In the Diary of Anne Frank, a main idea is how lonely the life is of a teenager. She does not have a confidant (that’s why here diary becomes one) and she has rather bad relationships with her mother and sister, and weak, shallow relationships with her friends. She continuously brags about her strings of annoying boys who are "in love with her," and her "large circle of friends," but tyhen says that she does not feel that she can talk to them about anything important. She writes toward the end of the diary, “the young are more lonely than the old.” She also uses mother as an example of how she would not like to be, and her sister as a figure she just isn't so very close to. Without there people in her life, she was set out on a long track – even before being put in hiding – to loneliness.
The author, Anne Frank, probably subconsciously wanted us to feel outrage at her treatment and to stand and make a difference (at least back then), while at the same time she just wanted us to sympathize with her – in terms of her situation of being forced to go into jiding because of the Holocaust, and also just her family/social situation. To make us realize the horror that was going on, she gives vivid details of her “crazy life,” how nice her life was before versus how awful it is now. You get this brief perfect time before everything starts in the beginning of the book, and then iot erupts into chaos. She vividly describes the anti-jew laws, while still maintaining that every thing is alright, that people are good despite it all. Her faith in the human race is admirable.
I will take away from this book a much better and more comprehensive understanding of the Holocaust and the hardships Jews had to face. My opinion on the issue obviously has not changed, but fortified and been made stronger. My understanding of World War II was greatly enhanced by this; before I understood what happened, but really not how people, much less a girl my own age, felt. I would like to know more about what happened to Anne, and how she died.
Friday, December 21, 2012
Friday, December 14, 2012
The Great Gatsby
In The Great Gatsby, by F. Scott. Fitzgerald, wealth, and how it corrupts people and destroys lives is a main theme. Nick, the main character and protagonist, goes out from his home of Minnesota to Long Island, seeking money and glamour under the guise of starting up a bond business.
His new neighbor, Jay Gatsby, throws fancy parties every week, and soon strikes up a sort of friendship with Nick. This is mainly because Nick playes a main part in the reintroducing of a girl (Nick's cousin, Daisy) who Gatsby has been in love with for years. In fact, it is revealed that Gatsby, poor when they had met, had lied about his financial status and then taken to cheating and swindeling to eventually create a mass fortune.
The pursuit of wealth is evil in the end, and, even with all his money, he still doesn't get the girl.
Also, knowing that the book takes place in the 1920s, I think about wealth in the time period. The roaring 20s were a period of financial stability, ladies in flapper outfits, and happiness. World War I had been over with, the economy was booming, and the rich were richer. Jay Gatsby's lavish weekly parties might have something to do with the time period-- maybe he wanted to prove that he could fit in the rich who had money to burn. However, he is one of the rich, and he does have money to burn, but he's one of the new, self- made rich who who live on the west egg of Long Island (the old rich live in the east egg.) People like Gatsby are less tasteful than the aristocracy as well, and put up garish displays of money. He feels a need to prove himself and display his riches and to always be looking for more-- which essentially led to his downfall and the fall of the 20s. The economy, after its sudden post- war rise, dropped again after the 20s, more dreadfully and depressively than ever before.
After a series of disasters ultimately leading to the death of Gatsby and moving away of Daisy and her husband, Nick goes back to Minnesota. It's less complicated there, and people have true values-- caring about things other than money and wealth and maintaining the kindnesses that can make a personality, even if you're a beggar on the street.
Thursday, December 6, 2012
Emma, by Jane Austen
In Emma, by Jane Austen, the main character is lovable but not quite likable. In many parts of the story she is her own antagonist and acts accordingly to her friend, Harriet. The book follows Harriet's romance and her own.
The main plot of the story involves when she tries to set her friend up (after a few successful tries in matchmaking) with a jerk. Then, later on, when Harriet gets a marriage proposal from a really kind man who she really likes, Emma convinces Harriet not to accept because she thinks that he's not good enough for her (by the end of the book, he and Harriet are happily married.)
This book makes me wonder if justice was served or not. In my opinion, justice is served when the victim of something emerges content, and the bad guy is punished. For instance, if someone murders someone, they are thrown in jail (assuming they're caught). In this story, Emma is both the bad guy and the victim, but she comes out of her situation pretty happily (if not with a little angst) with no punishment that I can see. So, going by my typical ruling, there would not be justice in this story.
However, I might say that Emma does get served justice, as Harriet is happy at the end, and Emma gets berrated once (which really affects her, as she grew up with only one lenient parent) and even learns a lesson by the end. You good also argue that Emma meant well, and had good intentions all along, and had nothing to justfy. It goes both ways.
If justice is not served by the end of the story, it certainly seems like there is; the "jerk ex- boyfriend" character is made to marry an awful lady, and Emma, our heroine, and Harriet, the cheerful henchperson, live happily ever after.
The main plot of the story involves when she tries to set her friend up (after a few successful tries in matchmaking) with a jerk. Then, later on, when Harriet gets a marriage proposal from a really kind man who she really likes, Emma convinces Harriet not to accept because she thinks that he's not good enough for her (by the end of the book, he and Harriet are happily married.)
This book makes me wonder if justice was served or not. In my opinion, justice is served when the victim of something emerges content, and the bad guy is punished. For instance, if someone murders someone, they are thrown in jail (assuming they're caught). In this story, Emma is both the bad guy and the victim, but she comes out of her situation pretty happily (if not with a little angst) with no punishment that I can see. So, going by my typical ruling, there would not be justice in this story.
However, I might say that Emma does get served justice, as Harriet is happy at the end, and Emma gets berrated once (which really affects her, as she grew up with only one lenient parent) and even learns a lesson by the end. You good also argue that Emma meant well, and had good intentions all along, and had nothing to justfy. It goes both ways.
If justice is not served by the end of the story, it certainly seems like there is; the "jerk ex- boyfriend" character is made to marry an awful lady, and Emma, our heroine, and Harriet, the cheerful henchperson, live happily ever after.
Friday, November 30, 2012
Rice Concedes Error on Libya; G.O.P. Digs In
In the article "Rice Concedes Error on Libya; G.O.P. Digs In," Republicans criticise her for stating that the attack in Benghazi was a "spontaneous protest gone awry," and not a terrorist attack. They also say that when the post of Secretary of State becomes available, they would rather vote for John Kerry than her. The author wants us to know that she was not aware that the attack was terrorism, but even so, she tried to imply it. However, the F.B.I. made her change her speech. Therefore, the public statements may not have been her fault.
The author wants us to think that she is innocent, and that the Republicans criticising her (mostly Senators McCain and Graham) are incorrect and just looking for ways to insult the Obama administration. He does this in numerous ways. He constantly quotes the Republicans, but in ways that make them seem unreasonable and a tad ridiculous. He subtly mentions ties that the Republicans have to our ever- so popular ex- President Bush. He also states things in a very "attack and defend" kind of way. First he writes what they think she did wrong, then he writes what they think, and then he writes what her defenders think. In this way, the Republicans are made into soounding awfully wrong.
I, though knowing that the piece is subtly manipulative, agree with the author. I think that any information that they should have had, but didn't, is the fault of the intelligence agencies, and that anything she wanted to say, but didn't is the fault of the F.B.I. However, I think that these agencies were working on the behalf of their country and did what they could, considering what they had at the time. And the Republicans' arguments about her were biased and unreasonable. They were so desperate to insult the White House, that they scrutinized her every move and said that, in an interview, she acted badly because she left a word out. I think that so far, she's been doing a fine job in a difficult job, and that the recent actions weren't her fault. If I were a senator, I'm not sure who I would vote for-- I'm right now very satisfied with Hilary Clinton.
The author wants us to think that she is innocent, and that the Republicans criticising her (mostly Senators McCain and Graham) are incorrect and just looking for ways to insult the Obama administration. He does this in numerous ways. He constantly quotes the Republicans, but in ways that make them seem unreasonable and a tad ridiculous. He subtly mentions ties that the Republicans have to our ever- so popular ex- President Bush. He also states things in a very "attack and defend" kind of way. First he writes what they think she did wrong, then he writes what they think, and then he writes what her defenders think. In this way, the Republicans are made into soounding awfully wrong.
I, though knowing that the piece is subtly manipulative, agree with the author. I think that any information that they should have had, but didn't, is the fault of the intelligence agencies, and that anything she wanted to say, but didn't is the fault of the F.B.I. However, I think that these agencies were working on the behalf of their country and did what they could, considering what they had at the time. And the Republicans' arguments about her were biased and unreasonable. They were so desperate to insult the White House, that they scrutinized her every move and said that, in an interview, she acted badly because she left a word out. I think that so far, she's been doing a fine job in a difficult job, and that the recent actions weren't her fault. If I were a senator, I'm not sure who I would vote for-- I'm right now very satisfied with Hilary Clinton.
Friday, November 16, 2012
The Catcher in the Rye
The Catcher in the Rye, by J.D. Salinger, has an odd yet symbolic title. It relates to how Holden, the main character, is scared of growing up.
However, the title doesn't even come clearly into play until the sixteenth chapter, where a boy is singing the song "Comin' Thro' the Rye." This song is by Robert Burns, and is about, bluntly enough, two stangers having a one night stand in a rye field. Holden doesn't really know this, and it becomes a central theme.This song appears later in the book as well, when Phoebe asks him what he wants to do with his life. He sees an image of a "Catcher in the Rye," where there's a field of rye full of childrenwith a nearby cliff.
He would pull falling children back into the rye, and off the scary cliff. This signifies growing up and how Holden, the main character in the book, does not want kids to grow up. He has a bad and weary adulthood, though he is not a full-fledged grown up, and is scared of the world and things he doesn't understand.
He's scared for the kids, too. Maybe he shpuldn't be. I think he's using his own life to model the lives of kids around him. Though he has their best interests at heart, perhaps kids do not need to be "catched." But then what is the point of Holden's life anyway?
Phoebe, Holden's little sister later points out that he has misheard the song anyway. He thought a line was "if a body catch a body comin' thro' the rye," when it wasn't. It was "when a body meet a body comin' thro' the rye."
However, the title doesn't even come clearly into play until the sixteenth chapter, where a boy is singing the song "Comin' Thro' the Rye." This song is by Robert Burns, and is about, bluntly enough, two stangers having a one night stand in a rye field. Holden doesn't really know this, and it becomes a central theme.This song appears later in the book as well, when Phoebe asks him what he wants to do with his life. He sees an image of a "Catcher in the Rye," where there's a field of rye full of childrenwith a nearby cliff.
He would pull falling children back into the rye, and off the scary cliff. This signifies growing up and how Holden, the main character in the book, does not want kids to grow up. He has a bad and weary adulthood, though he is not a full-fledged grown up, and is scared of the world and things he doesn't understand.
He's scared for the kids, too. Maybe he shpuldn't be. I think he's using his own life to model the lives of kids around him. Though he has their best interests at heart, perhaps kids do not need to be "catched." But then what is the point of Holden's life anyway?
Phoebe, Holden's little sister later points out that he has misheard the song anyway. He thought a line was "if a body catch a body comin' thro' the rye," when it wasn't. It was "when a body meet a body comin' thro' the rye."
Friday, November 2, 2012
Everything is Illuminated, By Jonathan Safran Foer
In Everything is Illuminated, by Jonathan Safran Foer, a young Jew named Jonathan Safran Foer heads to Ukraine to figure out his grandfather's past and hopefully, find traces of a woman named Augustine who reportedly saved his grandfather's life from the Nazis. I am not finished with the book, but from what I've read I have come to understand that one of the main themes in the book is the past, and remembering it.
The book often indicates that though we search for the past, we may not be pleased with what we find. That that past can be confining, can hold you down. There is a part in the book where the people of Trachimbrod, the Ukrainian town Jonathan's grandfather is from, get so absorbed in the past that the line between then and now starts to blur and peoples' lives are stirred up.
Lista, the more-than-slightly senile old woman who is the last survivor of Trachimbrod and unofficial guardian of the town, indicates that she would rather be dead than live with the memories she has when she says that the survivors of the town are not lucky. She dislikes her "job" as guardian instead of being glad to hold such a very signifigant position.
Also, Grandfather has issues with his past as well. He'd been involved in the war (WWII) and has such scarring memories of it that he tries to forget them. He almost ignores these memories.
Ignoring the past vividly contradicts with the other side of the theme-- learning from your past. The entire reason Jonathan goes on this adventure in the first place is find out about his grandfathers' past, and through it, find out and learn about himself.
I think that Jonathan Safran Foer tries to have us know that everything has a good and a bad side, and the past is no exception. He wants to to see the irony-- that Jonathan goes on a quest to discover what everyone else is trying their very best to forget.
The book often indicates that though we search for the past, we may not be pleased with what we find. That that past can be confining, can hold you down. There is a part in the book where the people of Trachimbrod, the Ukrainian town Jonathan's grandfather is from, get so absorbed in the past that the line between then and now starts to blur and peoples' lives are stirred up.
Lista, the more-than-slightly senile old woman who is the last survivor of Trachimbrod and unofficial guardian of the town, indicates that she would rather be dead than live with the memories she has when she says that the survivors of the town are not lucky. She dislikes her "job" as guardian instead of being glad to hold such a very signifigant position.
Also, Grandfather has issues with his past as well. He'd been involved in the war (WWII) and has such scarring memories of it that he tries to forget them. He almost ignores these memories.
Ignoring the past vividly contradicts with the other side of the theme-- learning from your past. The entire reason Jonathan goes on this adventure in the first place is find out about his grandfathers' past, and through it, find out and learn about himself.
I think that Jonathan Safran Foer tries to have us know that everything has a good and a bad side, and the past is no exception. He wants to to see the irony-- that Jonathan goes on a quest to discover what everyone else is trying their very best to forget.
Thursday, October 25, 2012
Special Topics in Calamity Physics, by Marisha Pessl
Special Topics in Calamity Physics, by Marisha Pessl, parental abandonment is a main theme and issue.
The main character, Blue van Meer, has a scholarly father who has them in a constant state of movement and often meets with colleages during free time. He does spend an abundance of time with Blue, but during this time he'll quiz her on Nobokov, or have her recite Shakespeare. He does not have a typical relationship with his daughter; however, she loves him very much, and towards the beginning of the book, even idolizes him. Her mother dies before when she is young, and is mentioned surreptitously (and bluntly, too) throughout the book. Though she is dead, Blue is very aware of her mother, and her haunting memory gives Blue's life lonliness and leaves a space missing.
The other characters have sketchy parental backrounds as well; many of the kids in the little clique that Blue is kind-of in, the Bluebloods, do not have clear and reliable parents.
Jade, for one (the snotty ice queen that every story needs) father is a nearly nonexistant figure in her life, and her mother is a slutty has-been who's still stuck in the 70s, and Jade calls her not Mom, but Jefferson. When Blue says Jefferson looks "very nice," Jade's reply is "About as nice as Hitler." "Boyfriends" frequent Jade and Jeffersons' mansion, and Jade is spiteful and unhappy as a result of her home life.
Blue never even meets the parents of the other Bluebloods, and for most of the story is deluded to think that they had all had extravagantly melodramatic pasts. She believes this as an result of a tale that Hannah, their friend and teacher, who dies later on in the book, tells her. In reality, Hannah has had a bad relationship with her parents.
This story is, essentially, a coming of age piece (as Blue is turning 18) in which you learn about growing up and becoming independent from your parents. Blue has been pretty much independent her whole life, except for her Dad, and during the course of the book, she becomes independent of him, too. But it isn't the struggle it may be for other kids-- normal children depend more when they haven't got failure on their parents' part in their past.
Reading this book makes me wonder what inspired Marisha Pessl to write it. Does it come from her lifeit more about the mystery or the relationships? Did she have a bad family situation?
The main character, Blue van Meer, has a scholarly father who has them in a constant state of movement and often meets with colleages during free time. He does spend an abundance of time with Blue, but during this time he'll quiz her on Nobokov, or have her recite Shakespeare. He does not have a typical relationship with his daughter; however, she loves him very much, and towards the beginning of the book, even idolizes him. Her mother dies before when she is young, and is mentioned surreptitously (and bluntly, too) throughout the book. Though she is dead, Blue is very aware of her mother, and her haunting memory gives Blue's life lonliness and leaves a space missing.
The other characters have sketchy parental backrounds as well; many of the kids in the little clique that Blue is kind-of in, the Bluebloods, do not have clear and reliable parents.
Jade, for one (the snotty ice queen that every story needs) father is a nearly nonexistant figure in her life, and her mother is a slutty has-been who's still stuck in the 70s, and Jade calls her not Mom, but Jefferson. When Blue says Jefferson looks "very nice," Jade's reply is "About as nice as Hitler." "Boyfriends" frequent Jade and Jeffersons' mansion, and Jade is spiteful and unhappy as a result of her home life.
Blue never even meets the parents of the other Bluebloods, and for most of the story is deluded to think that they had all had extravagantly melodramatic pasts. She believes this as an result of a tale that Hannah, their friend and teacher, who dies later on in the book, tells her. In reality, Hannah has had a bad relationship with her parents.
This story is, essentially, a coming of age piece (as Blue is turning 18) in which you learn about growing up and becoming independent from your parents. Blue has been pretty much independent her whole life, except for her Dad, and during the course of the book, she becomes independent of him, too. But it isn't the struggle it may be for other kids-- normal children depend more when they haven't got failure on their parents' part in their past.
Reading this book makes me wonder what inspired Marisha Pessl to write it. Does it come from her lifeit more about the mystery or the relationships? Did she have a bad family situation?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)