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.