Blog Reflection... final post of the year!

When I first created my blog, I chose the name "Stories Are Light" because this was a line from one of my all time favorite books, The Tale of Despereaux  by Kate DiCamillo. My mom read this book to me a couple years ago, and every night we would read a couple chapters, and talk about the book-- something we haven't done together in a really long time. Keeping this blog made me motivated about reading, and really encouraged me to think deeper and push myself as much as I could. 
Keeping a blog throughout the year has been a really interesting experience and forced me to really understand and analyze the books I read. In the past, I realized that as a reader I don't always pay as much attention to my books as a should. Before this year, sometimes I would read a chapter and have no idea what had happened and not had the attention or motivation to go back and reread. But this year books have really come alive to me, and I've felt this amazing feeling of wanting to read and just sit down with my book instead of watching TV or something else. This experience has benefited me so much because I have learned to care about what I'm reading-- about the characters, the writing stye, the plot arch, etc. Through this blog I have appreciated and enjoyed books like never before, and that skill of being able to read challenging books and still think deeply about them is so important for high school and the rest of my life.
I think that writing online allows us to edit our work, and make it sound just the way we want to. In this way, sometimes people online can be very fake. This doesn't necessarily have to be a bad thing in my opinion; sometimes it can be great to be fake! :) Sometimes being able to not be yourself and to project who you want to be can be an outlet or an opportunity for you to thrive. But I do think that sometimes this can be negative, and sometimes people abuse the freedom that being online gives you. Just because you can be fake doesn't mean you should. People a lot of the times form relationships over an online site like Facebook and say things that they wouldn't have the courage to say to someone's face. That again can be good and bad, because maybe you're less shy online, but having a friendship strictly through text or Facebook is unhealthy and wrong, because you really don't know that person the way you should know a true friend. 
I could see myself blogging on this blog in the future-- maybe a little less frequently though. I definitely can see myself writing a post after I finish a book, just to make sure I was paying attention and actually thinking about what I was reading. I don't really see myself as having a blog when I grow up-- one where I just put my opinions out. For me, I don't completely feel comfortable letting anybody in the world hear what I have to say. Maybe if I become really passionate about one particular topic…
Overall, although I would sometimes dread every other Thursday night where I knew I would have to be writing a post, it was a good experience. Around January I really started to not mind the constant posts, and it became so natural writing them. I was worried less about making them perfect, and focused more on saying the most intelligent thoughts and ideas I could. This has been a great experience, and I do think some people are going to take this experience and become big bloggers when they grow up (it's a great way to express yourself and let other people make connections to you)… but I don't think I could create a lifestyle of blogging. 

The Matrix-- What it means to be living

       The Matrix, directed by Andy and Lana Wachowski, is a mind-bending, science fiction film, exploring the ideas of a world within a world. The main character is a man named Thomas, who during the day is an average guy, but at night, takes on another character of Neo, a computer hacker. Neo is tracked down by Morpheus, a legendary computer hacker who is wanted by the government (the agents). Morpheus introduces Neo to the reality of the life he is living; a destroyed world where humans are simply part of a machine-- the matrix-- that lives off of energy supplied by humans. Throughout the movie, questions of reality -- actually living vs. being part of a computer program-- come up frequently, and the idea of what is means to be alive guides the movie. 
        This movie connects to our philosophy study of what is a person, and what our body and mind actually are and do. The whole set up of the movie is a time when our world has been destroyed, and we (as humans) are living in a machine called the matrix in which we supply energy to keep it going. As I was watching this, I found myself baffled at this whole idea of this lifestyle. I questioned whether you could actually call this living. 
       Chapter 13 from Philosophy for Dummies is labeled, "What is a Person?". In this chapter it states, "If you believe that all that exists is matter, then you'll naturally believe we are nothing but matter." I guess from reading this, you could say that yes, living within a machine is living, because we are matter within that machine. But the next part of that section says, "If you think that all is mental, you'll believe that we human beings are all fundamentally nonmaterial minds." In this case, it takes a little more than simply being matter to be classified as a living person.
       I personally agree more with the second part. I think being programmed into a machine and not really having any control of yourself is not real living. I think it's more about your mind, and your abilities to think and feel and speak for yourself-- for what you believe; not what some computer program is telling you to. It's crazy, this idea that we could be living our lives within a machine and have no idea whatsoever. But I think we can't let ourselves think that way, because as far as we know now as people, we are living. We have the capability to say what we want, and feel what we want. Our minds and bodies are who we are. The Matrix is a movie that makes your head hurt, trying to wrap your mind around what it is suggesting about a possible form of human race. But when you really see the difference between living and just being part of the system, is when Neo is taken out of the Matrix, and isn't plugged into any machines or having formulas programmed into his mind. He is simply living, and breathing, and thinking. He is more than just a piece of matter when he is out of the matrix. He is a human being. 

The Great Gatsby: Truth and Justice

       In The Great Gatsby, by F. Scott Fitzgerald, the characters are so wrapped up in their heads, consumed by the ideas of wealth and luxury, and often times choose the "socially acceptable" choice, over the emotionally fulfilling one. Daisy and Gatsby are both extremely complex characters who are lying to themselves and to each other. Daisy hides her emotions, and chooses the life path that will create the least damage, even if it means being unhappy. Gatsby, on the other hand, is this mysterious man, who even by the end of the book, I still feel like there's more to learn about him. Who is Gatsby? That is a question that comes up very often. There's a lot more to him then what's on the surface-- or what he allows to be on the surface. This book shows the difference between appearance and true self, and what the value of truth and justice is.                          
       What it means to be honest to yourself and to others is an idea that is carried throughout the story. Most of the characters, with the exception of Nick, are liars. They lie about their affairs, they lie about their emotions, and they lie about their past. Is lying ever okay? I think there is a difference between lying about emotions and lying about facts. Tom was cheating on Daisy with Myrtle-- that was a fact. That was not okay to lie about. That was not something he was allowed to simply keep from her. But with Daisy and Gatsby, the lies become more complicated. Daisy is living her life in a lie. Her emotions and feelings for Tom are far from genuine. She is miserable, and finds happiness only when she reunites with Gatsby. But she throws it away for wealth, and stability. She takes the "safe" route. She lies to herself, and I think that kind of lying, even though it may not be right, is acceptable-- as long as it's only directly hurting yourself.
       This leads me to think about this difference between right and okay (or acceptable). Just because something is wrong doesn't mean it's not okay, and just because something is right doesn't mean it is okay. The difference between morally right and emotionally right is big in my opinion. 
       Another big concept in the book is the idea of justice. At the end, Tom (who is the one of the more intolerable, "bad" characters) has no punishment whatsoever for his actions. His actions of both cheating on Daisy, as well as being a rich, stuck up jerk to Gatsby goes without consequences. Gatsby however, has a less than simple ending, and gets (certainly) not what he deserves. He is unfairly accused and punished (in the most severe way possible) for something he didn't even do. This makes me think about justice in our world. Is there justice? Are people fairly prosecuted for the things they do? I think justice can be defined as many different things depending on the situation you are in, so it's hard to define it as a whole. Although technically there is a dictionary definition, I don't think there should be a universal definition of justice that you can apply to anything. Because fair can mean a lot of different things, and have a lot of different levels to it. 
       Overall, The Great Gatsby explores many philosophical concepts, revolving around truth and wealth and justice. Truth and justice connect in both the book and in our lives, because evidentially it's truth that creates the issue of whether justice is being served or not. Without truth and lies, we wouldn't have much to measure justice based off of. The Great Gatsby shows how unfair the world we live in is, and people don't always get what they deserve. A lot of the time, the rich do come out ahead, because they are able to manipulate and lie their way out of trouble, whereas others don't have that opportunity. This was an amazing book which was thought provoking and opened my eyes up to the realities of the world we live in, the flaws it has, but the improvements and long way we have come since the time The Great Gatsby takes place in. 

The Great Gatsby

       The Great Gatsby, written by F. Scott Fitzgerald, is a classic book that tells the story of a young man named Jay Gatsby, and the complicated love and tragedy that he experiences. Set in the 1920s, also known as the Jazz Age, Gatsby (so far) is a romantic, complicated story of wealth, love, heartbreak, lies, and much more! F. Scott Fitzgerald has created such complex, intense characters already by chapter five. Daisy Buchanan is one of these characters. She is a beautiful, charming young woman, yet so incredibly lonely and living in a pretend bubble at the same time. 
       Daisy is a really interesting character. When Nick Carraway (the storyteller, also Daisy's cousin), first comes to have dinner at her house, he walks in to find her laughing and all bubbly with her good friend. She seems happy; as though she doesn't have a care in the world. But as this scene progresses, readers see just how fake this is. Daisy is all about appearance-- she hides her feelings and covers them up with fake smiles and laughs. 
       Daisy seems like she has made mistakes in her life-- ones that have stuck with her. In this scene where Nick is attending dinner at her and her husband Tom's house, she tells him about the day her daughter was born. She says, "She [the nurse] told me it was a girl, and I turned my head away and wept. 'Alright', I said, 'I'm glad it's a girl. And I hope she'll be a fool-that's the best thing a girl can be in this world, a beautiful little fool." (pg. 17). I think Daisy is saying something about her own life when she says this; that she hopes her daughter just has fun as a fool instead of getting stuck in something she doesn't want to be in (like marriage perhaps) like Daisy did. I also think she is saying she hopes her daughter is careless, and doesn't get hung up on a man in a way that will stick with her the rest of her life. 
       I think Daisy is afraid of her feelings. I think something in her past caused her to be forever hurt by it, and that feeling is what scares her. Daisy had been hurt, and as I read more and more, it's starting to become clear that something happened between her and Gatsby in the past. At some point, Nick mentions Gatsby's name, and the author writes Daisy's reaction: "'Gatsby?' demanded Daisy. 'What Gatsby?'". This detail is subtle, but clearly there is something more to that line than just Daisy asking a simple question. 
       Overall, Daisy is an incredibly complex character. I feel so bad for her, yet I also think she is stupid for getting herself into something she isn't happy with. Gatsby clearly wants her-- he wants Nick to set up a time for them to reunite. I think Daisy needs to get away from the life she is stuck in, and stop pretending. People in this world are fools; they are always faking. I think it's important for us to not hide our feelings, and not cover them up just because that may be the "easy" way out. Doing that is like lying to yourself and to others around you. Daisy, and people who live in that pretend bubble she lives in, need to face their emotions, even if that is what scares them. 

Looking for Alaska

      The book, "Looking for Alaska", written by John Green, is a fun, yet incredibly emotional book that tells the story of Miles Halter, who is (at first) a wimpy, inexperienced teenager who doesn't really fit in at his school. He convinces his parents to let him go to boarding school-- Culver Creek Preparatory  High School in Alabama-- for his junior year. His roommate Chip, "The Colonel", soon becomes his close friend, and introduces him to his own crowd, giving him the nickname "Pudge". Miles soon meets Alaska Young, an extremely attractive but very emotionally unstable girl. Throughout the story, Miles and Alaska's relationship changes and grows in so many ways. John Green does an excellent job of showing the complexities of relationships, and how important they are to help us learn and grow as individuals. 
       I would describe Alaska as a wild, rebellious girl, but at the same time, she is extremely smart and emotional. Sometimes while reading I found myself hating her-- hating her unexplained mood swings and her selfish behavior. But other times, Alaska Young is a character that I love, and want to meet and be friends with. 
      Miles, (aka Pudge), is almost the complete opposite of Alaska. He is tame, and inexperienced. He has a stable life at home, and is a pretty chill kid. One thing Alaska and Miles do have in common is their intelligence. Both are deep thinkers-- Miles who is seeking the "Great Perhaps", and Alaska, who is trying to figure her way out of this labyrinth we call life. 
      Despite their differences, Miles and Alaska have an extremely close, yet complex relationship. Since Miles is so in love with her, Alaska, being intelligent and aware, knows this, and uses it to her advantage-- or so it seems to me. It's like he is her dog on a leash, and she pulls him closer when she wants him, but then just as easily pushes him away when she doesn't. For example, right before Thanksgiving break, Miles had planned to go home to his family, just as the rest of Culver Creek did. Alaska however, did not have plans and was going to stay there. She wants Miles to stay with her, and Miles, being so head over heels for her, calls his parents and cancels his plans. He says to his mom on the phone, " 'I think I might stay here for Thanksgiving. A lot of my friends are staying'--lie--'and I have a lot of work to do'-- double lie". Miles knows the only reason he is staying is so that he can be alone with Alaska, which proves that he is in her spell, and not only can't, but doesn't want to come out of it.
      John Green shows just how powerful a relationship can be. Miles and Alaska are just friends. Always will be. Even though there are moments when their relationship seems like more than just friends, that is all they are. It's so simple, it's just friendship-- and yet, it is so much more.
      I look around at my own life, and my own friendships, and I realize how much more complex they are than just that. We call our friends our friends, when really, there are so many more layers to that word. Alaska and Miles are friends, but they both have different feelings for each other than with their other friends. The two help each other, but also cause each other emotional stress. They are always there for each other, and honestly, they change each others' lives. They teach each other things. This book really illustrates the power of friendship, and how important, yet confusing, relationships are.Without each other, Alaska and Miles would not have grown and changed to become the individuals they become in the story.  

Behind Barbed Wire, Shakespeare Inspires a Cast of Young Syrians

       The article, "Behind Barbed Wire, Shakespeare Inspires a Cast of Young Syrians", written by Ben Hubbard, tells the inspiring story of how Shakespeare changed children's lives in a Syrian refugee camp. These were children whose homes had been destroyed, relatives were killed, and had faced much trauma in their lives. As the article puts it, "for the 100 children in the cast, it [the performance of King Lear] was their first brush with Shakespeare, although they were already deeply acquainted with tragedy". Overall, as I read, I found that what the author was really trying to get across to readers was a message of hope, and change. The overall main idea was that bringing culture and experience is a way to bring happiness and joy to people. This article shows that theatre can change a child's life and give them an experience and feeling that they have never been exposed to before. The article describes their new lifestyle as an "isolated,treeless camp, a place of poverty, uncertainty, and boredom". The director, Nawar Bulbul, had met children in these camps. and made a promise to return, and he did, bringing his plan to put on this production. The article describes the crowd bursting into applause at the end, with lead girls breaking into tears. These details are very moving, and show just how little these children had before theatre was brought to them, and how much positive emotion it left them with.

       The author, Ben Hubbard, clearly wants to make readers feel inspired and moved by the article. He goes into detail about the hardships the children faced before, and then describes their proud, fulfilled emotion afterward to enhance the feelings of inspiration for the readers. For example, he talks about how the parents and aid workers fear that the war in Syria threatens to create a lost generation of children, because they are so scarred by violence, and are forced to be missing years of education and experiences. He then however, introduces director Nawar Bulbul, and goes on the describe the production of King Lear itself, which suddenly brings a more comforting tone to the article. Hubbard also uses direct quotes from people living in the refugee camp, which is a move that makes the article extremely moving. He quotes Bushra al-Homeyid,13, who played one of King Lear's daughters. Her family fled Syria after government shelling killed her cousins. Bushra said that although she had never acted before, she wanted to continue. She says, "I like that I can change my personality and be someone else". For a kid to say that in the situation she is in is pretty remarkable and inspiring.

       For me, reading this article was really moving, and made me realize just how important theater and the arts really are. I take it for granted, the fact that twice a week for two period I get an intensive drama program at my school. But reading this, I realize just how amazing that is. If one play changed so many children's lives, and one play touched so many, I now realize I should appreciate the experience I have access to more. The theater culture is one that gives opportunities for children (and adults) to escape from their realities, and take on a new character. The arts really are spectacular, and seeing kids react to them the way these children did is one of the most inspiring things you can see. 

Literary Essay: Romeo and Juliet

       The tragedy of Romeo and Juliet, written by William Shakespeare, explores the complexities of love and hate, and all the complications and consequences that go with it. The well known play begins with young Romeo from the Montague family, and even younger Juliet from the Capulets, who cross paths at a Capulet party and fall in love at “first sight". The two rush into a secret marriage, knowing their parents wouldn't approve being from rival households. Their plans to live happily together, however, are disrupted by Juliet's tie to Paris, the man her father feels is best fit for her to marry. The play progresses, and as time moves forward, the events begin to darken, and eventually, result in the death of Romeo and Juliet and their reckless love. In this play, there are an abundance of themes that drive the plot arch, but throughout Romeo and Juliet, the themes of fate, time, and recklessness consistently tie together and shape the events and outcome of the play.

       The theme of fate is the most powerful force in Romeo and Juliet, and what is “meant to be” – or predetermined, regardless of the characters’ thoughts and actions-- is a theme that is carried from the start to end. For example, even from the first monologue that is said at the beginning of the play in the Prologue by Chorus, the theme of fate has already shown itself to be prominent. Chorus says, "From forth the fatal loins of these two foes/A pair of star-crossed lovers take their life" (Prologue). Already from the first minute of the play, Shakespeare makes the fate of these two lovers very clear to his audience. Also, the theme of fate ties into the fact that Juliet is being forced to marry Paris and doesn't have a say in the matter. Towards the end of the play, Juliet confronts her parents about not wanting to marry Paris. This results in a massive fight between Capulet and Juliet. In fact, she has already married Romeo at this point in an effort to change her fate. Capulet says to her, "I tell thee what: get thee to church o' Thursday,/Or never after look me in the face." (3.5.167-168). Juliet's fate is sealed with Paris, or so according to her father it is. It is sealed so much so that he says either she marries Paris or leaves their family. Finally, the theme of fate shows itself right before the Capulet party, when Romeo declares to Montague that he has a lingering feeling that something is going to happen that isn't going to end well. He says, "I fear too early, for my mind misgives/ Some consequence yet hanging in the stars/ Shall bitterly begin his fearful date/ With this night's revels, and empire the term/Of a despised life closed in my breast/By some vile forfeit of untimely death." ( 1.4.114-118). Romeo has a feeling that at the party, something-he is not sure of what- is going to happen and will end in his death. This sheds light on the theme of fate, because readers know this is in fact what happens. This is the start to the tragedy of Romeo and Juliet itself. Fate is always hanging over the characters’ heads like a cloud that follows them around. No matter what happens Shakespeare always brings back this idea of whether what's happening is actually supposed to be happening, and whether fate will stand in the way of the characters getting what they want. 

       Fate, however, is not the only thing that determines the outcome of the events in the play. The sequence of events within Romeo and Juliet is completely based on unfortunate timing, and the theme of time also shapes the play. There are many moments in Romeo and Juliet where if the timing had been just a little different, a massive tragedy could have been avoided. One example of this is when Friar Lawrence sends his message to alert Romeo of his and Juliet's plan that would help them to escape Juliet’s marriage to Paris and be together. However, the plan gets ruined because the messenger doesn’t get to Romeo in time, and not knowing the set-up, he believes that Juliet is truly dead. This makes me wonder whether perhaps if Friar Lawrence had sent the message a few hours earlier, maybe Romeo would have received the message and the two would end up living happily together. This is where fate connects to time, because this leads me to believe that fate must be controlling time in the play. Why did Romeo have to miss the letter? Why couldn't the outcome have been lighter, and avoided all the deaths? Another example of how timing shapes the sequence of events and outcomes is at the very end of the play, when Romeo shows up at the tomb which Juliet had been put in (asleep-- not dead). Romeo, thinking Juliet is dead, says, "Here's to my love. O true apothecary,/Thy drugs are quick. Thus with a kiss I die." (5.3.119-120). Not more than a few seconds later, Friar Lawrence shows up at the tomb, knowing the plan went wrong, and enters to try to find Romeo. But, as we know, Friar Lawrence is too late, for Romeo has already taken his life. If he had shown up just minutes before, he could have informed Romeo of what was going on before Romeo killed himself. The theme of time is frustrating, because it sounds so simple, that only a few minutes can change everything. But that is the truth, and that is why time plays a huge role in Romeo and Juliet. 

       Finally, the theme of recklessness is very important in the play. This theme relates to the characters in Romeo and Juliet because it's Romeo and Juliet's recklessness which leads them to trouble. Because of their lack of responsibility and knowledge, the two rush into decisions, not thinking through the consequences and possible outcomes.  Romeo's recklessness really comes through at the beginning, when he rushes from one girl to another. In the beginning, Romeo is head over heels for Rosaline, saying, "O, she is rich in beauty, only poor/ That, when she dies, with beauty dies her store." (1.1.224). Romeo believes he will be living in grief for the rest of his life because this girl doesn't love him back. But yet, just a few hours later, Romeo sees Juliet at a party and immediately declares his love for her. Did Romeo forget about Rosaline? Did he forget that he was so-called in love with her just a few seconds ago? This makes me question his responsibility, and this shows how Romeo is just a child, impulsive and reckless, jumping into his feelings and being overly passionate when that passion might not actually be there. Another example that shows the recklessness of Romeo and Juliet is their marriage; the marriage that takes place within 24 hours of first laying eyes on each other. Even Friar Lawrence warns them, saying, "Therefore, love moderately. Long love doth so./Too swift arrives as tardy as too slow." (2.6.14-15). Friar Lawrence is advising Romeo to love moderately, and not rush his love. He is saying that long-lasting love only comes from moderation. Romeo and Juliet do not follow this advice however, and rush into their marriage. Perhaps if they had been less reckless, and more responsible, their love wouldn't have had such tragic consequences. 

       All in all, Romeo and Juliet explores many themes, but fate, time, and recklessness really drive the outcome and events of the play. These themes are all very connected in the sense that they all determine each other in a way. William Shakespeare seems to be telling readers and viewers that you can't escape fate- not in this play at least. And although it may seem that time can be easily altered and controlled, Romeo and Juliet pushes the idea that timing happens for a reason, and people have no power to stop that. Recklessness only speeds up the outcome that is pre-determined and over which the characters have no control. The character of Chorus, to me, represents more than just an outside voice. Chorus to me represents fate, and time, and the voice of reality in this reckless play. I personally am not sure how much I agree with Shakespeare's message about fate, however. I do strongly think that recklessness and time have a connection in reality, and not just in this play. When people say, "think before you act", that is a comment on those themes. Jumping into decisions without thinking can stand as a very reckless move, and the results of well thought out decisions versus quick and reckless decisions are influenced on the timing of them. The theme of fate ties it all together in Romeo and Juliet and is the "ruler" of all themes. No matter what happens, fate is always in charge, and is always going to curve the story so that the events fall into place the way they are fated to happen. In reality however, I believe people decide their own fate; therefore, fate doesn't exist. I believe in consequences, and that every decision creates consequences. Something as small as deciding whether to go straight home or to stop at the grocery store can change a whole path of life, depending on what happens versus what could have happened. Romeo and Juliet is an important play that shows us how “should”, “could”, and “did” are three words that really take over our life course; what should have happened, what could have happened, and what did happen. Ultimately, it is that which “did happen” that becomes our reality. 

The Bell Jar pt. 2

      The book, "The Bell Jar", by Sylvia Plath is an amazing book that explores many deep, complex issues surrounding the time period of the 1950s. In the book, Esther Greenwood is torn between two paths in life; following her career and devoting her time to writing and work, or starting a family and settling down-- what is much more common and expected of women at the time. One of the main ideas that is carried throughout the text is that society, and the ideas and expectations from society, can have negative effects on citizens and those who live in that society.
      In the 1950s (when The Bell Jar takes place), women were expected to settle down young, marry, and start a family. They were expected to be housewives. Esther, however, is torn in her life between her passion for literature and work, and those expectations that are following her wherever she goes. She assumes she can't have both the job she loves and a family. This choice is primarily what leads her to her breakdown.
      Esther ends up trying to kill herself, a definite extreme, but not far off from what many woman probably felt like doing who were in similar situations. Esther wants to break free of the expectations that she feels are forced on her. In the book, she says, "The last thing I wanted was infinite security and to be the place an arrow shoots off from. I wanted change and excitement and to shoot off in all directions myself, like the colored arrows from a Fourth of July rocket." Esther doesn't want her future to be defined by a man. She wants to explore all the possibilities that life has to offer. And because of society and those ideas that are forced on her, Esther feels like she can't do this; she can't follow her dreams. This is why she goes to the extreme of trying to kill herself, because she is so miserable with her endless confusion and frustration of what to do with her life. 
      This book really opens my eyes up to how society really defines people against their will. Because of expectations and ideals, people change themselves, and limit their freedom so that they fit in. Just like Esther, many woman now and then went against their dreams and wants because of what society thought was the "right" way to live. It's unfair, that people (woman especially) feel pressure to be something they're not. It's important to not  let anybody or anything make you think or act a particular way. Because the more you let other people and things define you, the more you lose sight of your actually self, and what your ideals and values are. And as Esther proves, letting yourself be changed by society can only result in you feeling like you lost yourself, and cause meltdowns and breakdowns, and endless misery. Sylvia Plath is telling readers--warning them-- to hold on to themselves, and not let society or people alter who you are, and what you want to do in life. 

The Bell Jar

      "The Bell Jar", written by Sylvia Plath, is an engaging story, following the life of Esther Greenwood, a 19-year-old girl who is beautiful, smart, successful, but also on the path to a break down. Esther is an intern at a fashion magazine, working for her boss, Jay Cee, in New York. Living in the Amazon Hotel, a women's hotel, along with 11 other college girls, Esther should be having the time of her life and enjoying every moment of this experience. Instead, Esther is restless and obsessive, and her new life doesn't seem to be helping her but instead hurting her. 
      Esther is obsessed with the "rules" and "ideas" of society, and throughout the story, readers see more and more how this eats away at her, and diminishes her. For example, towards the middle of the book, Esther's good friend Doreen convinces her to come on a blind date with her and her boyfriend Lenny, and Lenny's friend. Esther's date, a man named Marco, is an intense, somewhat scary man. They go outside together, and after asking him who he loves, Marco tells Esther he's in love with his cousin, who is going to become a nun. In a sudden burst of anger from talking about this, Marco pushes Esther down, and climbs onto her, ripping off her dress and yelling at her that she is a "slut". Esther fights back at this, punching him off of her and escaping him. She goes back to her hotel, grabs all her clothes into a bundle, and goes to the roof. She says, "Piece by piece, I fed my wardrobe to the night wind, flutteringly, like a loved one's ashes, the gray scraps were ferried off, to settle here, there, exactly where I would never know, in the dark heart of New York."
      This moment in the text really stuck out to me as a powerful turning point. Esther releases her whole wardrobe into the night sky, almost as though she is releasing herself and throwing herself down. This is a moment of weakness, yet at the same time somehow, empowerment. She is weak in the sense that she is giving up in some way, throwing her clothes off the roof, admitting to the fact she can't deal with this lifestyle anymore. At the same time however, it shows that she is finally in control, aware that she is done with this city life. 
      That moment ends the chapter, and the next thing that Esther does is get on a train back to Boston to spend time living with her mother in the Suburbs. 
      What I find amazing about this book is that Sylvia Plath creates a character who is so complex; she is in control, yet so in over her head at the same time. She is successful; at the young age of 19 she has a job, and he is also very intelligent; all throughout her school years she got fabulous grades. Yet, as the story progresses, she is crumbling more and more. Slowly but surely, Esther is losing her mind, and losing sight of those great qualities that once defined her. 
      This book shows how easy it is to lose yourself and get so caught up in a lifestyle that will just eat away at you. It's important to not lose sight of yourself- as cliche as that may sound. You can't let society and the people you meet define or change you. Even though I am only about half way through the book, I already can say that it is an amazing story, full of experiences and lessons that anyone could learn from. 

Literary Essay: The Secret Life of Bees

        The book, "The Secret Life of Bees", by Sue Monk Kidd, follows the adventure of 14-year-old Lily Owens, an isolated and insecure white girl living in South Carolina in the 1960s. When Lily was four years old, she accidentally shot and killed her mother, and ended up alone with her abusive father who she calls, "T. Ray". Lily is a complicated girl, afraid of lacking beauty and femininity as she grows up. Lily's housekeeper, Rosaleen, who helped raise her when her mother was no longer alive, is a feisty black Southern woman, who continuously pushes limits for the time period. When Rosaleen gets herself into trouble with a group of white men and escapes before she can be put into jail, she and Lily run away to find out more about Lily's mother. They end up at a beekeeper's house belonging to three black women named August, May, and June. Together, the five live together, shielded by their love for one another despite their differences, but unable to escape the realities of the views of the outside world. Throughout the book, the setting, the characters, and the plot line all work together to powerfully weave the themes of racism and injustice together. 
        By setting the story in the South in the 1960s, Sue Monk Kidd introduces the themes of racism and injustice that we know, historically, were so present in that time period. For example, after Rosaleen gets into trouble with a group of white men, she ends up in the hospital due to the injuries she received from the men. The author describes the hospital, saying, “Sylvan Memorial Hospital was a low brick building with one wing for whites and one for blacks.” This detail speaks for almost every public space that existed in the South in the 1960s. Everything was segregated based on race, and Sue Monk Kidd uses the setting of this hospital to show this discrimination and racism that existed. Setting plays an important role while illustrating the physical differences that existed within the story and the time period. 
        In addition to the setting, Sue Monk Kidd creates strong characters, some very flawed, others very endearing, who contribute to and fight against the themes of injustice and racism during the book. For example, when Lily and Rosaleen run away, they end up being taken in by a trio of warm, friendly, black beekeeping sisters, who defy the racism of the time. August, May, and June take in Lily, a little white girl, without any problem of having mixed races in their house. By taking her in without second thought, and loving her like a daughter, they show how ridiculous and unjust racism is. Another example that shows a character who contributes to the themes of injustice and racism (instead of fighting against it like August, May, and June do) is T. Ray, Lily's father. After Lily had been staying with August, May, and June for a while, one day T. Ray shows up and is appalled by the fact that Lily could be living with black women. He says, "So you've been here the whole time, staying with colored woman? Jesus Christ." (pg 291) This comment shows his surprise and disgrace at the fact that Lily would be staying with these black woman, which shows how apparent that theme of racism is, and that racism is what creates injustice. 
        Finally, the author clearly shows how powerful and consuming the themes of injustice and racism are throughout the book by designing scenes and making the plot arch illustrate those themes. An example of this is the scene in which Rosaleen gets arrested for "causing a disturbance", along with other charges. The scene starts out with Lily and Rosaleen harmlessly shopping, and that is when white men start to taunt Rosaleen. This scene builds, with Rosaleen responding to them by tumbling chewed tobacco on their shoes which leads to a physical fight. When the police come, the officer says to Rosaleen, "You're under arrest… Assault, theft, and disturbing the peace." (pg 33) He lets the white men go without any trouble-- even though they were the ones who began the brawl in the first place. Rosaleen didn't commit any of those crimes. The white man taunted her with racist remarks about her skin color which provoked Rosaleen. The injustice came from the racism- Rosaleen would not be in any trouble had it not been for the men’s provocative, racist comments. It is alarming how horribly accurate to history that moment was, and clearly the author did a very good job of using scenes like this one to demonstrate the themes of racism and injustice that are painted throughout the story. 
        All in all, the themes of injustice and racism are woven together and carried throughout the book through the characters, the setting, and the plot arch. Sue Monk Kidd does an excellent job of showing how consuming those themes are. The characters and their lives are taken over by racism of the time, which creates the overwhelming theme of injustice. Lily is a girl who doesn't care about what she considers to be small, trivial things like race. She is a character who looks past skin color, and looks for personality and the warmth and love someone is willing to give her. She shows readers just how unfair it is when people are judged and treated differently, or thought of as something less, because of their skin color. As a reader reading this book in modern times, it could seem distant and less impactful given how much more equal our society is. But, Sue Monk Kidd beautifully transposes those themes of injustice and racism into the story, so that the anger and dismay readers feel at the injustice is just as powerful, no matter how far our society may have come. 

Olympic Games? Why Russia is getting a political makeover just in time to host the Sochi Olympics

      In the article, "Olympic Games?", written by Patricia Smith, the author's main point is that Vladimir Putin is using the Olympic Games to clean up his image and improve the way others view his nation, as well as somewhat repair/stabilize relationships with the U.S. government. The author talks a lot about the past tensions between the U.S. and the Russian government. For example, the text says, "Last summer, Russia offered political asylum to Edward Snowden, the former National Security Agency contractor who leaked information about secret American surveillance programs and is wanted for espionage by U.S. authorities". Obviously, Russia helping out someone who betrayed the U.S. would not put the two countries on good terms. Also, the author wanted people to know that outsiders see Russia as a suppressed nation, and Putin is trying to fix that image. For example in the article it says, "Long criticized for his suppression of political descent, Putin has spent the lead-up to the Games freeing thousands of political prisoners, including several high profile ones". Overall, the author really wants readers to understand how much the Olympics are being used to "put on a show" and try to make Russia look like less of the violent suppressed nation than it is.  
      Throughout the text, the author seems to want readers to feel that this whole new friendly version of Russia is fake, and just a way to come across as appealing on camera. This is shown through discussing how only recently has Putin taken actions to release innocent prisoners- just in time for the Games "coincidently"! As stated in the text, in December "Putin freed two young women who were jailed in 2012 on charges of 'hooliganism' after their punk band performed an anti-Putin protest song in a Moscow cathedral". It also says that last month, he eased up on a ban on public protests in Sochi. But the reason this comes across as very fake to readers is because the author shows how President Obama isn't fooling for it- therefore influencing readers to realize how its only for the press. For example, the article says, "The surprise clemencies don't seem to have impressed President Barack Obama". He skipped the Olympics opening ceremony to make a political statement about Russia's government. The article also digs into Putin''s past, discussing all the shady deals he made and how he cheated to get to the top. He made his successor run for presidency and then as the new picked prime minister, Putin still practically controlled everything even though his term as president was up. All in all, it is clear that the Olympics are simply a way for Putin to get rid of his old image and make sure he keeps alliances and friendships in the world wide political spectrum.   
      This article was interesting to me because it opened my eyes to a lot I wasn't aware of that goes on in government "behind the scenes". A lot of country grudges are based off personal grudges, it seems like, and the inability to move on from the past. This article shows history has such a lasting effect on our world today; that still countries are on edge and betray each other because of past events that shaped those political feelings towards one another. It makes me wonder whether if Russia and the U.S. never had such intense grudges from the past, would our relationship be a lot different then it is now? Although I do think there's a good chance there would be a lot less hatred, I also think the leaders of our countries in present day clash, and that is something history cannot be blamed for. 

Sing You Home

      In the novel "Sing You Home", written by Jodi Picoult, the author introduces many complex, more difficult topics throughout the story. The book is about Zoe Baxter, a music therapist who desperately wants a child, but has suffered from infertility her whole marriage. When what almost becomes Zoe's child is born a still borne, Zoe completely breaks down, unable to deal with yet another failed pregnancy. Max, Zoe's husband, leaves her, done with dealing with her overpowering love for an unborn child instead of him. In her post-break-up state, Zoe meets Vanessa, a lesbian therapist, who instantly clicks with her and becomes her best friend. This friendship spurts into romance, and as the two marry and decide they want Vanessa to carry a baby they can raise together, they begin to face obstacles. Throughout the story, Jodi Picoult explores the complex disagreements over gay marriage, and all the many sides and opinions of what is "right" and "wrong" concerning it. 

      In the book, Zoe and Vanessa want to have children from the embryos that Zoe and Max created and froze when they were together. When Zoe asks Max to sign off on papers, allowing her to use them, he begins to question whether or not he should- especially because of his lack of support of gay marriage. After he left Zoe, Max struggled with alcoholism, and turned to his brother, Reid, and sister-in-law, Liddy, who are strong Christians and who helped Max out of his dark place and converted him to be a devoted Christian who worships God. They feel that Zoe and Vanessa are not fit for raising a child since they would be lesbian mothers. This brings up the controversy of gay marriage and families with gay parents. While in court, over the debate of who gets the embryos; Max or Zoe, Max's attorney stands up and says, "We are gathered today to mourn the loss of something near and dear to us all: the traditional family." 

      This quote really made me think about the idea of a "traditional" family. What does that even mean? The attorney's case is that God didn't want men and men and women and women to be together as a family-- he wanted a man and a woman. But I personally think God and marriage have nothing to do with one another. I think that you can't make it a state or country law that someone can't marry whoever they want because it's "not right" according to God. First of all, not everyone believes in a God figure, so you can't put the two together-- just the way you are supposed to have separation of church and state.

      This book really opens my eyes up to how many people are so small minded in our world. The book is like a slap of reality, that some people honestly think that a child can't grow up in a household where two parents are the same gender-- that somehow there is something wrong with that. I understand its opinion, but to me, that just seems like intolerance. That is just being intolerant of other people's lifestyles that may be different from your own. 

      Because of the way the author explores this more complex issue of gay marriage, she teaches real, valuable life lessons, and really opens readers’ eyes up to how important it is to be accepting. And being accepting doesn't just mean with gay marriage; it means with all different people with different lifestyles. I think that what everyone can learn from this book is that being different on the outside most certainly does not determine what a person's character is on the inside. And we can't deny people opportunities because they may be a little "different"-- or whatever that means. Everyone deserves to live a happy lifestyle- however that may be- without intolerant people getting in the way and telling them how they should live their life even if it would make them miserable every day. Happiness is so much more important that “traditional standards” in whatever way that may be for you.  

Blog Reviews: Praise for Maja's "Thirteen Reasons Why" Post

      As I was reading various blog posts this past week, one that really stuck out to me was "Thirteen Reasons Why" by Maja. Her post was really well written in both its style and content. She begins by setting up the story with just enough detail so that readers can fully understand the post, without giving anything away. 
      Right away, Maja starts off by relating the book to the world by discussing possible lessons someone could take away from it and apply to their own life. She says that the book "teaches readers that it is important to love yourself". As she beautifully puts it, loosing your love for yourself makes it that much easier to loose your confidence. She then brings this idea back to the story, and talks about how this is what happens to a character in the book. One of the things that makes this post so powerful is this flip-flop of talking about the world, and then reconnecting it to the book-- this is something I definitely will take with me and keep in mind as I write more of my own blog posts. 
      The next thing Maja does really well is she takes a specific moment, and completely dissects it and studies it. She uses a quote, and then unpacks it and talks about what she thinks about this moment in the book, and what this particular line says about the character(s). She quotes a line that Hannah Baker says: "Only one person stands between you and this collection of audiotapes: Mr. Porter". She then talks about how she thinks this is the moment Hannah gave up on her life. Zooming in on one moment and totally unpacking and elaborating ideas off of it is a really great writing style that provides readers with clear examples of the points you're trying to make and ideas you have. 
      Another reason I really like this blog post is because it's very unique in the sense that she doesn't talk so much about the main character, but instead a character who it is a bit harder to elaborate on. All that readers know about Hannah Baker is what they hear from the tapes, and what Clay says, so Maja's ability to create a whole blog post off of just taking everything we hear Hannah say and interpreting it at a much deeper level is very impressive. 
      I have read "Thirteen Reasons Why", and I completely agree with all of the points Maja made, especially about how the book makes readers really understand how our actions affect other people, and the damage we can do without being fully away of what we are doing. I really like how at the very end of her post, Maja connected it back to herself, and how she personally took a lot away from reading the book. 
      Overall, Maja did a really great job on this post. And I have read many others of her post which are equally great. I think this one stood out to me because I have read the book, and was completely agreeing and found myself nodding at certain times while reading the post. Maja wrote with a sophisticated and very insightful voice, and this blog post was really thought-provoking and entertaining to read. http://billions0fbooks.blogspot.com/2013/10/thirteen-reasons-why-by-jay-asher.html

The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time

      In the book, "The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-time", written by Mark Haddon, Christopher John Francis Boone is a very complex character, being incredibly intelligent when it comes to math and science, but completely lacking social intelligence. The book is somewhat of a "murder mystery", the murder being a neighbor's bog who was stabbed with a pitchfork, and Christopher being the "detective", while narrating the story. Christopher decides to make it his mission to go about and find who committed this crime, and even though I'm only at the beginning of the book, I already see the complexity to Christopher's personality and character. 
      On one hand, Christopher is incredibly intellectual-- almost like a genius. He introduces himself saying, "I know all the countries of the world and their capitol cities and every prime number up to 7,507". Also, he is always contemplating science related issues to the readers, discussing storms and his confusion with different aspects of them. He has a very reserved kind of intelligence, being very quick with numbers and facts, but his social skills show a different, less intelligent side to him.
      Christopher interacts with people in very strange ways, making me question just how "smart" he is. One of his social problems is that Christopher is extremely hesitant to trust anyone. For example, he meets a neighbor while going about his inquisition, and she invites him inside for tea. He says he doesn't want to go into a strangers house, so she offers to bring it out to him. But as he waits for her to come back, he questions whether she will actually bring tea like she said, and decides to leave, without saying a word. Christopher never reaches out to anyone, but instead shuts people out as if they are a danger to him. 
      Christopher also never lies, he is always telling the truth even when it would benefit everyone if he just lied a little. Because it's such a natural habit, it really shows how Christopher has some weird perks to him. This along with his lack of trust in people adds to his inability to make friends, which is sad, but the reality in his life. He lives almost completely inside his own head, in his own little world. 
      Christopher's characteristics make me question what really determines if someone is smart. There are so many levels to it, so much more than just being good at math or getting good grades in social studies. There's a difference between being a good student and being intellectual. The dictionary definition of smart says, "having or showing a quick-witted intelligence". But what does that mean?
      This made me think about the world, and how many non-intellectual people are so high in command. It seems like it should be so simple, either you're smart or you're not, but yet it's so complex. Most movie stars are not what I would call intellectual people, however socially clearly they know what they are doing. And then there are people like Christopher, who have no social skills whatsoever, but yet are still very, very clever people. Christopher is a fine example of how people are so complex, and what you see if most definitely not all you get in a lot of cases. People and children probably judge Christopher by his lack of friends, and lack of ability to make friends, however if they got to know him, and if he let them get to know him, I'm sure there's a lot you could learn from him. It's important not to make assumptions just because a person may not be the easiest one to bond with. Because once you get past the rough, awkward stages of trying to make conversation, I'm sure there is a lot more to Christopher, as I learn as I read more and more of the book.