Tell Tale Heart

I particularly liked this poem because of its dramatic ending and the increasing tempo and rhythm of words throughout the story. One of the socratic seminar questions asked about the connection between time and heartbeats.

The narrator is frozen in his hiding spot for over an hour, and he dares not make a move without hearing the old man lie back down in bed. While he is waiting, his "over-acuteness" of the senses seems to kick in, and his ears pick up a dull, low quick sound that is very familiar to him. He mistakes the noise for the beating of the old man's heart, when it is really his own. The sound infuriates the narrator, "as the beating of a drum stimulates the soldier into courage." The heartbeat quickens and the rising action of the poem ensues when the narrator leaps and kills the old man.

After the deed is done, the narrator is politely chatting it up with the police when the sound is heard again. The sound of the dead mans heartbeat frightens the narrator and he becomes very nervous. He no longer wishes to talk to the police, it appears as if time is running out. The narrator becomes frantic and the pace of the poem increases rapidly as he starts to foam and throws a chair. The beating of the heart is deafening to the narrator to the point where he can no longer take it. He screams a confession addressing the police as "Villains!"

The ending of Poe's story was so intense, I feel as if dramatic music needed to be played along with it. It reminded me whenever there is a suspenseful or particularly dramatic part in a movie, there is a specific type of music that is always accompanied with the scene. The music is usually composed with beating drums, and woodwind instruments played "with vigor" or "accelerando."

Protective Vs. Possessive

Question 1o asks about the difference between being "protective" and being "possessive" as demonstrated in A Thousand Splendid Suns.

When I think of comparison between those words, I find that "protective" has a gentler connotation. I think of a mother bird, using a protective wing to shelter her young from a rainstorm. All parents look after their children, and do their best to guide them though life. The word "possessive" always has an aspect of control involved. Like an army general, he controls all of his troops and regiments every drill, every meal and every hour of their scheduled day. Possessive suggests ownership.

During the early months of Laila and Rasheed's marriage, Rasheed is actually civil to his wife. The fighting intensifies and Laila's husband assures her "You're safe with me, my flower, my gul. Anyone tries to harm you, I'll rip out their liver and make them eat it" So maybe he is a little more than rough around the edges, but here Rasheed demonstrates a little bit of protective behavior towards Laila. Most of the time, Rasheed expresses and possessive attitude towards his wives. He owns them, and he makes it known. Rasheed and his strict rules forbid Laila from traveling anywhere, she misses being free under the open skies of her childhood. Once while Laila is washing one of Rasheed's undershirts, she sees herself in the reflection of the soapy water. "She felt lost then, casting about, like a shipewreck survivor, no shore in sight, only miles and miles of water."

A Doll House

What questions does the drama raise about: relationships, commitment, communication, and love?

A Doll House definitely raises some interesting questions concerning the validity of the topics listed. Nora and Torvald Helmer's so-called marriage mocks and ridicules the term "relationship" and their sad excuse for "love". The lack of communication between these two is almost criminal, and it isolates their entire relationship as a facade. Nora hides everything from Torvald. From something small and insignificant as the macaroons to something as serious as the forgery. Nora finally realizes that she has lost all sense of direction in who she is as a person, and makes the decision to leave her family in hope of regaining sight. So much for commitment. Torvald didn't really have any trust or commitment issues, but he did love Nora for all the wrong reasons. Well, perhaps he just simply loved Nora for who he thought she was; his little skylark, whom which he could control, coddle, baby and scold her just like a little doll. I kinda felt bad for Torvald in a way, because this whole scene must have come as such a shock to him. Sort of like the toy he had been playing with for several years suddenly came to life!

In the beginning of the story I thought "Seriously? Squirrel and Skylark? These people need to get clue and wake up." I'm glad that at least one of them did. The drama also includes another couple Mrs. Kristine Linde and Krogstad, thank god, to prove that not everyone was as physco as the Helmers. Even though though Kristine and Krogstad have been apart for some time, when they meet up again, it is like no time has past. They clearly care for one another and are willing to put the time and effort into their relationship. Love is worth its while for this couple.

Overall, the messages in A Doll House proves that: Relationships are nothing without decent and honest communication. Be truthful, all the time, otherwise it becomes real easy to get swallowed up in lies. Commitment is important too, for that is the raw basis for a relationship to begin with. And last but not least, love is not for everyone. Love requires that the other person and all of their needs are placed before my own. In the drama, Mrs. Linde and Krogstad's relationship was patched back together because they were selfless people. Unfortunately Nora is a liar and Torvald was terrified of who she really was when she told the truth, so there was not even a stitch of hope for their case. I feel bad for their children...

Cultural Relativism

I have always been a firm believer of keeping an open mind, especially when experiencing new and unusual things. The article titled The Challenge of Cultural Relativism addresses this statement very thoroughly. I thought its messages was a little too redundant, but the point proven was understood nevertheless. I picked up a couple of main points that the article stressed:

1. There is no clear right and wrong.

2. Each society has their own opinion.

3. Since every society is different, there are no "universal truths".

4. Don't take anything too seriously.

5. We aren't as different as we seem.

Once or twice I have pondered over these general statements before reading this article, but never realized they had any connection to each other. Apparently I was wrong, it even has a name. Cultural Relativism. The purpose of the article was to expose this type of thinking to the audience, then criticize it, and at the end still support the idea but warn it has serious shortfalls. Kind of random, but coherent and very thoroughly explained for the most part.

As for the five major points above, I agree with all of them.

Number three I was a little less convinced of at first, but then later in the article, my doubts were addressed. After reading the topic sentence of that section, I immediately thought of two of the ten commandments; Lying and Murder...I suppose Stealing could be added now that i think of it. These are all "universal no-nos", that each society would crumble to the ground if these actions were not a forbidden taboo. Rule number five I particularly liked. "The difference is in our belief systems, not in our values." It goes on to say that everyone agrees that we shouldn't eat grandma, but whether grandma is reborn as a cow or not is where the divide is placed. Rule number four was my favorite, stating that Cultural Relativism should not be taken too seriously and is up to discretion. Cultural Relativism states that "We could no longer say that the customs of other societies are morally inferior to our own." Sounds okay, right? Unless applied to slavery and anti-Semitism, which are wrong no matter what, but under this ideology, these cruel practices would be just a perfectly acceptable "different way of doing things". Very similar to this is Communism. Everyone being equal and treated the same? Awesome! Sign me up! Unfortunately, when put into practice, Communism fails, or at least isn't appealing as it may seem. Discretion must be applied.

Overall, Cultural Relativism is a very interesting and highly appealing idea with some kinks that should be ironed out. Whether or not this is possible can only be determined if the idea is put to the test. I do not think it is a practical plan, because it is hard enough for a single room of people to all agree on a common belief much less a compilation of all societies. Imagine how difficult that would be. It remains to be (as the article is most appropriately titled) the CHALLENGE of Cultural Relativism.

Beowulf

I want to start off by saying that Beowulf is a simple poem. I don't understand the mass hysteria in the literary community about over analyzing it. Not once while I was reading it did I marvel at the so-called parallels between Beowulf and Christ nor the perfect representation of a Christian Anglo-Saxon world. I just thought that the poem was about a self absorbed man who thought he was indestructible, but in the end he was conquered by death just like all humans. This is why I agree with Martin Camargo's assertion that "Beowulf, an 'exemplary pagan,' falls as far short of the Christian ideal as Grendel falls short of Beowulf ." I agree that Beowulf is an extraordinary pagan, risking his life to protect the lives of entire villages, those that aren't even in his homeland. Riches, weapons and fame are a reward for his heroic actions, and all of this goes to his head. Beowulf develops the notion that he is an immortal War-God, this places him far from the Christian ideal. Not once does he give thanks to a God for helping him to defeat some monster, he gladly takes all of the credit. Beowulf thinks he can retain his strength and youth forever, but time remains true and takes a toll on his body. Around the age of 70, Beowulf is defeated by the Dragon, and is proved to be nothing but a mere mortal.

I also agreed with Marion L. Huffines argument that "in his three fights, Beowulf becomes more monster-like, the monsters less clearly evil." Tis very true. In the first fight all readers side with Beowulf. He is the knight in shining armor, while Grendel is the evil beast who has been terrorizing the village. Grendel trespasses into the Hall, and Beowulf defends, rightfully so. The next battle occurs between Grendels mom and her son's "killer"(even though at that point he had only ripped off Grendel's arm). Grendels mom has revenge in her mind and therefore has a reason to boil her blood. Even though she starts by sneaking into the Hall and killing a few men, Beowulf retaliates by attacking in her home. Beowulf is more vicious this time as he slays Grendel and his mother. Beowulf even boasts his kill by decapitating Grendel's head and bringing it back as a trophy. In all of the battles, the "monster" is defeated and the third battle is no different; Beowulf and the Dragon are both claimed. "It was wrong to treat the dragon as a symbol of evil..." says T. M. Gang, and I agree, especially after reading Grendel, and observing the Dragon's wisdom. Beowulf enters the third battle with no true grievance against the Dragon. The Dragon portrays no real signs of said "monster"...yes I understand he is a large reptile that expels flames, but only when provoked. A man came into his lair, uninvited, and stole a cup. How rude. This made the Dragon was very angry and he proceeded to scorch the land with his fiery rage. Beowulf further angers the Dragon by storming into his cave and attacking him. In combination with his age and monster-like disposition, Beowulf, like all monsters, is claimed by death in the end.

"You Can't Handle the Truth!"

One of the Socratic Seminar questions from Oscar Wilde's The Importance of Being Earnest drama asked about the theme of "dishonesty" in both society and the individual. This reminded me of the quote used in the title, taken from the movie A Few Good Men. In Wilde's play, various individuals were dishonest in order to make their identities appear more attractive. (Actually, only male characters were dishonest :/ hmmm.) Jack and Algernon both claimed to be named Earnest while courting. They did this not to be deceiving or hurtful, but to become the ideal man and win their ladies hearts. In society, being dishonest was also commonly practiced. Young Cecily was 18 years of age, but admitted to being 20 at parties. Lady Bracknell listened and nodded approvingly to this statement. Most people lie because they think the truth to be unsuitable, so they cover it up with a fallacy that seems more acceptable. It must have been pure coincidence that our english class took a psychology survey on Wednesday on the topic of lying. I think that lying or stretching the truth is never morally right. This does not mean that dishonesty can be deemed excusable by those who choose to waive the transgression, minor as it may be. In Algernon's case, it would have been easier just to tell the truth, a lie was not necessary, and he was not trying to protect her from anything. Later, his dishonesty came back around to bite him in the butt. The worst part about lying is when the truth becomes uncovered, and the whole trust factor is lost, sometimes forever. Algernon should have revealed his true name in the first place, and if it was not to little Cecily's liking, oh well, her loss. In our society, people; particularly the government of the people, tend to lie in order to protect our innocence from the harsh truth. The media fills the minds of thousands with news that is usually impartial or sugar-coated. Maintaining order is crucial, and sometimes the general public is better left in the dark on certain issues; we cannot always handle the truth.

September Blog

A Modest Proposal

Last year in English class, we read The Great Gatsby, and one of the main themes was: Money is the corrupter of the American Dream. Mrs. Holmes went on to say that money poisons all that is good. So I propose that we just simply eliminate the problem and get rid of all money. One might ask "where would all the money go?" The simple solution would be to use it as kindling, and provide warmth for the household. For those who live in the South and have no need for heat, paper money should be taken to the local recycling plant. Then money would be turned into something useful like a stationary set. The only thing that money does is make people greedy, and power hungry. By getting rid of currency, all the filthy rich scum bags would be brought down to their knees. Without money, there would be less evil people in the world. I think that the Native Americans and Egyptians had the right idea. TRADE. I'll give you this fish for that piece of bread. No extra steps, or complications. All of the credit/debit scores and issues wouldn't exist, because a fish on credit doesn't work too well. Either a trade is successful or its not, end of story. I do believe that certain types of competition is healthy, but bits of paper should not instill any measure of self value. People should compete with sports, school, beauty(?) and knowledge. Those who excel in a particular area should have power. The amount of 6 inch paper slips in a wallet should have no impact on what type of person someone is. Money is just a plain old bad idea.