A Good Man is Hard to Find

Do you think the grandmother changes throughout the story? If not, why not? If so, why? Use evidence from the text to backup your opinion.


[In the story, “A Good Man Is Hard To Find” by Flannery O’Connor, we are introduced a grandmother, who could be considered to have changed character by the end of the story, but in reality she only changed some of her tactics to get her way.] The story begins by explaining that the grandmother “didn’t want to go to Florida” and was “seizing at every chance to change Baily’s [her son’s] mind” (O’Connor, 1). She said that a criminal named “The Misfit” was on the loose in Florida in an attempt to cancel the trip. In reality, she only wanted to “visit some of her connections in East Tennessee” (1). We learn from the first page of this chapter that she selfish and manipulative; she always got her way. She was pushy, but the family still ended up driving to Florida. Partially into the trip, the grandmother recalled an old plantation that she wanted to visit. She knew that Bailey would not like to take a detour so she “craftily” told the children about a “secret panel” that didn’t really exist (9). Once again, she is manipulative and only gives thought to herself. The story proceeds and In an unfortunate turn of events, the family gets into a car accident and the Misfit comes upon them. Her family members are taken away from her, all the while she begs for her life. She acts a bit more kind and calls the Misfit a “good man” (17). She tells him he’s “got good blood” and that he wouldn’t “shoot a lady” (21). It is all to no avail and in a last attempt she calls him her baby and child. The Misfit then shoots her three times. This could be viewed as her changing as a character and becoming more compassionate, but she still remained manipulative and selfish. The kind words were only further attempted manipulation. The grandmother was manipulative and selfish from the point before departing on this trip, up to the moment she begs for her own life by trying to manipulate the Misfit while her family members get killed.

OHP Reflection

On this blog, I will be covering the following questions:

• What did you enjoy most about the interview process of the Oral History Project?
• How did you handle the difficulty of working in a group?

For our project, my group interviewed Emily Weinstein. She is a Post Oak parent and experienced flooding during Hurricane Harvey. I thought this project was very meaningful, as the hurricane was still in everyone’s mind. I assumed that this interview would be very tough, as Ms. Weinstein had lost her entire house in the flood. The interview turned out not to be too difficult and it was very comfortable. The most enjoyable part was hearing her story from the past weeks and how Houstonians have reached out. We learned about how her family is moving forward, along with much of the city.  I’m very glad we got the opportunity to connect with people from outside of the school that had various experiences during the Hurricane. Seeing the video showing the strength and recovery in Houston was amazing.

The group work itself wasn’t new to me, but this project different from others we have done. It was a bit more challenging because we also had to work and communicate with an interviewee outside of the school. There were a few bumps while working in the original interview group, such as confusion with devices and who would be turning things in, but everything ended up working out. The primary difficulty was communication, but we made sure to keep each other informed via text rather than only discussing the project at school. Without doing that, we would have had many issues. The other group portions worked very smoothly and I think our final project was very successful.

Persepolis - Marjane & Her Grandmother

Is Marjane Different? + What led to Marjane's grandmother yelling at her? Was the yelling justified? Why or why not?

In the chapter titled “The Makeup,” Marjane is attempting to fit into Iranian society as a grown woman. It seems that she disagrees with the laws in Iran even more-so now that she has experienced other parts of the world. Couples in Iran who weren’t married were “at risk,” because the law says that having relationships before marriage is illegal (288). Even so, Marjane still did what she wanted to, including going out with a guy while wearing makeup. Marjane still has her rebellious qualities, but she’s fairly different as a person. On pages 285-288, Marjane shows a lack of care for other people and quite a bit of selfishness when she accuses an innocent man of being indecent just to save herself. In the past, she cared a lot about being a hero and saving people, but now, she doesn’t seem to put much thought towards that. The fact that Marjane doesn’t feel real remorse until talking to her grandmother shows that she is not the same anything like her old-self who dreamt of being a prophet and a hero.

On page 291, she speaks with her grandmother and tells her of the incident. Marjane laughs it off and her grandmother is fuming. Marjane’s actions don’t not align with anything that her family has fought for over the years. Her grandmother even calls Marjane a “selfish bitch,” which shocks Marjane. Focusing specifically on the last part of the prompt, I do believe that the scolding from Marjane’s grandmother was entirely justifiable. Marjane was fortunate enough to leave Iran and experience freedom, while her family stayed in the war-stricken country. She then comes back and causes an innocent man to be taken by authorities just to cover herself for wearing makeup. I believe Marjane’s actions were irrational, selfish, and entirely wrong. Her grandmother had every right to scold Marjane for acting in this way.

Persepolis - Marjane: Make My Past Disappear

"Why does Marjane want to 'make her past disappear' (194)? And how does this affect her development as a person?"

       In the chapter titled "The Vegetable," Marjane struggles with her image as an Iranian teenager who left her country. She was sent away by her parents for a safer life, but her memories were somewhat of a burden. Marjane was trying to fit in with her friends and classmates and was taking part in activities with them. In the pages leading up to where she wishes her past away, she discusses her physical transformations and her assimilation (193) into the new culture. She isn't exactly fitting in because of her background and how she was raised. Her life in her hometown was much more conservative. She was also seeing images of her home being bombed while she was safely observing it on the television. She admitted she was feeling guilty (194) and she turned the television off when she saw Iran.

       Marjane began to hide her nationality, but she thought of her grandmothers words: "Always keep your dignity and be true to yourself!" This was difficult when she would constantly hear how Iranian people were inferior from people around her. It eventually got to a point where she confronted her issues and realized "for the first time" that she would be "proud" of who she was (197). She grew in maturity and realized that she should be herself.

Fahrenheit 451

I am going to write a longer summary than needed because I want to go over the story again, as I found it very interesting and exciting. In short, the book Fahrenheit 451, by Ray Bradbury, is about a dystopian future where books are outlawed. It focuses on a man named Montag, who is a fireman that burns books. Montag begins to realize how numb society is and recognizes reality after multiple encounters and events over the course of the story. He begins a quest to read and eventually rebels against his fire chief. He works with a man named Faber and meets a group of people who are also interested in reading. These people work to memorize great literary works. When he is with these people, he watches the city get obliterated by enemy bombers. Montag feels that is important to leave a legacy and remembers all the people he lost.

*Longer summary...   

     

        For my final reading this year, I chose to read Fahrenheit 451, by Ray Bradbury. This novel focuses on a dystopian future where books have become outlawed and firemen burn them when they are found. The time period of this book is not mentioned exactly, but it is likely in the late 21st century. The people in society are very unaware of history and their lives are fairly meaningless. The main character in the book is a man named Guy Montag. He is a fireman who pours kerosene on books and burns them daily. A fireman's role has been completely reversed by this time, and many people are completely unaware that they once worked to put out fires, rather than start them. Montag is fairly satisfied with his life until he meets a girl named Clarisse McClellan, who opens his eyes to reality. Montag is very disturbed by what Clarisse is telling him, which causes him to realize the ingenuity in his life. He feels that his wife Mildred is not as much his wife as he once thought, and fails to even remember how they met. Montag becomes increasingly disturbed as he learns that Clarisse died and he watched a woman burn herself to death over her books. Montag is having a lot of trouble with his life and he starts to read books. Montag begins reading, but Beatty, who is his fire chief, warns him that firemen sometimes grow curious and are allowed to take a book for 24 hours, but if it is not destroyed, the firemen will come to destroy it. Beatty is very knowledgeable about books and talks to Montag about how they disrupt society and cause issues. 

       Montag continues to read, despite the warnings. He eventually confides in Mildred, who is reluctant to support him. Montag recalls a man named Faber who he once met. He thinks he may be able to get help from him. Faber is reluctant to meet with Montag because as far as he knows, he is out to burn his books. Faber is an English professor who enjoys books. He and Montag plan a scheme to change the idea of firemen and books in society. As Montag prepares for this, he sets up a communication device in his ear so that Faber can listen and guide him. Montag goes back to his home, where Mildred and her friends are. He gets angry at these women as they discuss politics and other subjects which he doesn't agree with. Montag begins to read a poem, which makes Faber a bit nervous. One of the women starts crying and the other gets angry at Montag. Mildred helps Montag play it off as a rule that firemen can take books and show them to their families for a day, but these women leave. After this, Montag goes to see Beatty so that he can return one of the books he has, but Beatty clearly has a strong suspicion about Montag. Beatty confuses Montag by throwing many quotes at him and making him feel nervous. Faber is still in Montag's ear, but Beatty has really caught on. 

        There is a fire alarm and the firemen proceed as usual. Montag is very surprised to see that  the alarm has been called on his house. He sees Mildred leaving and realizes that she reported him. Montag is ordered to burn the house himself, which he does. He is then arrested, but escapes and kills Beatty with the flame thrower. He grabs a few books that he left in his backyard and eventually heads to Faber for help. At this point, the town is after Montag as he is considered an extreme danger. The chase is televised and Montag leaves Faber's house and makes it to a river to hide his scent from the search hounds. Montag finds a group of men sitting around a fire who have been expecting him. They have a TV set up as they watch the hounds kill a man they accuse to be Montag,  but is not really him. From here, Montag learns that these people he met memorize great literary works to try and preserve what has been lost. They are a part of a large group of people around cities that don't agree with society and understand the importance of books. Montag talks with these people for a bit and eventually, enemy bombers fly over the city and obliterate it. This is a turning point for Montag, as he remembers the people he has lost and finally remembers where he met his wife. Montag continues on his new, free life.  

*End of summary 

I found the setting and the portrayal of the future to be one of the most interesting things in this story. It is close to the current state of the world, as this book is depicting a period of time near the current date.

        As I mentioned earlier, the story takes place in the 21st century. The book was written over half a century ago and portrays a time period around where we are living now. The description of the world is fairly close to the reality today, aside from the evil firemen arsonists. Still, it represents many events occurring today. The story is set in the United States, but the government is one of the big differences from today's society. The story portrays a more authoritarian government and a different America that is more separated from the rest of the world. Bradbury portrays relationships as very dry and simple. As the story was written before the advent of social media and the internet, it is very interesting that this book portrays the lack of emotional connection largely because of technology. People travel quickly on the highway, often ignoring their surroundings.  The world is very intense and fast paced which similar to how many see the current world. I would say that the book has a message about people losing their connections to their culture, knowledge, and to each other. The characters are overwhelmed with the new technology and fail to recognize what is actually going on around them. People mindlessly watch TV and listen to music while going through the motions of their simple life. Literature is not as important and we focus a lot more on technology and desires rather than our reality today. The lack of emotional connection in the book is not as extensive as it is now, as we still are deeply connected to one another, but there is a powerful message about technology in society and the advancement of the human race.

        I would definitely recommend this book to anyone with an interest in futuristic novels or science fiction. Even if the story doesn't seem all that interesting to you, I would encourage you to give it a chance. Going into this story, I was not so sure that I would enjoy it, but I genuinely thought the story was amazing. I learned a lot about how our society compares to the past and found it very interesting how our world has developed. The story itself also was very well put together. The plotlines were clear and the entire book felt intense and interesting. 

Our Readings: Favorite and Least favorite

Of all the texts that we've read this year, which one is your favorite, and why? Which one is your least favorite, and why?

I really enjoyed the readings we had for ELA this year. I can clearly pick my favorite, but I didn’t have one that I really disliked much more than the others. The Great Gatsby was definitely my favorite. It had so many interesting styles and such a detailed story. This book was also more modern than our previous books, which I enjoyed. 

The Odyssey is probably the least favorable out of the books we read. I really do appreciate the style and the writing for that time, but I did not enjoy reading it as much. The language was a bit hard to understand and the writing style was sometimes confusing. Even though I don’t like it quite as much, I still recognize that is a great literary and thought the overall story was very interesting. 

If I had to give our readings an overall rating for this year, I would probably give them a four out of five as they were mostly enjoyable.

Who loves who?

Something which I found interesting in the story was how Daisy dealt with Tom and Gatsby in the climax of the story. Gatsby encourages Daisy to tell Tom that she never loved him, but she cannot do it. She says that she did love him, but she loves Gatsby now. She says this, but it seems possible she doesn’t love either of them. Gatsby is not really satisfied and he wants Daisy as his. 

Daisy is portrayed as a foolish, shallow character, who married Tom for the wealth. It is clear that most of the characters are absorbed in their wealth and Daisy seems to value that lifestyle very much. I don’t believe Daisy was in love with Tom or Gatsby. I think that she was in love with the status. Tom acted as a protection for her and allowed her to be married to a wealthy man with a high status and background. The more you look at each character, you start to realize it’s possible none of them were really in love. Gatsby, first off, was not in love with Daisy. He was in love with the past and the idealized version of life with her. Tom didn’t really love Daisy, he went to Myrtle because he wasn’t really satisfied with his wife, but he wanted to have a high status life with a stable wife. Tom didn’t really love Myrtle either, it was just an affair. Daisy didn’t love Tom or Gatsby, just the wealth, and the newness of Gatsby's money and their past love. Lastly, Nick probably wasn’t in love with Jordan either. He seemed to genuinely like her, but it wasn’t enough to cause him to pursue a relationship any further.

The Great Gatsby represented this American Dream, with love and wealth at the core. Both turn out to be very different at the end of the story. Many were in search of wealth and love, and they grasped onto what met those needs, even if it wasn’t genuine.

Jay Gatsby: Character Development

How does Jay Gatsby, the protagonist of the novel, fundamentally change over the course of the novel, and how is this change caused by the central conflict(s) that Gatsby faces? Use textual evidence to support your claim.

This prompt asks “how” Jay Gatsby changes, but I believe the question should be, does he fundamentally change at all. Of course, there are small changes within each chapter, but there aren’t really any major changes to his character. I am currently writing an essay related to character developments for my response project, and I have found that Nick seems to be the only character that really developed or changed. On page 110, when Gatsby says “Can’t repeat the past? [ ] Why of course you can!”, it seems to confirm that Gatsby has his mind set on the romance and the past. Aside from changes in his actions (such as stopping the parties), he remains basically the same. The biggest change I see in Gatsby is his emotional openness, specifically with Nick. Gatsby confides in Nick about his feelings, as he really didn’t talk to anyone else previously. I also think that Gatsby was beginning to recognize the reality of his world, but he was killed near that time. I believe when he says “Her voice is full of money” (Page 120), he is recognizing that these characters (Tom, and Daisy), are absorbed in their wealth. This is mentioned later on by Nick. 

Climax and Conflicts

"What is the climax (turning point) of the novel? How do you know? How is the central conflict addressed in the climax? Use textual evidence to back up your claims."

In our reading for this week, all of the plots seem to collide and the conflicts come to a head. I think that the “turning point” of the novel is in chapter 7, where Gatsby, Daisy, and Tom all come together. Tom begins to get angrier at Gatsby and reveals lies that Gatsby had told. Tom speaks about Gatsby’s drug business and how he never went to Oxford. While Tom explained that he uncovered all these secrets, Gatsby encouraged Daisy to revoke her love for Tom. Gatsby wanted Daisy to tell Tom she didn’t love him, which she said multiple times. The love relationships between Gatsby/Tom/Daisy are the central conflict in the story. Daisy admits her love for Gatsby. The emotions are very strong and everyone is agitated. Daisy and Gatsby leave and this leads to the death of Myrtle. (Which then leads to Gatsby’s death). I might consider Gatsby’s death as a secondary climax, but this 'get together' prior to Gatsby’s death was really the “turning point”. Gatsby’s death brings the story to a closing. 

Daisy and Gatsby

"In chapter 5, what is revealed about the characters of Gatsby and Daisy based upon their reactions to each other when they finally meet?”

In chapter 5, Daisy and Gatsby finally meet. This moment was long awaited by Gatsby. He had been planning it for years. He set up his life around meeting Daisy. Gatsby was extremely nervous before he met Daisy, which was a side of his character which I had not seen before. When he and Daisy were actually speaking and were near each other, he became more loving. Gatsby then seems to be completely in awe that this moment is finally happening. Gatsby’s attitude about life seemed to change a bit too. Daisy altered his perception of things. Gatsby also slipped up about his past which revealed he didn’t only inherit all of his money. We also learn that the Green Light represents Gatsby’s search for love with Daisy. Daisy seems fairly the same but is a bit more emotional than she has been in the past. I feel like Daisy was able to forget about her current life with Tom while with Gatsby. 

Essentially, Gatsby and Daisy’s true feelings are revealed about each other. Gatsby also doesn’t turn out the be the very laid-back wealthy man easy life. He is actually more awkward and has devoted a bit of his life in search of that objectified American dream of a woman. 

Nick Carraway's Judgments

“In the first two pages of the novel, Nick Carraway claims that he is "inclined to reserve all judgment." Do you find that this is true so far? Please provide textual evidence to support your position.”

The Great Gatsby is Narrated by Nick Carraway. Nick claims to reserve all judgments. It’s a bit difficult to tell if he really is reserving all judgments, because in various places throughout the book he makes what could be considered judgments.  The most profound thing that Nick says that makes me believe he doesn’t reserve all judgment is when he said that Gatsby represents  “everything for which I have an unaffected scorn." He is evidently making judgments about Gatsby here. Another example which may seem like a judgment is when he speaks about Tom and his home. On page 6 Nick seemingly judges their home, saying, “Their house was even more elaborate than I expected, a cheerful red-and-white Georgian Colonial mansion, overlooking the bay.” On page 7 he says “[Tom’s] body is capable of enormous leverage--a cruel body.” He also says Tom’s voice conveys “fractiousness”. I don’t think these should be considered judgments. I feel that this is simply how the author has chosen to describe characters since the story is told by a character that is the narrator. I don’t feel that Nick reserves all judgments, but I think most of his descriptions aren’t meant to be judgments.

A Midsummer Night's Dream

"Describe the characteristics of the type of play that you are reading (history, tragedy, or comedy). How does your play conform to these characteristics? Does it differ? If so, in what way?"
      

      For the independent Shakespeare study, I am reading the play “A Midsummer Night’s Dream.” This play is characterized as a comedy. First off, this play has complex plots with twists and turns, which is a characteristic of Shakespearean comedy. In a comedy, there are typically misunderstandings, trickery, or mistaken identities which lead to conflicts. An example of this would be the part of the play where Puck puts Oberon’s love potion on multiple characters, causing them to fall in love with the first person they see. Titania, for example, falls in love with Bottom, who looks like a donkey. A happy ending and marriage also occur at the end of the play, which is often a characteristic found in comedies. Without recognizing these things, it is also evident that this is a comedy because of the funny, witty, light-hearted mood throughout the play. Overall, A Midsummer Night’s Dream conforms to the characteristics of comedy. 

Merchant of Venice: Response Project

         For my response project for the Merchant of Venice, Sage, Francesco, Xander and I created an alternate ending to the Merchant of Venice Court Scene. We filmed the court scene at my house, and we changed the ending of the story. 

I feel like the movie went really well. We spent a long time recording and putting it together and it was really great to see the final product. When we finished putting the movie together, it was longer than I expected it to be. I think the court scene was a bit long for the final length of the movie and the other parts were somewhat short. When writing the script these other scenes seemed that they would be an adequate length, but in the final video I thought they could have been longer. I really enjoyed making the movie and would definitely do it again. Editing the movie was time consuming, but I also really enjoyed doing this. I plan to look for more opportunities doing this in the future. 

Is the Play Anti-Semitic? Is All Bigotry Criticized?

For my final post about the Merchant of Venice I have decided to write about the discrimination not only towards Jews, but towards all different people. I’m also going to discuss whether the play is truly trying to convey an anti-semitic message. 

In the Merchant of Venice anti-semitism is clearly common, but there there are other instances of discrimination towards each side. For example, Portia mentions how she would never marry the Moroccan prince because he was black. The Christians are also criticized in Shylock’s speech.  It’s not completely clear if they play had an anti-semitic message because of all of these perspectives. If I was to make an assumption about the author without knowing who it was, I would think that it was someone who was very open minded, trying to convey a message about bigotry. It seems as if Shakespeare was pointing out bigotry during that time from all points of view. If the play truly had an anti-semitic message I believe that Shylock would not have been portrayed as the victim at any instance. Shylock’s words may be Shakespeare’s way of criticizing the prejudice against other races or religions.

The Merchant of Venice: Shylock's Punishment

As a modern audience, do you think that Shylock deserves the punishment that he receives? Why or why not? Also, how do you think an Elizabethan audience would have felt about this (would they have thought he deserves his punishment)? Why or why not?

     In the final scene, Shylock and Antonio went to court. Shylock was very determined to receive the pound of flesh from Antonio as agreed upon in the contract. Portia, disguised as a man, encouraged Shylock to show mercy,  but he did not. The main argument in this scene was "Justice versus Mercy." Shylock was going to kill Antonio, but Portia declared that he would have to do so without shedding a drop of blood. Shylock backed off, but he agreed to take the money instead. Portia and the Duke now rejected that, saying that he would have to face punishment. Shylock had his fortune taken away, and was forced to convert to Christianity.

     I don't think that this punishment was fair, judging from each character. Shylock was only seeking justice for what Antonio had done wrong. Shylock's actions were depicted as very horrid, but in reality, Antonio agreed to this punishment if he were to fail to pay back the loan. I think the punishment was justified in the book because he was a Jew. I think the Elizabethan audience would have been satisfied with this outcome. These people were generally against Jews. Everything Shylock had was gone, he was forced to convert to Christianity, and he would still be ridiculed by the anti-semitic people. Overall this seems like a very strong punishment for anyone, and seems that the Elizabethan people would agree that a Jew was deserving of this. Not only was Shylock punished harshly, but Antonio and others had a "Happy ending." Antonio's ships were actually not destroyed and the social order was restored. The Elizabethan audience likely would have been very satisfied with this ending.

The Merchant of Venice: Shylock's Speech

"On page 49 (Act 3, Scene 1) Shylock gives his speech that seems to be sympathetic to the plight of Jews ("I am a Jew. Hath not a Jew eyes?..."). Considering the rampant anti-Semitism in the play, why do you think Shakespeare would have included this speech? How does it change what we think of Shylock? “

In this scene, Shylock’s character gives a speech essentially explaining that all people are human. He explains that a Jew “is fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases, healed by the same means, and warmed and cooled in the same winter and summer as a Christian…” This is a very powerful speech and the message of the speech itself goes against the anti-semitism which was prevalent at the time. This speech seems to allow the audience to sympathize with Shylock, even though he is using this message as reasoning for revenge. I think today’s audience might sympathize with him, but I don’t think that was the goal when Shakespeare wrote the play. Shylock is still depicted as the stereotypical greedy Jew throughout the play, and this small speech may have seemed like a positive message, but when reading the play in its entirety it doesn't seem like a positive message about Jews was the goal. For me, this speech from Shylock helped me understand what I consider as Shylock’s true character, not just a fictitious character who’s acts and words only support the writers intended message. While these are my beliefs, we still don’t know what Shakespeare’s true intentions were. Shakespeare could have truly been against anti-semitism, or he could have written it like this to allow for many different interpretations from different audiences.

The Merchant of Venice: Act One

In Act 1, we are introduced to the major characters in the play. Which one do you find most interesting and why?

     In Act One, the character "Shylock" stood out to me. Shylock is a Jewish money lender who seems to be depicted as the antagonist in the book and is treated harshly. Antonio was requesting a loan from Shylock for Bassanio and Shylock did loan him the money despite Antonio's hatred towards him. The terms of the loan were interesting to me. Shylock says he'll make the loan without interest if Antonio is to remove a pound of his own flesh in the case the loan isn't repaid. Shylock is noted as "kind" by Antonio because of the deal he has offered. It seems that there is more to this deal and relationship between Shylock and Antonio which I am interested to learn about in the upcoming acts we read. I think Antonio thinks of Shylock as a stereotypical Jew who cares largely about money over anything else, but I think Shylock may have other intentions in mind.