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.