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.