Othello by Shakespeare
Oh, Othello! You frustrate me so much!
This story, for those of you who haven't read it, touches on the idea of race first of all. In fact, race plays a fairly big role. But the lesson I took away from this book was not about race. The thing that stood out most to me was Iago's ability to manipulate people and Desdemona's inability to prove herself innocent. Of all the people in the story Desdemona is who I felt most sorry for. Iago's lies got to Othello. He spread them through Rodrigo and Cassio and really covered his tracks.
Maybe this was just me being naive, but I feel like Othello should have at least let Desdemona talk.
I think that, even though kids know Shakespeare as "some old, dead guy" that they're forced to read (usually multiple times), his stories still have a lesson to teach. In the case of Othello maybe it's that seeking revenge isn't worth it. Or maybe it's that you should be weary of the trust you put in people's gossip. Or that you should trust your heart.
No matter which lesson you pick up on, I think that we all walk away from this play with some lesson we can use in life.
Wednesday, December 28, 2011
Thirteen Reasons Why
Thirteen Reasons Why is Jay Asher's first novel. I don't remember where I first heard about this book, but when I saw it at a book fair a few weeks ago I knew that I needed to add it to my collection.
My roommate actually read it a couple of weeks ago and at ten one night she started texting me. This wouldn't be so abnormal except that Katie is usually ready for bed by then. She told me that she'd gotten the book at work (I had been talking about reading it and she works at Barnes & Nobles). She was still 100 pages from the end and it was intense. So what's it about?
Hannah Baker committed suited, and now Clay is hearing her story. He receives a shoebox in the mail containing seven tapes, each side marked with a blue number, 1-13, the last side blank. Each side tells the story of a person who somehow contributed to the downward spiral of Hannah's life and her ultimate decision. The instructions given: listen to the tapes, then rewind them and pass them on to the next person on the list. If the instructions aren't followed a second set of tapes will be leaked to the public, if they are then the secret stays with those involved.
There were parts of this book that were really hard to read, and the whole idea of why she made the list in the first place was enough to put my stomach in knots. But that being said, I think that this is a book that people should definitely read. It's one of those books that really makes you think. Many of the people on the list knew that they were in some way causing Hannah harm, but not all of them did. Some of them thought that what they did was funny, some of them thought it was a joke, and much of it revolved around a reputation...a reputation that was given to Hannah because of rumors. I think that in high school rumors become part of everyday life, and kids don't always know what is or isn't true, but they continue to pass on what they've heard. Not only that, but even those stories that are true often get twisted around until they no longer are and probably should have never been shared in the first place. When I finished the book last night I text my roommate to tell her. I think that, emotionally, it effected her even more so than me because she has had to deal with many suicides and attempts from people she was/is close to.
As we talked about the book I said that I could see it being a good book for high school students to read. It would probably be very controversial to teach because of the sensitivity of the subjects it covers, not only suicide, but rape as well. I think that there would certainly be merit to teaching it, and if I don't ever teach it I do plan acquire another copy of it and have both of my copies available in my classroom library.
So to wrap this post up, I would like to encourage you to check out the books website, http://www.thirteenreasonswhy.com/ I recommend looking at the 13RW project (the link on the far right at the top).
My roommate actually read it a couple of weeks ago and at ten one night she started texting me. This wouldn't be so abnormal except that Katie is usually ready for bed by then. She told me that she'd gotten the book at work (I had been talking about reading it and she works at Barnes & Nobles). She was still 100 pages from the end and it was intense. So what's it about?
Hannah Baker committed suited, and now Clay is hearing her story. He receives a shoebox in the mail containing seven tapes, each side marked with a blue number, 1-13, the last side blank. Each side tells the story of a person who somehow contributed to the downward spiral of Hannah's life and her ultimate decision. The instructions given: listen to the tapes, then rewind them and pass them on to the next person on the list. If the instructions aren't followed a second set of tapes will be leaked to the public, if they are then the secret stays with those involved.
There were parts of this book that were really hard to read, and the whole idea of why she made the list in the first place was enough to put my stomach in knots. But that being said, I think that this is a book that people should definitely read. It's one of those books that really makes you think. Many of the people on the list knew that they were in some way causing Hannah harm, but not all of them did. Some of them thought that what they did was funny, some of them thought it was a joke, and much of it revolved around a reputation...a reputation that was given to Hannah because of rumors. I think that in high school rumors become part of everyday life, and kids don't always know what is or isn't true, but they continue to pass on what they've heard. Not only that, but even those stories that are true often get twisted around until they no longer are and probably should have never been shared in the first place. When I finished the book last night I text my roommate to tell her. I think that, emotionally, it effected her even more so than me because she has had to deal with many suicides and attempts from people she was/is close to.
As we talked about the book I said that I could see it being a good book for high school students to read. It would probably be very controversial to teach because of the sensitivity of the subjects it covers, not only suicide, but rape as well. I think that there would certainly be merit to teaching it, and if I don't ever teach it I do plan acquire another copy of it and have both of my copies available in my classroom library.
So to wrap this post up, I would like to encourage you to check out the books website, http://www.thirteenreasonswhy.com/ I recommend looking at the 13RW project (the link on the far right at the top).
Thursday, December 22, 2011
A Midsummer Nights Dream
Oh boy! Okay, I don't usually mind Shakespeare. I think he was a pretty great story teller and I really enjoy some of his works. But I just had to read A Midsummer Nights Dream in preparation for student-teaching, and I have to admit that I'm not looking forward to teaching this one. I'm looking for ways to spice it up right now, but honestly, this was not (by any means) one of my favorite books. I understood what was happening, and the part with the Fairy King and Queen in the woods and all of the magic and confusion about who-loves-who and all that was exciting, but otherwise I thought this one was pretty boring. Sorry, Shakespeare, not your best play, but I guess I'll be teaching it anyway (since I don't have a choice)! We'll see how it goes!
Thursday, December 15, 2011
Of Mice and Men
Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck
This story was very complex. Not only does it bring up the idea of justice (with the murder of Lennie), but it brings up gender roles (all of the women mentioned in this story besides Aunt Clara are whores or presumed whores as is the case with Curley's wife) and it brings up the treatment of people who have special needs.
In terms of justice, I don't think there really is any true justice. No matter what George had done they wouldn't have been able to run and hide forever, and if they'd stayed Lennie would have ended up dead either way. Not only that, but there is also the underlying idea that letting Lennie run free with George (if they had run away) would put society in general in harms way because there is no telling whether or not Lennie might have done this again. If Lennie had realized what he was doing when he had done it, or learned from past events that might have been one thing, but Lennie had continually had the same problem with not knowing his own strength and accidentally killing things (the mice, the puppy, and then Curley's wife). What if he ran into a situation like with the little girl in Weeds again? Would he kill her if George wasn't there to stop him? There really is no way to bring justice for everyone (Curley's wife, Curley, society, and Lennie). George believes that ethically he is doing what he has to do because he is killing Lennie in a way that he isn't feeling any pain, and is calm because he doesn't know what's happening. If Curley had gotten a hold of Lennie he would have had him all riled up and been cursing at him and Lennie would have seen the gun pointed at him and been scared and maybe even confused. While there is not real answer to whether it was right for George to kill Lennie, I can see why he did it. I don't think I could have done it if I were in his position, but I think that it took a lot of courage on George's part to do that, especially in light of the relationship that he and Lennie had.
I think that a feminist reading of this text would be really interesting. If you look at the female characters who are mentioned in this book, only Aunt Clara is seen as a "decent" person. The other women are all "tarts" or "whores". In the case of Curley's wife this a negative thing, because she's married. It's interesting that when it comes to the women who own or work in the "cat houses" they are repeatedly referred to as whores, but the girls at Susy's are still seen as better than the other girls (52). These women are purposely allowing men to use their bodies for pleasure. Curley's wife is doing so in much the same way, standing in the doorways in postures which purposefully show of her legs and pushing her body forward to show it off. While the other men realize what she's doing, Lennie doesn't understand it. He stares at her, dumbfounded by her beauty and falling into her trap as she shows it all off.
Even though Aunt Clara is not a whore, in fact, Lennie and George often talk about what a good person she was, she's also not a very strong nor a very prominent character in this book. The only real descriptions we get of her are as a motherly figure to Lennie because she has taken care of him since he was young. A feminist would argue that this book not only portrays women in a negative light, but it seems to encourage it with the constant talk of whore houses? The only time that going to a whore house is ever shown in a negative light (other than the discussion of Susy's being better than the other place) is when George and Lennie are talking about being different from everyone else. They avoid spending their money on alcohol and women because they have a dream in mind, but the fact that their dream is never realized and the George realizes at the end that without Lennie he is just like everyone else makes it seem like he has succumbed to the idea that it is the way men like him are supposed to live because they can't actually do any better than that.
The third big topic that this book brought to my mind was the treatment of people with special needs. As I was reading Of Mice and Men two other books kept coming to mind. The first was The Green Mile. (Yes, I actually took the time to read the book even though I'd seen the movie. Long book, but better than the movie I think.) I think that this book came to mind for two reasons. The first was that I kept picturing Lennie as John Coffey. Lennie was white, which would have changed the outlook of him since we see how blacks are treated in this book through the portrayal of Crooks, but they also have a lot of similarities. They were both big and strong. They neither one had a place that they really belonged and floated from place to place to find work. After this the similarities pretty much stop, but I think that the fact that they're both large plays into this idea of the way they are treated. John is never known to be have any sort of disability, but he does talk a little slower than the other characters (at least in the movie version) which gives the impression that he might have had one. The other book this one continually reminded me of was The Man Who Loved Clowns. In the book Punky Holloway is a thirty-five year old man with Down's Syndrome, and throughout the novel we see his interactions with his fifteen year old niece. Many people make rude comments about Punky both to him and behind his back. While we don't really see people talking about Lennie much while he's not around we do see that people are constantly calling him "dumb" while he's around, even George talks about him in this way. Both Punky and Lennie are very child-like, and other people don't seem to understand this and it takes them some convincing to accept it. For example, in Lennie's case George believes that in order for people to accept him they must see him work before they realize that he "ain't bright" (22). George is comparable to the niece in the other story. She helps take care of her uncle and finds herself protecting him against other people who make fun of his disability or who are scared of the way he acts. The treatment of mental disabilities in this novel is interesting because even the character who most stands up for Lennie, George, doesn't always treat him with the most respect in terms of the way he talks to him. They almost seem to have a brotherly relationship, which often means name calling and fits of anger on George's part when Lennie messes up, but also means love and care and protection from the cruelty and discrimination of others.
This story was very complex. Not only does it bring up the idea of justice (with the murder of Lennie), but it brings up gender roles (all of the women mentioned in this story besides Aunt Clara are whores or presumed whores as is the case with Curley's wife) and it brings up the treatment of people who have special needs.
In terms of justice, I don't think there really is any true justice. No matter what George had done they wouldn't have been able to run and hide forever, and if they'd stayed Lennie would have ended up dead either way. Not only that, but there is also the underlying idea that letting Lennie run free with George (if they had run away) would put society in general in harms way because there is no telling whether or not Lennie might have done this again. If Lennie had realized what he was doing when he had done it, or learned from past events that might have been one thing, but Lennie had continually had the same problem with not knowing his own strength and accidentally killing things (the mice, the puppy, and then Curley's wife). What if he ran into a situation like with the little girl in Weeds again? Would he kill her if George wasn't there to stop him? There really is no way to bring justice for everyone (Curley's wife, Curley, society, and Lennie). George believes that ethically he is doing what he has to do because he is killing Lennie in a way that he isn't feeling any pain, and is calm because he doesn't know what's happening. If Curley had gotten a hold of Lennie he would have had him all riled up and been cursing at him and Lennie would have seen the gun pointed at him and been scared and maybe even confused. While there is not real answer to whether it was right for George to kill Lennie, I can see why he did it. I don't think I could have done it if I were in his position, but I think that it took a lot of courage on George's part to do that, especially in light of the relationship that he and Lennie had.
I think that a feminist reading of this text would be really interesting. If you look at the female characters who are mentioned in this book, only Aunt Clara is seen as a "decent" person. The other women are all "tarts" or "whores". In the case of Curley's wife this a negative thing, because she's married. It's interesting that when it comes to the women who own or work in the "cat houses" they are repeatedly referred to as whores, but the girls at Susy's are still seen as better than the other girls (52). These women are purposely allowing men to use their bodies for pleasure. Curley's wife is doing so in much the same way, standing in the doorways in postures which purposefully show of her legs and pushing her body forward to show it off. While the other men realize what she's doing, Lennie doesn't understand it. He stares at her, dumbfounded by her beauty and falling into her trap as she shows it all off.
Even though Aunt Clara is not a whore, in fact, Lennie and George often talk about what a good person she was, she's also not a very strong nor a very prominent character in this book. The only real descriptions we get of her are as a motherly figure to Lennie because she has taken care of him since he was young. A feminist would argue that this book not only portrays women in a negative light, but it seems to encourage it with the constant talk of whore houses? The only time that going to a whore house is ever shown in a negative light (other than the discussion of Susy's being better than the other place) is when George and Lennie are talking about being different from everyone else. They avoid spending their money on alcohol and women because they have a dream in mind, but the fact that their dream is never realized and the George realizes at the end that without Lennie he is just like everyone else makes it seem like he has succumbed to the idea that it is the way men like him are supposed to live because they can't actually do any better than that.
The third big topic that this book brought to my mind was the treatment of people with special needs. As I was reading Of Mice and Men two other books kept coming to mind. The first was The Green Mile. (Yes, I actually took the time to read the book even though I'd seen the movie. Long book, but better than the movie I think.) I think that this book came to mind for two reasons. The first was that I kept picturing Lennie as John Coffey. Lennie was white, which would have changed the outlook of him since we see how blacks are treated in this book through the portrayal of Crooks, but they also have a lot of similarities. They were both big and strong. They neither one had a place that they really belonged and floated from place to place to find work. After this the similarities pretty much stop, but I think that the fact that they're both large plays into this idea of the way they are treated. John is never known to be have any sort of disability, but he does talk a little slower than the other characters (at least in the movie version) which gives the impression that he might have had one. The other book this one continually reminded me of was The Man Who Loved Clowns. In the book Punky Holloway is a thirty-five year old man with Down's Syndrome, and throughout the novel we see his interactions with his fifteen year old niece. Many people make rude comments about Punky both to him and behind his back. While we don't really see people talking about Lennie much while he's not around we do see that people are constantly calling him "dumb" while he's around, even George talks about him in this way. Both Punky and Lennie are very child-like, and other people don't seem to understand this and it takes them some convincing to accept it. For example, in Lennie's case George believes that in order for people to accept him they must see him work before they realize that he "ain't bright" (22). George is comparable to the niece in the other story. She helps take care of her uncle and finds herself protecting him against other people who make fun of his disability or who are scared of the way he acts. The treatment of mental disabilities in this novel is interesting because even the character who most stands up for Lennie, George, doesn't always treat him with the most respect in terms of the way he talks to him. They almost seem to have a brotherly relationship, which often means name calling and fits of anger on George's part when Lennie messes up, but also means love and care and protection from the cruelty and discrimination of others.
Stargirl
Stargirl by Jerry Spinelli
Why is society so afraid of "different"? And why are we so afraid of each other? I feel like these were the questions that kept coming up for me as I read Stargirl. Stargirl's popularity goes from low to high and then back down, but in the end we see that she is celebrated. I felt like it wasn't that they just "didn't like" her differences, but that they were scared of them. Stargirl did things that were unheard of, but they weren't bad things. She didn't do anything that harmed anyone else (although the basketball team might disagree with that) and she didn't do anything that put anyone else down or tried to make them feel inferior. Why is it that when she tried to show friendship and support she was shut down? Why were these things looked down upon?
The two most prominent instances of this were the funeral she attended for the one girls grandfather and the bike that she bought for the little boy (43-47). She wanted to show friendship. She wanted to support people. It wasn't as though she had to be really snoopy about it to find out these things either. She didn't sneak around people's houses and read through their mail to find out what was going on in their lives and what she might be able to do for them, she simply paid attention. Not only did she watch people (like at the mall) but she paid attention to the newspaper. Almost everyone has some kind of access to the newspaper at least weekly if not daily, but how many people take the time to read the filler stories, the stories that give us just a little insight into someone else's life? How do we read the paper when we read it? I know for me I go for the comics first, and then I flip through and look at the headlines and the accompanying photos to see what articles I want to read. As I thought about the little fillers that Stargirl talks about I realized that I don't think I've hardly ever read these. They aren't very big and with all of the other words and images that fill the page they get lost. They're not something you find if you're not looking for them, and we're so wrapped up in what's going on in our own lives and the larger things that will affect us that we don't pay attention to the little things that are happening in others lives. We seem scared of other people almost. We're scared to let them into our lives, and we're scared to get too close to theirs. Granted, things happened to make this so. Kidnapping happened. Murder happened. Rape happened. People were given reasons not to trust each other, and through this it because easier to trust no one than to try to figure out who could and could not be trusted. We isolated ourselves and the few people that we already knew and were close to so that no one could come into our circle unless they were first criticized and scrutinized and determined to be like us. The similarities we shared with them made them "safe."
Stargirl did so many things with other people in mind, and she didn't see them as being wrong or rude, she saw them as helping. She saw them as a way to help other people or to get to know other people. Why not learn about someone else? Why not get to know a stranger? Why not brighten someone else's day? Stargirl starts the scrapbook for the little boy across the street, and drops money for little kids to find. I still remember finding money on the ground as a little kid, and now when I see change on the ground I smile and hope that a little kid will find it. (And, this is the superstition setting in I suppose, but when I see a penny bottom up I kick it or bend down and flip it over, knowing that it will become somebody's lucky charm.) Why don't we do this? It would take little if any effort. Have you ever found a note left in a library book? It instantly brightens your day! Why don't we do this? I know the answer: because we don't think about others as much as we should. Because we focus so much on ourselves and what makes us happy that we forget the little things we can do to make others happy.
Aside from this idea of making others happy there is another big idea that stuck out to me as I read this book. It first came up on page 32 when Archie, Kevin, and Leo are talking about Stargirl. Kevin claims that Stargirl is "Like another species." Archie, thinking this through, responds with "On the contrary, she is one of us. Most decidedly. She is us more than we are us. She is, I think, who we really are. Or were." This quote really made me think. I read it over and over again trying to figure out exactly what it meant. If Stargirl is "who we really are" then how was she me? How was she a me that I no longer was. There are multiple ways to think of this, I guess, but the one that came to mind was that she was growing older but never really "growing up". She was holding onto that child-like sense of adventure and willingness and caring that we're all born with. I thought about my little sister at this point. I remember when she first decided she wanted to dress herself. It didn't matter if her clothes matched, to her it just mattered that they were hers and she had made the decision. It didn't matter if anyone else thought they were cool, it didn't matter that we pointed out that they didn't really "go together." She just didn't care. Not only that, but little kids can sense how people are feeling. Little kids will say "hi" and chatter to just about anyone. It doesn't matter if it's Grandma or cousin John or a stranger, they're just happy to share their own happiness and love for life. Stargirl is the version of us that doesn't care about what others think. She does what she does because it makes her happy and shares her love of life and happiness with others. So what if she changes her name? So what if it's "Pocket Mouse" or "Stargirl." Archie says that "maybe that's how names ought to be, heh? Why be stuck with just one your whole life?" (34). That's kind of how it is with nicknames. I've had multiple nicknames, and as I've changed they have changed too. Granted, mine were never "outrageous" compared to the "standards of society," and they were usually chosen by other people who just decided they wanted to call me something other than "Emily", but why can't we do that for ourselves? Why can't we decide we feel like being "Stella" or "Sunflower" or "Stargirl" for a while? Even as the kids at the school start to be more like Stargirl they're not really being themselves, they're being Stargirl wanna-bes (40). They are taking on not who they are but who she is and in doing so are still contradicting what she stands for.
I think if I were to teach this book I would pose the question "Who defines normal?" because I kept writing this in my margins over and over again as I was reading this book. Normal was defined by "society," but different societies see normal differently, so who decided before it became popular? I suppose it has something to do with power? But what if "being normal" meant being different? Being yourself? What if do be considered "normal" you couldn't be a copy of someone else, but rather, you had to prove yourself unique? Would this make a difference? How would it change the way we look at the world? How would it change the way we look at other people? Would we begin to look at other people more? Would we celebrate their uniqueness? Or would we focus on our own and ignore other people all together?
Why is society so afraid of "different"? And why are we so afraid of each other? I feel like these were the questions that kept coming up for me as I read Stargirl. Stargirl's popularity goes from low to high and then back down, but in the end we see that she is celebrated. I felt like it wasn't that they just "didn't like" her differences, but that they were scared of them. Stargirl did things that were unheard of, but they weren't bad things. She didn't do anything that harmed anyone else (although the basketball team might disagree with that) and she didn't do anything that put anyone else down or tried to make them feel inferior. Why is it that when she tried to show friendship and support she was shut down? Why were these things looked down upon?
The two most prominent instances of this were the funeral she attended for the one girls grandfather and the bike that she bought for the little boy (43-47). She wanted to show friendship. She wanted to support people. It wasn't as though she had to be really snoopy about it to find out these things either. She didn't sneak around people's houses and read through their mail to find out what was going on in their lives and what she might be able to do for them, she simply paid attention. Not only did she watch people (like at the mall) but she paid attention to the newspaper. Almost everyone has some kind of access to the newspaper at least weekly if not daily, but how many people take the time to read the filler stories, the stories that give us just a little insight into someone else's life? How do we read the paper when we read it? I know for me I go for the comics first, and then I flip through and look at the headlines and the accompanying photos to see what articles I want to read. As I thought about the little fillers that Stargirl talks about I realized that I don't think I've hardly ever read these. They aren't very big and with all of the other words and images that fill the page they get lost. They're not something you find if you're not looking for them, and we're so wrapped up in what's going on in our own lives and the larger things that will affect us that we don't pay attention to the little things that are happening in others lives. We seem scared of other people almost. We're scared to let them into our lives, and we're scared to get too close to theirs. Granted, things happened to make this so. Kidnapping happened. Murder happened. Rape happened. People were given reasons not to trust each other, and through this it because easier to trust no one than to try to figure out who could and could not be trusted. We isolated ourselves and the few people that we already knew and were close to so that no one could come into our circle unless they were first criticized and scrutinized and determined to be like us. The similarities we shared with them made them "safe."
Stargirl did so many things with other people in mind, and she didn't see them as being wrong or rude, she saw them as helping. She saw them as a way to help other people or to get to know other people. Why not learn about someone else? Why not get to know a stranger? Why not brighten someone else's day? Stargirl starts the scrapbook for the little boy across the street, and drops money for little kids to find. I still remember finding money on the ground as a little kid, and now when I see change on the ground I smile and hope that a little kid will find it. (And, this is the superstition setting in I suppose, but when I see a penny bottom up I kick it or bend down and flip it over, knowing that it will become somebody's lucky charm.) Why don't we do this? It would take little if any effort. Have you ever found a note left in a library book? It instantly brightens your day! Why don't we do this? I know the answer: because we don't think about others as much as we should. Because we focus so much on ourselves and what makes us happy that we forget the little things we can do to make others happy.
Aside from this idea of making others happy there is another big idea that stuck out to me as I read this book. It first came up on page 32 when Archie, Kevin, and Leo are talking about Stargirl. Kevin claims that Stargirl is "Like another species." Archie, thinking this through, responds with "On the contrary, she is one of us. Most decidedly. She is us more than we are us. She is, I think, who we really are. Or were." This quote really made me think. I read it over and over again trying to figure out exactly what it meant. If Stargirl is "who we really are" then how was she me? How was she a me that I no longer was. There are multiple ways to think of this, I guess, but the one that came to mind was that she was growing older but never really "growing up". She was holding onto that child-like sense of adventure and willingness and caring that we're all born with. I thought about my little sister at this point. I remember when she first decided she wanted to dress herself. It didn't matter if her clothes matched, to her it just mattered that they were hers and she had made the decision. It didn't matter if anyone else thought they were cool, it didn't matter that we pointed out that they didn't really "go together." She just didn't care. Not only that, but little kids can sense how people are feeling. Little kids will say "hi" and chatter to just about anyone. It doesn't matter if it's Grandma or cousin John or a stranger, they're just happy to share their own happiness and love for life. Stargirl is the version of us that doesn't care about what others think. She does what she does because it makes her happy and shares her love of life and happiness with others. So what if she changes her name? So what if it's "Pocket Mouse" or "Stargirl." Archie says that "maybe that's how names ought to be, heh? Why be stuck with just one your whole life?" (34). That's kind of how it is with nicknames. I've had multiple nicknames, and as I've changed they have changed too. Granted, mine were never "outrageous" compared to the "standards of society," and they were usually chosen by other people who just decided they wanted to call me something other than "Emily", but why can't we do that for ourselves? Why can't we decide we feel like being "Stella" or "Sunflower" or "Stargirl" for a while? Even as the kids at the school start to be more like Stargirl they're not really being themselves, they're being Stargirl wanna-bes (40). They are taking on not who they are but who she is and in doing so are still contradicting what she stands for.
I think if I were to teach this book I would pose the question "Who defines normal?" because I kept writing this in my margins over and over again as I was reading this book. Normal was defined by "society," but different societies see normal differently, so who decided before it became popular? I suppose it has something to do with power? But what if "being normal" meant being different? Being yourself? What if do be considered "normal" you couldn't be a copy of someone else, but rather, you had to prove yourself unique? Would this make a difference? How would it change the way we look at the world? How would it change the way we look at other people? Would we begin to look at other people more? Would we celebrate their uniqueness? Or would we focus on our own and ignore other people all together?
Speak
Speak by Laura Hulse Anderson
One of the things that really captivated my attention in this book were the connections that were made to other works of literature, other forms of media, and things like art that I knew about and could connect to Melinda. The two references that struck me the most were The Scarlet Letter and Picasso (100 & 118). I didn't read The Scarlet Letter until last year. I felt silly not ever having read it (especially as an English major) and when I finally got around to it I loved it. I think that connections Melinda makes with Hester really show the reader how she's feeling. In the book Hester is silent as well, her voice taken away from her when she is found to be pregnant and given the "A" to wear. Melinda feels like she may as well be wearing a letter as well. She says that she would be wearing an "S"..."for silent, for stupid, for scared. S for silly. For shame." This really struck me. Hester's A stands for adultery. It is a negative symbol. It sets her apart from everyone else, and yet it does nothing to punish the other person involved. Not only that, but Hester protects the preacher. She has the chance to say who the child's father is but she chooses to stay silent, just as Melinda has. She protects the preacher because he was a good man and because the community respects him. While Melinda knows that Andy is not a good man, he is one of the "popular kids" so by pointing fingers at him and telling her secret she is afraid she would still become even more of an outcast and that no one would believe her. When we look at the words Melinda associates with the S she is putting on herself it is all about blaming herself. It's not only what she's done but it's how she's felt: scared, silly, shame. I think that many of these same words could have belonged to Hester as well.
Reading The Scarlet Letter and then reading these pages of Speak really made me think about this idea of carrying around guilt. I think that, in a way, we all have our own letters that we wear. We all hide our own secrets, no matter how big or how small. And if you stop and think about it, why do we keep secrets? Sometimes it's to protect ourselves, and sometimes it's to protect others, but what are we protecting them from? Isn't keeping secrets really all about other people? We already know the secret, it's not about what we think and feel about it, but how we think other people will perceive it. If we trust a friend we may share our secret with them, it's because we're no longer afraid (or as afraid) of how they will react, but we still don't want our enemies to have ammunition against us, and we still don't want ridiculed by society, so we keep them held within us for as long as possible. Reading this story I kept seeing moments when Melinda could have told somebody. She could have told Heather, or Ivy, or Mr. Freeman, or any number of people...but she didn't, she held it all in. As I read there was a voice in the back of my head that kept screaming "JUST TELL SOMEBODY ALREADY!" But I knew that she wouldn't...not yet...not until something big happened, something that forced her to tell. Because in truth that's how I am, and that's how most people are. If it were anyone else's secret they probably would have reacted the same way. That's a sad thing to say, especially when you know, as I do, people who have had this happen to them and who have been afraid to tell anybody. I know a girl who is not a senior in college, who was raped at a party when she was in high school. Her best friend (at the time) was there and knew what was happening but didn't help. Her parents didn't ever know, and when she was diagnosed with an STD she didn't tell her parents about it either, she let them assume and point fingers at her. She let them think that it was her fault, that she had slept with this guy or that...regardless of the fact that she has never willingly slept with a guy. The secret is kept out of fear. The secret is kept because she doesn't want to point fingers at someone whom her parents know, who actually lives just down the street from where her parents now live. She doesn't know how they will react, if they will still simply say it's her fault for being at a party she never should have been at, so she just keeps quiet.
I think that the major part of this comes from a lack of understanding and education. It was mentioned in one of the forum posts that there is little sex education presented in general, but even less (if any at all) about self-defense and prevention of assault and rape. Not only that but society has put a stigma on it that makes people think they can't come forward when it does happen. Girls in movies who get assault are represented in one of two ways: either they're weak and crying, or they're wearing short skirts and tons of make-up. Neither of these in any way should say to people that "they were asking of it" or "they deserved it" as is sometime heard, but I think people are also afraid that because this is the portrayal and because these things are said they don't want to be associated with them. (I found it interesting and somewhat empowering to finally read a book where this wasn't the case. Steig Larson's character in The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo is thrown into this situation but takes a very different approach. While it seems almost uncharacteristic according to how society portrays women, it should be what we are teaching our girls about how to deal with these situations. It may not have been a solution available to everyone, but the idea of a more aggressive reaction is the lesson taken from this.) We need to find a way to teach everyone (because I realize that it's not just girls that deal with this) not only how to talk about this and who to talk to if the situation should occur, but how to prevent the situation from happening. I think that education and support are the key to helping solve this problem.
One of the things that really captivated my attention in this book were the connections that were made to other works of literature, other forms of media, and things like art that I knew about and could connect to Melinda. The two references that struck me the most were The Scarlet Letter and Picasso (100 & 118). I didn't read The Scarlet Letter until last year. I felt silly not ever having read it (especially as an English major) and when I finally got around to it I loved it. I think that connections Melinda makes with Hester really show the reader how she's feeling. In the book Hester is silent as well, her voice taken away from her when she is found to be pregnant and given the "A" to wear. Melinda feels like she may as well be wearing a letter as well. She says that she would be wearing an "S"..."for silent, for stupid, for scared. S for silly. For shame." This really struck me. Hester's A stands for adultery. It is a negative symbol. It sets her apart from everyone else, and yet it does nothing to punish the other person involved. Not only that, but Hester protects the preacher. She has the chance to say who the child's father is but she chooses to stay silent, just as Melinda has. She protects the preacher because he was a good man and because the community respects him. While Melinda knows that Andy is not a good man, he is one of the "popular kids" so by pointing fingers at him and telling her secret she is afraid she would still become even more of an outcast and that no one would believe her. When we look at the words Melinda associates with the S she is putting on herself it is all about blaming herself. It's not only what she's done but it's how she's felt: scared, silly, shame. I think that many of these same words could have belonged to Hester as well.
Reading The Scarlet Letter and then reading these pages of Speak really made me think about this idea of carrying around guilt. I think that, in a way, we all have our own letters that we wear. We all hide our own secrets, no matter how big or how small. And if you stop and think about it, why do we keep secrets? Sometimes it's to protect ourselves, and sometimes it's to protect others, but what are we protecting them from? Isn't keeping secrets really all about other people? We already know the secret, it's not about what we think and feel about it, but how we think other people will perceive it. If we trust a friend we may share our secret with them, it's because we're no longer afraid (or as afraid) of how they will react, but we still don't want our enemies to have ammunition against us, and we still don't want ridiculed by society, so we keep them held within us for as long as possible. Reading this story I kept seeing moments when Melinda could have told somebody. She could have told Heather, or Ivy, or Mr. Freeman, or any number of people...but she didn't, she held it all in. As I read there was a voice in the back of my head that kept screaming "JUST TELL SOMEBODY ALREADY!" But I knew that she wouldn't...not yet...not until something big happened, something that forced her to tell. Because in truth that's how I am, and that's how most people are. If it were anyone else's secret they probably would have reacted the same way. That's a sad thing to say, especially when you know, as I do, people who have had this happen to them and who have been afraid to tell anybody. I know a girl who is not a senior in college, who was raped at a party when she was in high school. Her best friend (at the time) was there and knew what was happening but didn't help. Her parents didn't ever know, and when she was diagnosed with an STD she didn't tell her parents about it either, she let them assume and point fingers at her. She let them think that it was her fault, that she had slept with this guy or that...regardless of the fact that she has never willingly slept with a guy. The secret is kept out of fear. The secret is kept because she doesn't want to point fingers at someone whom her parents know, who actually lives just down the street from where her parents now live. She doesn't know how they will react, if they will still simply say it's her fault for being at a party she never should have been at, so she just keeps quiet.
I think that the major part of this comes from a lack of understanding and education. It was mentioned in one of the forum posts that there is little sex education presented in general, but even less (if any at all) about self-defense and prevention of assault and rape. Not only that but society has put a stigma on it that makes people think they can't come forward when it does happen. Girls in movies who get assault are represented in one of two ways: either they're weak and crying, or they're wearing short skirts and tons of make-up. Neither of these in any way should say to people that "they were asking of it" or "they deserved it" as is sometime heard, but I think people are also afraid that because this is the portrayal and because these things are said they don't want to be associated with them. (I found it interesting and somewhat empowering to finally read a book where this wasn't the case. Steig Larson's character in The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo is thrown into this situation but takes a very different approach. While it seems almost uncharacteristic according to how society portrays women, it should be what we are teaching our girls about how to deal with these situations. It may not have been a solution available to everyone, but the idea of a more aggressive reaction is the lesson taken from this.) We need to find a way to teach everyone (because I realize that it's not just girls that deal with this) not only how to talk about this and who to talk to if the situation should occur, but how to prevent the situation from happening. I think that education and support are the key to helping solve this problem.
The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian
The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian by Sherman Alexie
I really liked this book, and thought that it specifically fit for junior high and high school aged kids if nothing more than for the fact that they're still trying to figure out who they are and what they want. Heck, I'm still trying to figure out exactly who I am and what I want out of life! I felt like this made Arnold a very easy character to relate to. It's like he's living a split life: he's an Indian by night (and on the weekends) but a...well, for lack of a better phrase "white-man-wannabe" by day. That seems really harsh to say that's what he's trying to be, but I think that in a sense it's what he's doing. He would like to keep a part of his "Indian self", but he knows that if he wants to fit in he has to be more like the other kids he's going to school with, and that means trying to "be white." I think that as we grow up we go through this too. He wants to get out and being something bigger, and I experienced the same thing and still am to an extent.
I grew up in a very small town. (Actually, it was more of a "small community with lots of little towns added together".) It was common to see the older kids graduate and think that they would go out into the world and leave the small town life behind to "make something of themselves" only to end up back in the same small town working a minimum wage job. There were plenty of kids who gave up on college after only a year. There were plenty of kids who didn't even make it through a summer of being away from home before their lack of experience in the world and their fear of something bigger forced them back to their parents homes (or the apartment down the street, or the tiny little house they shared with two or three other friends who had done the same thing).
Growing up I wanted to be a writer. I always wanted to, and I still do. That was my "big dream." I was going to leave my small town behind, move to someplace far away where I could live in the beauty of a wide-open place that would allow me to write. Teaching was also always in the back of my mind, and it came about particularly when I realized that writing probably wasn't going to pay the bills. This was a part of that small town attitude pulling me back in: "You can't really do that. You have to be more realistic. You know how well that will work." But even now I find myself still trying to get out. I want to teach, but I don't want to stay here. My plan has always been to come back to Iowa eventually, but I want to experience something different for a while. I want to teach in Ireland, get a feeling for what it's like to become a part of another culture. I want to teach in L.A. for a while, find out what else there is to this country and our society, see something more than rural farm town schools. Des Moines is the biggest I've seen, and while I've loved the experience I've had there and the differences I have seen between these schools and my own high school, it's still Iowa. It's still the same types of experiences and culture (though more diverse than what I'm used to). I want to see what else is out there. Maybe it's the same. Maybe there really isn't much that's all that different; but that's not something I can know without experiencing it, and that's exactly what I want to do.
Arnold's motives for getting out are a little bit different. He isn't doing it just because he wants to experience more, but because he wants to get out of the cycle that he sees happening over and over again. He doesn't want to become an Indian who is always drunk. He doesn't want to become disconnected from life. In a sense that's what trying to get out of a small town has been for me. The kids who go back, they work, they drink, they work, they drink...that becomes their life. But like Arnold, I've realized that there are some pieces of my past, pieces of my small town, that I want to take with me. Arnold realizes that while he wants to escape the drinking, he wants to keep his sense of family. He learns from his interactions and observances that the parents of the kids at Reardan aren't all that connected to their children. They don't support their children the way the parents on the reservation do. I think that this same thing can be said for a rural life. I know my neighbors, I know most of the people in town (or I did growing up at least) and even the ones that I didn't necessarily know usually knew me and/or my parents. Everyone said hi to everyone whether it was your next door neighbor or just someone you occasionally saw at the grocery store. Society as a whole I think is moving away from this, but particularly in bigger cities. While I understand that the city isn't as safe of a place necessarily and that this may not be a practical way to look at life in a "bigger place" I feel like this ideal of knowing your neighbor and being friendly to everyone whether you know this or not is one of the main things from my childhood experiences that I will take with me no matter where I go.
I really liked this book, and thought that it specifically fit for junior high and high school aged kids if nothing more than for the fact that they're still trying to figure out who they are and what they want. Heck, I'm still trying to figure out exactly who I am and what I want out of life! I felt like this made Arnold a very easy character to relate to. It's like he's living a split life: he's an Indian by night (and on the weekends) but a...well, for lack of a better phrase "white-man-wannabe" by day. That seems really harsh to say that's what he's trying to be, but I think that in a sense it's what he's doing. He would like to keep a part of his "Indian self", but he knows that if he wants to fit in he has to be more like the other kids he's going to school with, and that means trying to "be white." I think that as we grow up we go through this too. He wants to get out and being something bigger, and I experienced the same thing and still am to an extent.
I grew up in a very small town. (Actually, it was more of a "small community with lots of little towns added together".) It was common to see the older kids graduate and think that they would go out into the world and leave the small town life behind to "make something of themselves" only to end up back in the same small town working a minimum wage job. There were plenty of kids who gave up on college after only a year. There were plenty of kids who didn't even make it through a summer of being away from home before their lack of experience in the world and their fear of something bigger forced them back to their parents homes (or the apartment down the street, or the tiny little house they shared with two or three other friends who had done the same thing).
Growing up I wanted to be a writer. I always wanted to, and I still do. That was my "big dream." I was going to leave my small town behind, move to someplace far away where I could live in the beauty of a wide-open place that would allow me to write. Teaching was also always in the back of my mind, and it came about particularly when I realized that writing probably wasn't going to pay the bills. This was a part of that small town attitude pulling me back in: "You can't really do that. You have to be more realistic. You know how well that will work." But even now I find myself still trying to get out. I want to teach, but I don't want to stay here. My plan has always been to come back to Iowa eventually, but I want to experience something different for a while. I want to teach in Ireland, get a feeling for what it's like to become a part of another culture. I want to teach in L.A. for a while, find out what else there is to this country and our society, see something more than rural farm town schools. Des Moines is the biggest I've seen, and while I've loved the experience I've had there and the differences I have seen between these schools and my own high school, it's still Iowa. It's still the same types of experiences and culture (though more diverse than what I'm used to). I want to see what else is out there. Maybe it's the same. Maybe there really isn't much that's all that different; but that's not something I can know without experiencing it, and that's exactly what I want to do.
Arnold's motives for getting out are a little bit different. He isn't doing it just because he wants to experience more, but because he wants to get out of the cycle that he sees happening over and over again. He doesn't want to become an Indian who is always drunk. He doesn't want to become disconnected from life. In a sense that's what trying to get out of a small town has been for me. The kids who go back, they work, they drink, they work, they drink...that becomes their life. But like Arnold, I've realized that there are some pieces of my past, pieces of my small town, that I want to take with me. Arnold realizes that while he wants to escape the drinking, he wants to keep his sense of family. He learns from his interactions and observances that the parents of the kids at Reardan aren't all that connected to their children. They don't support their children the way the parents on the reservation do. I think that this same thing can be said for a rural life. I know my neighbors, I know most of the people in town (or I did growing up at least) and even the ones that I didn't necessarily know usually knew me and/or my parents. Everyone said hi to everyone whether it was your next door neighbor or just someone you occasionally saw at the grocery store. Society as a whole I think is moving away from this, but particularly in bigger cities. While I understand that the city isn't as safe of a place necessarily and that this may not be a practical way to look at life in a "bigger place" I feel like this ideal of knowing your neighbor and being friendly to everyone whether you know this or not is one of the main things from my childhood experiences that I will take with me no matter where I go.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)