never had happened, and then you realize the story wouldn't work out if that character weren't there. All of the characters in Holes play a large part.

A note to the administrator:
I just realized that the thing that says the time the messages were posted is an hour ahead of the real time.

This is a time test. My watch reads 10:15 AM.

Thank you; I must have been off somehow.

I agree with you, Sage. After I thought about it a little bit, there wouldn't be much of a story without Zero and X-Ray and the Warden. However, I am sort of annoyed that you used algebraic variables :p

Well I actually disagree. I think that even though the characters whom the story revolves around are people like Stanley and Zero, I think that Sam, Kate, Stanley's great to the 5th grandfather, and Madame Zeroni are the most important characters, because without them there REALLY would be no story. If each of them hadn't done what they did, it would not have set off a chain of events that led to Stanley's bad luck and Stanley's grandfather being on God's Thumb and so forth. Of course, I guess this all depends on whether or not you really think that there was a curse or not.

I thought that the story about Kate and Stanley's no good dirty rotton pig stealing great great great great great grandfather and madame Zeroni was really fascinating. Until you read through the entire book at least twice, you wouldn't understand what was going on, becuause it's very complicated. I agree with Turntablist that it's the reader's opinon as to if the bad luck was actually caused by Madame Zeroni, or if it was just a coincidence.

I think that there is no "most important" character because if one character was left out of the book, the book wouldn't be the same. It might be able to have the same plot and so forth, but you'd be missing part of it and it wouldn't be the same book. Every single character in the book plays a part in making Holes the book it is. If you had one character "out of place" or completely not in the story, you might call holes something totally different. There are main characters in books, the protagonists, but I don't think that there really can be "most important" characters because there is no such thing. When you state, "these people are the most important people", it's like saying that those people make up the entire story line and if one other person was left out, it wouldn't matter, which isn't true. Then again...(i'll get back to you on argument number two which mostly contradicts my prior thinking.)

Hmm, a little redundant there, 247reader. A contemplatable comment none-the-less, however. I still strongly believe that the protagonist is Stanley Yelnats. After all, the author did use the extra time to create an interesting name, that reads both ways, for Stanley, and the way that this fact played into the story as you approach the end was fascinating in my opinion.

I'm always redundant, I've learnt to live with it. But that'S not the point. Different people have different opinions I know, but kuliogirl, we're not talking about who the protagonist is, we're talking about who the most important character is. I think that most everyone would agree that Stanley is the protagonist. The most important character is a harder decision to make. The author didn't take extra time JUST for Stanley's name to be "original" either. Just because you can read a name back to front doesn't make it highly original. There are some other original names in this book as well, even though they don't read back to front. ex. Madame Zeroni, Zero, X-ray, they're all names you don't hear every day. I'm still sticking to my opinion that everyone in the book makes the book what it is, but then again, I guess this could get into a highly debatable topic. lol. We could do a debate on it in soc. instead of the 1st amendment. Now that would be fun/funny.

One more thing, the time is off again, because my watch currently reads 9:06 pm

Yes, that would be quite interesting!! Also, easier, but I suppose that easiness is not the point in our debate!
Also, as classreader247 says, the time is off. it is nine thirty-ish now.

er.. not classreade247, just 247reader.Sorry everyone.

What makes _Holes_ such a good (or bad) book?

What makes Holes such a good book is because at first, you are confused at the events, and are wondering what is happening. Then, as you procede to finish it, all the stories fit together like pieces in a puzzle, and suddenly the story becomes clear.

I think that what makes Holes a really great, well-written book is that there are many stories that combine together. Every different story has some piece of information that is crucially important to another part of the book. It is interesting how when you first read the book there may be one story and when you read it you think, 'What is this here for? It has nothing to do with the story!' but then, later on, you realize how important it is to the overall story.

I think that what makes Holes a nice book, is how when you think you have a handle on what is happening for the plot, it changes almost entirely. It also has a good sort of ambience to it. I find that when I read descent books, from the start, it has a sort of feel for it, for the way the author writes and for how the character acts. This one had an ambience that reminded me of the word "Tree". If I like the word it reminds me of, I like the book. The word "Tree" is a nice word, not the best, but up there in the top thousand somewhere, so I think that this is a pleasant book. I'm not sure if that answers your question, but this is how I classify I good book.

Actually, I didn't think that Holes was such a good book contrary to what everyone was telling me. Everyone was saying that Holes was a very good book and I should read it but when I did, I didn't think that highly of it. I've got to go at the moment but I'll get back to you on that.

The best part about the book, I must say, is that moment when everything suddenly clicks together. For me, this happened while Stanley and Hector were in the ditch with the lizards. Because they had eaten the onions, they were saved from the lizards. Because Kissin' Kate robbed Stanley's ancestor of his riches, Stanley was able to discover it in a ditch, and recover his rightful belongings. In my opinion, Holes was a wonderful book.
When you first read it, you don't really understand why the author inserts the short stories about Sam and Kate and Mary Lou the Donkey, but you realize that those stories are the history of Camp Green Lake, and that basically everything that happened in that area hundreds of years prior to Stanley's imprisonment in it is connected to his plight.
That is what was truly great about this book, and it reminds me of the way Harry Potter is written as well. Throughout the books there are subtle clues to another large story, like how in Harry Potter and the Sorceror's Stone, we learn that the Dursley's live next to Arabella Figg, who later turns out to be a witch. I have my suspicions that she will be the next Defense Against the Dark Arts teacher. Well, this is why I believe that Holes was a fantastic book.

The best part of Holes is when all the parts of the book add up and fit together like a puzzle. I liked the part where Stanly finds his no good dirty rotten pig stealing great grandfather's suitcase. I liked this part because he was stuck in the ditch doomed to die worrying about everything but it turns out ok. I also liked the fact that Stanly was always hopeful even in the worst situations.

I don't seem to be ableto get to the HHGG discussion. is there something wrong or is it just not up yet?

Wi.. I mean, Dont_Panic42, I don't think that the HHGG discussion is up yet, due to the fact that there is no link that takes you there.

oh ok Ma... I mean, kuliogirl, thanks.

Sorry it's taken me a while to get back to you on my thoughts. I didn't think that Holes was all that good of a book. A lot of people reccommended it to me, but when I read it, I didn't find it nearly as good as everyone was saying. Maybe that's just because I don't like the style of book. I agree with kuliogirl when she says that the book is written like Harry Potter, but i don't think that makes it good. The storyline in Harry Potter is so much more intriguing. Holes I found rather boring compared to Harry Potter. With Harry Potter, even if you can predict the ending, J.K. Rowling adds so much detail and good descriptions with extremely good choices of vocabulary. I thought that Holes was written rather bluntly but that may be just me. Everybody has there own opinions and that's mine.