Response: Romeo and Juliet

What does Friar Lawrence really think? Is his decision to marry Romeo and Juliet ethical? 

         Romeo and Juliet by William Shakespeare is a comedy and tragic love story. Romeo and Juliet are from two very different households, these households have a ancient hatred towards each other. The story is about what happens when Romeo and Juliet fall in love.

         In this story, many of the characters influence Romeo and Juliet's love. One of those characters are Friar Lawrence, the priest. Friar Lawrence is presented as a trusted holy man who many of the characters look up too. His role in the story as an adviser and helping hand highlights the conflict. Overall, Friar Lawrence seems to doubt Romeo and Juliet's love. His decision to marry Romeo and Juliet can be viewed in different ways: ethical and unethical. 

         Friar Lawrence seems to have uncertainty regarding Romeo and Juliet's love. For example, he says, "Holy Saint Francis, what a change is here! Is Rosaline, that thou didst love so dear so soon forgotten?" (2.3.69-70). Friar Lawrence seems surprised to hear about Romeo's new love when only recently, Romeo was in love with Rosaline. This line suggests that he's questioning Romeo's love. Friar Lawrence doesn't seem to approve of how Romeo has moved from Rosaline to Juliet. Friar Lawrence isn't entirely convinced. Furthermore, he says, "Young men's love then lies not truly in their hearts, but in their eyes." (2.3.71-72). When Friar Lawrence says this he means, sometimes men believe they love someone but it might just be that they are in love with the idea of someone. Friar Lawrence is saying to Romeo, maybe what Romeo feels isn't love. This also suggests that perhaps he isn't convinced. Friar Lawrence believes that what Romeo thinks is love, is really just Romeo being infatuated by Juliet.

         Friar Lawrence's decision to marry Romeo and Juliet can be considered ethical. For example, he says, "In one respect I'll assistant be, for this alliance may no happy prove to turn your household's rancor to pure love." (2.3.83-85). Friar Lawrence decided to marry Romeo and Juliet so that the ancient hatred would be left behind. He was trying to think of possible 'pros' of this situation. Friar Lawrence is a priest and holy man after all. He believed that after marrying off the two, the families would finally be at peace. 

        Friar Lawrence's decision can also be seen as unethical. This is because he seems to be unconvinced with Romeo's love and as an adviser to Romeo, he should have been more careful. He was being naive and didn't think of possible consequences. For example, he says, "These violent delights have violent ends and in their triumph die...therefore, love moderately." (2.6.9-10,14). Even though Friar Lawrence gives them warning, he should have thought more about this situation. Romeo is dumbfounded by 'love' and his emotions are heightened. Friar Lawrence should have considered many factors before marrying the two even when he had doubts. He should have listened to his doubts and further thought out this marriage decision. 

        In my opinion, Friar Lawrence's questioning on Romeo's love, should have drove him to think more about the aftermath of Romeo and Juliet's marriage. Because of Friar Lawrence's poorly though out conclusion, many terrible things came to play. 

         

         

Book Response: The Book Thief

*Contains Spoilers*

*My first blog post was also on this book. Click here to read that post.*

       “I've got a bad case of the 3:00 am guilts - you know, when you lie in bed awake and replay all those things you didn't do right? Because, as we all know, nothing solves insomnia like a nice warm glass of regret, depression and self-loathing.” ― D.D. Barant
        The Book Thief by Markus Zusak is a historical fiction book, told through the perspective "Death", about Liesel Meminger who is sent to Molching. She has to live with foster parents Hans Hubermann and Rosa Hubermann, when her brother dies and her mother abandons her. Liesel's life changes when she steals her first book, The Grave Digger's Handbook. Liesel explores the words of words and discovers how powerful they can be. Liesel becomes aware of what it really means to be living in Nazi Germany. She makes new friends, enemies, and steals more books. Markus Zusak portrays though his characters how guilt can have power over us. 
        After stealing another book, Liesel feels anxious and guilty because she was caught. For example it states, "Every minute, every hour there was worry, or more to the point paranoia..." (129). Liesel is perturbed because she know she did something people consider wrong. Liesel shows how the act of doing something wrong, and actually knowing about it, is punishment itself. In other words,the guilt and the torment that is being afflicted on ourselves is worse than any other kind of consequence. 
         Furthermore, through Hans Hubermann, Markus Zusak shows what guilt can do to our conscience. For example, Eric Vandenburg (who is Jewish) helps Hans during World War I by volunteering him in a written assignment when everyone else is sent into battle. When Eric dies, Hans feels guilty and feels like he owes it to Vandenburg's family to help them in times of needs. So he hides Max Vandenburg during World War II in his basement risking his life. In other words, although hiding a Jew could get Hans into a lot of trouble he feels responsible. He is guilty and is trying to set things right. Markus Zusak is trying to shows that when we feel guilty we try to do good for others so we can ease our guilt. 
         Additionally, Max Vandenburg feels guilty for surviving. For example, it states, " He wanted to walk out... he knew he wouldn't. It was much the same as the way he left his family in Stuttgart, under a veil of fabricated loyalty. To live. Living was living. The price was guilt and shame." (209) Max feels guilty that he gave up his family so that he could live. Max is trying to shows that you choose what you want, just know what you signed up for. Markus Zusak is trying to show how our needs for survival can make us choose paths we may later regret. 
         Life is full of ups and downs, sleepless nights we remember mistakes, and the occasional smiles. Our memory is filled with moments from each of these categories. This books has taught me that the world might be cruel but it's because of all that guilt that preys on us. However, the world can be filled with love too, and that can be from guilt because we try to feel good about ourselves again when we are ashamed. This book brings a different view on the world, and proves that not everything is frowns and rainy days, we have to remember all the good things and cherish them forever.  

*Synthesis Page:*

Response: Immigration: Obama VS. Congress

              The article, "Immigration: Obama VS. Congress" by Patricia Smith, is about President Obama issuing an executive order that allows about half the illegal population to work legally in the United States. In addition, this order protects them against deportation. Undocumented immigrants are now secured. The article goes on to discus the debate on whether or not Obama had the right to order this act, even though it benefits many immigrants who live in constant fear of being sent back. This issue concerns many all over the nation. 
        Patricia Smith sparks the question about immigrants being apart of our community. She makes the reader think about opportunity and eligibility. For example, she incorporates a quote from illegal immigrants, Paola Fernandez and Jorge Jimenez. Paola Fernandez was brought to the United States when she was four years old. In the article it states,   "... her undocumented parents will qualify under the president's new program. 'We've been here close to 25 years.' she says. 'On a very personal level, this is very amazing moment.' Fernandez now twenty-eight, got permission to remain in the U.S. as part of Obama's previous executive order..." This shows how immigrants are a big part of our day to day lives. Fernandez's family has been in the United States for 25 which makes them a big part of our nation. Another immigrant Smith quotes is Jorge Jimenez. Jorge Jimenez came to the United States in 1988 and now has four children. Jorge says, "Even a small traffic stop could send us to deportation." Jorge has been living here for 27 years and he still has to worry about being deported. This order eliminates his fear and is benefiting him. 
         Patricia Smith also talks about Obama's opponents who oppose this order. She talks about how they are ignoring how much power these immigrant have in government. For examples, it states in the article, "Hispanic voters helped deliver the White House to Obama twice, and they could play a decisive role in choosing his successor in 2016." This is referring to how immigrants can change the future of the nation. They play an important role in our population. The affect the outcome of our choices. 
          This article makes me think about how our society is surrounded by people who make a difference in our succeeding. They affect our results. It also makes me think about how we should be welcoming plans that help our fellow neighbors. They are apart of our lives and wouldn't we want the best for them, like we would wish for ourselves? Immigrants are just like us, just from a different country, so why should they have to leave a country that follows "We the People"? They should be able to stay in the United States without constantly watching their actions as a human. We are a country that welcomes diversity, so let's welcome this order that enforces this. 

Book Response: Night

 *Contains Spoilers*

“It has long been an axiom of mine that the little things are infinitely the most important.” ― Arthur Conan Doyle, The Memoirs of Sherlock Holmes.

The book, Night by Elie Wiesel, is a memoir about Eliezer, who is sent to Auschwitz: a concentration camp, after failing to free the country during World War II. Eliezer struggles against starvation and abuse, along with taking care of his father. Because of his desperate situation, Eliezer feels a torn between supporting his weak father and giving himself the best chance of survival. He also grapples with the destruction of his faith in God’s justice. Though Eliezer survives the concentration camps, he leaves behind his own innocence and is haunted by the death and violence he has witnessed. Elie Wiesel shows that sometimes in life, it’s the small things that have the largest impact.

In the book, silence is an example of a small idea that causes an unforgettable change. Silence can symbolize fear. Fear causes people to change or act a certain way. For example, Eliezer remains silent when his father is beaten.It states, ”...he dealt my father such a clout that he fell to the ground, crawling back to his place on all fours. I did not move. What had happened to me? My father had just been struck, before my very eyes, and I had not flickered an eyelid...Yesterday, I should have sunk my nails into the criminal's flesh. Had I changed so much, then? So quickly?”(36) In other words, He remains silent or risks his life. Silence can represents the helplessness of the oppressed.

Furthermore, silence can also be powerful and arousing. It can represent rebelling and defiance.It states, “As I bit my lips in order not to howl with pain, he must have mistaken my silence for defiance and so he continued to hit me harder and harder.”(71) In other words, Eliezer is beaten, he remains silent, so he doesn’t give in to the pain. Silence can provoke action. It causes change. Silence, even though is a very small thing, it can be much more. Silence can be a small factor that evokes humans all around.

Silence can express those who are powerless, who can do nothing but be silent, or it can be the reason why the powerless gain back control. In Night, Eliezer survives the concentration camps because of his silence, whether it be when he was helpless or when he was defying against the guards or even God. This book has taught me that the smallest actions can be the reason for the biggest change or impact. Additionally, this book has also taught me that change can happen anywhere, anyway, and anytime.

Book Response: The Glass Castle

 "Sometimes we want to believe something so badly that we allow ourselves to be taken advantage of." — Aaron B. Powell (Doomsday Diaries III: Luke the Protector). In life, there are people, who will use us, and it might just be the people closest to us. Often making us believe their lies, taking advantage of our trust, because they know they can.

The book, The Glass Castle by Jeannette Walls, is a memoir about the Walls family: a dysfunctional, broken, and uniquely spirited bunch. Rose Mary, Jeannette’s mom, does not want the responsibility that comes with family. Rex Walls, Jeannette’s dad, when sober is charismatic and intelligent. However, when he is under the influence of alcohol, he is destructive and fraudulent, frequently taking advantage of his family, in most cases: Jeanette. Jeannette has to deal with an immature mother and an alcoholic father.  She often ends up taking care of herself and her siblings, finding solutions to their problems on their own. Jeannette discovers the value of love, loyalty, and family. Finally figuring out the concept of human nature. Jeannette Walls portrays that, part of being human, is experiencing disappoint because of actions made by the people we love most.

In the book, Jeanette’s dad disappoints her because he takes advantage of the faith she has in him. For example it states, "He knew I had a soft spot for him the way no one else in the family did, and he was taking advantage of it” (209). In other words, Rex knew that he could use her, and so he did because he knew he could get away with it. This is the definition of “taken advantage of”. Rex exploited Jeanette. This can teach us that in life, there are people who will want us for their own use, and we must speak up for ourselves, and realize this. This is considerable because we need to figure out the honest people in our lives and the disloyal people in our lives, because they affect the way our future turns out to be.

Furthermore, it states, “He simply waited for me to fork over the cash, as if he knew I didn’t have it in me to say no” (208). Jeannette doesn’t have it in her to say ‘no’ because she has a soft spot for her dad. Jeannette cannot believe that he is taking her for granted, and is using her for his own selfish desires. She begins to understand that her father was taking advantage of the faith she had in him. This proves that the people we love most could potentially be the ones who are deceiving us. Since we love them so much, we don’t want to believe that they could be harming us, and this may be leaving us discombobulated. We must have our epiphany and realize the destruction they are causing, and confront it.

Throughout the story, Rex promises her that he will build the her ‘The Glass Castle’, a big house made up of glass ceilings, glass walls, and a glass staircase. He never goes about to do it. “Never did build that Glass Castle” (279). The glass castle symbolizes Jeannette’s faith in her dad. Her father had promised her so much, never keeping those promises. This represents all his empty promises and broken deals. It represents all the times he let her down, how much Jeannette believes in him, and how he misused this trust.

We have all been taken advantage of by our loved ones, whether it be a big deal or not. Its hard to realize when this happens since they are so close to us, we can’t bring ourselves to imagine how they could’ve possibly done this to us. If we don’t envisage this soon, we may be damaging our persona. This book has taught me that we might be ignoring the problems in front of us. Additionally, it has proved to me that our loved ones could be filling us with false hope and potentially using us for their own cause. This might be inevitable, but that doesn’t mean we can’t minimize the disappointment from their actions, if we realize who they really are then we won’t feel the pain of their action. We can be better off without them .

Response: How the Murder of Four Teens Started a War

The article, How the Murder of Four Teens Started a War, by Patricia Smith discusses, how four innocent killings sparked a seven-week battle between Israel and Hamas. There has been conflicts between them for six decades. It all started after World War II, when the U.N. wanted to divide the region along the eastern Mediterranean that had been the Jewish ancient homeland. There is still a lot of tension, and the smallest move can create a enormous conflict.

The four boys, Israelis Naftali Fraenkel; Gilad Shaar; Eyal Yifrach; and Muhammad Abu Khdeir, were all killed in a very brutal way. Smith uses loaded words to describe their horrific deaths. For example, she states, “...Khdeir was bludgeoned with  a wrench and then set on fire.” She wants the reader to feel violated and upset over their deaths. Smith wants the reader to feel sympathy for these boys. To further prove her point, she uses the quote from Khdeir’s cousin, “His life was still ahead of him and here in one minute, extremists who hate Arabs, who hate peace, came in and cut short his whole life.” Smith wants the reader to realize how much hate both sides possess, and how all this hate has caused so much problems. Smith also uses  quote from Israeli prime minister, “They were kidnapped and murdered in cold blood by beasts. Hamas is responsible, and Hamas will pay.” She wants the reader to see that both sides are really against each other, and because of it, they can’t see past the hate. All they want is revenge.

Both sides are so angry, they don’t realize all the problems they are causing. Both Israelis and Hamas, think the other side is at fault when, both sides are causing destruction and hate. The fact of the matter is, both sides are going to extremes to hurt the other. They are both just trying to prove a point, and aren't realizing the harm they are causing. I think that both sides, have flaws, but don’t realize it. These four killings should not have happened. What could have been resolved so easily, has now resulted in a massacre, with thousands of people dead on both sides.

Response: Darkness Too Visible

The article “Darkness Too Visible” by Megan Cox Gurdon, is mainly about how young adult literature is too dark for teens to be reading. Gurdon wants you to think that young adult books are gruesome and revolting, and not appropriate for teens to be reading. She uses books such as “The Marbury Lens” and “Rage” to prove her point. The author argues that the book on the shelves currently have become way too repugnant than they were before.

Gurdon uses specific craft to get you to feel that books nowadays are too dark. In the article, she uses the book “The Marbury Lens” to show how grim these novels are. “No happy ending to this one, either,” she states. She clearly wants the reader to think that these stories are going nowhere, and as a result won’t be suitable for teens. She supports this claim by using loaded words and a narrative from a mother. Gurdon uses phrases such as “nightmarish” and unimaginable gore and cruelty” to describe the horrid scenes that are in young adult literature today. Gurdon includes a narrative from a mother who was buying a book for her teenage daughter, but could not find one due to the horrific books she encountered. The author uses specific information to support her claim, however, she does not include a teenage perspective. The entire article is on teenage literature, shouldn’t she have included a teens’ point of view?

Gurdon doesn’t incorporate a teenage perspective. This leaves you wondering if her argument is even considerable. Can you trust her claim? After reading this article, my response is I disagree. I believe her point can’t be be valid because she does not include a very important aspect: a teenager’s say. This makes her argument seem weak and unreliable. Her points does not change my view on young adult literature. I believe teens can read anything explicit as long as it is purposeful and was meant to teach a lesson. I have realized it doesn’t matter what someone is trying to convince me, it is my judgment I should be trusting.