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.