You wake up. 7:40 AM. F**k.
You lift your body out of bed and stumble to the bathroom. You squeeze too much Colgate toothpaste onto your toothbrush. You swirl the toothbrush around in your mouth and spit.
You are going to be late.
Your most important class starts at 8. Biology. You have a big test today: your midterm examination. Cellular respiration, Punnett Squares, and the Calvin Cycle flutter through your already scattered brain.
7:45. As you struggle to put your contacts in, you drop one on the floor. Falling to your knees in rage, you search. With frustration at an all-time high, you decide to compromise and wear your shitty twenty dollar glasses from Walmart Optical. You try to do something with your hair but end up making it worse. You hit the bed frame. Multiple times.
7:47. You look around for whatever clothes that are lying on the ground from yesterday. Theres no time to think of what could look good. You pull yourself together, grab your review sheets, trip over your mini-fridge, wake up your roommate, get a box of Premium saltine crackers thrown at you, and walk out the door. What a sh*tty brand of Saltine crackers he eats. You think it's time to reevaluate your friendship.
7:50. You run through the campus, your review sheets disheveled in your hands. You flip through the pages, reviewing whatever you don't remember. A lot.
7:54.You turn the corner at Mason St. and begin to sprint. You don't realize the huge f**king puddle of water to the left of you, and apparently neither does the car that drives right f**king through it. You are dripping wet.
7:56. As you realize that there is less than no time to worry about how freezing cold and soaking wet you are, you continue sprinting and turn the corner on McInerney Road. You see the Biology building in plain sight. A tear streams down your face. You don't cry.. get your sh*t together.
7:58 You enter the building and stumble through the hallway to the examination room. Your professor is waiting at the door, gives you either a disgusted or pissed look (you think it was a mix), and hands you a test.
8:00. You need to get a f**king car.
Raven Symoné
Thursday, April 10, 2014
Thursday, April 3, 2014
Catcher in the Rye Reaction Post
In todays society, there is a constant push for individuality. "Be yourself" is plastered on walls throughout
schools, and conformists are often looked down on as "unoriginal" and "typical". The 50's, when The Catcher in
the Rye was written, was an immensely different time. With the rise of television, societal norms were broadcast
widely, with characters showing what the "protocols" were to dress nicely or poorly, act cooly or freakishly, and
generally be popular or
"alone". Salinger explores the idea of conformity vs. individuality in his novel The Catcher in the Rye through the
protagonist, compulsive liar Holden Caulfield. Throughout the novel, Holden, constantly makes up ridiculous lies
to, in a way, react to the "phoniness" and conformity of the world around him. One example of Holden's constant
lies, sometimes even for no reason, is when he meets Mrs. Morrow on the train and they begin to discuss her
son:
"'...Perhaps you know my son, then, Ernest Morrow? He goes to Pencey.' 'Yes, I do. He's in my class.' Her son
was doubtless the biggest bastard that ever went to Pencey, in the whole crumby history of the school. 'I must tell
Ernest we met,' he said. 'May I ask your name, dear?' 'Rudolf Schmidt,' I told her. I didn't feel like giving her my
whole life history. Rudolf Schmidt was the name of the janitor of our dorm" (Salinger 87).
Holden's random and often ridiculous lies can be seen as a reaction to the "phoniness" of other people. When
Holden decides a person he is talking to is phony (a conformist), he lies to cope with their phoniness and, in a
way, match what they exude. Holden also lies to cope with his own personal phoniness, which he attempts to
break throughout his push for non-comformity throughout the novel.
Holden's move to New York, stay in a sketchy hotel, and constant conversing with strangers show his urge to
be independent. Through this, it can be
seen that Holden is trying to find his authentic self. By dropping out of school and warping usual social rules,
Salinger attempts to exemplify the importance of finding yourself through Holden's move from normality. Salinger,
who pushes the idea of conformity equalling phoniness throughout the novel, presents an odd ending to the story.
At the end of the novel, Holden is unhappy with his new life, formed through his independence, and decides to
"conform" and go back to school. Through this, Salinger shows that although Holden might be "conforming", his
authenticity could sprout from moving with the crowd. Salinger shows that, whether it's "conforming" or "being
independent", it's important to find your authentic self and possible to in either instances. Some people are
leaders, and some followers, and Salinger mirrors this dichotomy through Holden's inner conflict, showing its true
importance in society both in the 50's and today.
schools, and conformists are often looked down on as "unoriginal" and "typical". The 50's, when The Catcher in
the Rye was written, was an immensely different time. With the rise of television, societal norms were broadcast
widely, with characters showing what the "protocols" were to dress nicely or poorly, act cooly or freakishly, and
generally be popular or
"alone". Salinger explores the idea of conformity vs. individuality in his novel The Catcher in the Rye through the
protagonist, compulsive liar Holden Caulfield. Throughout the novel, Holden, constantly makes up ridiculous lies
to, in a way, react to the "phoniness" and conformity of the world around him. One example of Holden's constant
lies, sometimes even for no reason, is when he meets Mrs. Morrow on the train and they begin to discuss her
son:
"'...Perhaps you know my son, then, Ernest Morrow? He goes to Pencey.' 'Yes, I do. He's in my class.' Her son
was doubtless the biggest bastard that ever went to Pencey, in the whole crumby history of the school. 'I must tell
Ernest we met,' he said. 'May I ask your name, dear?' 'Rudolf Schmidt,' I told her. I didn't feel like giving her my
whole life history. Rudolf Schmidt was the name of the janitor of our dorm" (Salinger 87).
Holden's random and often ridiculous lies can be seen as a reaction to the "phoniness" of other people. When
Holden decides a person he is talking to is phony (a conformist), he lies to cope with their phoniness and, in a
way, match what they exude. Holden also lies to cope with his own personal phoniness, which he attempts to
break throughout his push for non-comformity throughout the novel.
Holden's move to New York, stay in a sketchy hotel, and constant conversing with strangers show his urge to
be independent. Through this, it can be
seen that Holden is trying to find his authentic self. By dropping out of school and warping usual social rules,
Salinger attempts to exemplify the importance of finding yourself through Holden's move from normality. Salinger,
who pushes the idea of conformity equalling phoniness throughout the novel, presents an odd ending to the story.
At the end of the novel, Holden is unhappy with his new life, formed through his independence, and decides to
"conform" and go back to school. Through this, Salinger shows that although Holden might be "conforming", his
authenticity could sprout from moving with the crowd. Salinger shows that, whether it's "conforming" or "being
independent", it's important to find your authentic self and possible to in either instances. Some people are
leaders, and some followers, and Salinger mirrors this dichotomy through Holden's inner conflict, showing its true
importance in society both in the 50's and today.
Friday, February 14, 2014
Postmodernism in WHALITC
Jake Nusynowitz
AP Language & Composition
Ms. Howard
13 February 2014
Daniel Green explains postmodernist literature as “…challenging established literary
convention” (Green 1). Shirley Jackson’s We Have Always Lived In the Castle, in many ways, can be
seen as a postmodernist work as it employs a trait many postmodernist works employ: an unreliable
narrator. We Have Always Lived In the Castle twists the truth, offering readers an undependable
narrator: the criminally insane Merricat. At the beginning of the book, we are introduced to Mary
Katherine as a relatively regular character with slightly odd tendencies. Her remaining family is
introduced shortly after, which includes Constance, whom she pins the death of her entire family on:
“My niece, after all, was acquitted of murder” (Jackson 66). Throughout the entire novel, we are lead
to believe that Merricat is a reliable narrator: why wouldn’t she be? From her eyes, we see her as the
only sane character in the story for a long time as Merricat's narration highlights the insanity of her
family. Firstly, her sister, Constance, is seen as the murderer
who killed her entire family and got off scot-free. Uncle Julian is portrayed as the insane paralyzed
elder who, in Merricat’s “motherly” eyes, cannot take care of himself (he believes she is dead) and
constantly needs guidance. Lastly, Charles is seen as the enemy by Merricat, causing us to assume he
is without a doubt an enemy to the reader and automatically labeled as “antagonist”. But when the
unreliability of Merricat, our narrator, is revealed after the climactic fire, all of the previous
assumptions we have made of characters must be questioned: “I am going to put death in all their
food and watch them die…the way I did before” (Jackson 187). This plot-twist not only alters the
readers opinion towards Merricat, but the opinions on other characters formed throughout the novel
as well. Is Constance truly mentally insane? Is Uncle Julian truly
paralyzed? Should Charles truly be seen as the enemy? Jackson’s portrayal of Merricat as a innocent
protagonist throughout the novel, only to steal the comfort the readers have gained in the novel by
revealing her as the true antagonistic character exemplifies postmodernism. But somehow, readers
still side with Merricat, seeing innocence in her. Why is this? Many times in postmodernist works,
every question can not be answered, but Jackson’s We Have Always Lived In the Castle is a chilling
read that, without a doubt, fulfills horror and mystery cravings around the world.
Works Cited
AP Language & Composition
Ms. Howard
13 February 2014
Daniel Green explains postmodernist literature as “…challenging established literary
convention” (Green 1). Shirley Jackson’s We Have Always Lived In the Castle, in many ways, can be
seen as a postmodernist work as it employs a trait many postmodernist works employ: an unreliable
narrator. We Have Always Lived In the Castle twists the truth, offering readers an undependable
narrator: the criminally insane Merricat. At the beginning of the book, we are introduced to Mary
Katherine as a relatively regular character with slightly odd tendencies. Her remaining family is
introduced shortly after, which includes Constance, whom she pins the death of her entire family on:
“My niece, after all, was acquitted of murder” (Jackson 66). Throughout the entire novel, we are lead
to believe that Merricat is a reliable narrator: why wouldn’t she be? From her eyes, we see her as the
only sane character in the story for a long time as Merricat's narration highlights the insanity of her
family. Firstly, her sister, Constance, is seen as the murderer
who killed her entire family and got off scot-free. Uncle Julian is portrayed as the insane paralyzed
elder who, in Merricat’s “motherly” eyes, cannot take care of himself (he believes she is dead) and
constantly needs guidance. Lastly, Charles is seen as the enemy by Merricat, causing us to assume he
is without a doubt an enemy to the reader and automatically labeled as “antagonist”. But when the
unreliability of Merricat, our narrator, is revealed after the climactic fire, all of the previous
assumptions we have made of characters must be questioned: “I am going to put death in all their
food and watch them die…the way I did before” (Jackson 187). This plot-twist not only alters the
readers opinion towards Merricat, but the opinions on other characters formed throughout the novel
as well. Is Constance truly mentally insane? Is Uncle Julian truly
paralyzed? Should Charles truly be seen as the enemy? Jackson’s portrayal of Merricat as a innocent
protagonist throughout the novel, only to steal the comfort the readers have gained in the novel by
revealing her as the true antagonistic character exemplifies postmodernism. But somehow, readers
still side with Merricat, seeing innocence in her. Why is this? Many times in postmodernist works,
every question can not be answered, but Jackson’s We Have Always Lived In the Castle is a chilling
read that, without a doubt, fulfills horror and mystery cravings around the world.
Works Cited
Green, Daniel. "Postmodern American Fiction." The Antioch Review Sept. 2003. QuestiaSchool. Web. 13 Feb. 2014.
Jackson, Shirley. We Have Always Lived in the Castle. New York: Penguin Books, 2006. Print.
Sunday, February 2, 2014
Metafiction Piece
"It's a very exciting day when the land of the free, none other than the United States of America is the first country to land humans (and sponge) on the moon. This monumental day, July 24, 1969, three brave men have successfully landed on the moon: Commander Neil Armstrong, Command Module Pilot Michael Collins, and Lunar Module Pilot Spongebob Squarepants. In our previous interviews, we spoke in depth about Armstrong and Collins, but did not get to really touch base and dig deep into Mr. Squarepants's past and interest in spaceflight.
Spongebob Squarepants was born in the small town of Bikini Bottom, raised very traditionally. Starting in elementary school, his love for space developed, growing into something that interested him more than just a hobby, but a career. Working hard in high school, Squarepants worked at town favorite place to dine Krusty Krab where he earned high honor throughout the town for his friendly demeanor and flamboyant personality. Recruited by Nichelle Nicols, NASA Recruiter, Squarepants made his way to NASA for extensive training to eventually make it onto the first successful human/sponge mission to the moon. Squarepants is very proud to be supporting his family, his parents Harold and Margaret Squarepants. 'Some people might think,' Squarepants explains, '...that a sponge going to space is odd, perhaps the readers of this very article in an advanced English class in in Florida circa 2014, but i'd just like to set an example for all of the sponges out there who want to make a life for themselves and really make a change, besides being used as a kitchen supply.'
Mr. Squarepants sets an example for all sponges and humans out there in the world who want to make a change: 'with hard work and determination, you can do anything,' he coins. We at the HSA, Human Sponge Alliance cant wait to see the future that not only Squarepants holds for us in space travel, but Armstrong and Collins in all of their near and far endeavors."
--- HSA
Spongebob Squarepants was born in the small town of Bikini Bottom, raised very traditionally. Starting in elementary school, his love for space developed, growing into something that interested him more than just a hobby, but a career. Working hard in high school, Squarepants worked at town favorite place to dine Krusty Krab where he earned high honor throughout the town for his friendly demeanor and flamboyant personality. Recruited by Nichelle Nicols, NASA Recruiter, Squarepants made his way to NASA for extensive training to eventually make it onto the first successful human/sponge mission to the moon. Squarepants is very proud to be supporting his family, his parents Harold and Margaret Squarepants. 'Some people might think,' Squarepants explains, '...that a sponge going to space is odd, perhaps the readers of this very article in an advanced English class in in Florida circa 2014, but i'd just like to set an example for all of the sponges out there who want to make a life for themselves and really make a change, besides being used as a kitchen supply.'
Mr. Squarepants sets an example for all sponges and humans out there in the world who want to make a change: 'with hard work and determination, you can do anything,' he coins. We at the HSA, Human Sponge Alliance cant wait to see the future that not only Squarepants holds for us in space travel, but Armstrong and Collins in all of their near and far endeavors."
--- HSA
Wednesday, January 22, 2014
Satire in Persuasion
Jane Austen's Persuasion revolves around Anne Elliot, reserved daughter of fatuous and snobbish Sir Walter, and the trials and tribulations in both her family and love lives. Jane Austen focuses on satire in many of her great works, from Pride & Prejudice to Sense & Sensibility to her latest work Persuasion, where she pokes fun at the social extravagance and absurdity of her time. Many characters in Austen's Persuasion encompass the satirical ideas that she was looking to shed light on. Firstly, Anne's father, Sir Walter could most likely be the most satirical character in the entire novel for a few reasons. Firstly, Sir Walter is extremely vain and has multitudes of mirrors set up in his house, showing Austen's mocking of her society's complete arrogance and conceitedness. Sir Walter is also a satirical character due to his constant obsession with class and/or rank. This obsession is exemplified in a few of Walter's actions throughout Persuasion: initially, Sir Walter's favorite book is the Baronetcy (a book of all of the class and ranking of people in his society). Also, Walter refuses to associate with a man of the navy due to both their low class and ugly, worn out features. These both show satirical elements as he was so obsessed with rank, yet he frivolously spent money to the point of him moving out of his own home to control spending: clear irony (as well as showing his obsession with the superficial through his hatred of Navy men, Austen's way of satirizing the vanity of her time). Sir Walter's vanity (in both physicality and ranking), a purposely satirized element in his character is obvious throughout the text, very directly characterized by Austen: "Vanity was the beginning and the end of Sir Walter Elliot's character; vanity of person and of situation. He considered the blessing of beauty as inferior only to the blessing of a baronetcy; and the Sir Walter Elliot, who united these gifts, was the constant object of his warmest respect and devotion" (Austen 6).
Other satirical characters include Elizabeth Elliot, much like her father, vain and arrogant, who although is so full of herself and obsessed with her "beauty", as well as being the older sister, is still single and quite lonely. This ironic element Elizabeth exemplified shows Austen's twisting of a usual family's values and practices back in her day. Overall, it's clear that Austen uses satire to poke fun at her society's slightly twisted and self-absorbed ways in Persuasion. By bringing out characters' flaws such as vanity and class-hunger, Austen successfully portrayed these foibles as crucial elements of her satirical games she so greatly demonstrates so very often.
Other satirical characters include Elizabeth Elliot, much like her father, vain and arrogant, who although is so full of herself and obsessed with her "beauty", as well as being the older sister, is still single and quite lonely. This ironic element Elizabeth exemplified shows Austen's twisting of a usual family's values and practices back in her day. Overall, it's clear that Austen uses satire to poke fun at her society's slightly twisted and self-absorbed ways in Persuasion. By bringing out characters' flaws such as vanity and class-hunger, Austen successfully portrayed these foibles as crucial elements of her satirical games she so greatly demonstrates so very often.
Monday, January 20, 2014
WAYGWHYB Movie vs. Story Comparison
"Where Are You Going, Where Have You Been?" a story by Joyce Oates follows the stories of the murders of three girls from Arizona. After the popularity of this story (which was based off of a true story), a movie recreation was born. A product of the 80's: Chopra's "Smooth Talk". In WAYGWHYB, Oates ends the story with Connie, the protagonist, freeing herself from all of her restrictions and letting herself go to Arnold Friend's control. Although the gruesome details are not written about at the end of WAYGWHYB, it can be assumed that Connie is murdered due to the story being based off of a news article about the murdering of three girls, one being Connie. On the other hand, "Smooth Talk" portrays a different story as the movie comes to a close. After Connie gets into the car with Friend and they "go for a ride", Connie is suddenly returned home after a, literal, drive around in his car. As a reader of WAYGWHYB and the news article about the killings of these girls, I was, as a viewer, expecting a completely different ending and was shocked and confused about why Chopra decided to end "Smooth Talk" on a different note: returning Connie to her house as if nothing occurred. Whether Connie was raped or not can't be assumed, but the fact that she returns to her home a changed woman is apparent. Connie's development before and after this climactic (or anti-climactic) moment is discussed in Brenda O. Daly's "An Unfilmable Conclusion: Joyce Carol Oates at the Movies".
At the beginning of the movie, Connie is demonstrated by Chopra as trapped: trapped by her mother's always overbearing grasp on her life and obsession with finding little things to reprimand her on, and trapped by her obsession with love and sex, causing her to almost feel overwhelmed with unsatisfied feelings. This is directly correlated in not only the story, but also physical and cinematic aspects of the movie as Daly explains: "Every time Connie is on screen, she’s shot in close-up...with no space around her, pinned to the tiny unmovable frame”. This supports the idea that Connie was literally not only, as she felt, trapped emotionally, but also physically in her life which is reflected through the metaphor of the actual shot that Chopra used in the movie. The eventual development of Connie's character is next seen through Arnold Friend's shots. Friend is shot in very wide shots, a metaphor, as Chopra explains, for the freedom that Friend gives Connie; a chance to be herself, and not worry about the restrictions that she feels are on her life put on by her family and friends.
Through this, it's clear that Chopra intentionally did not shoot the gruesome ending to the story, because it was not important to the point of the story that she intended to get across. Connie's development is shown as she leaves Friend's shiny gold car and realizes that her dependency on men was not as required as she once believed; that freedom and a world open for her taking was up to her. Overall, it's clear that through Chopra's interpretation of Oates' story, the crucial theme of independence and Connie's constant search for it is gotten across and effectively establishes a successful bridge between the text and cinematic version of this iconic and classic piece of literature.
At the beginning of the movie, Connie is demonstrated by Chopra as trapped: trapped by her mother's always overbearing grasp on her life and obsession with finding little things to reprimand her on, and trapped by her obsession with love and sex, causing her to almost feel overwhelmed with unsatisfied feelings. This is directly correlated in not only the story, but also physical and cinematic aspects of the movie as Daly explains: "Every time Connie is on screen, she’s shot in close-up...with no space around her, pinned to the tiny unmovable frame”. This supports the idea that Connie was literally not only, as she felt, trapped emotionally, but also physically in her life which is reflected through the metaphor of the actual shot that Chopra used in the movie. The eventual development of Connie's character is next seen through Arnold Friend's shots. Friend is shot in very wide shots, a metaphor, as Chopra explains, for the freedom that Friend gives Connie; a chance to be herself, and not worry about the restrictions that she feels are on her life put on by her family and friends.
Through this, it's clear that Chopra intentionally did not shoot the gruesome ending to the story, because it was not important to the point of the story that she intended to get across. Connie's development is shown as she leaves Friend's shiny gold car and realizes that her dependency on men was not as required as she once believed; that freedom and a world open for her taking was up to her. Overall, it's clear that through Chopra's interpretation of Oates' story, the crucial theme of independence and Connie's constant search for it is gotten across and effectively establishes a successful bridge between the text and cinematic version of this iconic and classic piece of literature.
Sunday, January 12, 2014
Parallels in "Where Are You Going, Where Have You Been?" & "Dont You Know Who I Am?"
Oates's Where Are You Going, Where Have You Been? tells a haunting story of a typical teenage girl whose love-obsessed personality gets the best of her when she is thrown into a truly "life-or-death" situation with an unknown man. Inspired by three Tuscon, Arizona murders, Oates garnered her inspiration for this work from a Life Magizine article profiling the killings. A common theme in both WAYGWHYB and Joyce Wegs's critical paper "Dont You Know Who I Am?"... is religion: themes through Connie's interests in music and daily actions. Music functions as a bridge for Connie to escape from reality to fantasy, away from her overbearing mother to a world of pure bliss: “The music was always in the background, like music at a church service; it was something to depend upon” (Oates 120). Connie explains that music is her religion, the object of worship at the service that completely takes over her existence. Wegs further explains Connie's attachment to music as her religion through her embodiment of the superficial, love-obsessed characteristics in much of, specifically, Bob Dylan's lyrics. Connie's complete infatuation with love comes to surface when Arnold Friend approaches Connie, a seemingly youthful and experienced lover, embodying all of the characteristics Connie and other girls her age at the time swooned over. Through this, it is understood that Connie's religion is not only music, but the perfect boy that music spoke of at the time, leaving her so vulnerable and able to be taken advantage of: "...her first glance makes Connie believe that a teenage boy with his jalopy, the central figure of her religion, has arrived; therefore, she murmurs 'Christ, Christ' as she wonders about how her newly-washed hair looks (Wegs 103). In conclusion, it's clear that Connie's disregard for typical warning signs due to her unchangeable goal in life being finding love get her into trouble, making her the target in Arnold's sick game. As music runs her life, as well as the themes the music Connie listens to brings, a complete disregard for the reality of a situation and the growing oddity of Arnold Friends persona, is clear in her choices. As Arnold's true identity is slowly revealed to Connie: the makeup rubbing off, the wig falling off, the seriousness of Connie's obsession with love, is revealed as she lacks the judgement to stop herself from completely letting herself go to a man she is completely fooled by: "She watched herself push the door slowly open as if she were back safe somewhere in
the other doorway, watching this body and this head of long hair moving out into the sunlight where Arnold Friend waited" (Oates 131).
Works Cited:
Oates, Joyce Carol. “Where Are You Going, Where Have You Been?” Where Are You Going, Where Have You Been? Ed. Elaine Showalter. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 2002. Print.
Wegs, Joyce M. “‘Don’t You Know Who I Am?’ The Grotesque in Oates’s ‘Where Are You Going, Where Have You Been?’” Where Are You Going, Where Have You Been? Ed. Elaine Showalter. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 2002. Print.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)