I created this=I am God

Read the peom carefully. Then write a coherent essay in which you analyze how the author uses imagery and diction  as it relates to the peom's meaning Ground Swell-Mark Jarmon Is nothing real but when I was fifteen, Going on sixteen, like a corny song? I see myself so clearly then, and painfully-- Knees bleeding through my usher's uniform Behind the candy counter in the theater After a morning's surfing; paddling frantically To top the brisk outsiders coming to wreck me, Trundle me clumsily along the beach floor's Gravel and sand; my knees aching with salt. Is that all I have to write about? You write about the life that's vividest. And if that is your own, that is your subject. And if the years before and after sixteen Are colorless as salt and taste like sand-- Return to those remembered chilly mornings, The light spreading like a great skin on the water, And the blue water scalloped with wind-ridges, And--what was it exactly?--that slow waiting When, to invigorate yourself, you peed Inside your bathing suit and felt the warmth Crawl all around your hips and thighs, And the first set rolled in and the water level Rose in expectancy, and the sun struck The water surface like a brassy palm, Flat and gonglike, and the wave face formed. Yes. But that was a summer so removed In time, so specially peculiar to my life, Why would I want to write about it again? There was a day or two when, paddling out, An older boy who had just graduated And grown a great blonde moustache, like a walrus, Skimmed past me like a smooth machine on the water, And said my name. I was so much younger, To be identified by one like him-- The easy deference of a kind of god Who also went to church where I did--made me Reconsider my worth. I had been noticed. He soon was a small figure crossing waves, The shawling crest surrounding him with spray, Whiter than gull feathers. He had said my name Without scorn, just with a bit of surprise To notice me among those trying the big waves Of the morning break. His name is carved now On the black wall in Washington, the frozen wave That grievers cross to find a name or names. I knew him as I say I knew him, then, Which wasn't very well. My father preached His funeral. He came home in a bag That may have mixed in pieces of his squad. Yes, I can write about a lot of things Besides the summer that I turned sixteen. But that's my ground swell. I must start Where things began to happen and I knew it.

Senior project=evil

    I don't really see a way to make things easier.The senior project is helpful in forcing you to research more than you already did about a career you're interested in. In terms of everything else, it's useless.I already knew what colleges I wanted to go to in junior year so the college research form had no use for me.I applied for scholarships already and compared my chances of receiving them so what's the point of me writing it down on a piece of paper? The bib cards were a complete waste of time and went on forever;they didn't help me at all.So yeah...The senior project as a whole is a conundrum.It is designed for the stupid kids who don't know how to do anything or how their future looks like(I mean to offend) and is horribly asinine for those of us that aren't like that. The way it ends up is that the kids who are already well off do well, and the kids who this project is designed for don't learn anything besides "hey I have to do this because I don't want a zero." I could be wrong,but that is the way I've seen it through other students.Considering other schools don't force students in AP classes to do this I am already bothered by the fact that Clarkston does.

      There is no way to really make things better because at the end of the day, we are forced to do things that seem redundant and useless and do those things multiple times. I think the way it is now is good. Get the boring forms out of the way first semester,take a break, then get back to it in April. I don't mind the presentation because, although I had nerves, I think it is good for us.The binder on the other hand.....is crap. At the end of the day the time we spent on this hasn't helped me grow or evolve, really, not as much as when we have discussions and debates. Sorry to be a downer, but it's how I feel. I am so glad to get back to our regular schedule.

      

Oedipus Remix!

Odfeipus questions 1, 3, 5-9, and 11-12.

1.How explicitly does the prophet Tiresias reveal the guilt of Oedipus? Does it seem to you stupidity on the part of Oedipus or a defect in Sophocles' play that the kin takes so long to recognize his guilt and to admit to it?

*Tiresias stated openly that Odeipus is the murderer.Oedipus,the best momma's boy there is, reflects many human errors and bad judgment.His refusal to realize his true self is like many of us;we all don't want to admit our faults and sometimes we push ideas out of head because we don't want to think about it(starving children in third world countries,anyone?).

3.."Oedipus is punished not for any fault in himself, but for his ignorance. Not knowing his family history, unable to recognize his parents on sight, he is blameless; and in slaying his father and marring his mother, he behaves as any sensible person might behave in the same circumstances." Do you agree with this interpretation?

*I agree with that in the sense that his fault is his ignorance.We can't use the excuse that we didn't know for everything," Well,I didn't your name on this jar of Nutella before I ate it.Sorry" is not a good excuse.I wills shank you.Ignorence wont always save you.Sometimes,in a lucky fashion,Oedipus isn't ignorant.He cries that Creon want to kill him and take over.Now this is the rumblings of a man who has just heard bad news,but the reader of Antigone knows it's the truth.In the end,he gouges his eyes because he doesn't want to see the world now because he knows he truth.

5. Consider the character of Jocasta. Is she a "flat" character - a generalized queen figure - or an individual with distinctive traits of personality? Point to speeches or details in the play to back up your opinion.

*Jocasta is a pretty flat character  because she doesn't change during the play,she just finds out information and then kills herself.Not that that is her fault, the play is really about Oedipus and his internal struggles.Considering that she's not the evil Creon or the harbinger of doom,she surprisingly has a good number of lines,so that's something.Yay women! But she isn't the typical queen figure either. She tells Oedipus many things and helps him. So half and half.

6. What is dramatic irony? Besides the example given on page 732, what other instances of dramatic irony do you find in Oedipus the King? What do they contribute to the effectiveness of the play?

* Dramatic irony is when the audience knows something that the characters don't, like the fact that they're watching a play... When Oedipus accuses Creon of treason  that is all dramatic irony. He cries that Creon want to kill him and take over.Now this is the rumblings of a man who has just heard bad news,but the reader of Antigone knows it's the truth. It makes you invested in the characters and the story.

7. In the drama of Sophocles, violence and bloodshed take place offstage; thus, the suicide of Jocasta is only reported to us. Nor do we witness Oedipus' removal of his eyes; this horror is only given in the report by the second messenger. Of what advantage or disadvantage to the play is this limitation?

*By not showing us the actual violence and tragedy,we are more focused on the characters and their reaction to the evils around them.

8. For what reason does Oedipus blind himself? What meaning, if any, do you find in his choice of a surgical instrument?

* In the end,he gouges his eyes because he doesn't want to see the world now because he knows he truth.It's interesting because everything that has happened to him now has been because of ignorance and fate;this is the first act that he truly,knowingly did to himself.Not that I'd recommend that,but its good to see a character who has a flaw,take control and in any way,get rid of that flaw.He is now blind like the prophet and will hopefully gain the wisdom that the prophet has.But it sucks because now he cant watch t.v.

9. What are your feelings toward him as the play ends?

*Oedipus,although he's very blah to me,represents a lot of what humans are.Many times in literature we are inclined to put in our heads that there's a good guy and a bad guy.Oedipus is neither.I personally don't hate him nor like him and that's what makes the story the teeniest bit good.We are shown a man that although prideful,is sincere and and earnest and are left to wonder if he is good or bad. As the play ends,I still feel like I cant relate to him but maybe that's not the point.I am shown a character that although at times unrealistic, grows and changes.That's what we like to see in people so it's nice to see it in a character.

11. With what attitude toward the gods does the play leave you? Be inflicting a plague on Thebes, by causing barrenness, by cursing both the people and their king, do the gods seem cruel, unjust, or tyrannical? Does the play show any reverence toward them?

*The gods in the play bring justice and teach people in an unconventional way.Although they bring some good,a lot of people suffer through that good,just like in real life.Sometimes messages are not strong enough so you have to do something that will  make people listen.That's why I always carry a gun so people wont cut me in line.

12. Does the play end in total gloom?

*In the end,this play does end on a sad note.However,its not dismal,at least for me.I have learned a lesson and so has Oedipus.Often times we learn lessons through unfortunate circumstances like when I realized that you will be sent to juvie even if you pretend to cry....long story.

Theme: Oedipus Rex, to me, can only be enjoyed as a fable.It is an over exaggeration,much like The Boy who Cried Wolf, that shows an extreme fault and shows the consequences that arise from it.Readers are supposed to read the play and come with an understanding that we all have flaws(some more tragic than others), but the most important thing is to not let them ruin your life.And that sometimes,no matter how hard we go against it,fate will rule all of us. 

Dear Pip,


You are the sweet girl who defends her abusive boyfriend;you are the person who still believes he can become a successful actor after being rejected for ten years.You grow,make mistakes,and infuriate us all, but I guess that's what makes you human.Just a human that I would never get along with. I can't relate to you because I believe I am a realist.I have always wondered how people can lie to themselves(something you have done,whether you believe it or not) and have at times wished I could do it to myself.I realize,though, that that will get you nowhere. Many of us have wanted what you have wanted:A luxurious life,a beautiful partner. Unlike you,it doesn't take some of us ten years to realize what is good,bad,important and not important. I do not claim to be the best at figuring it out,but I surely am better than you.That's saying a lot for a teenage girl who's obsessed with bunnies to be smarter than a grown man....


I had a very enjoyable conversation today with a group of people that made me think about my judgement.I have never minded my judgement because I just said out loud what people were thinking and I never judged someone for things they can't control, such as their parent's income or their nationality. I believe I can still enjoy your story without enjoying you(still judging,but not that in a way that it gets in the way).I love the themes that are present in your journal and that is the only reason that I semi enjoy it. You are just begging to be judged because you are,in an infuriating way, realistic. You aren't a murder or a saint; you are the person that we all know that all we can do is shake our heads at.


PS. I understand that  a lot of people were confused with your new partner.I see why you got with Estella.She finally became honest with herself just as you had.You by no means had a happy ending(she's divorced,you're old and not rich),but I guess that's how life is.You got what you always wanted in a way that doesn't make your story seem predictable or cliche. Plus,who is better for you than Estella?You guys are both ridiculous and vain.After all, if people like Michelle Bauchman can get married I'm sure a couple of idiots like you too can as well.Also,you should name your daughter Pippi and make her deal with stocks...preferably long ones.

Einstein didn't do well in on tests either= We're all going to be geniuses!

      Mr. B, you have got to start sending us emails again!I was going to sleep when I finally remembered about the blog.It's not my fault;I'm getting too old!Also,you never sent us an email about our scores.Shame on you!You know we have nothing better to do than watch Maury while eating Nute....I mean wait for our scores.Anyway, I feel like I did OK with this diagnostic,but not as good as usual because of the vocabulary terms(No, really?).We definitively need a refresher course along with multiple choice questions that focus on them every now and  then.Some of the words are so specific that we don't ever use them, however they seemed familiar.That was tricky for I'd much rather not know than rack my brain for little glimpses of the definitions. I feel like I did really well on the Ambush war prose and the Spring is coming; birds! one which is funny because a lot of people seemed to have trouble with the latter.
      This relates to the next question of how to make us all prepared.You can't.As seen above,some people get things that others don't and vice versa.I think what you have been doing so far has been good enough.From now on,just switch up the warm ups.One week it can be on vocabulary,the next on something else.OR, I have a great idea.We can all buy black clothing and along with a cool music montage,find a way to sneak in and steal this year's AP exam.I saw it on a movie so it definitely should be applied to real life.We already have the smart Asians that do the legwork and funny guys that bring comic relief.All we need now is a blonde that's the lead of the movie even though she doesn't really bring anything to the table.Who's with me?

You better like it if Oprah's in it,unless you want to die.

      The movie Beloved  is ok,not early as good as the great masterpieces of our generation like Bratz: The Movie or insert any Eddie Murphy movie here.Zing!One thing that I didn't like was the fact that Oprah was in it.Sethe isnt supposed to be just a person;she is the symbol of all African American ex slaves that have tried to move on from their past.Since that is the case,I believe it would have been better to cast an unknown actress just so the audience could feel like it could be anybody.Casting Oprah,one of the most successful black woman in the world as Sethe doesn't work for me.It's like casting Angelina Jolie for a role of a poor cant find a man woman.It just wouldn't work because we know too  much about her and we won't be able to see the character,just Angelina.The whole time I was watching the movie i kept thinking "Ooh Oprah mad!" and "oh snap Oprah gone crazy!". This isn't good because we're supposed to see Sethe.
     I don't feel like the movie did a very good job of showcasing Beloved's true hidden depth and meaning.Then again,rarely do movies do the book justice.I'm looking at you My Sister's Keeper!I feel like they went for shock value as opposed to subtle messages.In the beginning when Paul D came inside 124 for the first time there was red lights.I mean, come on.This is not the disco!It looked cheap and silly;in the book the spirit is haunting and devastating,not a horror show with bad special effects.
      The movie left out some scenes, especially those relating to Sethe's and Pauly D's past.Sweet Home is practically forgotten and I think this is a mistake for the audience needs to know their history.I guess it wasn't so appealing to show Paul d and the rest of the men having sex with cows.Darn you MPAA!Also at the end,Beloved vanishes which isn't subtle at all.The book leaves you wondering who or what Beloved was and what she represented.She was multifaceted much like the history and problems with slavery,family,and memories.The movie's ending pretty much told you she was a ghost.I like it better when I leave the theater feeling confused and trying to figure it all out rather than the movie telling me.That's what happens when I leave an Adam Sandler movie;I think "Was it that bad?" and "Could it have been worse?" and "NOO!I just wasted 10 bucks!".See,thinking!
     If someone saw the movie without reading the book,I don't think they would get it.It would seem like a weird movie that has too much shock value.The audience needs to have read the book to get what the Sethe peeing in the yard and the rape scenes really mean.Overall the movie was meh.The book gives the movie more depth;the movie gives the book Oprah.

Did we win food?Prizes?Money?Ohhh... well then.

     I believe our group won for the reason that it's hard to say that something inherently negative doesn't affect society.Anyone who has faced prejudice can tell you that its a problem.It might not affect everybody and it might be way less than it used to be,but that doesn't change the fact that it's a problem.After 9/11 there were all these videos of people asking random people on the street whether they'd bomb any country in the Middle East.Most said they would,even to countries that had nothing to do with anything like Kazakhstan.They might be a minority,but the fact that some people still think that is a problem.Anything that's bad and still occurs is an issue.Look at bullying.Yes some of us haven't been bullied and others have and have gotten over it,but it still occurs and hurts people.It might not be as big of a deal as say murder or rape,but it exists.Just existing is bad enough.
      I believe our group had better rebuttals and spoke more eloquently.What really killed the other group was the closing statement;it was messy and badly prepared.We brought in actual events and incidents such as the Jeremy Lin thing, Hitch thing, and the Gingrich welfare thing.I do feel that we had an advantage though. If it wasn't an issue would we have had the debate today?All in all,much better than last time and I enjoyed it.Le do dis again!

Ghosts be doing what?

http://www.history.com/topics/historical-ghost-stories


This article talks about ghosts and how they came to be. It says that Places that are haunted are usually believed to be associated with some occurrence or emotion in the ghost's past; they are often a former home or the place where he or she died. This relates to Beloved because Beloved’s ghost haunts Sethe. It says that traditional signs of haunting range from strange noises, lights, odors or breezes to the displacement of objects, and bells that ring spontaneously. In Beloved, the ghost rumbles around the house and is malicious. Beloved’s ghost is looking for something or feels unfinished, probably because her own mother killed her.  The article states that ghost exists separately from his or her body, and may continue to exist after that person dies and can return to "haunt" the living which Beloved’s ghost does. I don’t think Beloved will leave(ghost or human reincarnation) until the past is discussed and dealt with.

I'm scarred because of my past.My cat scratched me.

      In Beloved, Sethe thinks she can escape her past when she really can't because she ran away when she was younger.She now says that she doesn't ever want to run away again.If it wasn't for her past,then she would have left the haunted house and she and her daughter could have a normal life.In The Piano Lesson, Berenice keeps the piano because she believes it is her family's legacy.Both of them are greatly impacted by their past.
       I don't believe the past will ever truly die, rather it will always be like someone you know in a coma.You can go about your day without having to face it,but there will be times when you either think about getting flowers to put at past's table side(good/happy memories) or you will think about how much you'll owe in hospital bills(bad/painful memories).Either way,the past will creep up on you.The past dying is like watching and then completely forgetting the beginning of a movie.Yes,the climax and end scenes are more catchy,but they would be nothing without the beginning.Who you are now would be nothing without your past. I think whatever happens to you will affect you in some way or another,but we sometimes don't realize it because it's so subtle.Other times,you can fully know why you do or think certain things because of events in your life.Everyday is a tiny puzzle piece that make up our lives; of course the main things make you notice,but the outer,less important edges are just as important.Too deep,I know.
      This is a hard question to answer because everyone reacts differently to different events.Sometimes you can get two people who have gone through some of the exact same things,but they act totally different.Why is that?Whose past is still alive?Or if they've gone through some things,whose past has affected them more?It's funny because whenever I tell people some of things that I've been through(that incident with that fuzzy octupus....) they look at me like I'm so strong.Yet when I came to Clarkson,after going to schools with well off ,seemingly happy white people,I realized that maybe I'm not so strong after all.I'm not trying to down myself,but some of the students I've met have gone through things just as bad(most times worse) than I have.Maybe they're the strong ones!I guess everything in life is relative.
      So anyway,the past will never die because at one point it was our present.Saying it goes away is a scary thought for it pretty much discredits every day of our lives.The past is like a cockraoch:Even if one dies,more will take its' place.

Shotte be sayin

     I'm the first to post!Yay!After all,the say that the early bird gets the least chance of getting shot.Right?Anyway I will start off with question 4. Now everybody missed this because the question is ridunklulous.How does "vilely phrased" translate into he thinks he's being pretentious?The whole conversation was pretentious!It was just two English people talking about art and nature while naming Aristotle, Corot,and Constable!How was I supposed to know that that wasn't pretentious?Anyway...guess you can't get em all,huh?Now for question 7.  I don't know why people missed that one.He started talking abut England for the first time so it had to be a digression.He wasn't distinguishing,undermining,or providing evidence for anything.He was being an idiot,though,in my opinion.Number 9. was I guess difficult because you had to skim over the whole thing and take out each answer one by one."Nature is uncomfortable" seems like it would have gotten a lot of people.This question was less thinking and more checking which is annoying to do at times.
      I got number 13. wrong because I put that it was funny because of the superficiality of his argumentation.I mean,wasn't that funny?The fact that you could agree with some of his points while realizing how silly all of them were?The answer was the one with a whole bunch of big words which, in my experience,have always been the ones that are just there to trick people so I didn't think of it.Number 21. I got wrong because I didn't know what plumes were.It came after I and my so I assumed it was an appositive.I was lucky with number 24. because idiosyncratic and conventional weren't correlated from my point of view. I have a feeling that the answers were all over the place because of that.If you didn't know what idiosyncratic meant and just relied on conventional,then you probably would have chosen capitalization or rhymes.Question 31. was difficult because "to boot" isn't a phrase that is commonly used today or one that I've ever seen.I put addition because the line says "the price of souls,EVEN Hell.." so I guessed that the speaker was talking about more than one thing so.... addition....
      I'm really happy with my progress in class and my biggest goal is to keep that up.I want to have consistency with my essays(kinda been happening) and my diagnostics(so far have been all over the place). I want to get more confident with my work.I am always nervous when I get my stuff back(Like Taylor Swift,you guys!).For instance,even though I believed I did fairly well on this recent diagnostic,when I got it back I freaked because I mistakenly thought my number correct was my score.All of my confidence shot out of the window for that 10 seconds and it shouldn't have.Anyway, I feel like our sponges should be changed from the way they are to a multiple choice format.Yes,I know,not so exciting and AP-ish,but I feel that it's needed.What we've been doing has been great so far,but as we near the test,I think we should start thinking more test-minded.Sometimes in class,we don't have a clear answer so we just say things and you nod your head and say"I see" "Maybe" "Hmmm". Gurlfriend,we need to know if we're right or wrong!We need clear cut answers!I know multiple choice is less creative and more structure,but the AP exam is also, right?So if we can't beat them,let's join them.

When the prize is just satisfaction,then I don't really care

      There is nothing I love mo than a good debate.That's a lie,but still,I enjoyed it immensely.Well,I believe the students won this round Mr. B,but by a small margin.You are very eloquent and you have a very nice stage presence.That being said,you kind of just reiterated your same two or three points over and over again.I believe we won because we brought in all sorts of reasons why the book shouldn't be banned from classrooms.What made us weak was our stage presence-we all just kind of bumbled along.I think you won the style of the debate,not the debate itself.
      The fact of the matter is that literature,and history,is controversial,messy,and at times scary and sad.We're not wallowing in the past with Huck Finn,were wallowing in human nature;we're acknowledging that humans,past and present, sometimes do sad and unforgiving things to one another.Yes, the book has racist elements,but find me a book that doesn't offend somebody.You said that other books such as There Eyes Were Watching God isn't flat out racist and that were picking at the straws to find some.The fact is,we could find some.Is it better to have a book be taught that has subliminal messages(Woman who can't control her life,three different black men who all suck) then to have one that has messages that are in your face?At least with Huck Finn,there has already been debate over its merits.It's nice to get a book that students feel like they can discuss its merits than to be handed stuff that there is no question about it,it's good.At this point,just teach the book so we can talk about the controversy surrounding it!It may not be the best book, but it trumps others in thought,controversy,and pop culture.Not teaching it for others is like saying "Hey let's only talk about the winners at the Grammys.Let's not talk about what was on everyone's minds which was how crazy did Nicki Minaj look?".Sometimes you have to indulge in what people are talking about even if it's not the most merit worthy thing.It's what people are interested in and it's what starts many conversations.
      What I like about  Huck Finn is that now a days with our culture,information,and original thought,you don't need a teacher to recognize the bad things about the book.Saying that it might fall into wrong hands at all white schools with inept  teachers is discrediting the minds of youth.We don't listen or believe everything a teacher says.Nor do we listen or believe everything that society says.That one kid out of thousands that will take the wrong lessons out of Huck Finn is the same kid that will take the wrong message out of a song or movie or saying.Shield us all for that one kid?Uhh no!
     At the end of the day,this book makes us discuss,debate, and ask questions. Isn't that what literature is supposed to do? Isn't that what education is supposed to do?There might be some other masterpiece out there that all it makes people do is say"oh wow that was great!".That's nice,but sometimes we want things that divide us,that make us look differently at each other and the world.And hey,without Huck Finn would we have had that debate today? Because we haven't had any for any of the other books.So maybe in the end,in regards to reading Huck Finn,we're all winners.


PS. I think we won partly because I don't believe your heart was in it.Yes,you brought in some interesting points,but I don't think they are points that you wholeheartedly believe in.I felt that you were just playing the devil's advocate because it's a fun side to take on,not because it mirrors your thoughts.

She was all smiles till she read Huck Finn

     What up AP Lit gangstas?(contradiction,I know).I do agree with Smiley on certain points such as how Huck was considered to be good just because he acknowledged that Jim was human and how all of his good characteristics left as soon as Tom reentered the picture.How Jim went along with Huck and was happy to be the sidekick.Also with the fact that why didn't they just go to Illinois that was a free state?I agree with the fact that if it's such a masterpiece then why has there been such a commotion over it? Masterpieces are supposed to universally praised right?Interesting,innovating,new take would have been better words to describe Huck Finn.
      I do not agree with her in that Huck Finn is a pretty good book-not perfect,but good.It raises issues,makes people discuss,and is still important to this day.What more can an author want?Besides money...
       The reason I agree most with Smiley is not really related to her argument.She doesn't blame Twain, but more so society and how they have elevated the book to "The Great american Novel".I dislike like that not because the novel is bad,but because I don't think there is a The Novel.The U.S,like many countries,is so diverse in minds,beliefs,practices, that to say one book represent it all is an atrocity. It must be so nice to cluster countless people, things and ideas into one group. Name the best movie of 2010. Describe the 60's in one word. Cant do any of those things? Good, because you shouldn't. To do so is to think small, simple, and frankly not enough. Whenever anyone makes these generalizations it changes what the author,director,musician set out to do,which is to make something good.Naming it the best of anything that big is to belittle other entries,for it is saying that all of them are competing for the same thing.Uncle Tom's cabin did things that Huck Finn didn't and vice versa. Also, naming something to be the best casues people to have grandiose expectations which may make them dislike the book because of it,even though the book itself isn't all that bad(kinda what happened to me with Black Swan).There is no The American Novel because there is no The American Thought or The American Belief. After all, isn't that what we pride ourselves on?

Don't hate just cause you want my hamster

http://www.collegehumor.com/video/6306486/very-mary-kate-moving-out

http://verymarykate.com/page/9

Very marykate "moving out" episode 1

     Very Marykate is a web series created by Elaine Carroll.In it, she acts the part of Marykate Olsen,the famous,skinny,child star twin(if you don't know who she and her twin are,then you're missing out on some awesome acting skills and believable movie plots).I find this series funny because although I,like many little girls,was obsessed with them as a child, there are certain quirks that the twins share.One, of course,is their tiny frame that many have speculated to be from anorexia.This is mentioned in the video where Marykate asks her sister for sugar and Ashley says its fattening.They are the most famous twins in the world and that is showcased in the clip where Marykate says that she wants to be "her own person". Because they have lived in the spotlight and are bazillionares,they are made fun of for being out of touch as seen where Marykate tells her Ashley that she can still exist if she wants.This video is funny because the actress is playing someone who is noticeable and is over exagerating their quirky qualities.It is also funny when she does a play on words and acknowledges certain social dogmas when she says" like nuns are sisters or black people are sisters".It is also funny when she just says absurd stuff like "we cant be twins forever".
      Instead of just coming out and saying things like the Olsen twins are weird and live in their own little world,the video shows a situation as a serious thing that could actually happen in their lives.This is humorous because it allows the audiences to imagine and have a scenario in their heads of the claims that are made about the twins.You know the video is meant to be humorous because everything is an exaggeration,from their facial features to the topic they are discussing.It is social commentary on people that we all know.

I iz too fresh!

Dear Mr. Twain,
As you may know,your book Huckleberry Finn has quite a number of followers.You are almost up there with the greatest writer of our generation: Snookie.But don't get too excited for your book isn't all that famous yet.Now,I heard that three of your siblings died when you were young and that your father died from Pnemonia when you were 11.This lack of a normal family structure is seen in Huckleberry Finn.In your story, Huck had to grow up without a father or any normal family setting,instead focusing on his friendships.It's interesting to show a story about a child whose biggest problems aren't solely because he doesn't have a family.I like this as well as his struggles between right and wrong.It takes a lot for people to change and especially growing in a  deeply racist society,it will take time as well.This is seen through Huck(unlike A Doll's House cough cough).Huck has moments where he is a kid,where he is mature,where he is racist,and where he is thoughtful.You created a likable,full, and relatable character, which seems simple, but is hard to do. I also commend you for creating a flawed,yet good, African american slave character.You don't feel the same towards him,or any of the characters really,from the beginning to the end.And that's great because that's life.You wont always feel the same towards people.

Now as for the controversy with the N word(by that I mean necrophilia), I believe you made the right choice in putting it in.Your novel is supposed to make people understand the past,shudder at it,and be glad that it's the past.How can one do that by showing the past with rose colored glasses?That's like saying teach kids about the holocaust but don't show them the horrible pictures.Show them the pictures!Get the response you want!It's silly that people get upset over the word rather than what it really means."Oh,I'm going to get bothered over the word not over the bad things that happen to slaves in the novel."If you're going to get upset over the N word and want to ban it from schools,how about you go and ban 90% of U.S history? Because one word,no matter the connotations that it comes with,is nothing compared to all the other injustices that have been put on African Americans in history.Get over it and get used to it.

P.S. I love how the " bad guys" in your story,among many, are the Duke and Dauphin.Making a 70 year old a con man is really cool.No retirement home for him!Swagg.

I love me some berries!

      Huckleberry Finn sort of reminds me of those indie road trip movies where a bunch of poor people(even though they're always driving an expensive,cool, vintage car) take a trip and along the way,experience stuff and become changed people.I guess this tale is a bildungsroman as seen by Huck's ever changing moods and thoughts.Many of  them come from his experiences with other people,all of whom have mixed personalities. Twain uses these characters to poke fun of and condemn American life.From the good guys that own slaves to the silly turned dangerous feud between the Grangerfords and Sheperdsons,all these people show the negative aspects of human nature.I like how no one in the story is fully good or bad which is seen especially in the part where Huck feels bad about technically stealing from Mrs. Watson for being with Jim,since he belongs to her. I love this part because there are so many different ways to look at the situation.One is the fact that slaves aren't property and Huck shouldn't feel bad.Second is that in that time period,growing up in that point of view, of course Huck should feel bad. Third is that Huck decides give up morality in favor for what's best for him.Fourth,can you blame him since he's a kid?It's interesting for Twain to take a situation and include social views,time periods, and age in a way that you can't condemn nor condone a character's actions.
      This book has many themes.One is the struggle between good and bad,and what the two even mean. Another is desire to be part of and not part of society.I can see why Huckleberry Finn has been described the Great American Novel for it tackles issues that plagued and still plague the U.S. However,on an overall note,when not looking at the specifics,this novel should have American taken off its label.It features many universal themes that many people can relate to. PS. I love the Duke and Dauphin because they,in a way, remind me of Robin Hood-people doing bad things to other bad people.The scene with the audience saying that others will have to go through the same short show that they did makes us feel less pity for all the victims because for the most part,they don't act like victims.Once again, people that are neither great nor evil.What makes this book the most interesting is the fact that Twain take normal,short,and often simple events and makes the reader think about what they mean long after they've finished reading.

Othello,my fellow,you should have been more mellow

     So Othello is getting more and more ridiculous.He uses the handkerchief and his witnessing of Cassio's laughter as his "last straw" to kill Desdemona.He doesn't believe her because he is already set in his ways,stubborn in the worst kind of way.It's interesting how something so simple like a handkerchief can create such problems.What's even more interesting is how important circumstances and timing are and how they affect us.Bianca giving Cassio the handkerchief just as Othello was looking was a stroke of luck for Iago and the breaking point for Othello.As for Othello,he shows truly how the ones you love most are the ones you sometimes hurt the most.He is consumed by many things(jealousy,revenge for honor) and while he doesn't forget that he loves her,he forgets why.Sometimes,we find all these small reasons and put them together to form our opinion or to justify our actions.As seen by the conversation between Emilia and Desdemona,you can see how good and faithful Desdemona is,as compared to Emilia(who isn't bad,she just rationalizes cheating).Desdemona is also really ironically smart;she says her sheets are her deathbed and her statement becomes true!
     After all the commotion of everybody killing each other(just an everyday occurrence for the world of Shakespeare) it is Emilia who saves the day.Through her perseverance and honesty, everyone find out the truth about Iago and his scheme.Funny how such an originally small character would end up having such an important part in the end.It really shows the way life is;sometimes the people and things that you would least expect to matter,do.In the end,Othello says that he loved not wisely but too much.That means that he was using his heart but not his brain.There is no doubt that he loved Desdemona because if he didn't he might not have cared so much that she was supposedly cheating.The problem was that he didn't use his intelligence to figure out that not only was he being played,but that that relationships are hard and you have to work at them.I can't hate my job and decide to kill my boss.That won't fix anything.His speech at the end didn't fix my opinion of him.People who are noble and dignified don't do the stuff that he did;that's why they're considered noble!If we forgive him then why don't we forgive all murders and evildoers?After all, they must have had good qualities at some point.Othello just shows us that no matter how people view others of nobility,high class,and in the media, they're just like us.Or in the case of Othello,worse.

Shakespeare is great!(Do I get an A now?)

     I'm going to skip the beginning of the second act because it is hella-boring. "Where are they?" "Oh here they are!" "Where is Othello?" "Oh here he is" End scene. We now know more about Iago's real intentions. He despises Othello because he thinks he's sleeping with his wife and he secretly lusts after Desdemona. He makes fun of women and Desdemona happily goes along. Either she's fallen into the trap of thinking that women are inferior, or she's trying to lighten the mood with some sort of defense mechanism. I’m hoping it's the latter. It's sad becasue she is such a great female character,but she has to end up with someone with low self esteem and a temper like Othello.Later, Iago plans to disgrace Cassio by convincing people that he's a drunk. He then tries to make Cassio appeal to Desdemona which will help Iago with his cheating accusation. And so starts the downfall of Othello.
     I am not sad in the least to admit that I love Iago.I think in all of us there is a fondness for bad people (Simon Cowell, House M.D etc.) partly because not only are we intrigued by their character that is so different from ours, but they are often the smartest people. Although Othello is kind, Desdemona saucy, and Roderigo silly, people are always attracted to smart people. As of right now, Iago is the only smart one, in my opinion. His downplaying of Cassio's fight with Montano is amazing and his plan to use everyone's flaws for his own use is horrible, but genius. I like Iago because like me, he sees the silly character traits of characters in drama and showcases them to the world. His plan in condemning Cassio wouldn't have worked if he wasn’t so dumb; his plan in using Roderigo won't work if he wasn’t so gullible; his plan in convincing Othello won’t work if he isn't so jealous. All he is doing is mixing his intelligence and other's stupidity for his advantage. Not that everyone is that extreme, but don't lawyers, politicians, and big businesses do that? In fact, at some point, doesn’t everyone do that? "Oh officer, I didn’t know I was going over the speed limit. My wife's in labor!” Characters like Iago are great because they aren’t just characters, they’re representations of people and life. Get smart, or you will get outsmarted.

This is fo serious

     As the wonderful and responsible student that I am,I forgot my book at school.So I am looking sideways at a picture of the text so bear with me if this doesn't make too much sense.No seriously,I want you to act like a bear.I'm looking at the perspective of Defining Tragedy by  Aristotle.I liked this perspective because it reminds me of my own.I make fun of tragedy and depending on the way you look at it,Aristotle could be too.Tragedy is supposed to reflect humans and life yet often times it becomes predictable.Aristotle lists the things tragedy has to do to be acceptable which I greatly agree with.In that sense,it becomes predictable!He says that the good guy has to go down because of error not because they chose to do the bad thing,that way the reader will feel pity for him.The characters have to be in the middle of the goodness spectrum so the reader can identify with him.And that tragedy is imitation of people above the normal which I totally see.This all relates to Oedipus who has the case of all three.Aristotle says that dues ex machina should not be used,but maybe outside the tragedy,once again relating to Oedipus.He also talks about how tragedies usually surround families as seen in Oedipus ans then in his daughter's play,Antigone.This is interesting for the fault of a parent usually ends up creating problems for the people around them,especially their children.He also states that for a tragedy to be a great tragedy,one must hear the facts and grimace.This is true for Oedipus;when the reader finds out everything they cant help but feel pity and sadness from the events.Who would have thought that a wonderful,super famous philosopher and a silly,lazy student would have so much in common?By the way,the famous philosopher I'm talking about is me.

Dis play is too deep fo me

     Oedipus Rex, to me, can only be enjoyed as a fable.It is an over exaggeration,much like The Boy who Cried Wolf, that shows an extreme fault and shows the consequences that arise from it.Readers are supposed to read the play and come with an understanding that we all have flaws(some more tragic than others), but the most important thing is to not let them ruin your life.And that sometimes,no matter how hard we go against it,fate will rule all of us. Keeping the idea of it being a fable in mind,I don't quite mind the play as much anymore.Oedipus,although he's very blah to me,represents a lot of what humans are.Many times in literature we are inclined to put in our heads that there's a good guy and a bad guy.Oedipus is neither.I personally don't hate him nor like him and that's what makes the story the teeniest bit good.We are shown a man that although prideful,is sincere and and earnest and are left to wonder if he is good or bad.By not showing us the actual violence and tragedy,we are more focused on the characters and their reaction to the evils around them.
     Oedipus,the best momma's boy there is, reflects many human errors and bad judgment.His refusal to realize his true self is like many of us;we all don't want to admit our faults and sometimes we push ideas out of head because we don't want to think about it(starving children in third world countries,anyone?).He is prideful as seen in the scene where he is told about the degeneration of his people and replies,"As sick as you are,not one is as sick as I".Is he really sad for his people or because this reflects poorly on him as a leader?I think it's the latter.It is said that Oedipus is brought down not because of his faults,but because of his ignorance.I agree with that in the sense that his fault is his ignorance.We cant use the excuse that we didn't know for everything," Well,I didn't your name on this jar of Nutella before I ate it.Sorry" is not a good excuse.I wills shank you.Ignorence wont always save you.Sometimes,in a lucky fashion,Oedipus isn't ignorant.He cries that Creon want to kill him and take over.Now this is the rumblings of a man who has just heard bad news,but the reader of Antigone knows it's the truth.In the end,he gouges his eyes because he doesn't want to see the world now because he knows he truth.It's interesting because everything that has happened to him now has been because of ignorance and fate;this is the first act that he truly,knowingly did to himself.Not that I'd recommend that,but its good to see a character who has a flaw,take control and in any way,get rid of that flaw.He is now blind like the prophet and will hopefully gain the wisdom that the prophet has.But it sucks because now he cant watch t.v.As the play ends,I still feel like I cant relate to him but maybe that's not the point.I am shown a character that although at times unrealistic, grows and changes.That's what we like to see in people so it's nice to see it in a character.
    Now for the other playas. Jocasta is a pretty flat character  because she doesn't change during the play,she just finds out information and then kills herself.Not that that is her fault, the play is really about Oedipus and his internal struggles.Considering that she's not the evil Creon or the harbinger of doom,she surprisingly has a good number of lines,so that's something.Yay women!The gods in the play bring justice and teach people in an unconventional way.Although they bring some good,a lot of people suffer through that good,just like in real life.Sometimes messages are not strong enough so you have to do something that will  make people listen.That's why I always carry a gun so people wont cut me in line.In the end,this play does end on a sad note.However,its not dismal,at least for me.I have learned a lesson and so has Oedipus.Often times we learn lessons through unfortunate circumstances like when I realized that you will be sent to juvie even if you pretend cry....long story.

Momma dont lie!

     So we're reading this greeeaaat play about what else,a ruler who has issues. So Oedipus has been handed  with a horrible name and a curse on his land.Peeps are dying everywhere but he "feels" more pain because he's...well.. alive and that..sucks. Turns out that Oedipus is the murderer and has brought the curse to his land.Can you imagine a leader bringing pain to his people?Never been done before.He not only killed his dad but had sexual relations with his mom.I love me some drama.Then he calls Creon out for trying to murder him. Oedipus displays Hubris because he is prideful to the max.He wants to know the truth even though he is warned by Tiresias that he wont like it.He doesn't listen and then gets upset.His wife, Jacosta, comes in and tells him the truth and he Gasp! listens her.What kind of fool listens to a woman?His hamartia is that not only did he kill his dad,he didn't listen when Creon asked him to hear about the curse in front of everybody.I don't think he's had a catharsis moment yet;he's probably going to feel that towards the end of the play.How original.Pathos is supposedly used because although he's prideful and killed his daddy,you should have a miniscule soft spot for him.I,however, don't care what happens to him because the character lacks anything that I like.I don't want him to rule or die,I just want him to get some therapy stat.
   I'm not really enjoying this play so far,because as many know, I hate tragedies and drama. I have made mistakes and have a couple of personal flaws,like many others.It is those flaws here and there mixed together that bring me down(laziness,procrastination,judging others).However,in these dramas, the characters aren't realistic.They're all stereotyped versions of humans.One is really evil,one is really dumb,one is really prideful.Not saying that there aren't people like that,but why cant we read about a character that has mild cases of all three?That way, I'd be able to relate to those better.I get tired of seeing the same characters make the same mistakes.Life isn't predictable and neither are humans,so why should drama and tragedies that are based on both be predictable?I hate watching a movie and yelling in my mind,"Don't do that!That's so dumb!Your half naked in the woods and you hear a noise so you decide to investigate?Stop".We've all done that before.For me,its usually with bad films so why am I doing that with these supposedly great plays?Humans are difficult to figure out yet I've already figured out Oedipus in the first couple of pages.Is it because originally the plays were based on gods that had one trait(god of war,god of water)and when the Greeks incorporated humans into it, they just kept that one trait mentality?All I know is that without even finishing the play,I can already put Oedipus with Romeo and Juliet:characters that are silly,one-note,and not relatable.And thus,making the story line unenjoyable for me.
*The character talk non stop.Brevity is key guys!Another way these plays aren't realistic for they feature impossibly long conversations.At this time,Greeks didn't have technology, which means that they took forever just to do simple things.So why are they wasting their time having two hour conversations?Get to making hummus people!


P.S. Jacosta,really?Sounds like a Tyler Perry character.