Last week I finished Paper Towns by John Green. In Paper Towns, Quentin and his group of friends try to find their friend Margo Roth Spiegleman after she leaves their town of Orlando, Florida leaving behind a series of clues in poems. *Spoilers*, they find her at the end of the book.
Paper Towns is a good example of a coming of age book, though only the first part. When Margo and Quentin were little they found a man dead in the park. Not long after this scene is a jump in time where Margo and Quentin are now older and go on a night long excursion to take revenge on the people in Margo's life who have hurt her. When reading this, I saw immediately how Margo had changed from the beginning of the book in her state of innocence to her new, matured self. I saw Margo's immediate thrust into realization turn her into a much more adult like character. I think Margo's coming of age was much more noticeable, and therefore seemed much more drastic versus Quentin who became an adult much quieter. Quentin throughout the entire book has been much quieter and more reserved in contrast to Margo, who grew up much faster and louder, versus Quentin who didn't have a major personality change or a sudden realization like Margo did when they stumbled upon the dead man in the park (who's name I forgot since I don't have the book with me anymore). I think Margo felt like the world was a mean place where people die which explains her massive one night revenge strike on all of the people at school who had hurt her. I think after Margo's realization, all of her accumulated anger towards the world and its cruelty built up until her and Quentin went out all night seeking revenge. I think the realization that people can really die started the accumulation of anger inside of Margo and over time this could only build if not vented, and all of Margo's anger was vented in one long night with Quentin. Quentin though didn't change externally. Quentin became different in his thoughts, and even though throughout the book I was unable to tell what Quentin was thinking, by seeing how he responded to Margo's actions and what he thought about her revenge. I think Quentin knew too that the world can be a bad place, but learned to accept it. Quentin went from action, and loving the world, to apathy, just accepting the world for what it is, whereas margo went from apathy, and just being a kid, to taking action against those she believed had wronged her.
I think that in the real world, people change, like Margo and Quentin. A lot the kids at 51 who went to my elementary school have changed since 5th grade and we aren't really friends any more. I think a lot of these friendships aren't still active not because we've grown up, but just from natural personality changes and the new opinions about life that people discover as they grow up. In Paper Towns, the realizations that Margo and Quentin have initially change their personalities and bring them together, though later Margo's personality takes her away from Quentin, who's personality brings him back to Margo.
Sunday, May 12, 2013
Tuesday, April 30, 2013
What He Wanted To Be
I recently finished "The Fault in Our Stars" by John Green, which I found to be possibly the best book I've read all year. (I finished it over a week ago and don't have the book with me so I don't remember every single detail). In the book, two teens fighting different types of cancer, Hazel Grace and Augustus Waters, bond over their similar opinions and thoughts about life and literature. They travel to Amsterdam to meet the author of the book they both came to love only to find out he's a rude drunk. This led me to think that throughout the book several people end up being very different than they appeared to be.
First, Van Houten turned out to be a drunk. When Hazel Grace first introduces "An Imperial Affliction" to Augustus neither of them have any clue what the author is like as a person. I think Hazel and Augustus assumed because of his views expressed in the book, (though Hazel never really says clearly what these views are) they assumed Van Houten would be just like them and share their ideas because he wrote about them in his book. I think who Hazel and Augustus really should've met was the character from "An Imperial Affliction" because Van Houten might not've necessarily agreed with the thoughts he wrote about and gave to the character in his book. I think Van Houten didn't write about himself in the book, but what he wanted to be. I think Van Houten wanted to be like Hazel and Augustus and wrote like he was, which I think made him angry when they come to him and he sees what he wanted to be.
I think in the real world it's easy for someone to want to change themselves or to want to be something they know they aren't, and I think accepting this can be really hard. I think if you really aren't what you wish you were and you can see a perfect example of what you wish you were right in front of you that you'd react just like Van Houten did. I think Van Houten saw the change he wanted to make, but because he knew it was so intangible that it upset him so much.
First, Van Houten turned out to be a drunk. When Hazel Grace first introduces "An Imperial Affliction" to Augustus neither of them have any clue what the author is like as a person. I think Hazel and Augustus assumed because of his views expressed in the book, (though Hazel never really says clearly what these views are) they assumed Van Houten would be just like them and share their ideas because he wrote about them in his book. I think who Hazel and Augustus really should've met was the character from "An Imperial Affliction" because Van Houten might not've necessarily agreed with the thoughts he wrote about and gave to the character in his book. I think Van Houten didn't write about himself in the book, but what he wanted to be. I think Van Houten wanted to be like Hazel and Augustus and wrote like he was, which I think made him angry when they come to him and he sees what he wanted to be.
I think in the real world it's easy for someone to want to change themselves or to want to be something they know they aren't, and I think accepting this can be really hard. I think if you really aren't what you wish you were and you can see a perfect example of what you wish you were right in front of you that you'd react just like Van Houten did. I think Van Houten saw the change he wanted to make, but because he knew it was so intangible that it upset him so much.
Thursday, March 14, 2013
The Healing Nurse
The character in Romeo and Juliet that I found most interesting is the Nurse. I picked the Nurse because I saw her as sort of an impartial healing source in the middle of Romeo and Juliet because she loves them both, and wants the best for them. Because the Nurse loves them both so much she's willing to help them both and is with them in difficult times.
In all of Act 3 Scene 2 as Juliet processes her complicated feelings about Romeo killing Tybalt, the Nurse is there to help Juliet to understand. I noticed that at no point in the scene does the Nurse blatantly share her opinion on the situation. The Nurse never came to Juliet and started telling her that Romeo is a horrible man and that she should leave him and let him be banished, but I felt like by not sharing a strong opinion she was sending a slight message of forgiveness and acceptance. In Act 3 Scene 2 line 78 the Nurse says "It did, it did, alas the day, it did." (Saying that Romeo did in fact kill Tybalt). I thought this line showed the Nurse being slightly upset, but still the Nurse wants the best for Juliet and wouldn't lie to her. I thought the Nurse was upset because she didn't know how Juliet would respond to this and because she only wants the best for Juliet, was sad to be the one to tell her the news that might end up splitting them apart.
I think the Nurse in this scene plays a sort of bearer of bad news. I think the Nurse, when given this responsibility is saddened by one, the fact that Tybalt is dead and two, that she has to be the one who will have to make Juliet initially sad by giving her the news. This topic definitely extends to school because at one point or another I've had to tell my parents that I didn't do so great on a test, in which case I'm the bearer of bad news. I think this is different because it's usually my own fault for forgetting to study, and I have to deliver the news about myself and what I did, versus the Nurse delivering news to Juliet about what her husband did. I think these two are really different because it's easier to tell someone what someone else did when you're not involved in the slightest and can't be held accountable.
In all of Act 3 Scene 2 as Juliet processes her complicated feelings about Romeo killing Tybalt, the Nurse is there to help Juliet to understand. I noticed that at no point in the scene does the Nurse blatantly share her opinion on the situation. The Nurse never came to Juliet and started telling her that Romeo is a horrible man and that she should leave him and let him be banished, but I felt like by not sharing a strong opinion she was sending a slight message of forgiveness and acceptance. In Act 3 Scene 2 line 78 the Nurse says "It did, it did, alas the day, it did." (Saying that Romeo did in fact kill Tybalt). I thought this line showed the Nurse being slightly upset, but still the Nurse wants the best for Juliet and wouldn't lie to her. I thought the Nurse was upset because she didn't know how Juliet would respond to this and because she only wants the best for Juliet, was sad to be the one to tell her the news that might end up splitting them apart.
I think the Nurse in this scene plays a sort of bearer of bad news. I think the Nurse, when given this responsibility is saddened by one, the fact that Tybalt is dead and two, that she has to be the one who will have to make Juliet initially sad by giving her the news. This topic definitely extends to school because at one point or another I've had to tell my parents that I didn't do so great on a test, in which case I'm the bearer of bad news. I think this is different because it's usually my own fault for forgetting to study, and I have to deliver the news about myself and what I did, versus the Nurse delivering news to Juliet about what her husband did. I think these two are really different because it's easier to tell someone what someone else did when you're not involved in the slightest and can't be held accountable.
Thursday, March 7, 2013
Inanimacy
In Act 1 Scene 4 of Romeo and Juliet by William Shakespeare, Mercutio tells Romeo how to handle love. He gives Romeo advice on dealing with, and moving on, after love ends. I saw Mercutio treating love like it was a person, and as he goes back and forth becomes less literal and more figurative with who love is.
In Act 1 Scene 4 line 17/18 Mercutio says "You are a lover. Borrow Cupid's wings // And soar with them above a common bound." In this quote Mercutio doesn't directly address love as an animate object but speaks of it more inanimately, and says that Romeo is part of it by being a lover. I thought Mercutio telling Romeo to "borrow Cupid's wings" was saying that Romeo is entitled to love, and should be able to just take Cupid's wings and find love. I saw "Cupid's wings" as a metaphor for love. Because Mercutio says to "soar with them above a common bound" I felt like he was telling Romeo to take love, and take love somewhere great. In line 27 Mercutio says "If love be rough with you, be rough with love". In this quote Mercutio makes love seem like it's a person who Romeo can interact with, and in this case, be rough with. I think Mercutio gives Romeo enough advice that he can literally use, and can just keep in mind to inspire him when he's not feeling too hopeful.
I think advice can be important for inspiring people, and these little things can really make someone more hopeful, like Mercutio telling Romeo to fly with Cupid's wings. I think these little bits of advice have the one purpose of just helping people get through difficult days and sad times. I've never been given actual advice of this type but I could see how a figurative piece of advice might help more because it's easier to interpret in your own way and really let it work in almost any situation, whereas literal advice might actually just be for one specific event and would only work then. I think Mercutio gives Romeo different kinds of advice so he can continuously use his advice and be able to carry on and not be sad.
In Act 1 Scene 4 line 17/18 Mercutio says "You are a lover. Borrow Cupid's wings // And soar with them above a common bound." In this quote Mercutio doesn't directly address love as an animate object but speaks of it more inanimately, and says that Romeo is part of it by being a lover. I thought Mercutio telling Romeo to "borrow Cupid's wings" was saying that Romeo is entitled to love, and should be able to just take Cupid's wings and find love. I saw "Cupid's wings" as a metaphor for love. Because Mercutio says to "soar with them above a common bound" I felt like he was telling Romeo to take love, and take love somewhere great. In line 27 Mercutio says "If love be rough with you, be rough with love". In this quote Mercutio makes love seem like it's a person who Romeo can interact with, and in this case, be rough with. I think Mercutio gives Romeo enough advice that he can literally use, and can just keep in mind to inspire him when he's not feeling too hopeful.
I think advice can be important for inspiring people, and these little things can really make someone more hopeful, like Mercutio telling Romeo to fly with Cupid's wings. I think these little bits of advice have the one purpose of just helping people get through difficult days and sad times. I've never been given actual advice of this type but I could see how a figurative piece of advice might help more because it's easier to interpret in your own way and really let it work in almost any situation, whereas literal advice might actually just be for one specific event and would only work then. I think Mercutio gives Romeo different kinds of advice so he can continuously use his advice and be able to carry on and not be sad.
Tuesday, February 26, 2013
Eastern Change
I read the article "On The Road in Iran" by Nicholas Kristof in the New York Times Up Front. The article was about how the younger generation in Iran is more educated and less conservative. Throughout the article as Kristof conducted mini interviews he showed how a lot of the older people in Iran have a much weaker education, like when he talks to a 38 year old man who he says has a 9th grade education. Later in the article Kristof talks about kids playing banned videogames like Battlefield 3 and Grand Theft Auto, showing how liberal the younger generations are becoming. Towards the end of the article Kristof talks about seeing a police officer yell at a women for rolling up her sleeves. "Finally, she covered her forearms a bit more, and he accepted a truce." The article showed a really strong contrast in the generations, and how the older generations are treated stricter whereas the younger generations are allowed to play illegal videogames.
The author wants me to feel hopeful for Iran. He talks about Iran possibly being the most pro-America country in the middle east, and interviews several people who are also very pro-America, many of whom are younger. Kristof is CLEARLY trying to point out how younger generations around the world are becoming consistently more and more liberal. Kristof is trying to show what a problem the older conservative generations are in clashing with the younger liberal generations by showing interview after interview with completely opposite views and opinions. Kristof gives much lengthier quotes/interviews from people who oppose the strict government which helps you to understand and connect with their views, which persuades you to absorb their views and oppose their conservative government.
I think that the conservative government in Iran should be more liberal, or just moderate. To be fair, they should let people live. I was disturbed when I read that it was illegal to play certain videogames, and that you could get fined for having satellite TV. "So they just take the dish and go away," without imposing the fine." I took away from the article that it's important to know how others live and how they treat things like TV that we take for granted, they have to hide and be careful about because they can get fined, or thrown in jail for having luxuries that we don't acknowledge.
http://upfront.scholastic.com/issues/02_18_13/book#/12
The author wants me to feel hopeful for Iran. He talks about Iran possibly being the most pro-America country in the middle east, and interviews several people who are also very pro-America, many of whom are younger. Kristof is CLEARLY trying to point out how younger generations around the world are becoming consistently more and more liberal. Kristof is trying to show what a problem the older conservative generations are in clashing with the younger liberal generations by showing interview after interview with completely opposite views and opinions. Kristof gives much lengthier quotes/interviews from people who oppose the strict government which helps you to understand and connect with their views, which persuades you to absorb their views and oppose their conservative government.
I think that the conservative government in Iran should be more liberal, or just moderate. To be fair, they should let people live. I was disturbed when I read that it was illegal to play certain videogames, and that you could get fined for having satellite TV. "So they just take the dish and go away," without imposing the fine." I took away from the article that it's important to know how others live and how they treat things like TV that we take for granted, they have to hide and be careful about because they can get fined, or thrown in jail for having luxuries that we don't acknowledge.
http://upfront.scholastic.com/issues/02_18_13/book#/12
Tuesday, February 19, 2013
Non-existant Doom
I just finished The Doom Machine by Mark Teague, which I found to be a relatively easy book after learning it's surprisingly for 8-10 year olds, though I still found a deeper meaning.
In The Doom Machine Jack and Isadora are abducted by aliens and travel across the universe to try and save Earth, which I found to be a pretty basic plot. Throughout the book I saw them being faced with moral challenges, where they could either save Earth, or succumb to an alien authority and let Earth be captured. Jack and Isadora's goal was to destroy the doom machine, created by Jack's uncle Bud. If the Skreeps were able to figure out how to use the machine, they would've used it to create tunnels in space to make it easier to capture and eventually colonize Earth. The overall purpose of the Skreeps existence is to ultimately take over everything that exists and rule with immense greed and apathy.
Throughout the book I noticed the Skreeps being unnecessarily cruel and repeatedly untrustworthy to their prisoners (Jack and Isadora) who at any point could've allowed the Skreeps to use the machine and just become one of them. The four human main characters in the book all showed their different views of how to deal with the challenge at hand. I think morally, Isadora wouldn't have succumbed because of what an intelligent character she was, especially compared to Jack. I think Isadora, believing strongly in science and knowledge, felt like she could've found a more logical way to overcome the Skreeps. I think someone like Jack on the other hand would've been more excited to try something ridiculous like infiltrating their land with aggressive force. Bud on the other hand had a mindset between Isadora and Jack, where he was up for an adventure, but also used science and logic to be able to *SPOILERS* save Earth. I interpreted Bud as a character who would be more likely to lean towards Jack and want to blow something up versus persuading the Skreeps to stop. I saw Isadora's mom, Dr. Shumway as someone who would just be an older version of Isadora, who through the story line was paired with Bud for the majority of the book, and I thought she treated him just as Isadora was treating Jack. I thought both of the female characters in the book treated the males as wild, unintelligent beings, whereas I felt like they were looking at themselves as the intellectual superiors (which I agreed with), though they never questioned what the doom truly was.
I feel like the moral dilemmas brought up in The Doom Machine can easily be extended to our world. I think a lot of the time people can be faced with something simple, where they can either just feel nothing for others and let these bad things happen to them, or stand up for others and really fight back. I think this could be simplified into bullying, where the Skreeps are the bullies, and they're bullying Earth. Part of Earth sees this happening, and can either side with the Skreeps, and let the rest of Earth be bullied, or stand up to the Skreeps and fight back to protect the rest of Earth, and in the book, Jack and Isadora do fight back and end up saving Earth.
In The Doom Machine Jack and Isadora are abducted by aliens and travel across the universe to try and save Earth, which I found to be a pretty basic plot. Throughout the book I saw them being faced with moral challenges, where they could either save Earth, or succumb to an alien authority and let Earth be captured. Jack and Isadora's goal was to destroy the doom machine, created by Jack's uncle Bud. If the Skreeps were able to figure out how to use the machine, they would've used it to create tunnels in space to make it easier to capture and eventually colonize Earth. The overall purpose of the Skreeps existence is to ultimately take over everything that exists and rule with immense greed and apathy.
Throughout the book I noticed the Skreeps being unnecessarily cruel and repeatedly untrustworthy to their prisoners (Jack and Isadora) who at any point could've allowed the Skreeps to use the machine and just become one of them. The four human main characters in the book all showed their different views of how to deal with the challenge at hand. I think morally, Isadora wouldn't have succumbed because of what an intelligent character she was, especially compared to Jack. I think Isadora, believing strongly in science and knowledge, felt like she could've found a more logical way to overcome the Skreeps. I think someone like Jack on the other hand would've been more excited to try something ridiculous like infiltrating their land with aggressive force. Bud on the other hand had a mindset between Isadora and Jack, where he was up for an adventure, but also used science and logic to be able to *SPOILERS* save Earth. I interpreted Bud as a character who would be more likely to lean towards Jack and want to blow something up versus persuading the Skreeps to stop. I saw Isadora's mom, Dr. Shumway as someone who would just be an older version of Isadora, who through the story line was paired with Bud for the majority of the book, and I thought she treated him just as Isadora was treating Jack. I thought both of the female characters in the book treated the males as wild, unintelligent beings, whereas I felt like they were looking at themselves as the intellectual superiors (which I agreed with), though they never questioned what the doom truly was.
I feel like the moral dilemmas brought up in The Doom Machine can easily be extended to our world. I think a lot of the time people can be faced with something simple, where they can either just feel nothing for others and let these bad things happen to them, or stand up for others and really fight back. I think this could be simplified into bullying, where the Skreeps are the bullies, and they're bullying Earth. Part of Earth sees this happening, and can either side with the Skreeps, and let the rest of Earth be bullied, or stand up to the Skreeps and fight back to protect the rest of Earth, and in the book, Jack and Isadora do fight back and end up saving Earth.
Tuesday, January 29, 2013
The Non-Conformist
I chose the song Dear God written by XTC.
I think one main theme of the song is conformism. The last stanza of the song starts off with
"I won't believe in heaven or hell
no saints, no sinners, no devil as well". I think this excerpt shows that the singer basically doesn't want to conform. He doesn't want to believe in what someone else may believe in, or want him to believe in simply because he doesn't believe in this and wants to find something that he does believe in, and won't just believe to fit in. The whole final stanza is sent very powerfully by how it's sung in the song, being much louder and more direct. Halfway through the stanza the singer even calls religion a hoax which stood out to me as a really powerful line. I thought it was especially powerful because the song is sung to God, yet the singer is singing about how he doesn't believe in God and says
"That father, son, and holy ghost
is just somebody's unholy hoax". This felt really powerful because it felt like an insult to all of religion and just everything, not one aspect that the singer felt was wrong but just everything overall.
The beginning of the song is sung by a child, which I also thought was really strong because it shows that someone who is much younger, and so much less sophisticated as a thinker, can still doubt something and know that they might not believe in it just because someone else does and told them to. At the end of the first stanza the child says "I can't believe in you" which made me question why the child said "can't" versus "don't" which the adult says in the last stanza. I thought that either the child really was told by someone, or even threatened not to believe in God, whereas the adult just doesn't believe in God. I think that maybe the adult, who doesn't believe in God, told the child, that they couldn't believe in God.
I think this song extends to the real world through religious persecutions like the Holocaust. I think the child's motivation to disbelieve in God ultimately comes from the parents who might've told their child that they can't believe in God. I think that the song powerfully displays how a child can still be oppressed by a parent and not believe something because they think they can't, but still not try and just fit the social norm. I think the child in this song is still being a non-conformist even by giving in to what the parents are telling him to believe, because they still aren't giving in to actually believing in something, just not believing.
I realized from the beginning, that the non-conformist isn't the main singer, but actually the child in the beginning.
I think one main theme of the song is conformism. The last stanza of the song starts off with
"I won't believe in heaven or hell
no saints, no sinners, no devil as well". I think this excerpt shows that the singer basically doesn't want to conform. He doesn't want to believe in what someone else may believe in, or want him to believe in simply because he doesn't believe in this and wants to find something that he does believe in, and won't just believe to fit in. The whole final stanza is sent very powerfully by how it's sung in the song, being much louder and more direct. Halfway through the stanza the singer even calls religion a hoax which stood out to me as a really powerful line. I thought it was especially powerful because the song is sung to God, yet the singer is singing about how he doesn't believe in God and says
"That father, son, and holy ghost
is just somebody's unholy hoax". This felt really powerful because it felt like an insult to all of religion and just everything, not one aspect that the singer felt was wrong but just everything overall.
The beginning of the song is sung by a child, which I also thought was really strong because it shows that someone who is much younger, and so much less sophisticated as a thinker, can still doubt something and know that they might not believe in it just because someone else does and told them to. At the end of the first stanza the child says "I can't believe in you" which made me question why the child said "can't" versus "don't" which the adult says in the last stanza. I thought that either the child really was told by someone, or even threatened not to believe in God, whereas the adult just doesn't believe in God. I think that maybe the adult, who doesn't believe in God, told the child, that they couldn't believe in God.
I think this song extends to the real world through religious persecutions like the Holocaust. I think the child's motivation to disbelieve in God ultimately comes from the parents who might've told their child that they can't believe in God. I think that the song powerfully displays how a child can still be oppressed by a parent and not believe something because they think they can't, but still not try and just fit the social norm. I think the child in this song is still being a non-conformist even by giving in to what the parents are telling him to believe, because they still aren't giving in to actually believing in something, just not believing.
I realized from the beginning, that the non-conformist isn't the main singer, but actually the child in the beginning.
Tuesday, January 22, 2013
Revenge
I'm reading The Book Thief by Markus Zusak. Liesel and her foster dad, Hans, are at a parade of Jews that are being marched to Dachau to a concentration camp. Hans sees one man who comes up to him and Hans gives him a piece of bread. This is followed by Hans being beaten in the street along with the man, and a lot of dirty looks in the days following.
I think that Hans felt that he had to give him the bread. Hans has this view of Germany and how the Nazis have destroyed his homeland that he feels the need to help the ones who are being hurt by the ones who are hurting him; the Nazis. Hans only wants to good, which is a reoccurring theme in the book. Hans starts off by adopting two children, (Liesel's brother dies on the train heading to Molching), and then goes on to adopt a Jew, Max. Hans works extra hard to ensure that Max can be fed the little that they are able to give him, and to ensure that he can stay in the basement and write and paint. Hans goes out of his way to protect Max and worries not only about himself being killed for hiding Max, but what would happen to Max if he were to be found.
Hans is completely selfless and wants to even bring him along when the bomb raids begin, though he knows that he would certainly be killed.
' "It's a shame we can't take you with us. It's a disgrace."
"It's how it is." ' - Page 372
This quote just further proves Hans' selflessness, and love for all. Hans wants to bring Max to the Fiedler's basement to protect him from the possibility of radiation from the bombs in their basement. If Himmel street was bombed, and everything was destroyed, even possibly everyone in the Fiedler's basement, no matter how deep it is, all Hans is concerned about is if Max will be alright in their not as deep basement six doors down.
When the bombs do inevitably come, and the ash washes over everything, Hans wants to go out and help.
'At home, Pap told Max all about it. "There's fog and ash--I think they let us out too early." He looked to Rosa. "Should I go out? To see if they need help where the bombs dropped?" ' - Page 383
Hans again, is willing to risk his health to go out and save people from the ash, and risk getting something like Lung cancer, just because there's a possibility that someone needs help.
Hans is a perfect role model of someone who just cares and loves too much to a point where he can be stupid, and has to be told by others (Rosa, his wife) to stop.
I think that Hans felt that he had to give him the bread. Hans has this view of Germany and how the Nazis have destroyed his homeland that he feels the need to help the ones who are being hurt by the ones who are hurting him; the Nazis. Hans only wants to good, which is a reoccurring theme in the book. Hans starts off by adopting two children, (Liesel's brother dies on the train heading to Molching), and then goes on to adopt a Jew, Max. Hans works extra hard to ensure that Max can be fed the little that they are able to give him, and to ensure that he can stay in the basement and write and paint. Hans goes out of his way to protect Max and worries not only about himself being killed for hiding Max, but what would happen to Max if he were to be found.
Hans is completely selfless and wants to even bring him along when the bomb raids begin, though he knows that he would certainly be killed.
' "It's a shame we can't take you with us. It's a disgrace."
"It's how it is." ' - Page 372
This quote just further proves Hans' selflessness, and love for all. Hans wants to bring Max to the Fiedler's basement to protect him from the possibility of radiation from the bombs in their basement. If Himmel street was bombed, and everything was destroyed, even possibly everyone in the Fiedler's basement, no matter how deep it is, all Hans is concerned about is if Max will be alright in their not as deep basement six doors down.
When the bombs do inevitably come, and the ash washes over everything, Hans wants to go out and help.
'At home, Pap told Max all about it. "There's fog and ash--I think they let us out too early." He looked to Rosa. "Should I go out? To see if they need help where the bombs dropped?" ' - Page 383
Hans again, is willing to risk his health to go out and save people from the ash, and risk getting something like Lung cancer, just because there's a possibility that someone needs help.
Hans is a perfect role model of someone who just cares and loves too much to a point where he can be stupid, and has to be told by others (Rosa, his wife) to stop.
Tuesday, January 15, 2013
Minority Majority
The article "The New Face of America" by Veronica Majerol is about how many states now have a majority of the population as minorities. The last census showed that the birth rate of minorities is now higher than the birth rate of whites, and the article focuses on how this might affect presidential elections in the future.
The article brings up the issue of voting when it comes to the majority of the population becoming minorities. I remember from Obama's re-election that a lot of minorities voted Democrat, and I think that if these trends of minority majority continue on that eventually it will really affect voting. I think that if it gets to a point where Hispanics are the majority that this might also change things because another race would be a minority instead, and different political parties would change their approach depending on which races are minorities. If Democrats focus on minorities, and the minority becomes the majority, wouldn't this make everything backwards?
I think one of the really major things that the author wanted me to know was that this is a really big deal. "No country in the world has ever experienced such a quick and dramatic racial and ethnic change." This quote shows how sudden this is, and what a strange occurrence it is, because we're the first country to have this happen so fast. Another thing I think the author wanted me to think that was this is really a generational thing. One quote that displays that really well is "--a younger generation that's racially and ethnically diverse and an older generation that's largely white." Along with the bar graph, I think this very strongly shows how America is developing over time. The younger generations are more liberal and accepting of other ethnicities, while the older generations can be more conservative and not want to accept others, so would remain to be mostly white.
I think the author wants me to feel like I should accept these other races, because the article doesn't show the opinion of the conservative side. I think by having an article that really only shows one point of view makes you want to accept that side, unless you completely disagree. The article shows quotes from people that aren't white, but that are being inclusive and not racist in any way. It only shows open minded, accepting people, giving the article an accepting feel.
Read the article here
The article brings up the issue of voting when it comes to the majority of the population becoming minorities. I remember from Obama's re-election that a lot of minorities voted Democrat, and I think that if these trends of minority majority continue on that eventually it will really affect voting. I think that if it gets to a point where Hispanics are the majority that this might also change things because another race would be a minority instead, and different political parties would change their approach depending on which races are minorities. If Democrats focus on minorities, and the minority becomes the majority, wouldn't this make everything backwards?
I think one of the really major things that the author wanted me to know was that this is a really big deal. "No country in the world has ever experienced such a quick and dramatic racial and ethnic change." This quote shows how sudden this is, and what a strange occurrence it is, because we're the first country to have this happen so fast. Another thing I think the author wanted me to think that was this is really a generational thing. One quote that displays that really well is "--a younger generation that's racially and ethnically diverse and an older generation that's largely white." Along with the bar graph, I think this very strongly shows how America is developing over time. The younger generations are more liberal and accepting of other ethnicities, while the older generations can be more conservative and not want to accept others, so would remain to be mostly white.
I think the author wants me to feel like I should accept these other races, because the article doesn't show the opinion of the conservative side. I think by having an article that really only shows one point of view makes you want to accept that side, unless you completely disagree. The article shows quotes from people that aren't white, but that are being inclusive and not racist in any way. It only shows open minded, accepting people, giving the article an accepting feel.
Read the article here
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)