My Diary?!

Dear Diary,

Today, I went to the Younger household to pick up Beneatha for a play, but I didn't enjoy the play at all because my time at her house put me in a bad mood. When I got to her house, Beneatha and her brother were going crazy over some dumb African ritual; they were jumping up on the tables and saying some weird words. In fact, Walter even called me "Black Brother" (Hansberry 79), which I found disgusting. After that, Beneatha decided to monologue to me about "our Great West African Heritage" (Hansberry 81). I don't at all understand why she finds that subject so interesting--I mean, she even cut off her hair to model their style! Sometimes, I don't understand that girl at all. Can't she see that the only way to do well in this world is to adapt to it and follow its customs? She calls me an "assimilationist Negro" (Hansberry 81), someone who's submerging themselves in "the dominant, and...oppressive culture" (Hansberry 81), but I don't see what she's talking about. I'm not 'submerging' myself; I'm just adjusting to the common way of life here, and if she can't understand that, then that's her problem.

After all of this, I had to talk with Walter Lee. That man thinks that he's going to become something in this world, but just one look at him tells otherwise. He has no class at all; he called the shoes I was wearing "faggoty-looking white shoes" (Hansberry 83), when in reality those shoes are what's in fashion currently. He tried to propose some weird idea to me, saying that he had some ideas about possible future investments, but it was easy to see that business like that was way out of Walter's league. The worst part, though, is that he doesn't realize it at all. He's calling himself "a giant...surrounded by ants...who can't even understand what the giant is talking about " (Hansberry 85). For some reason, he doesn't realize that he's not special; everyone feels like he does occasionally, he's just a lot more vocal about it. Walter Lee should just stick to chauffeuring, because that's what he does best. Besides, he couldn't become anything better than a chauffeur even if he tried.

Sincerely,
George Murchison

Diamonds?!

Once upon a time, there was a family that got very lucky and found a giant, mountain-sized diamond. Because of this, they lived happily ever after. The end.

Does that story seem slightly wrong to you? Though it never explicitly states it, the story implies that money leads to happiness. Though this idea is widely scorned today, in the 1920's, this concept of materialism was very prevalent; basically everyone in America thought that if he/she got rich, he/she would be happy. In Fitzgerald's The Diamond as Big as the Ritz, he mocks this philosophy by creating a family like the one above, except without the happy ending. The Washingtons' ownership of the "large and perfect" (Fitzgerald 86) diamond--Fitzgerald uses rhetoric when describing the diamond in order to emphasize its importance-- results in their belief that they are so much better than everyone else: they invite guests over to their house for their pleasure, and then murder them afterwards. However, this attitude actually shows the Washingtons' sadness, not their happiness; despite their immense wealth, they still lack friends. In fact, their immense wealth has actually desensitized them towards items--you could give them a pink elephant and it would barely amuse them, due to their many other possessions.

In addition, the Washingtons' wealth has made them view only other wealthy people as important. This attitude is replicated in John--he says that the most important thing in Hades was "the earnest worship of and respect for riches" (Fitzgerald 80). This importance also makes them think of themselves as gods; they make their own rules, and expect everyone to obey them, similar to the way in which Moses transcribed the rules God gave him for the Israelites, except Moses's authority came from God, but the Washingtons think their authority comes from their wealth. The attitude the diamond gives the Washingtons shows how misguided the materialistic society of the 1920s was; in the end, money cannot buy one happiness.

I wish...

Dreams?!

What place does a dream/vision have in one's life/relationships? 

While dreams and goals are important and allow people to motivate themselves, focusing too much on just one hope can lead to disappointment when expectations meet reality. 

Every. Single. Time.

In The Great Gatsby, Gatsby's desire to be with Daisy drives him to become a self-made millionaire; however, it also causes him to be severely let down when he actually meets Daisy and his expectations of her collide with her actual self. Gatsby's goal of marrying Daisy is so strong that he manages to work his way up from being nothing to the talk of New York--Nick states that "it was testimony to the romantic speculation he inspired that there were whispers about him from those who had found little that it was necessary to whisper about in this world" (Fitzgerald 44), showing the immense respect and awe that the majority of the population holds for Gatsby. In addition, he is so important that he gets phone calls from Chicago, Detroit, and other major cities, all because of his dream of Daisy. 

At the same time, though, this desire causes him to be disappointed when he actually meets Daisy; before the meeting, he is "pale" (Fitzgerald 84), with "dark signs of sleeplessness beneath his eyes" (Fitzgerald 84). After the meeting, Nick thinks that Daisy must have "tumbled short of his [Gatsby's] dreams" (Fitzgerald 95). By going five years without ever interacting with Daisy, Gatsby's hopes built up so high that Daisy could never have hoped to live up to them, resulting in Gatsby's despondent attitude. Gatsby's vision of being with Daisy, though motivating him, ultimately resulted in his demise, showing that people should go after their dreams, but should not let the dreams govern them.

Opulence?!

Sometimes, people are pretty greedy.

In 11AP this week, we discussed the 1920s and its attributes. One of the most important characteristics of the era was the intense desire for material possessions and displays of wealth; for example, in an advertisement for car window curtains, the ad described the drapes as containing "high-grade poplin," along with "special nickelled automatic rollers" and "silk pull tassels." The aspiration to exhibit riches become even more apparent when the curtains were claimed to "shut off the glare of headlights coming up behind you"--the people of the time wanted to appear rich so much that they were willing to sacrifice their safety for material goods.

This attitude is very apparent in Fitzgerald's famous novel, The Great Gatsby. Tom Buchanan owns a "red-and-white Georgian Colonial mansion" (Fitzgerald 6), with a lawn "a quarter of a mile" (Fitzgerald 6) long and "a half acre of deep, pungent roses" (Fitzgerald 7). However, Tom's personality is not nearly as nice as his house is; even his wife describes him as a "brute of a man" (Fitzgerald 12). This sharp contrast between possessions and attitude of a human illustrates a sad truth that was especially apparent in the era of The Great Gatsby: despite all evidence to the contrary, a person's value is not at all determined by the value of the items that he/she owns.

"Now that I have these curtains, I'll become a better person!"

Punctuation?!

In the ever-changing world that we live in, punctuation is more important than ever because it allows the author of a piece to properly convey their meaning.

Punctuation is important because its proper use allows for the author's meaning to truly show; removing punctuation or not using it properly would not tell the reader the proper inflection, tone, or mood of the passage, so the reader would lose some of the meaning the author intended them to have. For example, Thomas writes "Look! they say, look at what I just said! How amazing is my thought!" (Thomas) about the exclamation point. Without even some of those exclamation points, the sentence would lose some of its meaning; the emphasis would not be placed properly, resulting in a loss of correct inflection. In addition, each punctuation mark has their own part in properly communicating meaning. The semicolon, for example, gives "a kind of exquisite tension, a feeling of delicious responsibility, in being so loaded up" (Dolnick). If correct value is not placed on punctuation such as the semicolon, this feeling of responsibility would diminish; that would cause sentences like this one to lose the intended meaning. Even authors that claim to not value punctuation utilize it to accurately impart interpretation--the author Emily Dickinson, who claims to "dwell in Possibility" (Dickinson) uses 13 dashes in her entire poem, which is just 12 lines. The use and proper value given to punctuation allows the author to "clarify meaning" (Hitchings), and without it, the reader would not correctly understand what the author intended them to.

Perfection?!

"But suppose my eyes aren't blue enough?
Blue enough for what?
Blue enough for...I don't know. Blue enough for something. Blue enough...for you!
...
Will you come back if I get them?
Get what?
The bluest eyes. Will you come back then?
Of course I will" (Morrison 201, 202).


This quote is simultaneously one of the most beautiful and one of the most haunting quotes in the entire novel, and that's saying a lot. Pecola finally believes that she got her wish of blue eyes; however, her joy is immediately quelled by her realization that her eyes might not be the bluest in the world. As Morrison writes, "the horror at the heart of her yearning is exceeded only by the evil of fulfillment" (Morrison 202). Morrison somehow manages to perfectly capture humanity's search for the unattainable in these few sentences--Pecola's insecurity over the possible loss of her imaginary friend brings out her neediness and her desire to be wanted, in the same way that humans themselves do not like being alone. In addition, the fact that Pecola got her blue eyes, but is immediately dissatisfied, symbolizes the ways in which humans are continually dissatisfied with themselves.

How does she manage to think of all of this?!

Somehow, Morrison manages to convey that it is better for humans to accept themselves for who they are, while at the same time demonstrating that it is impossible for someone to accept themselves, showing the world for what it really is: flawed, twisted, and contradictory. 

Family?!

I don't think I ever appreciated my family more than I did after reading about Pecola's.

There's so much I take for granted, from where I live to how I live to who I live with. Maybe it's because nearly all of my friends have similar circumstances, but I rarely think about how the rest of the world has it. I'm really lucky to live in a nice community in a nice house with a nice family; however, Pecola's situation is the exact opposite. She lives in a community that segregates against her in a rundown storefront that barely has enough space for a family with a family that despises each other.

Pecola's parents are absolute nightmares, fighting and hating each other "with a darkly brutal formalism" (Morrison 43) and basically being the worst possible influences on their young children. Contrast this with our parents; nearly all, if not all, of our parents love us unconditionally and strive to provide good examples for their kids.

To quote a really wise philosopher (aka Stitch) family means"no one gets left behind or forgotten." Pecola's parents somehow manage to do the exact opposite, not really caring for anyone but themselves; by doing so, they manage to draw attention to and accentuate exactly how fortunate we are to be under our current circumstances.

Barbies?!

Barbies and other toys for children are definitely one of the causes for unattainable beauty standards in girls, but are they really the biggest factor?

This week, our class talked about the article "Our Barbies, Ourselves" and discussed the ways in which such objects resulted in the impossible standards set for women. I definitely agreed with the arguments Prager made in her article; I mean, if Barbie didn't set any standards, then why does there exist a women that looks like this?

"Now that I look just like Barbie, I'm beautiful!"

But is it only Barbie (and other toys) that set this impossibly high bar for women? It's really tempting to just place all the blame on the people that create these horrible toys--Prager calls Barbies a "weapon (Prager 354) "designed by a man" (Prager 353)--but that'd be wrong. The sad truth is that the blame is to be placed on society as a whole. For example, this video shows the demoralizing effect our words can have on girls over time: 

See, Barbies aren't really the cause of the unattainable standards; they're a byproduct of it. They exist to encourage and facilitate the raising of this metaphorical bar, but they're not the actual reason that it exists. Stopping the creation of Barbies, or making them more lifelike, won't change anything; the only thing that can be done is to alter society's attitude. Until we adjust society's mentality, there will be no progress on the issue of women's beauty; instead, it'll be just like Prager described it: "As if we're all trapped in Barbie's world and can never escape" (Prager 355).

Othering?!

How does the oppressing of people affect society?

Personally, I think it's human nature to judge others and categorize them, leading to future oppressing. Seriously, if a magic machine suddenly made everyone on the planet believe that everyone was equal, and that stuff like gender, skin color, or beliefs did not affect the value of a person, I think that us humans would still find some dumb way to oppress some group of people. It's been going on since we were kids--I mean, back in elementary school, I remember watching some really cruel kids making fun of a child with a speech impediment. It was absolutely horrible, but it serves to really emphasize the point; humans are born with the urge to oppress and make themselves feel superior.

How kids were oppressed back in elementary school. Now, it's a lot more complicated.

Now, how does this really impact society? We had a prompt relating to this this week, and I didn't really agree with the statement that the prompt asked to analyze. Sure, the othering of people certainly leads to the dehumanization of the oppressed; we've seen multiple viewpoints that confirm this, from Alexie's The Lone Ranger and Tonto Fistfight in Heaven to Staples' Black Men and Public Space. In addition, it's just obviously true--of course you make people feel less human when you're discriminating against them. But what about the oppressors themselves? Are they becoming more or less human? Well, if it's human nature to stereotype and discriminate, like I just argued above, then it could be said that the oppressors are actually more human. And if the othering of people makes the oppressors more human--a word that is often associated with positive connotation--then human nature is just inherently messed up.

Confessions?!

Is it better to confess your sins or to hide them from society?

I remember that when I was a kid, I'd never tell my parents the bad things I did, even when it was super obvious. For example, I once tried to make myself a hot dog (not Jeannette Walls style--I was just microwaving one) and when I put the hot dog on my plate, didn't realize how hot it was and accidentally dropped the plate. Now, I figured that my parents wouldn't notice if I swept up the broken plate into a corner and covered it with a paper towel. Obviously, they found out, and I confessed to it all immediately. Being 6 years old, it was kind of hard to hold in a secret for that long.

This is (almost) exactly what happened to me.

In The Scarlet Letter, Dimmesdale faces a similar dilemma, except his secret is a lot easier to hide than mine. However, his also comes with a much deeper sense of guilt; after living with it for 7 years, he "longed to speak out from his own pulpit...and tell the people what he was" (Hawthorne 139-140). It brings about the question: is it better to admit your sins or refuse to acknowledge them? Personally, I' think it's fine to tell the occasional white lie (don't lie, everyone does it), but when it comes to the big stuff, just admit the truth. However, the way Dimmesdale dealt with this problem annoyed me. Seriously, he spent 7 years debating on whether to tell his sin or not. He could have just decided at the beginning to confess--if he didn't want to, he could go on through life without any intent to tell society his sins and without any of the guilt that accompanied him. I mean, in Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, when Harry finds out about the first task, you don't see him debating on whether to tell Dumbledore or not--he decides to keep it a secret and use the information to his advantage (admittedly, Harry's secret is a lot less intense than Dimmesdale's). Instead, Dimmesdale chose to debate over this issue for a very long period of time, which probably contributed to the damage to his body. Basically, Dimmesdale's predicament taught me that when it comes to revealing your sins, despite your final decision, don't spend an extraordinarily long amount of time making your choice; it'll only end up hurting you. This is a pretty obvious statement, so it's kind of annoying that it took Dimmesdale so long to realize. 

Writing Styles?!

Before I start, I want to say that I am not anti-feminist; I completely agree that men and women should have equal rights, equal opportunities, and equal pay.

Now, this week we read a piece titled "There is No Unmarked Women." As interesting as it was,  I somehow felt uncomfortable while reading it. It wasn't the content, either--I understood nearly all of what Tanner was trying to convey (I think) and I saw why she would write a piece like this. After a while, I finally realized what it was--what I disliked wasn't the ideas, but the way in which she was conveying them.

Somehow, when I was reading the piece, instead of feeling like the ideas were just being presented and evaluated for me, I felt like Tanner was trying to force her beliefs down my throat. Whenever she kept on repeating stuff like "All married women's surnames are marked" (Tanner 391) and "Women can't even fill out a form without telling stories about themselves" (Tanner 390), I kept on getting the sense that she wasn't giving me any other options to believe; instead of presenting her ideas rationally and calmly, she was very aggressive about it. I found it really interesting that I got this impression, seeing as how her essay contains 2 exclamation points (both of them describing reactions to her beliefs).

I made a weird connection while writing this post--somehow, her writing reminds me of Jehovah's Witnesses. You know, those people that come up to your door and ask you if you have time to talk about Jesus or whatever? And then from there, I made another weird leap--Tanner's writing is a lot like Puritan beliefs back in The Scarlet Letter! Like Tanner, the Puritans believed that their views was the only right one, and would aggressively attempt to convert other people to their beliefs. The connection, though stretched, allows for a better understanding of the attitudes of the Puritans and gives a general idea of the beliefs of the society Hester rebelled against.

This car is an example of a Jehovah's Witness. 

Identities?!

Do people choose their own identity, or do others do it for them?

 When I was a kid, I totally thought that it was only me who decided who I was. Society wouldn't tell me what I would do; the reason why I liked dinosaurs, cars, and sharks was because I thought they were cool, not society. But growing up, I realized how false this statement was. There were a lot of things I did and liked only because others did. In 6th grade, Silly Bandz came out, and for a while, I couldn't look at someone else's wrist without seeing a few. Personally, I didn't think they were all that cool--after all, they were basically just colored rubber bands that formed some funny shapes. At first, I thought I'd never buy them, because they seemed like a waste of money. But as time went on, and I continued to see them everywhere--over 8,000 stores carried Silly Bandz in August of 2010 (source)--I eventually caved in to the peer pressure. I remember going to Walmart with my mom and picking out a pack of Silly Bandz, making sure I got the Cars (the vehicles, not the movie) set for maximum coolness. After wearing them around for a week or so, I realized how stupid I had been. And yet, even though I had felt really dumb, I also realized that I liked it. By conforming to what society had expected of me, I felt accepted, like someone who belonged.

In the same way, each individual in The Scarlet Letter doesn't shun Hester because they personally think she has committed a great sin--they do it because everyone else is doing it, and that's what makes her punishment worse. Her willingness to fight the beliefs of society ends up damaging her reputation forever and does nothing to change society, because when someone goes against the beliefs of a crowd, they only end up hurting themselves.

Some people went a little crazy over the Silly Bandz fad.

Stereotypes?!

Stereotypes are demeaning and insulting, but there's still some truth in them.

See, what annoys me about stereotypes is not (just) the fact that they're rude and offensive, but that they don't tell the whole story. I mean, when I see an an image like this, I don't find it offensive, because it is definitely rooted in fact.

Though people joke about this all the time, there's a reason behind it. Because despite there only being about 3.3 million Indians in the U.S.A--roughly 1%--"almost 10 percent of the physicians in the U.S. are of Indian origin" (source).

After discussing stereotypes and racism in 11AP, I decided to search up some common Indian stereotypes and to see how true they really were. I found this really long list, and for the most part, I found it hilarious. I mean, sure, not all Indians love curry, but I would be lying to you if I said that a majority didn't. But there were some stereotypes that I found somewhat offensive. Yes, it is true that Indians worship an elephant-headed god, but that completely covers up the story of how Ganesha got his elephant head and makes us look like idiots that just decided to worship an elephant.

Reading through those stereotypes, I realized something pretty important. I love my Indian culture and my heritage, and would hate for others to think badly of it just because of some stupid stereotype they read on the internet. And obviously, other people feel the same way about their own culture. By stereotyping, you basically insult a large group of people. You decide to accept a blanket statement that probably only applies to some of that group rather than spending time to find out the actual truth. Stereotypes will be around forever, partly because of the fact that they are rooted in truth. But by refusing to take them at face value and instead realizing how false they are, you educate yourself and see the world for what it really is--diverse, lively, and beautiful.

Verisimilitude?!

So much of what we think we know is a lie.

With the advent of technology and social media, so much of the information we get fed on a daily basis is, in reality, carefully structured to appeal to the average viewer. How often has it happened that you're sitting in your room at home, bored out of your mind and scrolling through your newsfeed, when you see a picture of some friends that appear to be having the time of their lives? However, it's important to remember that what you're seeing is not what's actually going on, but instead what they want you to think is going on. For example, this link shows how easy it is to make others think you have the perfect life, even though it's not actually as exciting as you want others to think it is. 

In class, we studied books like The Glass Castle and The Things They Carried, discussing how each contained verisimilitude--the semblance of truth. But what exactly is truth, and how does the lack of it play into those two stories? I never really thought about it while I was reading, but looking back, I realized how much of The Glass Castle had to be made up. Seriously--it's impossible for a 54-year-old to remember specific dialogue from when she was 3, or even from when she was 13. However, the fiction in this book didn't affect the reader too much; by filling in extraneous details that she forgot over the passage of time, Wells just helps the reader better understand the story. In the case of The Things They Carried, though, verisimilitude was a huge part of the story. When I learned that nearly the entire story was fictional (despite containing truth in it), I had to sit down and reread some of it, seeing it from a different perspective. It brings up an interesting question: Exactly how important is verisimilitude in so-called nonfiction? After sitting and thinking about it for a while, I came to the conclusion that, despite claiming to be completely true, it was perfectly fine for a nonfiction work to contain untruths--after all, the only nonfiction books that can claim to be entirely, perfectly true are just textbooks. In the case of nonfiction narratives like The Glass Castle and The Things They Carried, the important part of the book wasn't the actual story; it was the message conveyed in those pages. In the words of O'Brien, "A thing may happen and be a total lie; another thing may not happen and be truer than the truth." For the same reason, it's completely fine for nonfiction narratives to contain lies, half-truths, and exaggerations; ultimately, their purpose is simply to give the reader a better understanding of life.

Going back to the issue of the verisimilitude that exists in modern-day communications, I don't really think there's much that we can do about them. Falsehoods and embellishments will always exist when humans interact with other humans; after all, it's in human nature to portray oneself as better than he/she is in order to elevate him/herself through the ranks of society. Personally, I think the best thing to do when it comes to this issue is to simply be aware that a lot of what you see has been altered to fascinate you. In the words of Steve Furtick, "The reason we struggle with insecurity is because we compare our behind-the-scenes with everyone else's highlight reel." So, the next time you see that really cool picture on Facebook or Instagram, keep in mind that the backstory of that picture probably went a little something like this: