Dorothea Lange

I chose the work of Dorothea Lange as my example of modern realism. Lange traveled across the U.S. documenting the plight of Americans during the Great Depression and the Dust Bowl. Her photos were not posed or edited, they are the raw images of the strife and suffering that people were experiencing. It expresses Realistic ideals because not only does it show you something that you don't need your imagination to understand, it shines light on a serious social issue.

The Battle With Mr. Covey by Frederick Douglass

Douglass explains in great detail how he felt after the fight with Mr. Covey. "I felt as I never felt before. It was a glorious resurrection from the tomb of slavery to the heaven of freedom. My long- crushed spirit rose, cowardice departed, bold defiance took its place..." He wrote about the resurgence of his will to live and the determination he had to become free. He describes his intentions perfectly with little room for interpretation, which is a defining characteristic of realism writing.
Douglass is obviously throwing into harsh light the "bitterest dregs of slavery" with his retelling of his time with Mr. Covey. First he tells of how Mr. Covey broke his "body, soul, and spirit". Mr. Covey worked slaves so hard that Douglass says it completely changed him, "My natural elasticity was crushed, my intellect languished, the disposition to read departed, the cheerful spark that lingered about my eye died; the dark night of slavery closed in upon me; and behold a man transformed into a brute!" Douglass is trying to get people to understand how truely awful slavery is by realating the harsh conditions he and his fellow slaves were subject to.

The Story of an Hour by Kate Chopin

The description of what Louise sees out of the window in front of her chair is very detailed in my opinion. "She could see in the open square before her house the tops of trees that were all aquiver with the new spring life. The delicious breath of rain was in the air. In the street below a peddler was crying his wares. The notes of a distant song which some one was singing reached her faintly, and countless sparrows were twittering in the eaves." That paints a vivid picture of what Louise was experiencing as she sat in her chair. Realists didn't want their readers to have to use their imagination when they read their stories, so the descriptive and detailed way that Chopin explains the setting of her story is a good example of realism.
The social issue that Chopin addresses in The Story of an Hour is women's rights. In the story Louise is happy after her husband is thought to be dead, because she is finally free to live her own life as she sees fit. I didn't get the feeling that Louise's husband was tyranical or abusive, but Louise just wanted the chance to live of her won free will like many women would not have been able to during that time period. "There would be no powerful will bending hers in that blind persistence with which men and women believe they have a right to impose a private will upon a fellow-creature. A kind intention or a cruel intention made the act seem no less a crime as she looked upon it in that brief moment of illumination." Back then a wife would have been expected to be meek and willing to follow her husband wherever he may choose to go. Louise wanted to make her own decisions for once, which would be a growing desire of women in the years to come. "'Free! Body and soul free!'"

Happy Halloween!

The Raven - Edgar Allen Poe

The poem, The Raven, tells the bleak tale of a man's decent into a deep depression. The raven, which I think is either a metaphor and/or a delusion, seems to be a manifestation of sorrow. The man in the poem has lost his true love, Lenore, and although he tries to occupy his mind with his books, the raven incessantly croaks the word "Nevermore" as a constant reminder of his loss. His subconscious is forever returning to thoughts of his heartbreak. The raven, an expression of his inner thoughts, taunts him to a point of woebegone madness. This contradicts Transcendentalism because the Transcendentalists thought that your inner voice was the voice of God. Something makes me doubt that God would be feeding you the cheerless word "Nevermore" repeatedly until you were too grief-stricken to go on. "'Other friends have flown before-- On the morrow he will leave me, as my Hopes have flown before' Then the bird said 'Nevermore'"
When the raven enters into the chamber, he immediately perches on a bust of Athena, "Not the least obeisance made he; not a minute stopped or stayed he; But, with mien of lord or lady, perched above my chamber door - Perched upon a bust of Pallas just above my chamber door" Athena/Pallas is the goddess of wisdom. Wisdom was a virtue greatly admired by the Transcendentalists, and I think that Poe was using Athena/Pallas as the bust that the raven sat on with a purpose. Since the Transcendentalists put wisdom and thought on such a high pedestal, Poe puts his miserable raven on top of Pallas, as if to squash wisdom out. The man in the poem becomes so consumed with his grief that he lashes out at a bird that might not even exist; "'Be that word our sign of parting, bird or fiend!' I shrieked upstarting - 'Get thee back into the tempest and the Night's Plutonian shore! Leave no black plume as a token of that lie thy soul hath spoken! Leave my loneliness unbroken! - quit the bust above my door! Take thy beak from out my heart, and take thy form from off my door!' Quoth the raven, 'Nevermore.'" The man's wisdom is replaced with anguish as logical though gives way to the persistant agony of his broken heart. "And my soul from out that shadow that lies floating on the floor, Shall be lifted - nevermore!"

The Black Cat by Edgar Allen Poe

I liked this story, even though is was sort of twisted; it was interesting. The narrator starts out as a well-tempered nice young man with a kind heart, and by the end of the story he's a conniving murderer who has all but completely lost his mind. Sure, you could blame one or both of the two cats for the poor mans demise, or you could blame the alcohol, but the fact is that the man was consumed with rage. He says, "The fury of a demon instantly possessed me." This goes against what the Transcendentalists believed. They thought that people were pure of heart, so where do murderous actions come from? Transcendentalists thought that society could skew a persons perspective and quiet their inner God/conscience, but no one was telling the narrator to kill his cat or his wife. The urge to kill came from within himself, and he didn't seem to feel much remorse for the awful things he did. No, rather than feeling remorse, he just wanted to make sure he covered his tracks and didn't get caught. He actually seemed to feel worse about killing the first cat than he did his own wife. The narrator was worried about his immortal soul, he feels he is "even beyond the reach of the infinite mercy of the Most Merciful and Most Terrible God." A Transcendentalist would not have thought anyone could ever be so removed from God, because God was supposed to be a part of the individual - you can't be apart from something that is intangible and inside of you.
Poe uses a bit of irony in The Black Cat. After the main character buried an axe in the brain of his beloved wife, decided to mortar her body up in a false chimney in the basement of their house. After his task is finished he takes great pride in his job well done, "I looked around triumphantly, and said to myself -- 'Here at least, then, my labor has not been in vain'". This is almost a direct hit on what Emerson says in Self Reliance, "A man is relieved and gay when he has put his heart into his work." Poe took one of the Transcendental ideals and twisted it into something sick and horrifying. He kind of throws it in their faces that their beliefs are too idealistic.

Maybe this is why my parents call me "Nega-Tori".

I think that I'm definitely closer to being a Dark Romanticist than a Transcendentalist. I agree with the Dark Romanticist's belief that there is a major flaw in Transcendentalist thought - sometimes people do things that are just plain bad, so how is that possible if we're all a part of God? God is not supposed to be evil; God doesn't murder, or steal, or go insane. God may be pure, but people are most certainly not, and therefore separate from God. People do go insane, bad things do happen, and within everyone there is the possibility of evil. This all sounds very dark and brooding, but it's just sort of a reality. I'm not saying that there isn't good in the world too, I'd like to think that there is more good in the world than bad, but the bad does exist.

Dick Proenneke - Alone In the Wilderness

Dick Proenneke loved and respected nature. He must have in order to have spent so many years "Alone In the Wilderness". Proenneke talked about the peace and beauty of nature, how he had dreamt of it, and how he was happy to finally be surrounded by it. He wanted to see if he could enjoy his own company for a whole year, I'm not sure why, but Poenneke wanted solitude. All of this fits in perfectly with what Emerson wrote about in Nature; "To go in to solitude, a man needs to retire as much from his chamber as from society... But if a man should be alone, let him look at the stars." Poenneke was definitely retiring from society, and taking Emerson's advice about being in "the perpetual presence of the sublime".

While I was watching that video clip I kept being reminded of Self-Reliance by Emerson; "A man is relieved and gay when he has put his heart into his work." Proenneke must have taken pride in his hard work, otherwise he would have just bought a cabin, or used power tools to build one. Instead, Proenneke painstakingly went about the process of constructing his log cabin with nothing but hand tools and determination.
I think Pronneke embodied many of the Transcendental beliefs. I'm not sure whether or not Proenneke thought he could transcend the barrier between himself and God by going into nature, but he did think that he could become more in touch with himself.

Resistance to Civil Government by Henry David Thoreau

Although it was a bit long-winded, I liked Resistance to Civil Government much more than the other works I read for this unit. Maybe because it appealed to the idealist in me. I admire Thoreau for going to jail for something he believed in, even if it was only for a night. Thoreau says "Can there not be a government in which majorities do not virtually decide right and wrong, but conscience? -in which majorities decide only those questions to which the rule of expediency is applicable?" I pretty much totally agree with this. Why do we need to bicker and vote about things that should just be a matter of conscience? I understand that right and wrong are not always so easily defined, but there are instances where what is right and what is wrong can be clearly seen. The arrogant tone that bothered me in the other reading examples showed up in Resistance to Civil Government as well, but it wasn't an overriding theme. I thought it was interesting that Thoreau posed the question "Is a democracy, such as we know it, the last improvement possible in government?" so many years ago, and no one has yet to come up with an acceptable answer. It seems like we should have been able to progress to a better form of government by now, doesn't it? There are obvious problems with our government, so why hasn't a solution been found yet?! I guess I can't be too upset about it though, I obviously don't have the answers either...
Resistance to Civil Government is a good example of transcendental thought because Thoreau expresses a need to fight against organized government. If you thought, like the transcendentalists did, that everyone had the ability to connect directly with God, would you think that there needed to be government? If we were so close to God and godliness, we would be able to govern ourselves quite nicely I think. Thoreau says we should be men first, and that you should never have to "resign his conscience to the legislator..." If we were meant to be blind followers of rule and government "Why has every man a conscience, then?" Another example of transcendental though that I picked up on was when Thoreau wrote about his chance encounter with his one night cellmate. Thoreau wanted to talk to this man and gain as much knowledge about his views on life before he had to leave. He was worried about the fact that his time to converse with him was limited. So, why would an upstanding, intelligent citizen care so much about the inner workings of a convict? Well, being a transcendentalists, Thoreau would have believed that God could work through this convict just as well as anyone else (maybe even better). I felt that Thoreau was trying to learn what God might have been saying to his cellmate. Thoreau mentions earlier in the text the hypocrisy of his neighbors and friends who pay taxes that support a war they disagree with. Maybe he thought someone of a different class would have a better perspective, or at least a different one, which he could learn from.

Gone with the Wind by Margaret Mitchell pages 452 - 1037

I finally finished it!

Self-Reliance by Ralph Waldo Emerson

Self-Reliance starts off with the statement that "imitation is suicide". Emerson is trying to say that by copying someone else we kill off our inner selves, and since our inner selves are tiny Gods, this is a rather awful thing to do. Thus, society and the status quo are very bad things indeed. We're supposed to isolate ourselves from all outside influences to become the brave men that God has chosen to make his work manifest in. Basically, there is no one better than you and all others are just trying to impede your progress. I endeavored to look past the self righteousness that so irks me, and see what Emerson was really trying to say with Self Reliance. I agree that the ability to think for yourself and knowing when society has it wrong, are good things. I just disagree that we can only accomplish great things if we disregard the thoughts and ideas of others. Emerson says, "To be great is to be misunderstood...", which may be true in many instances, but he also implies that people like Pythagoras, Jesus, Luther, Galileo and Newton all were independent thinkers. To an extent, they were, but they also read and studied the works of ones who came before them. I think some things about Transcendentalism are right on, but all of the ideas seem to be taken to such an extreme that I can't fully agree with it.
Self-Reliance is a good example of transcendental writing because it talks so much about listening to the inner self, the little god that lives in you. Emerson says, "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds... With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do." This is a good example of transcendental thought as well, because Emerson is talking about the consistency of society, and society/consistency impede transcending. Self-Reliance is all about awakening your destiny and becoming as great as you can be by not following the norm, and listening to your intuition; all of that is a part of what the transcendentalist believed.

Nature by Ralph Waldo Emerson

Something about this essay rubbed me all wrong. It just comes off so conceited sounding. Emerson says that there are few men who can see nature, that nature can only be seen by those with the hearts of children. He says that nature belongs to the poet, but part of what is so amazing about nature is that it belongs to everyone with senses. He also says: "In the presence of nature, a wild delight runs through the man, in spite of real sorrows." I disagree with this too. I've experienced nature to be a very reflective sort of atmosphere, whether I'm feeling sad or happy. Going hiking does not suddenly make all of my troubles leave my mind, I may return from nature with a better outlook on what I saw as very problematic before, but not always. Nature can be soothing, but it does not fix everything. I'm all for nature, I grew up on a mountain out west with a father who is a nature photographer. I'm part of a family that appreciates nature very much, but Emerson seems to take it to the extreme. Then again, maybe I'm just not a "poet".
Every sentence of this essay is dripping with Transcendentalism. The opening paragraph of this essay is all about retreating from society to be truly alone with yourself in nature. "To go into solitude, a man needs to retire as much from his chamber as from society... But if a man would be alone, let him look at the stars." Transcendentalists believed that humankind was pure of heart and if we would only remove ourselves from the distraction of society, man can connect more directly with God. "Standing on the bare ground - my head bathed in the blithe air, and uplifted into infinite space - all mean egotism vanishes." I may not agree with that statement, but it seems to be in line with what the Transcendentalists thought.

The Ropewalk: A Poem About Boredom

The Ropewalk by Henry Wadsworth Longfellow is a poem about the things a man daydreams about while he is at work at a rope factory. He daydreams about the different things the rope he is making might be used for. A swing for girls to swing on, a rope for a tightrope walker to walk across high above an awed crowd, tied to a bucket in a well, and he even muses about the rope being used for gallows. What this poem is really about is escapism. Making rope probably wasn't a fun activity, winding pieces of twine together for hours on end was bound to become tedious. So, what does one do when faced with a boring and mindless task? Why, daydream of course! When you're doing something mundane, don't you let your mind wander as far from where you are as possible? During the Industrial Revolution many people worked in factories such as the one this poem is about, and I'm sure the employees of those factories used daydreaming as escapism. Romantic thought emphasized the power of imagination, and how it could be a useful tool for escapism. Not only is this poem about imagination, you have to use your imagination to read it. Each stanza paints a picture, so the poem is much easier to understand if you use your imagination and envision what Longfellow is trying to say.

"Then a booth of mountebanks,
With its smell of tan and planks,
And a girl poised high in air
On a cord, in spangled dress,
With a faded loveliness,
And a weary look of care."

I definitely had to use my imagination in order to understand what that was all about.

Thanatopsis: We're All Going to Die

Thanatopsis is all about looking at death in a different way. Most people view death as a horrible and scary thing, but with this poem Bryant attempts to portray death as just another part of life and not really something that is that scary at all. Bryant explains that death should not be feared because everybody dies and it's natural. When we die we return to the ground from which we came, it's the circle of life, so to speak. Since the Romantics thought that nature was pretty much the coolest thing around (something heavily exemplified in this poem), becoming part of nature would be considered kinda awesome. Bryant also mentions that when we die we join all the souls that have passed before us, "Thou shalt lie down, With patriarchs of the infant world--with kings, The powerful of the earth--the wise, the good, Fair forms, and hoary seers of ages past...", so death is sort of like the great equalizer. This poem is romantic because of the two things I just mentioned. The glorification of nature and the emphasis on the fact that we are all a part of that nature, and the emphasis on death being something that the great, as well as the not-so-great men all have to go through. The common man as well as the king has to die sometime.

Geisha (Writing Assignment Two)

Geisha are highly skilled female Japanese entertainers. Although they are an iconic image of Japanese culture, not that much is known about them. When it came time to write this research paper, I though it might be cool to learn more about the mysterious world of the geisha. I wasn’t expecting it to be very difficult, but while I did find a large amount of information, it was all very broad. I read that geisha in training take classes, but I couldn’t find out what kind of classes they took or where they took them. Much about being a geisha is kept secret.

Geisha history dates back to the 1700’s, and while there have been similar women throughout Japanese history, geisha have the distinction of being entertainers only. It seems to be an extremely common misconception that geisha are just highly paid prostitutes. This is most likely because there have been many prostitutes who have impersonated geisha and because they were closely associated with the prostitutes of the “Pleasure Districts”. Pleasure Districts were government sanctioned areas where prostitution was legal during the Endo period (1603 to 1868). Operating as a prostitute outside of these areas was against the law. Early in their history geisha were confined to the so called Pleasure Districts along with female entertainers who were prostitutes, but the geisha never sold sex (Immortal Geisha/History).

Geisha sell nothing but their skills as dancers, musicians, conversationalists, and artists. They are hired to create an atmosphere of luxury with their beauty and grace; nothing more is expected of them from their clients. Geisha women are single. If a geisha chooses to marry; she can no longer be a geisha. She is supposed to give the illusion of obtainability, while never actually being obtainable. Although it is less common in modern times, geisha sometimes have patrons. These patrons are called danna. Although a danna financially supports a geisha and is likely to have a closer relationship with her, she is still never expected to be intimate with him (Wikipedia/Geisha).

Geisha were usually trained from a very young age, but now it’s not uncommon for a women to start later in her life. The first stage of training consists of becoming accustomed to the world of geisha culture by performing as a maid while living in the okiya (geisha house). The girls go to classes during the day and wait on the geisha at night. When the trainees have become skilled enough in geisha arts, they are brought to parties and tea houses. This is so they can learn by observing a geisha at work with a client; I imagine that it is easier to learn some things, like conversation skills, by seeing them in action. This is a brief stage in the geisha’s training, and typically only lasts a month. After that, the geisha in training becomes what is called a maiko. Maiko are the white faced and brightly dressed young women that are most commonly associated with geisha culture. Maiko have “older sister” geisha who teach them what it is actually like to be a geisha by taking them along with them to visit clients. It can take as little as five months, or as much as five years for a maiko to become a full geisha. Once a maiko becomes a geisha she takes a new name and charges full price for her services. This is how she will live until she retires. (Wikipedia/Geisha)

The most outstanding characteristic of a geisha is her appearance. Geisha always wear elaborate, beautiful, and expensive robes called kimonos. These kimonos are hand painted and are works of art in their own right. The style and color of a geisha’s kimonos changes to illustrate her status. Maiko wear bright, flamboyant kimono whereas older geisha wear more demure colors and patterns. Footwear also changes throughout a geisha’s career. Maiko wear extremely tall wooden sandals with a slanted front and geisha wear shorter, flat sandals. Their hair is styled up in what is called the shimada style and is adorned by many combs and accessories (Wikipedia/Geisha). Maiko wear the iconic painted white face and red lips almost constantly, but after she has been a full geisha for three years she will only wear such heavy make-up for special occasions. The process of putting on this make-up is very complicated and can take more than an hour to achieve (Immortal Geisha/Make-Up). I watched a video on YouTube of a geisha applying her make-up, it was heavily edited and it was still 12 minutes long. It was fascinating to watch the process though.

Although the world of geisha is filled with beauty, I imagine it’s also very uncomfortable. Hours upon hours of make-up application and hair styling cannot be fun, and I read on Immortal Geisha that after they get their hair done that have to sleep with their necks on special pedestals so they don’t mess up their hair and have to get it styled all over again. They walk in flimsy sandals that are more than half a foot tall to keep their kimono from dragging on the ground. Relationships could be hard to obtain when you’re living in a house full of women with whom you are competing for clients, and the only outsiders you see are those clients.

After doing all this research, I’m still left with one unanswered question: Why does a woman choose to become a geisha? It takes so much training, preparation, and pain, and what do they get in the end? I read on a woman’s blog that she traveled to Japan and met an elderly former geisha. The former geisha told her of her fond memories of being a geisha and I wondered if that was all she had to show for her time spent as a geisha. I still find geisha to be interesting and beautiful, but I also still wonder what they get out of it and why they do it.

Sources:

Naomi Graham-Diaz. “History of the Geisha, Part One: 1100AD - 1750AD.” Immortal Geisha. October 2001. Immortal Geisha. 11 September 2008. http://www.immortalgeisha.com/history_01.php.

Naomi Graham-Diaz. “Make-Up of Geisha and Maiko.” Immortal Geisha. October 2001. Immortal Geisha. 11 September 2008. http://www.immortalgeisha.com/makeup_01.ph.

Wikipeadia “Geisha.” 29 August 2008. Wikipedia. 11 September 2008. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geisha.

Now that's what I call romantic artwork!

This painting is by Eugene Delacroix and is entitled, La Liberté Guidant le Peuple, which means Liberty Leading the People. This is one of my favorite paintings and I think it is a good example of Romantic art. It shows Marrianne, who is Liberty personified and the symbol of the nation, leading a troop of French revolutionaries over rubble and bodies. Delacroix did this painting to commemorate the French Revolution and the overthrow of Charles X. The revolutionaries were a mix of many different people. Bourgeoise, upper class, and lower class all fighting side by side for a common cause. This painting is a celebration of the power of the common man.

Watch Your Head

I read The Legend of Sleepy Hollow instead of Rip Van Winkle, for no particular reason. I liked this story a lot though, it was very witty. It was a bit wordy though... Each sentence was easily three lines long. Part of the reason there were so many words it because Washington Irving is a very, very descriptive writer, which ties in with American Romanticism. Irving used vivid imagery to describe his story throughout the entire text. If you use your imagination when you read Irving's description of Ichabod Crane, you might find yourself laughing out loud. The picture Irving paints is utterly and ridiculously hilarious; "He was tall, but exceedingly lank, with narrow shoulders, long arms and legs, hands that dangled a mile out of his sleeves, feet that might have served for shovels, and his whole frame most loosely hung together. His head was small, and flat on top, with huge ears, large green glassy eyes, and along snipe nose, so that looked like a weather-cock perched upon his spindle neck , to tell which way the wind blew." Obviously this is not meant to be taken literally (I seriously doubt that Ichabod's arms actually stuck a mile out of his sleeves) , it's meant to be read with imagination!
Another example of American Romanticism that is in The Legend of Sleepy Hollow is the glorification of nature. Irving opens his story with a long and heartfelt description of Sleepy Hollow and the surrounding land. He goes into great detail when he describes the peacefulness of nature, "A small brook glides through it, with just murmur enough to lull one to repose; and the occasional whistle of a quail, or tapping of a woodpecker, is almost the only sound that ever breaks in upon the uniform tranquility." Most of the people living in America at this time were living in filthy cities, so you can imagine how much they would long for a quiet valley like the one Irving describes.
Lastly, The Legend of Sleepy Hollow is a classic example of the underdog story. Ichabod is somewhat of a loser. If you read the physical description above, you know that Ichabod Crane was not really what I would call a good looking man. Irving compares him to a scarecrow at one point. Ichabod also seems to have limited social skills... Extremely limited. He makes a fool of himself quite a few times and doesn't even notice once. It seemed to me that he was sort of the village idiot. So, in the end of the story after he has been turned down by his lady-love, attacked by the "Headless Horseman", and fled the town never to return, you find out that he is now a moderately accomplished politician. Ichabod might have been unrefined, but he went on to make something of himself anyways. This exemplifies American Romanticism in the sense that Americans were viewed as sloppy and undignified by the English. So with The Legend of Sleepy Hollow Irving was saying that even though someone might not be well mannered, doesn't mean that they can't do well.

Breaking Dawn by Stephanie Meyer pages 1- 768

This book wasn't very good in my opinion. Meyer took the story in a completely new direction, and it was just not very good. She diverted away from everything I liked about Twilight. Everything was just too perfect, it all worked out so sickeningly sweet in the end. Meyer got rid of all the turmoil and stuff that made the books interesting. I don't want to read a book about two people who are in love and everything just is awesome, it's not interesting, or realistic. I mean, a vampire falling in love with a human and not sucking her dry isn't very realistic either... The very fact that the book is about vampires is unrealistic, but even if I'm reading a book that's fantastical I want the core of the story to be based in reality. I read this book called The Lovely Bones by Alice Sebold over the summer. The Lovely Bones is a book about a girl who is murdered and what happens to all the people left behind, and it's narrated by the dead girl while she's in heaven. The premise is supernatural, but I never felt like it was weird... Until the end when she COMES BACK TO EARTH IN SOMEONE ELSE'S BODY! I was immediately put off. It was just too weird... It made the book end perfectly... and I didn't like it. Endings make or break a book for me, or in the case of Breaking Dawn, a series. So I loved Twilight but I feel like the book got steadily worse as they went on. Breaking dawn was still really good, but just not as good as it could have been, or anywhere near as good as Twilight. Twilight was amazing, New Moon was really good, Eclipse was good, and Breaking Dawn was just okay.

P.S. The whole baby thing just creeped me out a lot... I did not like it.

Eclipse by Stephanie Meyer pages 1- 640

I can't remember much of what happened in this book... Edward came back so Bella stopped sobbing so much; that was a relief. I was mainly just mad a at Jacob for making everything so difficult. Of course there was another crisis that involved Bella's life being endangered, but it was somehow easily averted. This book was good, but not as good as the other two that came before it.

New Moon by Stephanie Meyer pages 1 - 608

Just like with Twilight, I was nearly obsessed with this book. I wondered what Meyer was going to do with the story next, and I was surprised at where she took it. It was nice to be surprised, (predictable literature is so boring!) but it was frustrating too. In book one, Bella and Edward are hopelessly in love. It's problematic (Edward is a vampire), but they work through it because they love each other so much; it's perfect. In book two Edward up and leaves Bella in the woods and says he's never coming back! So the rest of the book is basically just about how Bella can barely function since he left and then at the end she has to go save his life in Italy. I give Meyer mad props for one thing though - Edward is back now, but I kind of don't like him that much anymore. While Edward was gone Bella found solace in her friend Jacob(who turns into a werewolf abruptly in the middle of their friendship, go figure) and Jacob is ten times more likable than Edward. I had a discussion with one of my co-workers the other day about people who are Jacob fans and people who are Edward fans. She thinks that Edward fans are often younger and still have that Disney instilled dream that one day their prince will come, while on the other hand, Jacob fans realize that no one is perfect and you should settle for the guy who loves you and doesn't drive you crazy. In less words; quarks are endearing and perfection is aggravating. I agree, and I admire Meyer for challenging her readers with a new thought process instead of just shoveling book after book of lovey dovey bliss and perfection out into the market.

Benjamin Franklin was a smarty pants.

I think Benjamin Franklin's plan to arrive at moral perfection is a good example of why he was a good rationalist. Not only was his method of doing this very reasonable, it also had nothing to do with God. A Puritan would not have thought he could reach moral perfection because of the concept of original sin. It would most likely be considered blasphemous in Puritan culture to try and achieve moral perfection; only God is perfect. Benjamin Franklin, though, thinks he can attain perfection all by himself, with a well thought out plan. "It was about this time that I conceived the bold and arduous project of arriving at moral perfection. I wished to live without committing any fault at any time ..." He goes on to explain his method of doing this, "My intention being to acquire the habitude of all these virtues, I judged it would be well not to distract my attention by attempting the whole at once, but to fix it on one of them at a time, and when I should be master of that , then to proceed to another..." It's all very reasonable, except I don't think anybody can ever be truly faultless. everybody screws up. We're all flawed. I admire Mr. Franklin for trying though.

The Box Man by Kobo Abe pages 90 - 104

I wish I could give you an explanation of what I recently read, but I'm still trying to figure it out. My mind was nearly blown into little bits when it was revealed that everything I had read up to page 100 might just be the narrator's wild imagination and not actually what was happening. I literally ran up to my mom's room and burst out with an exclamatory explanation of what I had just read before reading her the actual passage. I couldn't believe it, even though I was half expecting something like this to happen; that's just the type of book it is. I'm going to continue reading this book and attempting to understand it, I'll let you know how it goes.

Twilight by Stephanie Meyer pages 29 - 544

I read all 544 pages of this book in less than a week. Needless to say I was slightly obsessed. You most likely saw me reading it more than once around the school; in classrooms, hallways, the parking lot, ect... Stephanie Meyer sucks you in, grabs your attention, and never lets go. Twilight is classic story of true love, but with many obstacles. Think Romeo and Juliet, but instead of dueling households being in the way, Romeo is a vampire and he's trying to keep Juliet from being sucked dry by fellow vampires. So really it's nothing like Romeo and Juliet except for the troubled love part, haha. Everyone I've spoken with about this series of books has proclaimed their love for it, they've also all been females. I think this book appeals to girls more than boys, because even though it's about vampires, it's more about love. It's been my experience that boys aren't as interested in the touchy-feely literature. Pages 29 through 544 is a large area to cover, so I'll just give you a brief synopsis. Bella, the female lead, and Edward, the male vampire lead, fall deeply, madly, and all encompassingly in love with each other. Edward kind of really wants to drink her blood though, so there's the daily struggle of him being anywhere he can smell her and controlling his urge to attack her and steal her life. Other than wanting to kill his lady love, there's another problem. Another vampire thinks Bella smells pretty delicious too, so now Edward has to save her from himself as well as this other guy. The story ends dramatically, with Edward saving Bella just in the nick of time. Of course a new issue arises though, who would want to read the sequel if everything ended well? Bella wants to become a vampire so she can be with Edward forever and ever, but Edward can't stand thought of it. So that's where I am now, I'm waiting for my co-worker to bring her copy of New Moon to me so I can continue the saga. Somehow this book sounds very silly when I explain it, but I still really like it.

I'll Ask You Three Times, Are You OK?: Tales of Driving and Being Driven by Naomi Shihab Nye pages 1 - 242

I loved this book. Once I started reading it I couldn't put it down, I read it in two sittings. True stories where the common thread is driving; it was fantastic. I loved the author's writing style and even her simple stories somehow felt profound. My favorite story was probably the one about how one of the first times she ever drove somewhere when she was a teenager was to the pharmacy, and when she returned to her car in the parking lot there was am elderly non-English speaking woman in her back seat that refused to leave. She drove the woman around until she eventually found her home and she dropped her off, without any further explanation. It was such a bizarre story, but for some reason it stuck with me. So many of her stories were good though, it's hard to pick my favorite. I greatly enjoyed this book, and I highly recommend it.
I think I might buy myself a copy...

So if I just do all this stuff I'll be perfect?

1. Patience - Understanding that waiting for something is not the end of the world.
2. Moderation - Taking nothing to the point of excess.
3 Silence - Knowing when saying nothing says more.
4. Awareness - Knowing the situation that surrounds me.
5. Humbleness - Being modest and never boastful.
6. Caution - Thinking things through and understanding when something is a bad idea.
7. Obedience - Being willing to follow the direction and advice of others.
8. Honesty - Telling the truth and being sincere in my actions.
9. Discretion - Keeping things secret, being mindful of my speech.
10. Trust - Allowing others into my life without doubting them.
11. Spontaneity - Being able to act without, or outside of, plans.
12. Toughness - Being strong and resilient.
13. Sensitivity - Noticing those around me and how my actions may effect their emotions and well being.

Puritans! ...versus... Rationalists!

I think the biggest difference between the Puritans the the Rationalists is science. Puritans believed that God made the universe and we should just be happy with his handy work the way it is and leave well enough alone. While on the other hand, Rationalists strove to find out why things were the way they were. Science was the main tool Rationalists used to figure things out, there is pretty much no other use for science - it explains things. Puritans didn't believe in figuring things out, so they had no use for science and were actually against the use of it.
Examples of this same conflict can be found in many places today. Reason versus religion is a battle I believe could be fought for many years to come. Whether it's evolution, stem cell research, or just how far science should go and how much it should effect our lives; reason and science will always be up against religious standards. In many ways puritan ideas are still in place in the U.S. today, there is a ban on the sale of alcohol on Sundays in a number of states and the law against same sex marriage. I think rationalism has had a stronger impact on the world today though. The fact that I'm here at school, where science classes are mandatory to graduate, is proof of that. Our nation was founded by men of reason, and I think that the spirit of rationalism still has a heavy influence on us now.

Puritans, Puritans, Puritans...

In my opinion, the Puritans were pretty intense people. According to their beliefs, you're born a sinner, you will always be a sinner, God hates you quite a lot, and no matter what you do, you still might burn in hell. Puritans believed in God's unending and undeniable grace, but then that Jesus only died for a precious few. It almost seems more like God's grace is not something He wants to give us, but something He has to give us whether he wants to or not. The only word that I think describes the Puritan's outlook on life is bleak

The concept of original sin has always been interesting to me. Why should we all be blamed for something that Adam and Eve did at the dawn of time? It doesn't seem fair that everyone should suffer for the wrongs of two people who lived so long ago. It’s sad to think that sweet little babies are born tainted by sin and that they will eventually befall to their sin nature. Puritans did believe that you could fight your sin nature, but that you would most likely backslide and give into temptation at some point.

I always find so much of Puritan belief to be contradictory. They believe in God's undeniable grace, but also that He is just waiting around the corner to smite the heck out of them. Also, they believe that Jesus only died for the sins of some, and that only a precious few will be saved; this does not speak of grace to me. I can't imagine worshiping a God that hates me, is disgusted by me, and who might not even save my soul from eternal damnation and hell fire. If you're born a sinner, there's nothing you can do to make yourself pure, and all the do gooding and pleading in the world won't guarantee your salvation, than what's the point?! Puritan belief seems very hopeless to me, and also very, very oppressive.

I have a feeling that these people lived in intense fear. If I went to church every Sunday and heard things like Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God, I would be terrified. In Jonathan Edward’s sermon he mentions that God is responsible for the torments of hell: “They are now the objects of that very same anger and wrath of God that is expressed in the torments of hell.” I was always taught that the devil was the mastermind behind hell, so I wonder if Edwards was intentionally trying to scare his congregation. So much of this sermon makes me wonder what Edwards’ intent behind this sermon was. He obviously meant it to be scary, but for what purpose? Was he trying to scare his church into submission, or was he simply attempting to be a good pastor and lead them away from wickedness? He warns them, “The devil stands ready to fall upon them and seize them as his own…” “The devils watch them; they are ever by them, at their right hand; they stand waiting for them, like greedy hungry lions that see their prey, and expect to have it…” but he also says some things that are just plain terrifying, “God has so many different unsearchable ways of taking wicked men out of the world and sending ‘em to hell…” and “God has laid himself under no obligation by any promise to keep any natural man out of hell one moment.” From my understanding the Puritans lived very simple lives adorned by nothing and pleasure was thought to be sinful. So having sheltered themselves from flowery writing, the images these sermons induced would be all the more alarming. The other Puritan literary works like Of Plymouth Plantation are very mundane and boring, but these sermons are full of imagery, and not all of it is pleasant.

The Puritan belief that I think is most heavily exemplified in Sinners in the Hand of an Angry God is total depravity. Jonathan Edwards opens the sermon with the verse "Their foot shall slide in due time." Deuteronomy 32:35, he goes on to explain that this verse is about how even God's chosen people are wicked. No one is free from sin, so, Total Depravity. The second Puritan belief that I think is exemplified perseverance of the "saints". The whole sermon is Edwards' interpretation of the verses he chose to preach. His words were rule in the Puritan belief, no matter whether they were accurate or not. The things he says in Sinners in the Hand of an Angry God seem over the top, I think he took things too far, but in those days, he could almost do whatever he wanted.

Belly Dancing (Writing Assignment One)

Throughout my life I’ve taken more than just a few dance lessons. I started with ballet when I was only five, and since then I’ve also taken several different types of ballroom dancing. The most enjoyable dance class I’ve taken so far, though, is definitely belly dance. I began taking lessons at the Healing Arts Center last autumn, and I instantly fell in love with it. The slow hypnotic movements and the equally hypnotic and energetic shimmies of my instructor drew me in. I couldn’t imagine how I would ever be able to move like her, but I wanted to try and learn how. So through the past year I’ve immersed myself in belly dance culture. I’m still an amateur dancer, but I have gained many skills and plenty of knowledge.

The history of belly dance is rich, and largely undefined. The exact origins of the dance are disputed even today. Belly dance is generally associated with areas in the Middle East and upper Africa as well as a few other places, like India. All of these regions lay claim to different styles of the dance. Many people associate belly dancing with gypsies, which is not entirely a mistake. It is believed that gypsies were responsible for the spread of the dance, because of their nomadic lifestyle, but generally they are not accredited with the creation of the dance. Belly dance gained notice in the U.S. at the 1893 World’s Fair in Chicago. The gyrations of the corsetless dancers shocked, entertained, and appalled the Victorian crowd, and eventually the theatre was closed. From that point on belly dancers could only be seen in burlesque and vaudeville shows, and therefore gained an unflattering reputation among polite society. Even today belly dancing has a reputation of vulgarity, something which modern belly dancers are trying to change.

The technique involved in belly dancing has a heavy influence on isolation. Moving one section of your body while holding every other part still is the main goal. Once a dancer can isolate different muscle groups, she learns how to layer moves on top of each other. Have you ever tried to move your hips in a figure eight and shimmy them at the same time? Well, it’s definitely not easy. The skill required to perform these moves correctly takes a long time to gain. A common misconception is that belly dancers just shake and wiggle whatever they’ve got - this is very untrue. Exact movements are what dancers aspire to achieve, no matter what body type they have. It takes intense concentration, practice, and strength to belly dance, just like any other structured type of dance.

The fitness aspect of belly dancing is also an attractive feature. It’s a great cardiovascular workout, and since so much of it focuses on muscle isolation, it’s great for toning as well. The legs and core get a great workout as well, and if you’re practicing veil or zil (finger cymbals) work, your arms will get a good workout too. The best thing is that even though it’s a workout, it’s fun! My friends and I would leave class tired and with aching muscles, but we also had smiles on our faces. No matter how hard our instructor works us, we always feel rewarded at the end of class.

My favorite thing about belly dance culture is that it’s very accepting. It’s a come-as-you-are type of thing. Height, weight, age, skill; none of these really matter. It’s not about a person’s flaws; it’s about being who you are. Dance is an expression of the soul, and it’s human nature. Belly dancing allows people to focus for a little while, something I think many people don’t get to do very often. Belly dancing is fun, easy to get into, and good for the well being of your body as well as your mind. I highly suggest taking any dance class, but belly dance is at the top of my list.

Twilight by Stephanie Meyer pages 1-29

I was skeptical of this book from the start. I usually am skeptical of extremely popular things, but at some point I realize that writing something off because large amounts of people adore it, is illogical. Discrediting something just because half the world loves it does not make sense. So, I decided that I would give Twilight a try. I've only read the first chapter, but I have to say, it's already intensely engaging. I've been introduced to whom I think are the main characters and the setting, but that's pretty much it. I wasn't expecting the writing to be very good, I figured it would be somewhere at or below J.K. Rowling's skill level (whom I believe is a fantastic story teller, but not the most amazing writer). Twilight sucked me in though, the writing is very good, and even though nothing has really happened with the plot yet - I'm hooked. Meyer's writing is very descriptive, but not overly so. She makes you interested in the characters, but she keeps things moving as well. I'm not surprised so many people love this book or that it's being made into a movie. The book reads like a screenplay with its attention to description and drama.

The Box Man by Kobo Abe pages 1-90

This book is bizarre. This book is hard to follow as well. I'm not really sure what is happening at any given moment. The book began with a brief description of what a box man is, which is basically a man who lives in a large cardboard box and never leaves it. The next part of the book was a story of how a man, "Case A", became a box man, which was a very odd tale indeed. After those two stories were finished, I was introduced to the person writing the book, a box man himself. This box man who is narrating tells the reader a strange story about himself, a nurse, and a doctor who is also an imitation box man. That is where I am now. So far the box man has sold his box to the doctor for a large sum, and was told to destroy his box. He does not destroy his box, but tells the doctor and the nurse that he did, and now the doctor is going to become a real box man, not just a pretend one, and the nurse is going to get naked, something that the box man wants very much, but he also seems terrified by the prospect of it. At least that's what I think is happening, I'm not entirely sure, and I think if I talked to someone else who has read the book they would say something completely different. Although this book is very confusing, it's intensely interesting and I'm looking forward to reading what happens next.