LAST BLOG-- Response to Blogging

I've really learned from my blog that I read very critically and negatively. I tend to judge writers of books early on, and critique their style somewhat incorrectly. If I'm reading a book I think is impressive, I'll get so wrapped up in my own greatness for reading this book, that I will also assume that I am greater than the authors and have the right to judge them. I have also really learned that I was a rather boring and essay-like blog writer. I realized this and did damage control early on. I've also learned a lot about myself as a writer. I actually genuinely enjoy writing, strangely, and have grown SO much since the start of blogging. Before this year, I didn't have a definitive writer's voice and would either go with being either too stiff or too loose. When in doubt, I would go with being stiff. This year during blogging, I've really known the liberating feeling that is spewing out your opinion in a long and slightly obnoxious rant. It's wonderful! It's become fun to write with a blog because I'm not censoring myself. It seems less formal to post on my blog than to hand something in to the teacher, and though this may be an illusion, it helps make homework (which essentially is what blogging is) seem almost bearable and nearly like something more.

So, on the topic of if people are more or less real online, I think it depends. For me, I take online writing as a chance to let loose and not censor myself. But I realize for others that it could make them self- conscious and, having the chance to censor themselves, unlike in person, they might do so. In person, if you were to say "I hate One Direction," to a bunch of Directioners, that would be pretty stupid, but the truth (if you did hate them.) Online, it would be a lot easier to fake not hating them, because you have time to think about what you post. In this way, you would only project lies. On the other hand, online you aren't speaking directly to the Directioners and a blog is really a way to state what you think without shoving it in someone else's face. The Directioners can't get mad at you for hating One Direction if they chose to read your blog about hating them. It feels very individual to blog. It satisfies my narcissism. I think that for me, I'm probably more real on my blog, even if I have the chance to not be.

I don't know if I could consider keeping up this blog. I do enjoy blog posting, but let's face it: like most humans, I am inherently and exceedingly lazy. Who knows, but in my heart I feel that I could never keep up this blog without prompting and being graded. There is also the problem that thus far this has been a school blog. I'm sorry, but there are many people in our school I would prefer NOT to have access to a continuous blog of mine. If I continued posting these people would still be able to read my blog through high school (not that they would want to.)Plus, all my posts have been written with the thought in mind that a teacher would read them. If I did a public blog, I would spend my time on trying to get normal people to like it, not E.L.A. teachers (no offense Ms. Rear, thou art spiffy and I'm not saying you aren't normal; you can be whatever you want to be.) I maybe could one day start such a blog, but I think I would only do so if I came to find that type of blogging more enjoyable than what I would otherwise be doing (sitting around like a useless vegetable) and that seems unlikely at the current time.

I like the idea of students doing blogs. I think that this was a really good experience and am not saying this to suck up. I learned so much this year and now have an immortal portfolio of my writing over 8th grade. This also has given me incentive to make my blog posts good (no telling if I've succeeded.) This blog is online as a representation of me. In college I will come back to this blog and scoff at my blog and complain about what an annoying kid I was. Without this blog, I would be unable to do so because I would never have been organized enough to save my weekly 8th grade reading responses throughout life.

So, overall, I like blogs. Blogs are good. Sometimes I read blogs if they're entertaining, but too often they're just stupid and irritating. However, I realize that this isn't a quality of blogs, but a quality of writing and really people in general.

A Fraction of the Whole

In "A Fraction of the Whole," a major theme is insanity. Every single character seems to go crazy, or already be crazy.

The book is basically about a boy named Jasper who has an interesting father. Through a few different ways, he learns of his past. He has no mother, and in the beginning of the book is not aware of what happened to her, other than she died, but lives alone with his philosophy bum dad in Austrailia. In the beginning of the book, classified into one chapter, is Martin, Jasper's dad, telling him about his childhood and his murderer brother. Then Jasper reads Martin's notebook and he learns about the next bit of his life, including Jasper's mother. Life that Jasper can remember would probably be classified as the third chapter. As the book progresses, you almost learn about Jasper through Martin and worry for him: he seems to be following Martin's own path. There are so many parallels between them, and also between other characters (who haven't necessarily appeared in Jasper's life, but have in Martin's) that it's troubling. One of the most prominent of these is insanity.

Martin lives with some sort of philosophical brilliance, but also stupidity. He is aware of his mind and holds the world in contempt, thinking that people who mostly worry about the little things in life are useless. Similarly, Martin is useless-- he only thinks about the big things. In fact, he THINKS about the big things, but doesn't do anything. He's pretty pointless. Not to mention nearly off the edge. He gets sent to a mental hospital and is released, but not before being thoroughly nuts and destroying the strip club he used to manage.

Jasper's mother also has a history of craziness. Right off from the bat, Martin noticed that there was definitely something wrong with her. However, he never broke it off. I think he was just so shocked and excited that a pretty girl had paid him attention (not to mention deflowered him) that he was able to ignore her apparent problems. Anyhoo, Jasper was "the last obstacle" to her suicide. His job was to get born so that she could die. She was pretty insane.

Jasper's family on his mother's side also is crazy, from what you can tell of them, but you don't hear much. On his father's side, they were refugees. His biological grandfather died, his step grandfather became crazy and violent, and his grandmother also went psycho-- poisoning her son for the opportunity to nurse him back to health. His uncle went nuts and began killing people who cheated in sports. He first became a sports mass- murderer, and then went into hiding in Thailand and ran a crime empire, or, as he put it, a "Democratic Cooperation of Crime." Nearly half of the book is devoted to Martin's telling of Jasper's uncle Terry's journey to madness.  The question is: will Jasper have a happy ending or follow the legacy of his family?

Pride and Prejudice: yet again

In Pride and Prejudice, it is widely viewed that Elizabeth Bennet has prejudice, and that Fitzwilliam Darcy is proud. And these views can be understood; she misjudges him, and he is resistant to her because of his pride, but honestly I think that their supposed classifications ought to be switched.

Mr. Darcy first sees Elizabeth and says that she is "not handsome enough to tempt me." Actually, he doesn't even really see her, he just looks her way to humor his friend. Grumpy and prejudiced about the inhabitants of the countryside (and really, anywhere outside of the fanciest parts of town) he assumes that she is boring and ugly and common. I actually think that a major part of the story is realizing that all his prejudiced ideas are wrong and that he in in love with her.

He also prematurely judges people based on the actions of others. He makes simply unforgivable remarks on Mrs. Bennet and Lydia, and it takes time for him to learn that the two eldest Bennets are nothing like the rest of their family.

Lizzy, on the other hand, is quite insufferable! Just kidding, she isn't really that insufferable- maybe a little, but certainly not insufferable enough too warrant a quite- but I wanted to use the word. Anyhow, Lizzy is, in a way, much more proud than Darcy. The ENTIRE reason she hates him so much is because he said she wasn't temptingly pretty. Now, as she is at least moderately so, you know that he doesn't really hurt her feelings. However, it's a blow to her ego. She was proud, and he insulted it. He also deals a few blows to other types of pride, particularly family pride. He, as I said before, insults her family directly. That knocks her off her pedestal. You know what, I think that Darcy's type of pride is less significant than Lizzy's because it is justified. She is proud of her life, her family, her home-- but honestly, it's not that great. She is a poorish girl with a nutso family living on a farm estate named Longbourn. (Personally, I think it's very strange to name your house. And even if you do, can't you pick a name like Bill or Brenda? Honestly, people seem to be terrible at naming nonliving objects! Longbourn, Pemberly, Skyfall-- bad names!)  Lizzy does not have so much to be proud of.

Darcy, on the other hand has a nice sister, a gorgeous house with grounds that make up "half of Derbyshire" and a humongous lake with fish. When I get my own lake, I'll be proud of it too! So lay off Darcy. Lizzy is the one with the worse pride. And, similiarly, lay off Lizzy! Darcy is certainly more prejudiced. She judges him, but not until after he's been nasty to her. He judges her before even knowing who she is, and that is the worst type of prejudice. Social class-ism.

Their personalities are really different as assumed. They both have pride and prejudice; perhaps that's what makes them such a good couple.

The 13 1/2 Lives of Captain Bluebear

My Dad used to lecture me about the qualities of a story.  A required element for a good story, he’d say, was someone who wants something.  I've pretty much always stood by this rule, and most books I've read have followed it. It even applies to really bad books like Twilight- she wants the boy ( or, in this case, vampire.) Throughout the 13 ½ Lives of Captain Bluebeard, I’ve been trying to find out exactly what it is that Bluebeard wants, pretty much unsuccessfully.

Towards the middle of the book, I thought he wanted a home.  He spends a few of his "lives" searching for the capital city of his continent, Atlantis, and spends another couple living in Atlantis. He seemed like he was very drawn to the city of Atlantis, but eventually you realize that he isn’t quite at home there, nor does he really yearn for a home in general. When Atlantis is lifted off to a different planet (don't ask) he doesn't seem to care very much. So I don't think he wants a home. He actually seems like a pretty generally content person;  not too fussy, and willing to go with the flow (not like me.)

Throughout the book, he appears mostly as the wanderer; he goes everywhere, drifting around, gains experience and knowledge, but does not really have a goal.  There really isn’t much point to his life.  
 

How there are 3 things to consider:

1) the books could have been badly written (which I doubt because I enjoyed it so much and was just delighted by its cleverness),

2) there could have been many subtle wants that I just missed (very likely) or

3) this rule could be incorrect.   
 

I will cross out “1” because I really enjoyed the book so much that I would hesitate to say anything ill of it.  

Now left over are 2 and 3.  

There could certainly be more subtle themes/wants.  He obviously wants a girlfriend and a family, and even sees his future girlfriend as an illusion to draw him in to a trap.  However, I don’t know if this is the driving factor of the story, though.  Does it need to be?

The other option is that the rule could be wrong.  What about the reluctant hero?  I guess they want to not be the hero? What does Harry Potter want?  A family as well, but does that drive him? Argh! So many books about wanderers, or long series don't have clear desires to me. Oh! I'm so very confused. What about non-fiction? Like biographies? Do any rules apply to those? Do people actually have "driving desires" in their lives that they could write biographies about?  What about all the stories I've written for school? What about small-moment stores? Can a desire drive one teensy tiny moment? Can it drive a series as long as say, James Bond or Nancy Drew? What do they want? Maybeee James Bond wants a family, but it honestly seems like his awesomeness includes not having any real nonsexual desires. And I don't really know Nancy Drew, so I couldn't answer, but maybe she wants to just solve mysteries? The books could all be little parts of her pursuit to happiness.

I end this inconclusively.  Either Bluebeard really wants something I can’t figure out, or this rule is over my head. Either way, I’m the stupid one.    

Romeo and Juliet: Their horrible parental relationships

In "Romeo & Juliet," by William Shakespeare, the title characters rebel against the adults in their lives, particularly, their parents. They do not place much trust in others save for each other, and each only has one adult in their life who is aware of their relationship – Friar Lawrence or the Nurse, respectively. The nurse isn’t even aware of some things half the time. Meanwhile, the parents have absolutely no idea what is going on their children’s lives – partly because they do not really care to ask. Maybe if both sets of parents have been less neglectful, none of this would have happened. Throughout the play, Shakespeare portrays authority as being hypocritical and distant, implying that if adults do not take the time to gain their children’s trust and respect, they’ll lose faith in them and maybe even rebel.

In "Romeo and Juliet", authority is constantly portrayed as untrustworthy (and the parents are Romeo and Juliet’s major authority figures). The Capulet family is obviously unhappy with each other. Lady Capulet is slightly bitter and unaccepting of her situation. She wants her daughter to have the same life as her; perhaps because she’s trying to convince herself that she’s happy and her daughter surely will be too. Lord Capulet is harsh and hasty and very politically correct. He prevents Tybalt from fighting in his public party, but acts almost violently towards Juliet when she refuses to marry Paris. "Fettle your fine joints 'gainst Thursday next to go with Paris to Saint Peter's Church or I will drag thee on a hurdle thither." (3.5.158). His conflicting actions are because does not believe in public fighting but he thinks that his daughter must always obey him, as society states. This is rather awful and hypocritical of him; how is she supposed to respect him enough to obey him when he is cruel to her because of her position in society? Or is she just meant to obey him mindlessly, like a robot? The Montague family, on the other hand, hardly speak to Romeo – when they’re worried about him they send Benvolio, his cousin, instead. They lack the means and/or inclination to talk to him themselves. Montague says " I would thou wert so happy by thy stay. To hear true shrift--come, madam, let's away." (1.1.169). Both sets of parents are woefully ignorant about what currently happens in their children’s lives.

This ignorance is really a whole lot of the trouble. Romeo and Juliet lie to and deceive their parents, leading to their ignorance. So really, it isn’t just the parents being neglectful in the relationship, its Romeo and Juliet as well. Sometimes their parents are just trying to be good but get fed up when their kids aren’t receptive – take Lord Capulet’s attempted marriage of Paris to Juliet. He wants to marry her off to cheer her up, despite the fact he’d said he wanted to wait some years (being hypocritical, tsk!) because he believed she was depressed and mourning for Tybalt. Earlier, he'd told Paris to woo her, because "my will to her consent is but a part." (2.1.17). Later however, he forces her into it. This further disturbs their mutual trust and love, and all because apulet is ignorant. Obviously, there would have been many things he’d have done if he was better informed (and aware of her marriage to Romeo) but try to cheer her up by marrying her to someone else is not one of them. If he’d known, they may not have ended up dead, because Juliet wouldn’t have been engaged to Paris, and therefore wouldn’t have felt the need to fake her death. None of it would have happened (unless of course, you believe in fate, but that’s a whole different coconut.)

Because of this mutual deception and negligence, there is a visible lack of trust between the two and their parents-- they may doubt that their pparents will go along with their own wishes rather than society and politics (rightfully, I think.) They are afraid of betrayal. When Juliet is despairing over Romeo's banishment, her mother asks after her condition, and she says "yet let me weep for feeling such a loss." (3.5.77). This is very deceptive, because it really means the loss of Romeo, when Lady Capulet believes they're talking about Tybalt. In the same conversation, Juliet tells her mother "Madam, I am not well." (3.5.70). She is well, but trying to cover up the fact that moments ago, Romeo had been in her bed. She goes to such efforts to hide these things from her parents because she is certain they will betray her. The lack of trust in the relationship is evident even since the very first scene. Juliet confides in her nurse, and Romeo in his priest – things must be pretty dreadful between you and your parents if you're confiding in others before them. This lack of trust also leads to Romeo and Juliet not particularly caring for their parents' love and support of their wedding. Gentle and mild Juliet even proposes herself! "If that thy bent of love be true, thu purpose marriage, send me word tomorrow.." (2.2.149).

Conclusively, I would say that Romeo and Juliet have pretty awful relationships with their parents, due to lack of effort and trust, and this may have driven them to seek so much love and approval from other parties – namely each other. If Romeo and Juliet had their parents’ unwavering support and approval, they would never have gotten together (even if by the idea that they would have, in this case, been aware of the affair and stopped it.) So I suppose it is meant to be that Romeo and Juliet had such awful relationships with their parents. If they really trusted each other, ultimately the feud would never have been settled.

The 13 1/2 Lives of Captain Bluebear

I am currently reading The 13 1/2 Lives of Captain Bluebear.  I began reading this mainly because it had an interesting cover, but I have been really enjoying this book. Not enjoying the book like a 'whoa I really like this book I'm gonna stay up 'till 3:00 reading it,' but like 'O Lordy, this is a marvelous book I will treasure forever and maybe even, god forbid, reread.'  The kind of book you're not so excited about that you want to finish quickly, but the kind of book you want to read slowly so as to prolong the sacred act of soaking in its pages. Anyways, being only a hundred pages in or so, I don't necessarily have such a great grasp of the plot, but so far the author has just portrayed the protagonist drifting around and living with different strange creatures and learning strange things from them. In each of Bluebear's so- called "lives," he lives with a different group of people, but eventually has to leave. I think the author here is hinting at the theme of ending, and all things ending, and how all the experiences in your life are pretty connected in the fact that they all end, and usually in not so great ways. The subsequent endings of Bluebear's lives thus far include:

Life 1: Being ditched on an island for growing too large.

Life 2: Fleeing who he's living with (hobgoblins) in fear of becoming despicable like them.

Life 3: Nearly being eaten by the candy- filled island he's living on that actually turns out to be a creepy large creature and saved by a strange dinosaur- like bird thing in the nick of time.

Life 4: Being given up in favor of retirement.

I wouldn't say that any of these unfortunate occurances are Bluebear's fault at all (except for maybe the second, but who wants to be like a hobgoblin?) -- so maybe the author is pointing out  how every little thing in your life will end, and there's not a thing you can do about it, because it's not your fault and it's not under your control. Maybe he thinks that as a person you are not in control of anything-- after all, all Bluebear's been doing for the duration of the book is drifting, getting to other places accidentally, but not staying long, and just going where the tides take him-- sometimes literally.

Critically reading over what I have just written, I've realized that it sounds a lot like what Ms. Rear talked about with Romeo and Juliet-- fate. I think that the author of this book must be a big fan of fate, even if not in the way Shakespeare is. Bluebear may not be fated to end an ancient feud with death, but I feel like, no matter how insignifigant his life has been so far, all of this stuff has been decided for him. He has no control and everything is following a pattern- faaaate.

All of this talk makes me wonder what will happen at the end of the book. I seldom blog on a book without finishing it, for fear of making uneducated (in that book) and incorrect assumptions. But if each of his lives are fated to end in this manner, and we're on 5 out of 13 1/2, I wonder how and if he'l die. It's hard to predict what will happen later in this book, because the narrator speaks as one telling back their story, so he must be alive at the end, but if he is, that doesn't follow the pattern. Maybe he has 13 1/2 lives because the last 1/2 life is used writing this book peacefully till death? Anyway it may be will be interesting, and I look forward to seeing all my theories proven useless later in the book. Conclusively, I would say that this book is excellent, and possibly thematic, depending on if I'm right. Either way, the book is worth reading if only to be able to say you're reading a book about Captain Bluebear.

Nonfiction Post

The overall main idea of the passage "U.S. Says It Suspects Assad Used Chemical Weapons," is that our country thinks (like it says in the title) that Bashar al- Assad may have used chemical weapons. To back this up, the author includes a variety of evidence. Apparantly, the American intelligence agencies are sure, according to congressional leaders, "with varying degrees of confidence," that he had used these weapons. Supposedly he used "the chemical agent sarin on a small scale."  Thinks Dianne Feinstein, Californian democratic senator, who's the "chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee," the government is actually pretty sure Assad used chemical weapons. Syria was known to have a stockpile before any of these concerns, and the tests to check were based on using soil samples and blood drawn from the wounded, which seems believable.The samples drawn were from where they suspected the attack (which has not been 100% connected to Assad) was, which is a village "near Aleppo and in the outskirts of Damascus. However, the juicy issue is: are we going to go into Syria because of this? As you surely know (or do not, Idon't know who's reading this) the use of chemical weapons like this is against International Law.   But on the topic, it was said by the White House that "Only credible and corrobated facts that provide us with some degree of certainty will guide our decision-making. Apparantly Obama's red line as for going into Syria is when "we start seeing a whole bunch of weapons moved around or being utilized."

The author wants me to think 100% that Syria has used these weapons, even though the evidence is not perfect, and no one is certain. He does this by quoting people who think chemical weapons have been used, like Dianne Feinstein. He gives some evidence that he marks as not proven, but he makes everything seem like we're certain, mostly by supporting the idea that there were chemical weapons used, but not as much by supporting the idea that Assad did it. It, hypothetically may have been someone else. They're not sure it was him who attcked the town. However, there are limited supplies of chemical weapons for someone else to get. The author wants me to feel sad, mad, and self- righeous. Sad that people are being hurt, angry that these are being used, and self- righteous in the way of wanting to be an activist and feeling like Assad is morally wrong.

I will take away the ideas the Assad is putting his toes over the line. I really hope nothing happens too bad, but if Assad is mass- murdering his citizens with chemical weapons, maybe we should go in. I think that chemical weapons and Assad are horrible. Chemical weapons are disgusting, as we learned after World War I, and I will never like the use of those weapons, unless there's a zombie apocalypse and they are surprisingly sensitive to chemical weapons but nothing else. I really want to learn more about if the United States will go in-- I hope this doesn't create another war like Iraq.

The Iliad

So I just finished reading the Iliad. The reason I started reading it was to see primarily if I could, which sounds idiotic but is the truth as I am an idiotic person. At first, I was extraordinarily confused and had to jot things down I didn't understand (mostly how Homer used the terms Danaans and Achaeans synonymously when they were really the Greeks) but as I got used to the style I actually got into the story. This is probably because I've obsessed with Greek mythology since infanthood, when I was given my first copy of the D'Aulaires book of Greek myths. So overall, I really liked the book (is it even a book? should I call it an epic or something?) but thought that Achilles was an awful character.

I liked that he was horrid and unsympathetic-- that, in addition the the poetic writing, is what makes the Iliad so unique-- but I feel like you have to like your protagonist at least a little bit. Honestly, at the end I wanted Hector to win and then Zeus to kill them all. There really weren't any characters I was fond of. I am not as sympathetic to characters that are glory- seeking and obsessed with war, and I feel like any characters that aren't like this are portrayed as cowardly (i.e. Paris.) The girls are all useless, and the men you’re supposed to support are all in love with blood. You really have to go along with the war themes-- which I did-- for it to work.

Now, my first major problem with Achilles is his pride. I get that he's a super powered warrior with connections to the Gods-- but honestly? He's angry perfectly righteously because the king has literally stolen his girlfriend (but might I mention that Achilles stole her from her home in the first place) so he makes his soft, irritating and servile mother ask Zeus to make the opposite side in their war win as revenge. To spite the king Agamemnon, but really just to fix his own bruised ego, he will condemn all his friends and comrades to death. Later, when he rejoins the battle, after letting his friend die in his place, he wins (obviously) but acts horrible about it and drags around his ex- adversary’s body around and won’t give the corpse to the poor guy’s dad. It is only after the father appeals to the memory of Achilles’ own father that he concedes. I personally think that this is not an example of strength of character by Achilles, but pity because he can empathize with losing someone.

This leads to my next problem with Achilles, which is his complete LACK OF DEVELOPMENT throughout the story. I know this is a charcteristic of Homer writings, but in this case at least I thought Achilles would change. When I started this book I thought that this was the whole point-- evolving (from an insolent brat who kills mercilessly but runs to his mother over a stolen slave) to a mature and merciful warrior. I was mistaken, though, because Achilles learns nothing throughout the book, though the readers do.  Achilles is shallowly angry at Agamemnon the entire time and cannot let go.  Even when he rejoins Agamemnon he still hasn't learned to let go and still angry. This time, though, he focuses his anger on Hector, who he mauls and destroys. Maybe after the events of the story he learns something, is touched by Hector's father's care, changed by his friend's death, or something, but I'm not so sure. I hope, for my own sake as a curious reader, that he may become a little more bearable later on in his glorified life.

   

A Midsummer Night's Dream

There were two reasons I read A Midsummer Night's Dream. The first was that after Romeo and Juliet I wanted to read something more by Shakespeare, but I'm lazy and wanted to read something easy. The second is that when I was younger I used to be obsessed with the Sisters Grimm series ( it was the next step up from Cinderella) and one of the main characters in that series was Puck. I was really curious if Puck was similarly portrayed in both texts (he was.)

Puck is a servant, but he seems more like Oberon and Titania's mischievous little son. He runs around causing trouble and generally creating problems for the public. Despite this, I think he has good intentions. He is the creator of the main problem in the story when he puts the love potion on Lysander instead of Demetrius. This totally destroys the careful love triangle. This was an innocent mistake however, and he didn't mean to create such angst, though I'm sure he wasn't shedding tears over it afterwards. 

He doesn't really have such great intentions when he gives Bottom a donkey/ass head, but Bottom is an ass, so why not exploit his personality for entertainment? Though his intentions are obviously to make Bottom look like an idiot, at least those aren't bad intentions. He doesn't make someone like Hermia have a donkey head. Besides, Bottom doesn't even really notice his donkey head, as he is too caught up in self love. Unlike Narcissus, who was so stuck up he had to look in the mirror (lake) till death, Bottom is so stuck up that he doesn't even need to see his reflection to assure himself of his greatness. He's on a whole other level.

I also think that when Shakespeare was writing Puck's character, he was thinking about opposite ideas and comparing and contrasting. This is because Puck is kind of a mixture between faeries and something more common. He is graceful and floaty, but coarse and chortley. (Chortley is not a word, but when I picture Puck, he always seems to be chortling.) The whole play is full of contrast: Titania and Bottom are opposites, as are the craftsmen and the faeries. Puck is different from other faeries; more human and more ugly.
 
This is why Puck is my favorite character in the play (and probably everyone else's as well, but I'm not going to lie and say another character for the benefit of being original.) He is human and makes mistakes, but laughs through them and through life. I seriously wish I could laugh at my problems like he does, because I think that I could be so much less stressed and worried all the time if I did. I love fairy tales and have been obsessed with Cinderella and Sleeping Beauty etc. since I was a kiddie, but as I grew older, I began to  resent all of their perfection. What Shakespeare does so well is give his ethereal characters flaws. The faeries are supposed to be pretty perfect, but Puck is far from perfect. Titania is a stubborn drama queen. Oberon is obnoxious and has a selfish side. They are also both extremely self- righteous. Their brattiness and Puck's non faerieness is what I love about the play. I actually think that, though Romeo & Juliet is considered the better play, the characters are generally more interesting in A Midsummer Night's Dream. Romeo and Juliet are pretty great people. Maybe if Juliet was jealous and suspicious and Romeo was a drunk, but they still were madly in love, I would like it even more.

To Kill a Mockingbird

My second favorite character in To Kill a Mockingbird is Boo Radley. He is, in the beginning of the book, a kind of sinister enigma, someone unreal and strange to the kiddies. However, as the book progresses, you begin to realize Boo Radley's true character.

Throughout the book, he leaves Jem and Scout presents. This is (assuming he's not trying to lure the kids in or something else equally creepy) a really sweet gesture. Mending Jem's pants was kind of kindly as well.  Throughout the book, Scout begins to recognize him more and more as a real and complex person. This gradual build- up is significant, I think, and it displays how you can judge someone by their cover (or creepy house and vampire- like tendencies.)  When he saves the two youngsters from Bob Ewell, he asserts his position as an inherently good person. Even through all the awful stuff that's been thrown at him, he's nice to the naïve little kidlings.

Boo Radley's character is closely tied to the name of the book. A mockingbird is a symbol of innocence, and, therefore, killing one is destroying it. This, along with the ideas of bad and good, are some major themes of the book. (I think that this is why the book is so popular with schools and such-- bad and good are such juicy, philosophical ideas that sound intelligent and would probably be easy to write a lesson plan about). Anyway, Boo Radley is one of the "mockingbirds" in the book. He had a shizzy childhood, what with his father really pretty much destroying him emotionally while he was just a smart little boy, and as a result, has a pretty messed- up personality. Understandable! What really wows me about Boo, though, is that even though he's the mockingbird; his innocence destroyed, he still acts as though he's innocent. He's so strong that through everything he's paddled 'round, he's a pretty great guy.

But this is getting back into the whole internally good vs. bad thing, which I suppose is what the book's about anyway, so it's unavoidable. Boo Radley, like Jem and Scout, are good mockingbirds. I would think that most bad/ evil/misunderstood people in the world are like fallen mockingbirds. Being exposed to evil can force you to grow up, like it did to Scout and Jem, but it also can shape you in other ways, like Boo Radley. If you believe that nurture has at least a significant role in your personality, you may go with this theory-- that if you're exposed to many bad things they'll make you old and wise, screwed up and lost, or evil and prejudiced.

Boo Radley is so particularly spiffy and spicy because he is very screwed up and lost, but also good and kind of world- weary. He was forced to grow up too, probably about 50 years earlier than most people do, and it made him a hermit. Boo Radley is sympathetic throughout most of the book, to you if not the characters. The whole time while reading the book for me, I kept getting frustrated at Scout and Jem because of their initial shallowness and how very unfair they were to dear Boo.

Resistance and Scant Support Sealed Fate of Push for Assault Weapons Ban

     In this article by Jennifer Steinhauer, the main idea is that despite recent shootings and presidential support, an assault weapons ban has little support. Apparantely, Democratic senator Dianne Feinstein expected and wanted the bill to pass, but her expectations were shot down by Democratic majority leader Harry Reid. He supposedly told her that  a renewal of the old assault weapons ban — the largest factor in American gun control for about twenty years— would not be included in a gun-regulation bill in Senate in April. There have been some terrible incidents involving gun control lately-- most prominantly the school shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary school. However, that was not the only recent incident that could possibly have been prevented with stricter gun control. There have been shootings on college campuses, in a movie theater, and on the congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords. Despite all of these horrifying events-- which, logically, would probably incite people to want more gun control-- the chances of an assault weapons ban passing is slender as a salmon. As Steinhauer says, the bill is unlikely to pass because of "the lobbying prowess of the National Rifle Association; stiff resistance from lawmakers in both parties; serious questions about the efficacy of the ban in stemming gun violence; and the lack of support from gun safety groups." Apparantely, gun control groups are focusing more on backround checks than bans. All of these facts support the main idea I thought up-- that people do not care for banning assault weapons no matter what's going on.
     The author wants us to think that it is unreasonable that the assault weapons bill is not getting support. They want us to feel angry and self- righteous; angry that all of the terrible incidents regarding shooting happened, and kind of self- righteous in that we must unite against the horrible violence. Also, the author seems to think that Congress is largely disagreeable and slow- moving (there are no agreements.) One of the crafts she uses is selective information choosing. For example, she tells us all about the recent shootings and such, but not once did she mention the Second Amendment. She also used the method of sympathy and portraying one side in a better light.
     From this article, I will take away a decidedly better store of knowledge on gun control/ bans, as well as improved abilities on picking out bias and comprehending an author's purpose. My personal opinion is that assault weapons should be banned. Our country was much improved with that bill; as soon as it was removed, the violence and shootings went way up. And why does anyone need assault weapons anyway? Geez! I think that I would like to learn more about assault weapons and the current legality of them and other weapons. I 'd also ike to hear more about the White House's stance on all of this monkey business.

A Conservative With a Common Touch -- NY Times

     The article "A Conservative With a Common Touch," By Emily Schmall and Larry Rohter, is an article with the main purpose of informing us about the new pope, Francis. The author wants us to learn his history, and he gives us many details about Francis's life. He was born Jorge Mario Bergoglio, the son of an Italian immigrant and a native mother. Therefore it makes more sense that he is the pope. He is a soccer fan like anyone else in Argentina. He also has interestingly Franciscan tendencies, resenting wealth and pomp and choosing to lead a more normal life. Using public transportation, choosing to not live in a big cardinal mansion, cooking his own food, and other things like that increase the irony of his chosen pope name. He got somewhat tangled up in the 1970s Argentinian Dirty War, and has been accused of not taking actions to help when he knew of certain things. He has extremely conservative, homophobic, and sexist in his views, not believing in abortion, gay marriage or adoption, or the ordination of women. He is very helpful to the poor and sick, and has made a signifigant difference in  Argentina. One time, he washed and kissed the feet of 12 HIV victims. This to me is kind of hypocritical, because a large percentage of HIV patients are in fact gay and Francis's views on pro gay policy are that 'tis "a war against god," and a "maneuver by the devil." All of these important details were included to give us a  wide picture of the Pope's past, views, and personality.
     In this article, the authors want us to think and feel that Francis may not be as solid and great as other media representaions portray him. I think this because over half of the article focuses on his "questionable" doings in the Dirty War, which are just speculation. The authors spend paragraphs trying to over complicate it. They nitpick at his past; desperately trying to find things to put him in a bad light. They talk for paragraphs about his lack of a public statement after a specific preist was arrested. The craft moves they use consist mainly of what information is included and excluded and what words are used to describe things.
     I will take away from this article a far superior amount of knowledge about the new bishop of Rome. My thinking is probably adverse to everyone else's ( the author and people who love the new pope) as I believe that the Pope seems really great; generous and empathetic, and I don't quite buy all this Dirty War stuff, but I think that his views are extremely archaic and contradictory. The views he has are vey different from the views pounded into my head since birth. Now I would further like to know more about the Dirty War business, to see if there's proof to anything or any types of neglect or abuse of power, and I'd like to learn more about Saint Francis (the namesake), Jesuits (the type of catholicism), Italian immigration (his father was one) and Argentina's history and government.

Love in the Time of Cholera

 In Love in the Time of Cholera, by Gabriel Garcia Marquez, the plot seems to be deeply entwined with cholera, the actual sickness, but I think that cholera is really just a symbol for lovesickness; love as a negative thing, that inspires negative actions. He's saying that love is an emotional and physical illness.

When Florentino Ariza's ex's husband dies of cholera, he sees his chance. Though it is tens of years after he and Fermina Daza were together, and now she is an old widow, he wants her back. The characters (really just Florentino Ariza) have symptoms of lovesickness that are similiar to the symptoms of cholera in that he's being plagued by it. In chapter two, he vomits out flowers just so he can remember his old girlfriend. That is physically injuring and unsafe. He also drinks cologne in the same chapter so that he can remind himself of her. His love(sickness) is physically hurting him.

He is also becoming slightly crazy, psychologically, about her (Fermina Daza.) His love is obsessive and he can't let go. I think that not being able to let go of a relationship decades after it's over, when your ex is married, and you're both really old labels you as psychologically off the edge. Florentino is mentally disturbed because he is so in love. Later on in the book, Florentino demands that the captain guy on a shipmake an announcement that there is cholera on the boat, even though there is not. There kind of is sickness on the ship though, because Florentino is aboard.

 Fermina Daza was the one Florentino was going to all this trouble for.Her husband, Dr. Urbino, had died, leaving her their grown kids. I think its kind of ironic that a doctor dies of a disease. Perhaps it wasn't the actual diease though. Perhaps, if you dig very deep down into Marquez's very deep brain, he was metaphorically saying that it was Florentino Ariza's lovesickness that killed him. He was meant to die.

I think that Marquez may not be a huge believer in love all the time. He writes as if he believes that love is dangerous, and not really a good thing. He thinks that love is like cholera-- destructive, inside and out; a plague.

Review on Elinor's Blog Post

http://divebeneaththesurface.blogspot.com/


I recently read Elinor's blogpost about "The Fault in Our Stars," by John Green, which has been getting a lot of buzz lately. I usually don't enjoy books about cancer (they're depressing and often simplistic) but from her post I got a really good sense of what the book is about and even want to read it now.

I thought that something Elinor did an unusually good job of balancing out summary and reflection. Many of the blog posts (or anything, really) I read are either very descriptive and boring, with little insight, or very deep and reflective with no background information, leaving me utterly confused as to who these thoughts are about. Elinor explained the situation, then jumped into analyzing the character and infering on why Hazel (the protagonist) acts how she does. On a related manner, she also structured her post really well; her paragraphs were flowy and topical, and the order they were in made perfect sense.

She also empathized with the character, which really added a bit more of her writer's voice and personality into the post. Just from reading the post I think I can empathize with Hazel, too. Elinor talks about cancer and the effects it can have on your life, which really made me think more about how much I take for granted and how much I do not understand. My dad has thyroid cancer, and I can only imagine what a horrible experience it would be to be a young girl with that type of illness. I am really very grateful that I am healthy. Elinor starts the next paragraph predicting what will happen next in the bok based on  the main idea, which I think was a really smart thing to do. The main idea and prediction are both very interesting and signifigant, and she did a great job blending them together.

I think that this is one of Elinor's best blog posts. Part of the reason I chose it was because I was interested in the book, but it was also her good writing that made me write this post on that. The post was complete, good gramatically, and flowy, with big words that actually served their purpose(es) instead of merely being there to be there and be big words just there. She did a really good job going in deep and thinking about the character but then also pondering so very kindly the world. Overall, I think that Elinor's greatest strength was balance; there was just the right amount of summary, description, reflection, personality, prediction, analyzing, and universalness (is that a word?)

The Pope’s Muffled Voice

In The Pope's Muffled Voice, the main idea is that catholics are becoming more and more separate from their pope and cardinals; modernizing before their leaders do. In 2011, a survey in the National Catholic Reporter gave evidence to prove that only 30 percent of American catholics believed that the teaching authority of the Vatican was very important. Only 21 percent supported a male, single priesthood, and 60 percent supported the notion of female priests. Catholics also often break "the rules." When it comes to pre- marital sex, divorce, and abortion, many catholics oppose their leaders with their actions, often times doing these things. Over half of American catholics support gay marriage, while the catholic religious leaders despise the idea. President Obama, with all of his liberal policies and ideas about things like birth control won the catholic vote, also. Many politicions break the standards set by the church as well.  Andrew Cuomo of the spiffiest state lives divorced, and with his girlfriend (not his wife) in addition to supporting some legislation for abortion, and even signing the gay marriage bill. These things all try to show that slowly, many catholics' views' are evolving from the standard  church views and becoming more akin to views more different from the church.

In this article, the author, Frank Bruni, wants the reader to think that it is good that catholics do not share all views with the pope. Like he says "They’re Christian. They’re caring. They’re moral. But they have minds and wills of their own, and no conclave will change that. " This use of artistic fragments, to more eloquently express his idea is great, and insinuating that without the different views catholics would be willess and mindless clones of the pope  is a rather brilliant declaration-- no one can deny that different ideas make you who you are. He also heavily uses metaphors, comparing the catholic church to a myriad of things, and calling the pope a "C.E.O."

My opinion on this topic is not very passionate-- I think that people can have their differing views from the church, but that's just the way I've grown up. With an agnostic father, and a catholic mother who goes to church only twice a year, and a divorced grandma, my family is not the most set to the ways of the church. I still want to know aout the other side. What does/did the Pope think about all this? Does he think his people are migrating away from  him?

Pride and Prejudice, by Jane Austen

In Pride and Prejudice, by Jane Austen, the two main characters, Mr. Darcy and Lizzy, are the two most commonly examined. However, I personally think that Miss Bingley is more interesting; she is my favorite character.

Miss Bingley is the one most often portrayed as a villian (besides Mr. Wickham, of course) but I think that she is misunderstood. As the book is primarily from Lizzy's perspective ( though it is third person) it is Lizzy who you root for the entire time, you want Lizzy, to marry Mr. Darcy. You certainly don't want Miss Bingley. But is she really so bad? The book has the word "pride" in its name, and that is mostly about Mr. Darcy, who you love despite, and perhaps even because of his pride. But Miss Bingley is different. She never gets over her pride, which, in the first place, is false.

With her belief in marriage depending on social classes, she must have been extremely deluded to think that Mr. Darcy would sink so far down as to marry her. She is the daughter of a tradesman, her wealth  is nothing to his-- his uncle is titled. Thinking that it would be suitable for Darcy to marry her but not suitable for him to marry Lizzy is very hypocritical. After all, Lizzy is a gentleman's daughter. A poor country gentleman's daughter might, in the eyes of someone so very stuck up, be above a rich tradesman's daughter.

Going by this reasoning, the type of reasoning Miss Bingley surely used on others but not on herself, her own brother, Mr. Bingley, had married above himself. Jane, Lizzy's sister, is a gentleman's daughter too.  Miss Bingley should not have disapproved. In this way Miss Bingley's whole personality is contradictory, which makes her such a good and complex character.

Though she is prideful and arrogant, and not at all likeable, I feel that she can be sympathetic, if not so sympathetic as Darcy. She is certainly not a villian, but a young woman who wants to get further up the social ladder. This is nothing unusual; everyone is desparate for popularity-- it is human nature. And so is her longing for riches. Why do you think the lottery is so successful? Miss Bingley, in my opinion, is just a normal person surrounded by people who make her look terrible-- she looks greedy next to Darcy (who has no need to be greedy because he's already loaded), cruel next to her brother (who would make anyone appear cruel; he's just naturally kind- hearted, as is Jane), and shallow next to Lizzy (who has no marital or monetary ambition.)

Bias in broadcast: Anti-gun stories overwhelm pro-gun stories 8 to 1

     I recently read a Washington Times article entitled "Bias in broadcast: Anti-gun stories overwhelm pro-gun stories 8 to 1," by Jennifer Harper. The main idea of the text is that there is a bias in the media; only 1 out of eight stories about gun control are pro-guns. Apparantly, the media used the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary to advertise gun restricting laws." 'The networks quickly moved to exploit the tragedy to push for more gun control legislation while mostly ignoring solutions that respect gun owners' Second Amendment rights,' says analyst Geoffrey Dickens." Three news stations, ABC, NBC, and CBS, were tested for their story topics, and, according to the article, CBS is the worst in terms of including articles against gun control. CBS accordingly had a 22:1 ratio of stories. The author keeps reinforcing mainly the same idea; that the media is biased on this issue.

     The author obviously wants us to feel sympathetic with his bias-- that the media is biased. He seems to think that it is horrible how a sad event is being "exploited." He wants us to feel angry and sad, and also quite indignated-- he does mention that we have the right to bear arms under the Second Amendment. He uses quotes from professional people, but only people who agree with him, so as to ensure we will as well. He also quotes a kid on teachers having guns. "I like it, because it kind of makes me feel safer. Because, I mean, we don't have a police station here." He also uses some illiteration to spark up his piece ex. bias in broadcast. The author seems to be also cleverly choosing the websites tested-- they are noting the amount of anti- guns programming on left leaning programs-- I think his results would be much different if he replaced CBS with FOX.

     From this issue, I have not taken away much that the author wanted me to. I thought that it was poorly done to deliver an incredibly biased article berating other reporters for being biased. As a result, I am inclined not to agree with the man-- after all, what is the chance that people will be fighting for less gun control on lefty channels and after a horrible school shooting? I would in the future like to know more about the control laws passed-- and how politicions manage it without offending the Second Amendment.

Despair, by Vladimir Nabokov

Though Nabokov proclaims in his foreward (and in general) that writing for the sake of themes is pointless and that he doesn't do it, I would conclude from this only that he is a hypocrite and a liar because there were many themes in Despair. Subconsious though they may be, there are themes. I am confident that Nabokov knows of this, as his IQ is probably mine times seven, and simply does not care. He is a fibber. And so too, is his main character, Hermann.

During the course of the book, the main character, Hermann, finds a man who he thinks looks exactly as he does. The man, Felix, does not believe in this resemblance, and neither does anyone else. Toward the end of the book, you realize that despite Hermann's constant and unwavering obsession with Felix's looks, Felix looks nothing at all like Hermann. This, I think is a theme of false doubles, when you think that some things are parallel, but truly are not.  

Hermann may have seen his spirit reflected in Felix, and deluded himself into thinking he had the coarseness and honesty of a poorer man.  I think, in addition to the false doubles idea, Nabokov has wealth as a minor theme, and how the poor seem to be more honest.    

Hermann, we discover, is not honest.  He always exaggerates to reassure himself.  For instance, I think that he lies about his wife Lydia. He overly and repeatedly assures us in the first chapters of the book of Lydia’s honesty, and of how he is fond of her because she is absolutely devoted to and in love with him.  He goes on and on about how she loves him, but as the book goes on, you begin to be sure that she is having an affair with her cousin.  You can’t be too devoted if you’re cheating with your cousin!

The whole double idea with Felix-- was that a lie, too?  That is what I wonder. Nabokov obviously thinks that all the characters in the book are liars, and I think  that he’s trying to say that all adults are liars too.  That’s kind of depressing.   

Great Expectations by Charles Dickens

In Great Expectations, by Charles Dickens, everything happens twice. Even if you don't notice at the beginning, or ever, by the end you can see the pattern.

There are two women who Pip shows interest in (Estella and Biddy), two women who cannot walk (Mrs. Joe and Mrs. Havisham, two convicts near his house (Magwitch and Compeyson), and two secret money- givers (Magwitch and Pip--  Magwitch gives Pip his money and Pip buys Herbert's way into business.) There are also, most signifigantly, two adults who want to selfishly control and manipulate children for their own satisfaction-- Mrs. Havisham and Magwitch. Magwitch controls Pip-- he wants to have his own gentleman, while Mrs. Havisham controls Estella-- she wants her own little heartbreaker.

Funnily enough, these two figures desires for control are both spouted from one man-- Compeyson. Though Pip is the main character, I feel that Compeyson is a hidden central figure. Because without some of these other characters, the story could still go on. In the end, Estella is just a love interest, Mrs. Havisham is just her cruel mother- type person, Magwitch is just a convict with a longing for riches, and Pip is just a boy.
Compeyson leaves Mrs. Havisham at the alter, causing her to adopt and to raise Estella as she is. Compeyson's grandeur make Magwitch want some, and Pip is turned from a boy by Magwitch, and so, if you dig, Compeyson.  The two people who Compeyson really effect are another example of the doubles motif.

Also, the relationship between Mrs. Havisham and Compeyson (a rich woman, and a common man), reflects the relationship between Estella and Pip.

What Dickens does with these doubles, is create a feeling of orderly chaos. The different things going on, and slight repetitiveness of it can make it chaotic, but the definitive idea that it will happen twice really pulls the story together. This makes the plot more complicated, the coincidences better plannned out, and the characters incredibly intricate. It furthers along the idea that Dickens is creating of connection-- everything is connected-- and therefore supports a major theme.

Sense and Sensibility, by Jane Austen

In Sense and Sensibility, a book by Jane Austen, the character John Willoughby is a major playor. Everywhere  he scampers, he leaves broken hearts in his midst.  His charming personality and handsome nostrils would draw women in, and he would evidently have no serious feelings for any of them.

Take Colonel Brandon's ward Eliza-- she is hooked right in, impregnated, and then left alone with no help. Willoughby is too cowardly to approach his own child (or children, as there could have been many more instances before the start of this book.) He gets everyone in love with him-- even sensible Elinor is rather fond of him\at a point. Marianne, however,  becomes infatuated with him. They see each other every day and give each other hair locks and she takes take part in some unladylike behavior for him. Then comes the wealthy Miss Grey. She is very rich-- Marianne is not any longer-- and he wants money. So he leaves Marianne on "business" to town (the business, of course, being courting Miss Grey.)

When Willoughby marries Miss Grey, at least he is settling down. He won't be running around breaking so many more hearts. But this idea of learning, and being less of a player I believe did not start with Miss Grey, but with Marianne. He was most likely in love with her, and certainly was exceedingly fond of her.Just having the experience of actually caring for someone can be very changing-- especially when you cannot have them.

Mr. Willoughby exits the book the villain, but a changed man. He cares for Marianne, but is to marry Miss Grey, due to his own actions. He has to live with himself and his guilt-- to acknowledge that he is the reason for his misery. He is not happy with Miss Grey, but after a while learns to become a decent husband. As he explains to Elinor at the end of the book, he knows that he would have been happy with Marianne, but what really would have made him happier-- a loving wife or a load of money?

Russia to Let a Few U.S. Adoptions Go On

In Russia to Let a Few U.S. Adoptions Go On, by Ellen Barry, the main idea is that the Russian government ought to allow U.S. adoptions, especially when so many families already in the process were denied adoption. Apparantely, only adoptions who have court orders already will go through (and, as Barry says, the court order is difficult to get and comes at the end of the process.) The author mentions that "500 to 1,000 families have been affected." He also notes that there is a petition against it with over 130, 000  names on it, enough so that the government should look at it, but they are doing nothing. He also mentions that a protest marche "aimed at legislators" is planned for sunday. There have been many stories of Russian corruption,  and this time the citizens are taking a stand against Putin and his regime.

The author wants us to feel sorry for the almost- parents, and righteously angry at the Russian government. She wants us to want (if not ourselves, then others) to make a stand. She cleverly conceals the other side's perspective from our view by including only quotes from one guy who really isn't so involved. She also ends the piece with strong facts that are sure to ignite someone up in the United  States-- we get outraged that they don't have the same involvement of the people and , hopefully, lack of bias. The author however, has plenty of bias. She obviously is a very American woman who isn't happy with Vladimir Putin. She cleverly make her bias look correct by making it look like there's no bias- she gives a few reasons (however unreasonable they may be) for why Russia has put a haly to U.S. adoption.

I tink its absolutely disgusting and terrible to stop adoption like that. Why single out the U.S.? You cannot honnestly say that the U.S. does not have many families which would be great and suitable parents for a child. My sister is adopted, (not from Russia, though) and she is still my sister-- and she is thriving in America. I think that banning adoption like this has no excuse, and taking children away from possible families already in the adoption process is cruel and heartless.

Franny and Zooey

The book Franny and Zooey, by J.D. Salinger, is a really spiffy book consisting of two short stories. It is somewhat similiar to the author's other works in that a central theme is "phoniness" and people being fake.

This is captured really well by Salinger, and this theme starts to really occur when Franny is having a breakdown.  One of the central reasons for this is because all the kids at her her college are not the way she would have liked, and she does not  feel that she is getting a how she is not getting a very good experience. This is because, as she tells her boyfriend, Lane, she hates the phoniness and shallowness of people at school, and how they never act like themselves and often say things that aren't true. It comes to such extremes when she says she quit the school play, because acting is too similiar to being fake. 

She then has a complete spiritual crisis- involving fainting and praying- because she feels this way. Her own assumed honesty is crashing down on her, and becoming a disadvantage (though honesty, even though is a good trait, can often be a disadvantage in general.) But even so, her hatred of phoniness descends on herself, too, because how could everyone else be phony and not her? I think its also the realization that she could be fake, too which started her breakdown, and maybe invoked a little bit of an identity/personality crisis,

I realize that Salinger does not just mean fakeness in school, but deceit in character during our entire life. I think that as people get older, they lie more often. Babies are the most honest, but even teenagers have some degree of honesty sometimes. Adults often lie, even if it's only a "for your own good" lie. ("Wake up, we have donuts!") People get smarter and so more able to discern their wants and how to get them when they grow older. You want to fit in? Okay, just lie about your personality. Franny, who  has been smart all along, begins to realize this when it comes to a high point-- college, when everyone is growing up and becoming adults.

However, in spite of all this, I think that Salinger does not blame people for these flaws, but instead respects them for their humanity. Another central theme in the book is being good to all people. This is taught to Franny and Zooey primarily (as most things are) by their older brothers, who try to convince them that all people are worthy. Their parents have their respect even though their kids are much smarter than them, and so do, I think, the college students. I think that Salinger thinks the human race has many problems, but loves it anyway (how could he not; he is a human person, as he says, people are very egotistical.)