What is lost by turning sadness into salsa dance? (Tragedy)

Dear fellow scholars and lovely anonymous readers,
I'm sure you are all familiar with William Shakespeare's "Romeo and Juliet" and are most likely familiar with the musical adaptation "West Side Story" with Arthur Laurents, Leonard Bernstein, Stephen Sondheim and Jerome Robbins. Upon it's opening, "West Side Story" was an instant hit. People felt they could connect to the musical more than the play because they understand gangs and gunfights. Most audiences did not have first-hand knowledge of family feuds and sword-fights. The bests parts of "Romeo and Juliet" are included in "West Side Story". The musical has humor, love and death.  

Yet, what is lost by turning sadness into salsa dance?


 The Depth of Characters:
Although "West Side Story" has parallel characters to "Romeo and Juliet" (Tony is Romeo/ Maria is Juliet) the characters also have their differences. "West Side Story" can be seen in under two hours while reading "Romeo and Juliet" really well can take days. Since the musical has less time to present the characters, they also have less time to add depth to the characters. Tony is shown as a young man in love, yes, however, his songs do not hold the poetry that Romeo's lines do because A.) They are quite repetitive (Maria!Maria!) and B.) Let's be honest, no one can write quite like Shakespeare. Also "Romeo and Juliet" does have characters used for comic relief but not to the extent that "West Side Story" does. I can think of three "West Side Story" songs off the top of my head that have no other purpose than to make the audience laugh. I really think this draws away from the sense of tragedy in the end. There was too much laughter to distract from the sadness at the end.

The Death of Characters:
 I think the main difference between the deaths in "Romeo and Juliet" and the deaths in "West Side Story" is that in "West Side Story" the Juliet character (Maria) doesn't die. What's up with that? Tragedy, according to the lovely long packets that Ms. Pyle assigned us, is when characters are taken from a high place to a low place. In "Romeo and Juliet", Romeo and Juliet are taken from being happily in love to...dead. Great ending. Yet in "West Side Story", Maria doesn't die. She has a life ahead of her. She has a chance for hope, for love, for children. Therefore, I declare that "West Side Story" is not a perfect tragedy because it doesn't have a perfect tragic ending. 
The ending also tries to say too much about gang-life. The whole musical is a social commentary on immigrants, gangs, and how in the end all our young people will destroy each other. Basically. This distracts from the tragedy of it all. It makes people think beyond the characters and into the real world. 

What is gained?
Lets be honest. Our generation has the attention span of an ant and can sit through a musical full of lights, dancing and gunshots more easily that one of Shakespeare's plays (No matter how eloquent the prose may be. It does work as a good social commentary although I think that distracts from the tragic aspect of the musical. Also the dancing is great. Super great.
 

A closer look at Victorian tea time (CC)

In AP Literature and Composition, my class just read "The Importance of Being Earnest" by Oscar Wilde. "The Importance of Being Earnest" presents a lot of social criticisms on the Victorian Era and satirizes just about everything one could think of to satirize. A lot of the acts in this play occur during "tea-time". This idea of tea-time was used in the Victorian era by those in the upper class for two main reasons. 1.) It broke up the long break without food between breakfast in dinner, as at that time, lunch was non-existent. 2.) It provided an excuse for socialization. It was perfectly acceptable and polite to invite friends or even people of the opposite gender (*gasp) over for tea. Since all the characters in "The Importance of Being Earnest" were part of the upper class their tea consisted of muffins, cake and pastries. "Tea-time" for the lower classes would more likely have meat, cheese and whatever they could come up with for a small mid-afternoon meal.

Tea-time for the upper class:


Tea-time for the poor:

 

Tea-time is still very much apparent in the lives of Europeans today. Aprilynne Pike captures this love of tea in her book, Illusions, by saying“As far as her mom was concerned, tea fixed everything. Have a cold? Have some tea. Broken bones? There's a tea for that too. Somewhere in her mother's pantry, Laurel suspected, was a box of tea that said, 'In case of Armageddon, steep three to five minutes'.”

 The Queen of England often has over important people to tea to socialize. It's used as an excuse to wear large garden hats and gossip. There are also a lot of rules of how to drink, eat and talk while attending a tea with someone. In "The Importance of Being Earnest" Oscar Wilde highlights these rules by having his characters continually break them. Algernon eats all the finger sandwiches before his guests arrive and Cecily serves Gwendolyn things she doesn't want to show her anger. In "How to read literature like a Professor" the author remarked upon how sharing a meal with someone (or a Tea) can create a feeling of intimacy or friendship. However when things go badly in a meal (or tea) it symbolizes conflict and hidden animosity.

 

Fun myths about the discovery of tea:

Some say that in 2737 BC the Emperor of China, Shennong, was drinking some boiled water when a few leaves from a nearby tree flew into it. He decided he liked the taste and popularized it.

Another more gruesome tale says that Bodhidharma, the founder of Chan Buddhism, accidentally fell asleep for eight years. When he woke up he cut off his eyelids out of anger with himself and the eyelids fell to the ground and turned into tea-bushes.

I'm not making this up. I kind of wish I was.

 

On a different note, I'm going to include some recipes of things upper-class people would eat during Tea-time in the Victorian age:

Simple Petit Fours

Recipe Type: Cake, Afternoon Tea and High Tea, Dessert
Yields: 20 to 24 petit fours
Prep time: 30 min

Ingredients:

1 (16-ounce) frozen Sara Lee® Pound Cake*
1 jar raspberry jam
2 cans Vanilla Frosting
Cake frosting paste (your choice)
Wilton Pearlized Pink Sugar Pearls (see photo on right)

* Available in the frozen section of your local grocery store.

Preparation:

Using a sharp knife, slice the pound cake horizontally into three (3) layers.

Spread raspberry jam over the top of two (2) layers only; placing one layer on top of the other layer. Then place the 3rd layer on top and cut the cake into approximately 1-inch squares; set aside.

Heat one (1) can of vanilla frosting in the microwave for 15 to 20 seconds (it should look like the consistency of heavy cream); remove from microwave and stir. Stir in small amount of food coloring paste, of your choice, to make a pastel color. NOTE: I use a toothpick to pick up a small amount of paste and add it to the frosting. Use a fresh toothpick each time you need more paste because you don't want frosting in your paste. The liquid-type food coloring will dilute your frosting and that's why I use the paste. Repeat with the second can of frosting, using a different food coloring paste of your choice. NOTE: You may need to reheat your frosting to keep it at spreading consistency as the fat content of the frosting causes it to thicken fast.

Over a cookie sheet or the bowl, hold each petit four on top of a large fork and drizzle the warm frosting over it to completely cover. Place on a drying rack and top with three (3) small Pink Sugar Balls or decor of your choice. Set aside to let dry and the frosting to harden.

Place in pretty cupcake cups and store in refrigerator until ready to serve.

Makes approximately 20 to 24 petit fours.

.

Cucumber Tea Sandwich (Please get the book reference ;))

Recipe Type: Sandwich, Afternoon Tea & High Tea, Cucumbers
Yields: 8 whole sandwiches
Prep time: 10 min

Ingredients:

 

1/2 seedless cucumber, peeled and very thinly sliced (about 32 slices)
1/2 cup unsalted butter, room temperature
1/2 cup coarsely-chopped watercress leaves
16 slices best-quality white bread*
Salt to taste
1/2 cup alfalfa sprouts

* Choose the best-quality white or wheat bread as possible. Never serve end slices. Freezing the bread before cutting and then spreading makes for easier handling.

Preparation:

Place cucumber slices between layers of paper towels to remove excess moisture.

In a small bowl, combine butter and watercress; spread on one side of each slice of bread.

Lay cucumber slices onto the buttered side of eight (8) slices of bread. Sprinkle the cucumbers with salt. Cover each with 1 tablespoon alfalfa sprouts and top with the remaining slices of bread, buttered side down.

Carefully cut the crusts from each sandwich with a long, sharp knife after the sandwiches are filled. Cut the sandwiches in half diagonally and then cut in half again. If desired, decorative shapes can be made with cookie cutters.

Yields 8 whole sandwiches or 16 halves or 32 fourths.

 
 

 

Why I personally dislike the art movement of Mannerism (FW)

What is Mannerism?
Mannerism was a 60 year art historical period that started around the end of the Italian High Renaissance (1520) and continued until the start of the Baroque Period (1580). It is characterized by distorted body proportions (freakishly long necks and long legs), irrational settings, precarious poses and tension. 

Now, why do I hate it so much?
  That is a much more difficult question. Whether or not art is good is completely subjective. The things that bothered me most about Mannerism might appeal to another person's tastes. I can't say that Mannerism is bad or good because that is a opinion. However, I can state why I personally found it so completely disturbing.

Why I found Mannerism disturbing:
1.) Body Proportions
This painting by Parmigiano is correctly named "Madonna with the Long Neck" (1534)
Check out how huge that baby is. No baby should be THAT BIG. No neck should be THAT long. We can assume that Parmigiano mean the body proportions to be unrealistic, but why? I can't really understand his reasoning except that there are a lot of normal-necked "Madonna with child" paintings and mannerist artists liked to be original.
2.) I'm claustrophobic...
and the colors...
   This painting is "Entombment" by Pontormo (1528). The body proportions are not excessively stretched in this artwork which is a plus, however I am bothered by the color scheme and the act that Pontormo crammed ten people into a painting that should have held three. All the people are so distracting that I feel I can't focus on what the painting means. It takes me a few seconds to find Jesus each time I look at this painting because everything else is SO DISTRACTING. Also Pontormo chooses to uses pastels in his interpretation of the entombment of Christ which I feel is a bit too cheery for the situation.

 3.) Uncomfortable subject matter
  (1545)  "Venus, Cupid, Folly and Time" by Bronzino
Since the Renaissance was such a period of artistic growth and exploration, those in the Mannerist movement realized that they had little to explore other than new subject matter. This is how we arrive at a disturbing portrayal of a grown Cupid in an affair with his mother, Venus. I really like they symbolism of other parts of the portrait such as Folly carrying flowers and jealousy looking on with anguish but the whole mother-son relationship is too disturbing to look past. 
4.)Art for the Artist's sake
 "The Rape of the Sabine Woman" -Giambologna
I love this sculpture. The emotion is shown so clearly in the body position and it really shows off incredible artistic technique. This sculpture is so good that when I first saw it I felt that it might have that ability to redeem the Mannerist period. Then I researched it... Giambologna created this piece for no other reason that to show off his own artistic ability. I felt duped. I had felt like this sculpture makes so many statements, and I was truly dissapointed when I realized it wasn't meant to make any. The structure of this is still really impressive though. I'll admit that.

Reasons why Mannerism is okay
Mannerism really worked to push everyone outside of their comfort zones. Artists took on risky material and tried out new methods of creating a scene which were unheard of in the Renaissance. It's awesome that society allowed them this much artistic freedom and expression. I just didn't really like the products. However, I can appreciate the fact that Mannerism elicited such strong emotions from me. I'm sure the artists realized at the time that what they were creating would outrage a lot of people. I respect that they went on to create the art anyways. 

What would happen if our society followed the Old Testament? (IR)

For my Independent Reading, I read "A Handmaid's Tale."
It was incredibly disturbing.
The premise of the book was that the United States of America had been divided into different warring religious sects and the one that held the most power, the Republic of Gilead, was a branch of Christianity that took the Old Testament and New Testament at it's word. Many don't interpret the bible literally nowadays because many aspects of it are a bit out of date. The main outdated aspect that is exemplified in "A Handmaid's Tale" is the Bible's views toward women. Since I have read only catches of the Bible I decided that I needed to do some biblical research after reading the book just to make sure that everything the futuristic society made into law regarding woman was actually from the bible. Scarily enough, it was. Here is what I found from my research.
Biblical Quotes and how they connect to "A Handmaid's Tale":
 1.) To the woman he said, "I will greatly multiply your pain in childbirth. In pain you will bring forth children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you."-Genesis
 In the Republic of Gilead, women are allowed no anesthetics in childbirth so that they can fully feel the pain of birth. They are also most certainly "ruled over" by their husbands.
2.)“When Rachel saw that she bore Jacob no children, she envied her sister; and she said to Jacob, Give me children or I shall die! Then she said, Here is my maid Bilhah; go in to her, that she may bear upon my knees, and even I may have children through her.’”
This is where the Republic of Gilead got the inspiration for handmaids. Handmaids are basically mistresses sent out by the government to create children for families when the wife cannot conceive.  They take the scripture so seriously that in order to "follow scripture" the handmaids from Gilead must actually conceive the baby while resting on the wife's knees. No kidding.
3.)“I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.” (1 Timothy 2:12)
In the Republic of Gilead, women are not allowed to learn, or to read. Even the Bible must be read by a man.

I don't know what else to say about this book other than it made me seriously frightened of all religion. It also made me think of "Imagine" by Paul McCartney. Do you think we'd be better off with no religion? I'm not sure. Religion can do a great deal of good, but when misinterpreted  or given too much power it can do a great deal of evil. 

Invictus

Invictus
by W.E. Henley
Out of the night that covers me,
Black as the Pit from pole to pole,
I thank whatever gods may be
For my unconquerable soul.
In the fell clutch of circumstance
I have not winced nor cried aloud.
Under the bludgeonings of chance
My head is bloody, but unbowed.
Beyond this place of wrath and tears
Looms but the horror of the shade,
And yet the menace of the years
Finds, and shall find me, unafraid.
It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishments the scroll,
I am the master of my fate;
I am the captain of my soul.

If "Invictus" is not one of the most popular poems of all time, it is at least among the most well-known. Many scholars trash "Invictus" because it is very unspecific and does not clearly state what circumstance the poem is about. Frankly, this is the very reason that I love it. "Invictus" is like abstract art. The basic picture can be clearly seen, but what people make of the picture can vary drastically.


Most people recognize the theme of holding strong against adversity in "Invictus". The author, Henley struggled with arthritis throughout his life, and many believed that the poem was about his winning struggle against the affliction. Many interpret it to have a much deeper meaning and connection to their own lives. The poem was a central part of the movie "Invictus" which focused on South Africa's apartheid movement and Nelson Mandela's strength when he was imprisoned. Because the poem is non-specific to what the specific adversity the author is facing, the poem can be used in new revolutionary ways.
Also after doing some research on this poem, I became interested in the Christian message behind the poem. "how strait the gate" and "charged with punishment the scroll" are direct references to biblical scripture. One could see this reference to mean that the author is holding strong against death or fear of death. Or, perhaps more morbidly, it may mean that the author is giving into death. They are "the captain of their soul" and therefore cannot be spiritually harmed by physical torment ("bloody but unbowed") that happens on earth. There are so many ways to look at this poem. Whichever way one looks at it, it is a poem of great strength and passion. Memorize it and recite it in your head when you are facing hardship or find yourself not being able to stand up for yourself. It helps.

Invictus translates to "Unconquerable"

Magical Metaphors and Terrific Tropes (CC)

Throughout class the last week, we have been discussing different tropes(types of figurative language).
Tropes are everywhere.
In literature, in language, in jokes, and funnily enough, blog posts
This brought me to consider, where would our language be without tropes.
Well, language would be very concrete. There would be no comparisons, no exaggeration, and little room for hidden meaning. Every single writer and poet would be out of a job. More than that, everyone would be forced to talk like robots due to the absence of tropes. There would be no freedom. Our language exists the way it does only because there is room for expression and metaphors and irony.
So this is my love-note to tropes. I have hand-picked a few of my favorites and I will share them with you.
Metaphors:
1.) "He fell for her like his heart was a mob informant and she was the
East River."
2.) "He wanted to set sail on the ocean of love but he just wasted away in the desert."
Similes:
1.)"Her vocabulary was as bad as, like, whatever"
2.) "The plan was simple, like my brother-in-law Phil. But unlike Phil,
this plan just might work"
Let's to appreciate how beautiful these comparisons are...
You see, metaphors are similes always add something to a description. It gives one something to connect to when dealing with an unfamiliar idea. Metaphors and similes can be funny and entertaining.  They can make one think, and try to come up with a connection between two unlike things. It is important to remember that poetry is also the base for some of the world's best poetry. In a robotic world without figurative language, Shakespeare would never be able to ask, "Shall I compare thee to a summer's day?" There is no comparison, for comparisons would cease to exist. What a horrible world it would be to never be able to talk around a subject or compare least favorite teachers to super-villains. Language would be dull.

Yet, compared to the loss of irony, the loss of similes and metaphors would be nothing. You see, sarcasm is a type of irony. Without irony, sarcasm would be non-existent. Without sarcasm, many hormonal teenagers would not have a healthy outlet. It's quite possible that more teenagers would find themselves turning to hardcore drugs and sharpie-sniffing. Therefore, one can make the argument that if tropes were non-existent, my whole generation would go crazy and lose all ambition. All for lack of sarcasm.

Brilliant examples of sarcasm for your enjoyment:
"Nice perfume. Must you marinate in it?"
 "I majored in liberal arts. Will that be for here or to go?"
and wait for it...."Not the brightest crayon in the box now, are we?"
METAPHOR and SARCASM
Let us breathe in as many tropes as we can, dear earthlings. (the use of breathe is an implied metaphor because it compares tropes to air)
  

Reasons to be Buddhist (FW)

So I'm home sick today.
And just like every teenage girl when she's home sick I decided to research Buddhism.
It started last weekend when my dad brought me a book on mindfulness he thought I'd enjoy.
It was by a Buddhist monk named Thich Nhat Hanh...
and it was awesome.
Suddenly, almost everything my life seemed to be lacking was found in the wise words of this monk.
Everything the world seems to be lacking could be found in the wise words of this monk.
Which brings me to why I've started to love Buddhism:
1.) Simplicity:
There's something really nice about a religion that doesn't ask too much of you. Since Buddhism is more of a mindset than a religion it doesn't require you to go to mass every Sunday or to avoid certain foods on certain days. It just requires you to love the world and feel compassion toward everything and everyone. I like the idea of humans living out their religion rather than practicing it on certain days of the week.
2.) Mindfulness and being in the present:
Many people focus too much on the future and the past. For the future, they focus on getting into heaven. Some are so preoccupied with the ending goal that they miss out on living in the now. Others are so preoccupied with past sins and mistakes that they live out the rest of their life in guilty memory of their mistakes. Buddhism focuses one to stay in the present. One must forgive ones past mistakes and realize that it is only through the present that we get to the future.
3.) No ill will
Do you realize how much nicer this world would be if everyone agreed not to harm anyone else? There would be no wars, no crimes and very few problems. I know this is very idealistic but it's a nice thought. Plus, Tibetan monks live out this lifestyle already so maybe goodwill is not too far out of reach for the rest of us.
Buddhism Deal-breakers:
1.) No God
Although Buddhism is considered a religion, it does not exactly have a God. Rather it has this idea of spirituality and dharma that lies within all of us. Buddhist can pray to the Dalai Llama or to Buddha, but their is no deity in the way that there is in other religions. Perhaps this isn't such a bad thing though. Without a God, there is no God to fight over. This idea does however make it more difficult for a protestant like me to consider converting. To go from the idea of a God to no God is a huge deal.
2.) The men have the power:
All the many Buddhist sects the leading roles are given to men. This is of course the same in every single other large World religion, however it does serve as a reminder that Buddhism is not exactly my utopic religion.

What qualifies a saint: An examination of the suggested canonization of Emilio Sandoz

So my interest in what qualifies a saint began when I was reading "The Sparrow" and D.W. Yarbrough and Anne Edwards kept referring to the fact that Emilio Sandoz was so holy that he might in fact be a saint.
I was very confused.
Having been raised in a very protestant household my experiences and knowledge about sainthood only consists of having seen a sculpture of St. Francis of Assisi dancing in Santa Fe and putting a picture of it as my cellphone background for nearly a year.

He's beautiful, right?
So as one would, I went on to Google dictionary and Merriam-Webster Dictionary to see if Emilio Sandoz really qualified as a saint. I mainly got loose terms such as "one of God's holy people" and "one eminent for piety or virtue". My favorite definition was a saint is "an illustrious predecessor". In these terms Emilio Sandoz could certainly be considered a saint at that time in the book. He acted pious, virtuous and seemed to all his friends as one looked on by God with favor. Yet many people are religious and live well. Does that make them all saints too?
Dummies.com doesn't think so (my second go-to resource after Google-dictionary). Apparently there is much more criteria one has to meet before being canonized than I thought. Firstly, one has to be dead to be a saint. Once a possible saint has died, the persons case is brought before the Pope who then decides if they qualify. The person needs to have completed at least two miracles with eye-witnesses and have a specific cause.Then they are given more background checks then a suspected terrorist. If the miracles seem completely legitimate and all is well then they are canonized. Deus vult. If God wills it.

In the traditional Catholic sense, Emilio Sandoz is nowhere near a saint. He was born to a life of drug-selling and stealing in La Perla, Puerto Rico. From there he led a rebellious life even after he was given a second-chance as a reformed school boy. Eventually he converted to Christianity and became a Jesuit Priest. In his journey on Rakhat there were times when he seemed blessed by God. He mentions on several times that he had "fallen in love with God." He does amazing things in Rakhat, such as establishing solid relationships with aliens and turning away from the women he loves because he knows he must remain celibate. Yet, are these miracles. No. They're extraordinary, yet doable. He must have had unbelievable charisma and piety to have all his friends believe he was a saint. He wasn't. He was a man, prone to make mistakes like any other man. This is seen even more in the end of the book, which I shall neglect to mention since my book group has not gotten that far.
Oh, I neglected to mention that to be considered a saint one's body has to be dug up and examined. A saints body does not decay, the blood never dries, and apparently it smells like roses. Since Emilio has not yet died in the book I cannot consider or examine this specific qualification.

How far have we really come?

In 1920, the 19th amendment was passed so that women in the United States could finally vote and have a chance to influence political decisions in some small ways. It was a huge step. Suffragists around the world were ecstatic. Feminists threw parties. Many agreed that with this step, women were on the way to being seen as equals to men. They would no longer be seen in terms of beauty or how well their house was kept up. Women dreamed that in time they would not be judged by their measurements but rather by the strength of their character.
I'm here to tell you that none of this has happened.
It has been almost a century since the passing of the 19th amendment and in many ways women are in the same positions and mindsets that they were 93 years ago.
Does America promote equality? No. One of the lead workers behind the passing of the 19th amendment, Alice Paul, tried for years to pass the ERA(Equal Rights Amendment) which basically stated that men and women should be treated the same under the law. Large groups are still trying to get the ERA passed but so far the United States government has taken no steps to do so.
So I'm sure many of you readers have pegged me as an angry feminist by now, and are currently googling statistics showing much larger percentages of women in the workplace since 1920.

Yes, I caught you. Although there has been an increase in women in the workplace in certain fields (almost half of people enrolled in Medical School are women) many fields have still remain predominantly male. Women workers also tend to get stuck at entry-level positions much longer than males. Studies have shown that although women make up about 50% of the workforce in America they make up only 6% of the corporate CEO and higher-level executive roles.

Have you ever heard that women make 70 cents for every dollar a man makes? I hear that all the time. It's complete nonsense. They actually make 77 cents for every dollar a man makes. If you don't think of that as a big difference think about it in this way. If a woman and man hold the same job-level and the man gets paid $50,000 annually the woman only gets $43,500 annually. $6,500 a year could mean the difference of a single mom riding her bike to work or driving a car. It could also mean the difference between sending a kid off to college or not.
The giant rant:
Just to have some more comparison fun, lets look at 19th century 17-year old girls and 21st century 17-year old girls. In modern times, a larger percentage of 17-year old girls are in school, and a much smaller percentage are married with several children. Families also no longer have to worry about providing dowries for girls (although the bride's family does usually pay for the wedding).  So on the outside, 17-year old girls are in a much better position now... but on the inside, have they really changed? Seeing as I spend a large amount of time with 17-year old girls I can tell you that their main insecurities lie in superficial things: their appearance, and how many guys like them. Almost a hundred years after we won the vote, are we still determining our value in society by how attractive we are to men? Are we kidding?!? In group settings, girls are still unbelievably caddy, slyly putting others down, not about their intelligence or personality or anything that actually matters, but about their appearance. What the hell did Susan B. Anthony fight for? If Alice Paul saw how superficial teenage girls are, even after she fought for there right to share their opinions and make a difference, she would sob. Plus, I really don't think Alice Paul was much of a crier. Girls, we have been given the chance to to be more than a body, or a maid or a cook. Why waste this opportunity? The reason women make 77 cents to the dollar is because not enough people are standing up and saying that something is wrong. The reason only 6% of corporate managers are women is because women are too willing to sit back in their gender roles and do not believe that they are just as capable as a man in almost every single job. Some women think that acting dumb is attractive. This idea is supported by the fact that many men tend to go for dumb girls. This is a cruel fact of nature. Don't be afraid to be intelligent. It makes conversations SO much more interesting.
Give Alice Paul something to be proud of.

Apologies for this post:
This post was pretty intense. If you actually managed to read this whole thing, I'm impressed. If you're a man I didn't mean to offend you. I'm sure that you personally are a very nice person and would be just fine with the ERA passing. If you're a 17-year old girl, I also didn't mean to offend you. It's not girls' faults that they are insecure about appearances. Society and media tends to create an atmosphere that breeds insecurities. If you're Ms. Pyle, I apologize for the length of this post. I'm sure I went WAY past my word limit...

Cultural misunderstandings in "Interpreter of Maladies"

As an assignment for Ms. Pyle's AP Literature course we had to read "Interpreter of maladies" by Jhumpa Lahiri.
The story was about a middle-aged Indian man named Mr. Kapasi who gave a tour to an American family and believed that the American wife was romantically interested in him because she was very open and friendly. She really wasn't.
Silly Mr. Kapasi.
Yet, Mr. Kapasi was not a dumb guy. So why did he come to the wrong conclusion about her intentions?
A lot of it is about cultural differences.
In America it is not unusual for one to be very friendly, open, and often touchy. It just means that you're being nice and welcoming. It is also very unusual for romantic relationships to occur with people whose ages are more than two decades apart(as were Mr. Kapasi and Mrs. Das).
In India, it is very different. My sister is living in Northern India for 6 months and before she left she was given a few warnings.
1.) Never show any leg (where pants or long skirts only)
2.) Don't smile at men. They will see it as a come-on.
3.) If men are smiling at you they are coming on to you.
Of course there were more warnings, but these three are the most relevant to my point.
When Mr. Kapasi met Mrs. Das she was wearing a skirt above the knees and was very friendly and inviting. It would not be very out of the blue for an Indian to see this behavior and determine it flirty.

How Mrs. Das was probably acting:
 
How Mr. Kapasi perceived her to be acting:



The misunderstanding is simply cultural. In America Mrs. Das actions would be considered reasonably normal. In India they're considered very flirtatious. The result of this misunderstanding is that Mr. Kapasi gets a serious letdown. :(
More fun examples of cultural differences
1.)Shaking the head in a horizontal direction in most countries means "no”, while in India it means "yes"
2.)Laughing is considered in most countries a sign of happiness, while in Japan it is often a sign of confusion, insecurity and embarrassment.
3.)In Africa, saying to a female friend one has not seen for a while that she has put on weight means she is physically healthier than before


You can see how cultural misunderstandings can quickly get out of hand...

The Last Post: Plot Parallels and Puppets

For this AP Language assignment I chose to read "The Great Gatsby" and "The Great Lenore".
From the beginning the similarities were obvious.
Let's start with the title. "The Great Lenore?" It's obviously a playoff of the name "The Great Gatsby" used to clue the readers that there may be plot parallels in the book.
And there were a lot of plot parallels in the book.
Thomas Foster notes in "How to Read Literature Like a Professor" that there is really only one story. The story is just retold in different ways.
"The Great Lenore" and "The Great Gatsby" back up this idea.
In a lot of ways they were one story, just set a few decades apart.

The Plots:
Boy meets Girl. Girl and Boy fall in love. Girl meets new Boy who treats her badly and they marry. Girl and original Boy meet again. Original Boy dies in a tragic way. Girl is shown to be shallow and returns to Boy who treats her badly. Narrator is profoundly changed by the entire thing because he's young and naive. Both stories deal with love, tragedy and guilt. The same themes that have been used in thousands of pieces of literature. Many of which I'm sure inspired "The Great Gatsby." So if the story line and the themes are the same within the two books, what's the point of reading both of them?
Even though they're pretty similar, they're still different pieces of literature. The differences just lie in the details. The settings, the tone, the characters. Since "The Great Lenore" was pretty obviously based off of "The Great Gatsby", the slight differences in the novels helped me see "The Great Gatsby" in a different way.
An example of this is Lenore's staged death in "The Great Lenore". If we acknowledge that Daisy and Lenore play similar characters we can analyze the fact that Lenore stages her death to get away from her unfaithful husband, and Daisy does not. Daisy does however mention to Nick how difficult a time she is having and how she wishes she could get away. I used to think that this was because Lenore was tougher. Lenore was strong enough to run away. I don't think so anymore. I think Lenore's staged death emphasizes and mirrors Daisy's spoken desire to leave. It's just shown in larger terms in "The Great Lenore" so readers won't miss it.
In Conclusion...
I actually liked reading "The Great Lenore" more than reading "The Great Gatsby." I know this is crazy. "The Great Gatsby" is a classic. Who am I to dare say that "The Great Lenore" may have been a better book? I understand that "The Great Gatsby" was revolutionary in its time period. I also understand that the author of "The Great Lenore", J.M. Tohline cannot take full credit for his characters as they were almost all based off of characters in Fitzgerald's Gatsby. Yet of the two books, I found "The Great Lenore" much easier to connect with and much more enjoyable to read. Perhaps it's because we no longer live in the Jazz Age and a few of the references in "The Great Gatsby" eluded me. Perhaps it's because it's because Tohline's descriptions and imagery were brilliant and made me feel like I was actually living the book. More likely, it's because by the end of the book I found I hated Lenore WAY more than I hated Daisy. When you find yourself seriously angry for hours on end at a fictional character, you know you've just read a really good book. It means the author has successfully played your emotions like a puppet.

The Sacred Gatsby

Gatsby is Jesus.
Okay, so saying Gatsby is Jesus is a bit of a stretch.
For one, Gatsby is a fictional character and Jesus was an actual man.
Gatsby lived in the 1920's Jesus died 2000 years ago.
Gatsby dealt in shady business affairs and Jesus was an honest carpenter.
And Jesus is Jesus.
It's heretical to state that anyone besides Jesus is Jesus.
So maybe I'll rephrase my claim.
Jay Gatsby portrays many Jesus-like characteristics.
According to "How to Read Literature Like a Professor" a "Christ figure does not need to resemble Christ in every way". Just in some ways.
Ways that Jay Gatsby resembles Jesus Christ:
1.) Age:
Based on the fact that he went to war in 1917 and the book is staged in the roaring twenties we can guess Gatsby is around age 30. Jesus did the majority of his work from age 30-33.
2.) Self-sacrificing:
Jay Gatsby spends a large portion of his life trying to please Daisy and protect Daisy. He even takes the blame when Daisy runs over and kills her husbands mistress. In the end this leads to his death. Jesus sacrificed a large portion of his life healing the poor and the sick and his preaching/healing eventually lead to his crucifixion.
3.) Good with the fishes:
As a young man, Jay Gatsby aids a wealthy yacht man avoid a storm and becomes close friends with him. Jesus also had fisherman friends whom he helps out(The most famous story about them being when Jesus tells them to cast their nets on the other side of the boat.) Coincidence? I think not.
4.) Hope:
"Gatsby believed in the green light, the orgiastic future that year by year recedes before us. It eluded us then, but that's no matter--tomorrow we will run faster, stretch out our arms farther.... And one fine morning-- So we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past."- Nick Carraway
Nick Carraway often remarked throughout the book on Jay Gatsby's profound ability to hope. Even though the facts stand in his way, Gatsby holds faith in what he believes will be the future: the idea that everything will work out. Although religious scholars and the government threatened Jesus and stood in his way he continued to preach his message and hold faith for the future.
5.) Charisma:
Gatsby had a way of connecting with people.
"He smiled understandingly-much more than understandingly. It was one of those rare smiles with a quality of eternal reassurance in it, that you may come across four or five times in life. It faced--or seemed to face--the whole external world for an instant, and then concentrated on you with an irresistible prejudice in your favor. It understood you just as far as you wanted to be understood, believed in you as you would like to believe in yourself." Jesus was charismatic in much of the same way. He connected with people drew crowds to him and support to his message.
6.) The death:
Gatsby was shot in the chest by Tom's mistress' husband who mistakingly thought Gatsby was at fault for the death of the mistress. In the movie Gatsby is shown with his arms outstretched (the shape of the cross) falling backwards into a pool of water. Water symbolizes baptism, cleansing, and rebirth. The next shot shows the water of the pool turning from clear to red(water into wine). Tom then turns the gun onto himself(Judas). Not one of the people who partied at his house show up to his funeral (the disciples who desert Jesus following his death). The only ones who show up are Gatsby's father (Mother Mary) and Nick (Mary Magdalene). 

If all this isn't enough proof that the author had Jesus in mind when he was writing the part of Gatsby, consider the fact that F Scott Fitzgerald was born into a strict Catholic family. 
So Jesus is Jesus.
And Gatsby is Gatsby.
But in a lot of ways Gatsby resembles Jesus.


Cheers.

Killing off Characters to Find a Resolution

According to "How to Read Literature Like a Professor" a literary death is never just a death.
In real life deaths can be accidents, but in literature deaths always serves some sort of purpose. One could argue that in the mind of some great authors lies the mind of great criminals and murderers. The difference being that authors act out their crimes on paper rather than in real life.
Back to the point...
Characters die for a reason. They die in certain ways for a reason.
So why do the characters in the Great Lenore die the way the do?
Let's see!
Lily:

Lily is Lenore's husbands mistress who arrives on the Island in a rage to try to get her boyfriend back. She is in such a temper that she failed to correct herself when she drove straight into a brick wall.  Lily's death is sudden, short and completely necessary. It's not drawn out because honestly no reader wants to see the characters life go on any longer. Living Lily only serves to further complicate the plot. The car-crash is not symbolic of anything, rather as harsh as it may sound it simply helps get rid of her. With Lily gone, the author can successfully resolve the story with Lenore living happily with her husband, no mistress involved.

Jez:


Jez is Lenore's long lost lover who is hit by Lily's car while looking for Lenore (Meanwhile Lenore is catching up with her husband). Jez's death is much more disturbing than Lily's. The author chose to draw his death out more because he's a likable character. It's ironic, but true. A whole hospital-dying scene is included solely to play on the readers emotions and create sympathy for Jez. The only good thing I can say about Jez's death is that he dies before he realizes that Lenore decided to leave him. In this way Jez's death is a lot like Jay Gatsby's death in the Great Gatsby. It's a sad resolution.

Vampires and Humans Who Suck.

So...vampires.
I was recently informed by "How to Read Literature Like a Professor" that vampires are everywhere.
Perhaps they're in your house and hiding in your closet but they are definitely in the books on your bookshelf.
I don't just mean in your Twilight book. (Let's be honest, we all own it)
This is because vampires in books don't have to be actual vampires. Vampire-like characters should have vampire like qualities such as sucking the life and beauty out of others, theoretically, yet still retaining an odd sort of appeal. In most cases these literary vampires never touch human blood and they still have a heartbeat. For example, the author Thomas Foster considers Winterbourne in "Daisy Miller" a vampire because he conforms to societal standards that are sucking the life out of young Daisy. Since many literary vampires aren't munching on humans everyday they can be very hard to label and determine. Having read "Daisy Miller" I had never thought of Winterbourne as a vampire until Foster pointed it out to me.
This led me to the question: Who is the vampire in the Great Lenore?
One's immediate thought goes to Chas. I mean, he's horrible right? He cheats on his wife, he has no manners and he's as stupid as a pig. Actually I take that back. pigs are actually reasonably smart. Chas is more like a goldfish.

Yet Chas is entirely unappealing. Plus he is much too dumb to be evil. When I think of a really well-written vampire character such as Julian Pinchbeck in "Gentleman and Players" or  the father in "Freaky Green Eyes" they always appeal to the readers, not only in looks but also in personality. They're intelligent and funny and it's only until after they've killed someone that you come the realization that they we're capable of biting at all. They surprise you. That's when I realized.
The vampire in "The Great Lenore"? It's Lenore.
She's beautiful. She's perfect. She's kind and loving and makes everyone feel special inside when she talks to them. Yet without their knowledge, she is killing them. She enchants Maxwell but then marries his brother, leaving Maxwell smoking pot is lovelorn misery and self-blame for years upon end. She enchants Rich so that she can hide out in his house while everyone thinks she's dead. This entangles him in a whole myriad of drama and problems in which he honestly should have no business. His thoughts are so wrapped up in her that he also can't pursue a healthy relationship with Cecelia, who I must say is much more stable than Lenore. Believe it or not, she also hurts Chas. Her staged death muddles his poor senseless brain with new emotions such as guilt and shame and depression. Goldfishes are not meant to feel at such a depth.
And don't get me started on Jez.
If one needed any more information to prove that she is a life-sucking, soul-twisting vampire it is Jez. Jez is literally killed as a consequence of her actions. He is hit by a car as he leaves her pretend-funeral so that he may meet his pretend-love and whirl her off into a beautiful future that suits her tastes. This is bad enough. What's worse is that had he not been hit by a car she would not have met him anyways. Why? Because she's in a vampire. And she soul-sucks. She stomped over a now-dead man who had actually loved her to run off with her goldfish husband.
This is a rant.
I understand that.
But I hope you get my drift...
Lenore SUCKS.
because she is a vampire.
and vampires suck.

Sweet Sonnets and Shakespearean pick-up lines

Sonnet 18 by William Shakespeare
Shall I compare thee to a summer's day?
Thou art more lovely and more temperate:
Rough winds do shake the darling buds of May,
And summer's lease hath all too short a date:
Sometime too hot the eye of heaven shines,
And often is his gold complexion dimm'd;
And every fair from fair sometime declines,
By chance or nature's changing course untrimm'd;
But thy eternal summer shall not fade
Nor lose possession of that fair thou owest;
Nor shall Death brag thou wander'st in his shade,
When in eternal lines to time thou growest:
So long as men can breathe or eyes can see,
So long lives this and this gives life to thee



First thing first, I apologize for using such an well-known and over-quoted sonnet. Yet in my defense there are good reasons it's so over-used and well-known. It's beautiful. It's slightly seductive. In little over a hundred words, Shakespeare perfectly captures how every female in the history of females wants to be looked at. Actually, it really surprises me that Shakespeare wasn't more of a player. I figure all he'd have to do would be to say "Thou art more beautiful than a summers day" when he was out in public and all the ladies living  in Stratford Upon Avon would be fanning their uncomfortable, corseted bodies in adoration.

So, anyways...

What is it that makes Sonnet 18 so persuasive and so powerful?
Let's look at the actual text:
Structure and Rhyme: If one only looks at the structure and rhyme, there is nothing to differentiate this sonnet from any other. Although I would argue it looks more like  rectangle than a square it still follows all the rules to qualify it being a sonnet. The rhyming pattern is very basic as well. It follows the ABABCDCDEFEFGG pattern, which adds to the flowing feel of the poetry. Since it was written by Shakespeare, it's also in iambic pentameter. I'm not going to attempt to explain iambic pentameter in one blog post, but basically it also helps the poem flow well and makes it easier to memorize. In short, "Shall I compare thee to a summer's day" (iambic pentameter) is easier to memorize than "My dear, you somewhat remind me of a day in the middle of summer"(not) It's much catchier too.
Imagery: A lot of the imagery in this sonnet is pretty self-explanatory. One can easily pick out that Shakespeare's use of "summer's day" paints a picture of a beautiful scene and an even more beautiful girl beside it. His choice to use "death's shade" later in the sonnet provides contrast: a dark to the previous light. Yet he keeps his tone uplifting even when discussing death. He promises that death will not touch her beauty. She is immortalized and beautified by his use of imagery.

Alright, so It's a well written-sonnet with interesting symbols, but why is it as popular as it is? Surely there are other less-known sonnets, that are well written and contain symbols too?

This is true. What draws people to this particular sonnet is the overlying theme.




If one looks past all the strange Shakespearean words and phrasing to the theme of the poem, it's quite romantic. It's easy to determine that Sonnet 18 is a love poem but if one looks closer they can see that it's also a poem of devotion. Yes, Shakespeare praises this women's beauty, but all women know that beauty fades with age and dies alongside death. Beauty is tangible and worldly and easily lost. This is why Shakespeare is sure to mention that her beauty will never fade or die. So what does this mean, that her beauty will never die? Well perhaps it means that Shakespeare was inspired by one of the vampire girls from Twilight, who will literally never grow old and their beauty will literally never fade. However for the obvious reasons I think this is probably unlikely(I believe we would have seen a verse about sparkling in the sun). I think it's more likely that he was so inspired and in love with his muse for this sonnet, that he managed to see past the usual ideal of beauty (figure, hair, clothing) to the beauty of her soul and spiritual essence. Maybe this is BS. Maybe I'm just an idealistic feminist who holds out hope that there is at least one guy who sees beauty in a w omens personality rather than her features. But this idea that a man can think a women is always beautiful even when her natural beauty fades is what makes this sonnet so attractive. It gives women permission to wear sweatpants and eat bonbons as long as they have a stunning personality because that's what real beauty is.
Or maybe I'm nuts and read too far into things.
But the assignment is to read too far into things so then again maybe I'm golden.



Message to single men:
Honestly the reason you're single is not because of your looks or your body odor or your clothing or your grades. Well it might be. A little. But it's mainly about your communication. Take a lesson from Shakespeare. He was not the most attractive man, but to this day his use of language continues to make women go weak in the knees. So ditch the "Hey baby, how you doing?" and the "Bro, it could be like dope if we could like hook up" and start trying the "Hear my soul speak. Of the very instant that I saw you, Did my heart fly at your service" and the "I love you more than words can wield the matter, Dearer than eyesight, space and liberty". I swear, Shakespeare pick-up lines are flawless.