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?)