I don't even know the full historical context, I don't know why there is a war in Syria and I'd love to make the time to sit down and really understand the political ins and outs but for now this is how I feel without any of that. I think, first of all, it's absolutely disgusting that the media chose only to adopt a sympathetic narrative (using the term "refugee" over "migrant") after the image of the boy on the beach was released. It makes you wonder how long we could have gone on treating these people with such vile disdain, had the image never have been taken. The boy would still have been found dead on a beach, just with no photographic evidence. The fact that it took a public reaction to the image for our government to show sympathy on the matter is terrifying. These people died before and after and during the release of the devastating image. I think it speaks volumes that people had to see the horrific realities of the Syrian crisis before they would acknowledge the problem, that it wasn't their issue until they were exposed to it despite the war beginning years ago. It makes me feel sick to my stomach that, in debates surrounding the refugee crisis, those advocating for more action in Europe have to adopt the argument that these people are human beings. They come from whatever country and are travelling for whatever reason and are still human beings. First and foremost. When these human beings are making life threatening journeys across dangerous land and seas just to escape, something is wrong. I don't understand how anyone can fault the intentions of these people; whether they're travelling for money or for safety they are all making these awful treks just for their cause. I couldn't possibly begin to imagine what thought processes must occur for someone with children and a partner to find the most viable option one which doesn't promise survival. We need to remove ourselves from the situation, allowing a wider perspective. Families with very young children are risking everything, sailing on tiny raft like structures across stupid lengths of water just to be met with an even longer journey ahead. 

Is Britain doing enough? I guess relatively, yes. But no. European countries, and saying that, the world in general, should be doing considerably more to help these people. Yes it is a good start and anything done to help these people is something, at least. But according to something I read in my Law lesson a few weeks ago, during the Balkan crisis we took in about 75,000 refugees a year and our infrastructure managed perfectly. We are taking in 20,000 refugees across 5 years. Additionally we're taking them from the camps in Syria which erases all the people already taking the dangerous journey across Europe.

I also wanted to briefly add that if someone is willing to go through those conditions and that physical hardship in order to gain the opportunities of a better life, how can we ridicule them? We were born with the right to these things so we can't put ourselves in that position, can't imagine facing near death experiences in the hope of a life we take for granted every day. If "economic migrants" are taking the same trip as people fleeing from war and conflict something is severely wrong with the infrastructure of the land they are leaving and we must treat the root cause, of course, but we have the capacity to offer these people opportunities that are given to us without a second thought. Why not them? I actually heard someone suggest the other day that we filter the people striving for citizenship in Britain so that only the best people are allowed through our borders. I shudder to think what would come of those deemed not worthy of our system. 

My thoughts are a bit of a mess here and I often change my mind on where I stand but all the same, it astounds me that arguing that these people are human beings is something that even needs to be pointed out. They never chose to be born into a country of warfare and corruption. You and I are blessed to have been born into a 1st world, western, developed country. From day one it was almost guaranteed that we would never have to put our lives in danger and make hellish travels across a continent to be safe or to find a better quality of life. What entitled me to that over someone born on Syrian soil? If you refrain from religious perceptions, what made me any better as a five year old child than the one lying dead on the beach? And why, knowing that we have this incredible privilege where we aren't caught in the middle of a war where our lives are endangered, can we not help? You aren't fucking superior to them just because you were lucky enough to have parents who chose to give you citizenship in this country. You literally are a human. They are literally humans. The difference between you is created by borders and it is those man made lines on a map which are making a frightening number of people be so against helping another human being in a situation out of their control. I've argued about this in school and people are so prone to suggesting that we have to protect Britain, British values and our culture. If British society dictates that we are too self-righteous and bigoted that we refuse to do everything we can (which, by the way, is a lot more than we are doing currently) to help these humans, then I'm ashamed. I feel honoured and lucky to be instilled with British values, to have been raised where I have been, and been provided with the education, food, healthcare etc that has been provided for me, which is why I can't quite believe the reaction of the public and the media narrative towards this issue. It's been disturbing and alarming and a genuine shock. 

As I said, this is just a random collection of what seems to run through my mind whenever the topic arises. I don't think I'm right, I'm not educated enough on the issue to give an informed opinion so this is just views which were products of my experiences and my own values. I also don't have a practical solution and it makes me want to curl up in a ball and cry when people argue back with: "Well, how do we solve it then?" I DON'T KNOW. I wish I did. But I have no idea and I am just emotionally whining over how we seem to have lost touch with the idea of humanity when I still believe so firmly in the solidarity of humankind.

I, of all people, know how hard it is to a) make time for reading and b) pick it up again after you haven't for so long. At the stat of this year and briefly in the summer I hardly read at all and couldn't break out of that slump for quite some time. You need to find the right book to crack it but also you need to dedicate the time to reading and to properly delve into the story. To do that, you could go really far and create the whole environment in hope that that is what you need; you could make a cup of tea with some biscuits, put some very tumblr aesthetic fairy lights on and play some music, although I can't really focus with most genres on. I tend to be comfiest reading in bed but change the way I'm lying/sitting honestly, about everything 3 pages. No one ever said reading wasn't ugly. (God, if the wind changed while I was reading...)

  So, make a good old cup of tea - a tiny bit of milk and one sugar is always the way forward. Don't fight me on this. EVER. A tidy room always helps although I tend to use reading as my reason not to tidy my room anyway, so... Definitely have the curtains closed unless you need to natural lighting, shut your door and make sure you're warm. As I said, sometimes I struggle with background noise, especially music, but that being said I do have a long list of musical recommendations for when you're settling down with a book. Film scores, I always find, are really excellent backing tracks if they fit the mood of your book and aren't too captivating. I will always, always recommend the film scores of Like Crazy, the Kiera Knightley version of Pride and Prejudice and also The Theory of Everything. Among others these are really wonderful pieces of music. Lucky for you, I created a Spotify playlist with all my favourite songs to play when I'm reading! Here it is: https://open.spotify.com/user/charlotteto/playlist/1sGe1pWhtR7ogxlGGxkWQT

On to the real cause for writing any of this: books which pull you out of that awful reading slump. There are a few that have always worked for me but I think it depends a lot on what you like to read. Don't push yourself to read anything you doubt you'll enjoy because that will only take you further away from it. If you're not a classics person, don't pick up Wuthering Heights and expect to be fine and dandy because it will create a psychological aversion to reading which, obviously, is the last thing you want. So, with that in mind, I'll mention a few that have made me want to read another 40 books and never stop. Attachments by Rainbow Rowell is just a really lovely read. It's very easy to read but it's story was different to a lot of things I had ever read and additionally, before anyone turns their nose up knowing Rowell as a primarily young adult author, this book is classified in the library as adult fiction. It's very entertaining for anyone who's still growing up now and wasn't able to comprehend their environment in 1999 (I was born in September of that year so, no, not in a state to process my surroundings). Set in that very year it follows a nerdy young man working at a company where his job is to read through emails of a company which have been flagged up for various reasons, usually inappropriate, non work related conversations. He falls in love with someone through her emails with her friend while also dealing with something which now seems ludicrous - at the turn of the millennium from 1999 to 2000 something called the Y2K bug was a massive issue. Essentially it involved the transition in terms of the date on computers when the year changed. (Read more here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_2000_problem). With their old technology an amusing contrast to our current advancements, it does make me smile. The love story is different and unique and gives an insightful perception to the superficiality of many relationships, with our two lovers not meeting until late on. Friendship is also a huge part of it and I think that it would be a really great read for a wide age range for various reasons. 

My second recommendation is a YA book. If you have any prejudice, either scroll down or get over yourself and give it a shot. It's not the most well written and, of course, it's a dystopian society. It's a book called The Program by Suzanne Young and I read it so quickly that I wondered how I'd ever stopped in the first place. The book is quite relatable despite its futuristic setting and I'd describe it as strangely topical, or at least aligned with the general narrative of social media. It deals with topics of suicide and physical indicative signs of depression as an illness. Having read it a while ago before I became more educated and aware of mental illnesses I couldn't say how accurate and sensitive it was, so I wouldn't recommend it if the topic is one you're dealing with yourself or is close to home. However when I did read it, I was out of my reading slump straight away regardless and that was the aim. I haven't read the second book in the series and have no inclination to, I wouldn't rate it in a literary sense at all but in terms of serving its purpose, definitely. 

Next is actually a "classic" but far from the horrifying syntax of things like Kerouac's On The Road. A Little Princess by  France's Hodgson Burnett is a children's novel published back in 1905. Since it is written for children it is such an easy read which really allows you, as an older reader, to devour the contents of the story. It has some really cool (is that the right word? I thought it was cool...) deeper meanings and areas for analysis as well as employing a timeless plot which will always have relevance in our society. It challenges your morals and forces you to place yourself in the shoes of various characters while also giving you insight into a 20th century experience which you might not have really had before. You'll read it in one sitting, maximum two, and I give a 90% promise that it'll propel your eagerness for reading instantly. As a teenager I think that I found it easy to relate with Sara who is mentally far beyond her years which, I think, was also a really cool concept of the book. Due to this I'd say that it will always be enjoyable to all ages as long as they accept the simple style of writing. 

Looking at my bookshelf there are loads more I'd love to mention. The One by Kiera Cass is another YA read which was equal parts amusing, stupid and enticing but with such mixed reviews I couldn't recommend it. Things like Anna and the French Kiss by Stephanie Perkins and that whole series are fantastic if you're on board with mushy, textbook romance with some unique and well written characters. Harry Potter is an obvious one and the first book alone is so quick and fun that it should put you back on track whether it's your first of 50th time reading the novel. Ballet Shoes by Noel Streatfeild is another 20th century wonder written for a young audience with the sweetest, loveliest plot and characters which I absolutely adore. My main piece of advice is to allocate the time and ensure the book is right - read something you've read and loved before and go for something simple and quick. I really do rate the children's novels of the 1900s. If you're still stuck for ideas there's a bunch of YouTube videos on this, but my first port of call would always be my mum (who is also a librarian, like me!), my English teachers, and the Internet. 

P.S with books like A Little Princess and Ballet Shoes which I've owned my whole life, I'd more than happily lend them out to people who know me in real life! Hit me up. ;) 

Charlotte. X 

P.P.S How does a post on reverse racism or rape sound next? I've been quite rant-y so far this week and I need a healthy outlet. Also I feel like a sexuality and gender awareness post is in order. Let me know :)