How Genuine is the Catharsis of "A Raisin in the Sun"?

"A Raisin in the Sun" ends with the Younger family deciding to finally get out of their "rat trap" in the Chicago ghettos and move to their new house in Clybourne Park. The play ends with a suspenseful confrontation with Lindner in which Walter has a change of heart and realizes that their family has to move out and face their new white neighbors whether they are welcome or not. This ending leaves the audience with a feeling of hope and triumph, and definitely catharsis. However, as we read in the packet about Lorraine Hansberry and her play, the original closing scene was of the Younger family as they sat, armed and in the dark of their new living room in Clybourne Park, waiting for the white mob to come get them. This ending gives a very different feeling than the revised version, and it leaves the audience in suspense. I would say it lacks catharsis and the feeling of triumph that accompanies the current ending of the play. If Hansberry had left this original scene in the play, the message would be different and it would not seem that racism was dying, but that it was winning. All it takes is one extra scene at the end to completely change the meaning of the play. You can take any play, book, movie, or story of any kind and add something extra to the end--perhaps the next untold part of the story--and it would change the meaning. Stories end at strategic points to leave the right feeling with the audience and to portray the right message. Take Harry Potter for example. The last book ends with Harry defeating Voldemort and then fast-forwards 20 years and shows Harry happily married to Ginny and living life happily ever after. But what if you added one last scene about a new evil wizard beginning to plot his plan to take over the wizarding world? The ending wouldn't leave the audience with a sigh of relief, but with a gasp! People would wonder what it was supposed to mean: was the message to say that evil can never truly be eliminated? Obviously that is the complete opposite of what the Harry Potter saga was supposed to teach, but something like that could happen after the events of the story, just like the Youngers could get killed by an angry mob. You can always wonder what happens next after a story ends, but sometimes it's best not to. Once you start imagining the unwritten events after an ending, anything can happen and it can lead you away from the purpose of the story.

Different Styles Can Speak the Same Message

The Harlem Renaissance was an explosion of literature and art from African Americans.  It all portrayed the oppression that African American's faced in American, but different authors and artists had strikingly different ways of expressing their feelings.  The two pictures on this post prove that. One artist dwells on the tragedies of the past, whereas the other shows a scene of African Americans having a good time in the new age.  Langston Hughes wrote somewhat depressing poetry.  In his poem "The Weary Blues", he writes that an African American Blues singer wished he had died from the pain of his oppression.  On the other hand, there's Zora Neale Hurston, who wrote  "How It Feels to Be Colored Me" with sarcasm galore!  You wouldn't think that the oppression of African Americans is a matter to joke about, but Hurston effectively gets her point across without using the 'woe is me' angle.  She even writes, "Sometimes, I feel discriminated against, but it does not make me angry." (Hurston).  Hughes and Hurston write almost completely opposite statements, but they both demonstrate through their work the oppression African Americans faced during the Harlem Renaissance. The political campaigns for the Presidential Election were similar to this.  For example, some Obama supporters criticized Romney to make Obama look better, and others simply promoted Obama by discussing the good things he has done and the things he plans to do.  The same goes for Romney supporters.  I hope I don't offend anyone because I don't really follow politics so this was just an example, but it's a great way to show that people can reach the same purpose through different methods.   

 

What the Heck Does The Great Gatsby Mean?

I personally loved The Great Gatsby, but after reading all the different viewpoints in class, I got really confused. After hearing what all those different groups of people thought the book meant, I found myself wondering, what did Fitzgerald want it to mean? Every work of literature can have multiple purposes or themes depending on what the reader takes from it. I suppose the only time there is a right answer to the purpose of a book is when the author shares his or her intended purpose. In the case of The Great Gatsby, we will never know exactly what Fitzgerald had in mind. Did he mean to demonstrate that the world of his book wasn't real due to the lack of African Americans, as the African American view point says? Or was Fitzgerald just a racist? Is Nick gay? Do all the characters really have a fear of intimacy? These are questions that can only be answered in opinion. with the movie coming out in the summer (which I can't wait to see!!), I'm starting to wonder what interpretation the director will take. Regardless of what people think of the book, I'm sure the movie will have a clear message. Will it be that money is corruption, or that the past is the past and it can't be brought back? Will the movie portray Gatsby as a hero or a crazy, delusional man who chases a dream so far that he falls off a cliff? With so many interpretations of the book, it will be interesting to see what the producers of the movie decide is the "correct interpretation".

Where is the line between Protection and Deception?

In Billy Collin's "The History Teacher", a history teacher tries to protect the innocence of his students by hiding the truth about all the crude and imperfect events in history. This history teacher had good intentions, but the poem also explains that the students--the innocent children that the teacher is trying to protect--are already bullying other kids on the playground and therefore are not innocent at all. This poem is ironic because, by lying to the students, the teacher is hurting them more than he would if he told them the truth. When he covers the events of the past, the children don't know that conflict can lead to war and destruction, and therefore think it's ok to bully. This same concept of lying to protect the innocence of a group of people is used by Dimmesdale in The Scarlet Letter. Dimmesdale conceals his affair with Hester from his congregation in order to protect their view of the Puritan church as good and Holy. If he told them what he did, the congregation would lose their faith in religion and stray away from it. Dimmesdale lied to protect them from the flaws in human nature, but by lying he only denies them the knowledge of their worst enemy: their own flaws in character. The congregation should know that no one is perfect, but they idolize and come to believe in something that doesn't exist: a man without flaws. The poem also reminds me of 1984 by George Orwell, in which the government not only lies about the events in history, but completely rewrites them. In 1984, the government controls everything and no longer lies to protect the people, but lies to protect the government itself. This is the extreme of a lie with a good intention, and what the lies in "The History Teacher" could escalate to in an extreme case.

What is Real Bravery?

Harriet Jacob's slave narrative is effective in showing the hardships of slavery, but I'm not sure I can call her brave. She ran away, but left her children--knowing her old master would go buy them to try to lure her back! She claimed she ran away so that her children could be free, and eventually they were, but first they had to go through weeks in jail! I feel like a mother should never leave her children in the hands of an angry man out for revenge. It seems to me that running away and leaving her children behind was the easy way out. Of course, I have no right to criticize; being a slave would have been awful and I can't say that I wouldn't have done the same thing.

Most of the time when we think of bravery, we think of heroes who fight for the greater good and the people they love, but could running be as brave as fighting?  I have my own feelings about Jacob's decision to run away, as I just stated, but she did have a good reason.  The alternative--which would be to rebel against her slave owner and literally fight for her freedom--would have been pointless.  One woman like Jacobs could not have fought against her slave owner.  She would have been beaten and her children would most likely have been punished also.  She couldn't have taken her children with her either because it would have been too hard to hide herself and her children.  It was safer for them to stay behind than to be on the run.  Considering her scenario, Jacob's decision to run away by herself was probably the best decision for her children.  It wasn't necessarily lacking bravery either, because to be brave is to do things you are scared of doing.  I'm sure leaving her children behind scared Jacobs to death!  So in a way, I suppose she was brave.

Reverse Psychology In Grammar?

The article we read in class about semicolons really got me thinking about the rights and wrongs in grammar. There are obviously rules that we have to follow when constructing a sentence, without which the sentences would be incorrect. There are also some aspects of grammar that are stylistic, and don't have definite rules to go by. A writer has to choose what kind of sentences he or she will use in his or her writing: simple, complex, compound complex? There are also many differing opinions as to what is stylistically the best way to wright, but none of these can ever be truly chosen as right or wrong because there are no rules defining writing style. According to the article, Kurt Vonnegut has a very strong opinion against semicolons. There is nothing wrong with semicolons, but he vehemently opposes them! The writer of the article first agrees with Vonnegut's position because he idolizes him, but then comes to love semicolons. What I wonder is, was it the author's reading of William James that caused his change of heart toward semicolons, or reverse psychology? Everyone has experienced some situation where someone tells you not to do something, but that only makes you want to do it more! That is the essence of reverse psychology. I have experienced this specifically on the subject of using passive voice in writing. Most English teachers tell students not to use passive voice because it is less direct and lacks emphasis, but I like the way passive voice sounds. When my teacher told me last year that we should stay away from passive voice, it made me want to use it all the time! I think this kind of opinionated command is especially effective in making one want to rebel against it because there's not actually a rule against it! Both passive voice and semicolons are grammatically acceptable, so being told you shouldn't use them makes you want to use them even more just because you can! At least, that's how I feel, and possibly how Ben Dolnick felt about semicolons, even if he didn't know it.

Who's the Real Criminal, Chillingworth of Dimmsdale?

The seminar in class brought up the argument of who was worse because of his actions, Chillingworth or Dimmsdale? Chillingworth is obviously a bad person who lies constantly and is very manipulative, whereas Dimmsdale is an honest man--and a priest--who makes one mistake and has to lie to cover it up. Chillingworth feels no remorse for what he has done, but guilt is almost literally draining the life out of Dimmsdale. So who is more at fault? Chillingworth may have committed more sins than Dimmsdale, but it is more expected of Dimmsdale to be perfect. This situation reminds me of The Crucible. It reminds me of Abigail Williams and Proctor. Abigail lied and manipulated everyone and was purely evil, but Proctor was a good man who only made one mistake (which happened to be adultery, just like Dimmsdale!). In The Crucible, it was obvious that Abigail was evil and Proctor is a good person, but Proctor ended up dying for his mistake while Abigail got away. Does that mean that it's worse for a good person to do one bad thing than for a bad person--who has already done many bad things--to do one more? It's expected of a bad person to do bad things, but when a good person does something bad, it seems to be more severe of an offense. So basically, the message here is that it's ok for bad people to do bad things because that's who they are, but good people can't do bad things because they are supposed to be good. Everyone makes mistakes, so giving people who do a lot of bad things a break while punishing the people who never do bad things seems a little backwards to me!

Civil Disobedience: Is it Wisdom or plain Disobedience?

Henry David Thoreau's Civil Disobedience was very influential to people such as Martin Luther King Jr. and Gandhi, both of whom were revolutionary leaders.  It basically said that, if you think a law is unfair, then you should not follow it.  Of course, there have been laws in history that were unfair, like segregations laws and--to go back even further--slavery.  However, not every law the government makes is unfair.  In fact, most laws are very helpful and are made for a reason.  So what Thoreau is suggesting is, whenever a person feels a law is unfair, they should simply not follow it.  That could cause some major problems.  Imagine this situation in the mind of a teenager who has to follow her parents rules.  Perhaps she has a set curfew that her parents made, but the teenager doesn't find it very fair because she thinks she is responsible enough to be out late.  If this teenager followed Thoreau's advice, she would ignore her parents rules and stay out as late as she wants.  I'm sure we can all see that this would end badly.  Even though this teenager thinks the curfew is unfair to her, she doesn't realize her parents are protecting her from things she doesn't understand, and therefore the curfew is a good thing for her.  If every citizen just decided to not follow any law they thought was unfair, the country would be full of murderers and thiefs and lairs who would justify the crimes they commit by saying the laws aren't fair, and that would just be a mess!   

What's the Point of Pep Talks?

Every type of sport or team activity I can think of uses pep talks as a way to psych up the team before a big game or competition.  Say the Troy High Basketball team is about to play their last game.  Their coach might say something along the lines of, “we’re ready for this”, “We’ve worked all season for this”, “Everyone is here for us, so don’t let them down”, and stuff like that.  But what does that really do for the players?  Even something as simple as a pep talk before a big game contains appeals.  If the coach said, “The other team has lost every game this season, so this will be easy”, he would be using a logical appeal because he used facts or statistics to motivate his team.  A coach might also use emotional appeals by saying “You know how bad it felt to lose last week!  We’re not going to let that happen again!”  This would inspire the team by stirring the emotions of the players.  Thomas Paine’s The Crisis is basically one big pep talk to the American Army.  They had been doing not so well in the war at this point, and Paine’s essay motivated them to keep fighting by using appeals like “The harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph”, which inspires the men to fight for that glory.  Appeals can be found in almost anything that tries to persuade or motivate its audience, even things you wouldn’t expect like everyday conversations!

 

Why do the Liars Always Win?

             In every movie, book, or TV show there’s always an antagonist to oppose the protagonist.  That antagonist is usually the villain who causes trouble for the hero, and usually that trouble is caused by lies and deception.  The liars in any situation always seem to get away with whatever they’ve done, while the honest people take the heat.  If two people cheat on a test, one person might lie and say they never copied off of anyone and the teacher would believe them.  Then the other person might tell the truth and say they did cheat and they would get punished.  In situations like this, it’s more beneficial to lie than it is to tell the truth, which is why lying is so tempting and doing the right thing to telling the truth can be so hard.  In The Crucible, the entire conflict in the story sprouts from the lies of one person—Abigail Williams.  All the townspeople take her word whenever she accuses someone of witchcraft, but when Proctor and Hale try to suggest she lied, they are shot down.  As the audience, we know that Abigail is lying and that none of the accused are actually guilty, but none of the characters seem to see it that way.  When Elizabeth Proctor tells the first lie of her life to protect her husband’s reputation, it ends up sending them both to their doom.  In a lot of stories, the truth comes out in the end and the good guys win and live happily ever after, but that’s not so realistic.  In real life, the liars get away with a lot while the honest people suffer, which is exactly what happens to Proctor in The Crucible.  The play is a sad but true example of how the world works. 

Modern Day “Witchcraft” Hysteria

                When Arthur Miller wrote The Crucible, he was inspired by the Red Scare of the 1950s.  That was one example of modern day witchcraft hysteria, minus about 60 years.  During the Red Scare government officials accused anyone and everyone of being communist.  The accusations became illogical and frankly, ridiculous, just like the accusations of witchcraft in The Crucible became a frenzy of “he said-she said”.  There are even more recent examples of this mass hysteria in history, and even some that are still going on today.

                Ever since the terrorist attacks on September 11^th, a new stereotype has been placed on people of Middle Eastern and Indian descent: terrorist.  The hysteria has calmed down a bit since then, but in the years following 9/11, almost all Middle Eastern people were cast out of society and suspected by others as terrorists, even though hardly any were.  They were discriminated against at air ports, among other places, because supposedly they were all suicide bombers who wanted to blow up America.  Of course, this was completely untrue for the majority of the population, but people still felt this way toward this specific group of people.  Accusations of being a terrorist became completely impulsive with no proof whatsoever.  This is what Arthur Miller depicts in The Crucible.  

Different Perceptions of God

                I found it very interesting how, in different colonial reading assignments we read, the perception of God can be so different.  In “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God” by Jonathan Edwards, God is portrayed as a merciless force of wrath who will easily send any sinner to hell without a second thought.  Then there’s Anne Bradstreet, who writes about a loving God that can be trusted.  These two ideas are very conflicting, but they were both believed by many back when these works were written.  The question is, which idea is believed today?

                I’m a Christian, so I know a bit about the bible and such.  Every Christian knows that if one sins, he or she must either ask for forgiveness from God or be punished.  The stories in the bible show God as being very harsh when dealing with punishment.  Often, if a man did something wrong, God would kill him and his whole family.  However, we as people today don’t seem to think that God will do something so drastic.  Christians know they must ask for forgiveness when they sin, but they don’t believe they will be sent to hell for petty sins.  That, however, is exactly the message Jonathan Edwards tried to convey in his sermon, and his audience believed it.  So why have Christians turned their backs on the idea of a harsh God?  I believe people today can’t handle the thought of a harsh God.  People have grown too soft in the idea of punishment.  They refuse to believe that God is merciless because they know that, if God were as cruel as he was portrayed in works like “Sinners in the hands of an Angry God”, they would all be guilty of some sin and be sent to hell.  Most people just can’t live with that.

 

The Relationship between Myth and History

                Whenever I hear the word Myth, I think of Greek Mythology.  The myths about Zeus and all the other Greek Gods are probably the most well-known myths in the world.  Although we haven’t studied any Greek myths in class, Native American myths and creation stories serve the same purpose:  to explain the history of a certain group of people.  I believe myths are created not only to explain creation, but also as a history for ancient civilizations, like the Greek and the Native Americans, who had no other explanation for their existence. 

                In class we read “The World on the Turtle’s Back”, which was a creation myth written by the Iroquois.  It explained creation, but it also served as a history for the Iroquois, explaining were and from whom they came from.  The same is true in “The Way to Rainy Mountain” by Scott Momaday.  This piece was written by one person, which means it’s not a real myth, but it explains the history of the Kiowa tribe.  In parts, it sounds like a history book, but in other parts it sounds like a myth.  This is an example of why myth is another form of history.       

I actually figured out how to do this!  I don't really know much about blogs and I didn't know what to name mine, so I decided on Finding the Words.  That's what English is all about right?  Well, this year, I hope to learn how to always find the right words to say exactly what I mean, whether it's in an essay or in real life.