Senior Project

The only part I, at least, liked was reading the material for the research paper. Everything else, I hated. Why? Because it felt useless and superfluous because I've already knew or done most of it. Also, the work didn't seem substantial or productive at all. It was honestly deterring me from what I preferred: AP Lit. The busy work reminded me of the countless useless work I had to do for the past four years. The only substantial thing about the senior project was the reading the material for the research paper. I also really didn't appreciate it that you made it more rigorous for us being your ap class. Again, because it already felt unnecessary.

So enough complaining... let's think about solutions. I think you should just dump and expand this whole thing throughout first semester. Having had the research topic and stuff in second semester, I could not stop thinking about how unprepared I am going to be for the ap exam.  Also, more time to contemplate on our research topic and it should be limited to an undergraduate degree! I didn't want to plan so far into the future since there's no concrete foundation to plant it on I suppose. Stress the significance of the work, I guess. I thought the process was so useless. I don't know. 

Jaggers

Dear Mr. Jaggers,

How does to feel to be a lawyer, knowing that you willingly protect guilty criminals? Does it make you greedy with power when you know you are a destructive force in the courtroom? Able to lace your words with a poison that swoons even the judge? The mouth surely is the golden gate to opportunities and you use it very well. But how do you feel at night, knowing that you don't protect the innocent? Don't people usually become a lawyer in order to protect the innocent, put criminals in jail, and provide integrity to the judicial system? It eats inside you doesn't it? That's why you obsessively wash your hands in a feeble attempt to psychologically wash away your guilt. Or it because you believe that criminals can be redeemed? Like Magwitch. Though still a criminal, his intentions are not. And you have shown an affectionate time to Pip by almost seeming like you protect him and genuinely surprised when you know that your secretary has a kinder side. You're an interesting person... Just what goes through your mind? Does it kill you slowly? Or do you have a personal agenda?

test scores

I didn't like my scores. But hey, I guess my essays are my forte! I only found this diagnostic exam to be difficult due to its excessive use of vocabulary that I didn't understand. That being said, I don't think there is anymore you can do to prepare us but for us to prepare ourselves. It's already April. I honestly forgot most of the vocabulary from last semester because we hardly used it. And I found it ineffective in making me remember it. I plan to use some sort of mnemonic device to help me remember.

MY MAMA SAID I GOT THE SHUGAS! No really, this blog is about Beloved and its film adaption.

     HOT BUTTA N AWL, YAW! PRAISE THE LAWD! I GOT THE SHUGAS! (Sorry, I watched SNL and they were satirizing Paula Deen, I couldn’t help from laughing; not to mention their Japanese rendition… Hilarious!)

     Aw, the poor dog in the beginning of the movie… he was thrown and beaten by the ghost of Beloved. Then Sethe had to push his eyeball back inside his socket and fix his dislocated leg. Just as Amy Denver said later in the movie, “Anything dead coming back to life hurts.” I thought setting the movie with the tombstone first then the violent, crazy scene was powerful. It would have left its audience bewildered and perplexed and even more, when Howard and Buglar ran away. Imagine being a mother and having your children run away from you, especially considering what Sethe already has endured. It must be heartbreaking even for the audience.

     The movie was certainly more traumatizing, for lack of better words. Reading the book, you can only imagine the scenes. But watching the movie… the scenes were not as pleasant as my imagination. Besides, who would imagine something so disturbing to themselves? I wondered greatly how Oprah felt playing the role of Sethe considering her childhood. If I recall correctly, (and I double checked on Wikipedia) she was molested by her cousin, uncle, and family friend when she was nine and the death of her baby son at 14. She even went to say that “she had chosen not to be mother because she had not been mothered well.” Her character resonates with her very well. Maybe that’s why Oprah got the role and played it well. It also resonates with the book in real life because rather than trying to forget the past, Oprah chose to play as Sethe knowingly; therefore Oprah was embracing her real past as painful as it was. If she chose to forget her past, she wouldn’t have chosen the role. I can only empathize so much every time I see Sethe get violated by the schoolteacher and his nephews and touched by Paul D knowing that Oprah is the vessel.  Ultimately, this is probably why she got the role in the first place. And in ‘The Color Purple.’ She would’ve fit right in in the ‘The Help.’ I should really google about Oprah’s view when she chose to play Sethe… but so lazy.

     There was very little sex in the movie as there was so much in the book. In retrospect, I didn’t think the act of sexual intercourse played a significant role for both medias. However, while the book was explicit about it, maybe the director felt that it was unnecessary for the movie. Maybe the rating was going to be even more restricted and therefore, less audience. In my opinion, it didn’t matter because it was implied just as many movies are: they go to bed naked, fondle around, and you know what’s going to happens next then sunshine! Besides, I felt the pseudo-sex scenes in the movie were very unnatural and disturbing. It felt painful to Oprah, I meant Sethe. It wasn’t graceful like in other movies. They certainly followed the scene with Paul D cupping her breasts with a horrific ghost showdown, I don’t remember that. Didn’t they have sex soon after they reunited? They slept without having sex? They still had clothes on on the bed.

     Speaking of that scene, this movie was… limited third-person?  Well, it certainly was third-person in regards to vantage point. Unlike the book, we never actually get to hear the characters’ thoughts. I was looking forward to Oprah speaking in her mind while Paul D was staring at her chokecherry tree. No emerald closet for Denver.

     Again, the movie, overall, was disturbing. Especially with the arrival of Beloved. She slept in the woods in the dark wearing all black and woke up with bugs crawling all over her! I’m already scared walking around the woods when I go camping with the thought that thousands of bugs are crawling on the floor right now, all over my tent! Wasn’t she dressed in white in the book? Oh, I loved the archetype of colors! She wore black with bugs crawling all over her and when the family saw her, bugs were buzzing around her. Disturbing scene again. Black is associated with death, negativity, impending doom – everything Beloved will soon become. The buzzing the bugs resembles flies attracted by a rotting carcass, what Beloved actually is.

     The carnival scene was probably one of my two favorite scenes, the other being when Sethe purchases cloth for sewing and sweets and bam! Happiest scene in the movie. And you know what both of them have in common? Colors. So many vibrant, beautiful colors. However, I felt the carnival scene was being satirical of human nature. And it’s certainly me projecting my view and blowing a simple scene up. Yes, I can finally identify satire and irony (to a degree). The carnival had the noticeably, weird people on display – the fat woman, rubber man, and more. The black, whose plight is obvious and still is, poke fun at them. So what does it mean to human? They were dehumanized and yet they dehumanize others. This circumvention of hypocrisy is appalling. We never cease to criticize other people do we?

     Beloved was not who I imagined her to be. I perceived her as this graceful vixen with the disposition of an innocent child. What came to mind watching the movie, however, was a mentally disabled child. She is not gracefully as I thought. She was more… disgusting with the constant snoring and child behavior. I don’t recall her snoring in the book nor wetting herself, and if so, very vaguely.

     I particularly liked the visage of the perfect happy family in the beginning, what Sethe and blacks overall deserved. What it should have been. But for the audience, and particular, the readers, the dark truth was veiled by the façade of a perfect family. Or thematically, that the seemingly perfect family hides or has a dark secret.

     So what does it mean to be human for Denver and Sethe? Denver has the duties of a daughter and Sether has the duties of a mother and having to live the ramifications of the rather impulsive decision she made. The impulsiveness to kill your own children under the pretense that dying was preferred to suffering. The schoolteacher cried and called Sethe an animal. Was it because his can no longer ‘experiment’ on her? Lost his test subjects? Or because of what it means to be human? That despite his dehumanizing demeanor, he could empathize with the innocent death of a child, one that he was indirectly responsible for? It was also interesting, from a scientific point of view, how blacks learned English from acclamation and inherited the values of Christianity, effectively losing most, if not all, of their native ancestry completely.

     The paradigm shift was weird. It wasn’t as extreme as the book depicted. Sethe was still effectively in the mother role and Beloved, the child albeit pregnant.

     The end was amusing. Denver had an attitude with Paul D! She rachet (it’s a tennis inside joke, I suppose). I liked the adaptation of the novel; it provided a starker contrast than the one I initially had. Yeah, it could have been better, but this would suffice. To each their own, right? There were obviously very many significant, pivotal scenes in the book that were not interpreted and already the film was two hours and fourty-four minutes. Anyways, its difficult criticizing the movie with knowledge of the book. The movie, in a way, complements the book visually. The movie alone, however, would have been lackluster because I would have thought “What did I just watch?” without knowledge of the book due to its superficiality. 

"Does prejudicde matter in society today?" Debate

The following blog is an opinion in relation to the debate in the
class and does not necessarily reflect my personal view on the the topic
discussed. Also, if I've offended everyone, don't take it personally.
I merely offended the role you played, not you as a person:

I thought Team 1 (my team) won! Primarily because I thought we had a
strong case despite having the burden of proof, I suppose. Team 2
seemed to have circumvented their logic/argument repeatedly despite us
having rebuttled their argument like the topic of "expections to the
rules" or "neo-nazis." Both teams could have easily invalidated both
their own and their opponent's argument just like we did when they
presented their statistics. They indirectly stereotyped everyone while
defending that sterotype still existed. Our argument was that despite
the stereotype, we are aware of its false nature. Yes, you might be
called a "fortune cookie" if you're Linsanity, an "Oreo" if you're
black and you act 'white', or whatever. But I feel as if they're not
as serious as they used to be because they're just people's opinions.
That will never cease to exist and that would also lead to prejudice
which makes Team 2's argument strong. We learn by association, just as
we have the desire to belong - to associate ourselves with something.
It is a human condition. Now, it is up to us, as individuals, to
disassociate ourselves from it. As strong as Team 2's argument may be,
their closing statement seemed weak. If I remember correctly, they
said that we're accustomed to stereotypes "Blacks are ghetto; Asians
eat dogs. Be honest, [you've thought of that before]...." Their point
was to make that prejudice does matter, yet they just asked a personal
question, implying that they have thought of that. It asserts that
though they're aware that prejudice does matter, they have done
nothing as individuals to disassociate themselves from it. It almost
seems that they do believe those stereotypes are true. And if they
didn't, it would only strengthen our argument in that stereotypes have
a false nature, therefore it doesn't matter.

While it seemed that we were listing "exceptions to the rule," I think
that was a misunderstanding. Though we cannot name "all the white men
in congress," we can certainly name most of the presidents. All but
one was white. In that, we can also list why they were notable despite
all being white men. Our focus on Obama and other prominent minorities
was to show that they're proofs that times have changed. If they
didn't, they wouldn't have gotten the position they were in. They
weren't "exceptions" at all or at least, to my opinion. In stating
that they were "exceptions," Team 2 asserted that they merely got
those position because they were minorities. No. America, or rather, the
electoral college, didn't vote Obama as president because he's black
or half black. That's blasphemy. To vote a person based on his skin
color is ridiculous. He became president because of his platform. If
prejudice did matter, Clinton would have won. It would be reasonable
to think that in a society that hasn't changed, they'd choose the
Clinton, despite being a women, because she' at least white. Or maybe
sexism was held in higher regard than racism? Whichever, Clinton had
experience as First Lady.

I liked the debate much more than the previous one. First, because Mr.
Beddingfield wasn't in it. Being college-educated, it could be assumed
that he formulate an eloquent argument and be very explicit in his
argument in the time it takes us to even form a cohesive one and at
most. with any finesse. The smaller group paradigm assisted in the
focus and formation of arguments along with with an group-elected
leader, which we all lacked in the previous statement. Secondly, Mr.
Beddingfield didn't decide which position we were on so we had to
build an argument for both sides, which caused us to focus on both
sides on hand instead of just one and formulating a very strong open
on it. Very wise if you had us debate on "Why do you support Rick
Santorum?" I will also dislike it if you I were on the wrong side
because I hate him. I would have to switch my mentality to a
  conservative one. Conservation is, in itself, a subjective term.
However, as much as I would like to 'bash' extreme conservatives, I
don't because that is prejudice. Ultimately, everyone is entitled to
their opinion. Also, the team with the burden of proof wouldn't be at
a disadvantage. Now the topic, "Does prejudice still matter in society
today or it doesn't?" seems very subjective depending on what scale
you elicit. I thought the large scale would be the most wise decision
for the obvious statements that have been made. Team 2 seemed to have
debated on the small scale - in relation to the individual as to a
society.


Thanks you've successfully brainwashed us into our roles like the Stanford prison experiment. Also, you should make us debate on a very obsolete topic like "Do you support Santorum?" Maybe we'll turn into asinine conservatives, too, since the opposing team wants to use "That's why we're having a debate today" as their defense. Ad nausem. Non sequitur. All in all, we're all entitled to our opinion and if that exists so will prejudice. A utopia is impossible unless it it were to become like 'The Giver.' The the existence of prejudice doesn't necessarily imply or connote that it still matters. Like the children dying in Africa, they're still existing, but it apparently doesn't matter to most people but all of a sudden Kony and the Invisible Children do. The overworked asians working for Apple. The poor treatment of animals in the food industry. It just seems that most people 'care' on a superficial level anyway.  

Just imagine.... if I inputted my personal opinion, it'd be twice as
long. This is what happens when I have time.

Blacks in America

http://voices.yahoo.com/how-slavery-still-affects-us-today-1590813.html

The article talked about how slavery still affects America and how it
affects black people socially and mentally. The article does hold in
truth in saying that the topic of slavery hasn't truly been confronted
yet. It was certainly probably the worst aspect of human civilization.
With so many injustices, it's rational to try not to think about it or
even take pride in it. Just as you would not take pride in a loss or a
mistake. However, we have pride as Americans that we're the greatest
country in the world. When someone keeps bringing back the mistake you
did, you don't like it and that's why many people try to ignore or
even belittle the topic of slavery to make it less "severe" like the
banning of Huckleberry Finn.

Beloved: Part 1

Continue reading Beloved. Wherever you are in the novel at this point,
read through the 8th chapter (count them...it should be the same in every
edition).

Post a response to the following question on your blogs: "Can the past
every truly die? Or, is the past always with us?" Discuss this question
with regard to Beloved, The Piano Lesson, and any other life experiences
you might find relevant.


The past cannot ever truly die and it will always be with us. I believe you can see that in every person in the choices they make because it influences the decisions they decide to make. We like to believe that we make rational decisions when we're truly irrational creatures; our experiences, that is our past, influences us. This is exemplified in both Beloved and The Piano Lesson: Sethe unwilling to move from the house and committing infanticide and Berneice unwilling to let go of the Piano. Moreover, the book's nonlinear format further exemplifies this because it goes to flashbacks without any sign beforehand, often leaving its readers confused. Morrison's intention may be to showcase how our past influences us. 


Now in terms of physics: the past, present, and future is interesting in that they're all the same: having already occurred. Instead, because we're three-dimensional beings, we experience time in a linear fashion, sadly. 


If our past were to be erased or "die," we'd be lost. You can clearly see that dementia, Alzheimer's, and retrograde amnesia. People afflicted with these struggle to live because they can't remember their past. Furthermore, it seems to make a valid case in that we don't want to forget the past no matter how tortuous it may have been.That's when the past truly dies, for the person at least and the fear is almost unfathomable unless you experience it for yourself.