Friday, June 13, 2014
Brutus: Patriot or Traitor? by Hanuman
Hanuman Durina
Honors English 2B
May 25, 2014
Brutus, the Back-stabber
When white abolitionist John Brown and his
followers planned to raid the armory at Harper’s Ferry in 1859, he knew they
would be committing treason. He did it anyway, because he felt so strongly that
his cause, the abolition of slavery, was just, that he felt that any action he
took would be morally justified. In the same way, Brutus justified his role in
the assassination of Julius Caesar by arguing that his only goal was to stop Rome’s
advance towards imperial rule. Justifying the means to an end is all Brutus
is really doing, and as an honorable man, he had to ignore his conscience so as
to carry out the heinous crime of stabbing Caesar. Some may argue that Brutus was just
doing as he was told by Cassius, the ringleader of the assassins, and that
eliminating Caesar was the only way to stop Caesar from rising to power as the
Emperor of Rome. However, an intelligent man like Brutus
should have foreseen that Caesar’s death alone would not stop the fall of the
Roman Republic, as many powerful men besides Caesar desired to become the sole
controller of Rome. Brutus proposes
his solution to the Caesar problem when he says to himself: “And that craves wary walking. Crown him? And then, I grant, we put a
sting in him.“ But this only solves the immediate problem, rather than actually
preventing Rome from becoming an Empire. He also should have seen that envious
Cassius’s intentions were not pure and been more wary of his counsel. Despite
the friendship they shared, Brutus was willing to kill Caesar with no regard
for his life or the lives of his family, showing that he betrayed both Caesar
and himself by falling prey to the flattering and false words of the
conspirators, especially Cassius.
Brutus was an honorable man, and so most
people throughout time have believed his claim that his motive was never to
hurt Caesar, but only to stop Rome from becoming an empire, a fate he thought
so terrible that it justified killing his best friend. However, despite his intentions,
Brutus didn’t stop Rome from becoming an empire, he just stopped Caesar from
becoming emperor. This path ultimately led to a civil war between the
triumvirate, and the eventual reign of an empire more dictatorial than any led
by Caesar. Even if Caesar had been crowned, his rule would have been tempered
by the Senators, many of whom opposed a strong central system. After Caesar’s death, though, the senators
were powerless to restrain the Emperors. Even the citizens knew this to be true;
as one said, “I
fear there will a worse come in his place.” Another strong argument that can be made in Brutus’s
defense is that Brutus was just following the orders he was given by Cassius
and the other noble conspirators. Perhaps he let his trust in the Republic and
its leaders cloud his judgment and prevent him from seeing Cassius’s greed,
hate, and envy at Caesar’s rise to power. But
the fact is, Brutus was not simply following orders; his actual role in the
horrible act was one of a willing participant.
He was not a fool or a low-minded person, who blindly followed others.
Rather, Brutus’s hero complex was the driving force behind the supposedly
altruistic assassination. Only such a tragic flaw could inspire a great man to
kill a dear friend over mere politics. Caesar clearly expected
loyalty from his dear friend Brutus, and was saddened to find that he had taken
the side of the murderous conspirators, as shown when Caesar said his famous
line: “Et tu, Brute? Then fall, Caesar.”
Brutus killed Caesar. Like many of the
killers and conspirators, he was a close friend of Caesar. Not only did he take
part in the slaying, but he did it in an underhanded way, ganging up on him and
stabbing him in the back. This is not the behavior of an “honorable man.” This
one cowardly act led to the end of both Caesar’s and his own lives, along with Brutus’s
wife. Many noblemen, conspirators and not, died in the ensuing battle, as did
countless soldiers and innocent people like Cinna the poet, who was beaten just
for sharing one of the conspirators’ name.
Moreover, his stated “reasons… of such good regard.” which even the son
of Caesar should be “satisfied with”, were completely undermined by the outrage
and strife resulting from Caesar’s bloody slaughter. He listened to Cassius, and ignored the
obvious personal envy and hatred in his words.
Cassius states in Act I, scene II,
“Caesar cried 'Help me, Cassius, or I sink!'
I, as Aeneas, our great ancestor,
Did from the flames of Troy upon his shoulder
The old Anchises bear, so from the waves of Tiber
Did I the tired Caesar. And this man
Is now become a god, and Cassius is
A wretched creature and must bend his body,
If Caesar carelessly but nod on him.
He had a fever when he was in Spain,
And when the fit was on him, I did mark
How he did shake: 'tis true, this god did shake;
His coward lips did from their colour fly,
And that same eye whose bend doth awe the world
Did lose his lustre: I did hear him groan:
Ay, and that tongue of his that bade the Romans
Mark him and write his speeches in their books,
Alas, it cried 'Give me some drink, Titinius,'
As a sick girl. Ye gods, it doth amaze me
A man of such a feeble temper should
So get the start of the majestic world
And bear the palm alone.
I, as Aeneas, our great ancestor,
Did from the flames of Troy upon his shoulder
The old Anchises bear, so from the waves of Tiber
Did I the tired Caesar. And this man
Is now become a god, and Cassius is
A wretched creature and must bend his body,
If Caesar carelessly but nod on him.
He had a fever when he was in Spain,
And when the fit was on him, I did mark
How he did shake: 'tis true, this god did shake;
His coward lips did from their colour fly,
And that same eye whose bend doth awe the world
Did lose his lustre: I did hear him groan:
Ay, and that tongue of his that bade the Romans
Mark him and write his speeches in their books,
Alas, it cried 'Give me some drink, Titinius,'
As a sick girl. Ye gods, it doth amaze me
A man of such a feeble temper should
So get the start of the majestic world
And bear the palm alone.
Why did the
“noble” Brutus not hear the anger and desire for vengeance in Cassius’s words
as you surely do? Caesar also noted the hatred of Cassius: “Let
me have men about me that are fat;/ Sleek-headed men and
such as sleep o' nights:/ Yond Cassius has
a lean and hungry look;/ He thinks too much: such men
are dangerous.” Cassius himself said if he were Brutus, he would not trust
Cassius, and that is why he decided to throw the false letters of concern into
Brutus’s house at night. Brutus should have been more wary of the counsel of
such a snakelike man. He should have used his influence, which was said to be
second only to Caesar’s, to lead the conspirators and others to find a less
bloody and more reasonable long-term solution to the problems the republic was
facing.
To this day, a back-stabber is a despised
person. He is a liar, a coward, and a traitor. Of course, today we use the
phrase only metaphorically. But Brutus, who “loved Caesar well” actually
stabbed his friend in the back with a knife. Maybe, as Brutus believed, his
reasons were good, and the act was justified. But if his actions were so
well-reasoned, why did the plan backfire on him and the other conspirators?
Influenced by Cassius’s flattery and caught up in the mob-mentality of the
conspiracy, he committed a murder far beneath the honorable reputation he was
so proud of. He spoke of his love for Rome: “Not that I loved Caesar less, but that I
loved/ Rome
more.” But he is simply using the ends to justify the means. He is falsely
claiming that because he loved Rome, the only choice he had was to kill Caesar.
Was there no other option? Mark Anthony said it correctly when he called
Brutus’s stabbing of Caesar “the unkindest cut of all,” because it caused not
only physical pain, but also was a terrible betrayal of Caesar, a dear friend,
and betrayal of Rome as well.
Wednesday, June 11, 2014
The Battle of the Alamo: a Research Paper by Vidura
The
Battle of the Alamo
The
Alamo was founded in 1718 as a Spanish mission called Francisco mission of San Antonio de Valero after that it was
abandoned for about one hundred years before the battle of the Alamo, and right
before that the Alamo was used by the Mexican army too as a base but was taken
over and re-fortified by the Texans.
The
Battle of the Alamo was caused by the revolution of Texas. The Texas revolution
happened because Texas couldn’t gain statehood— its population was too low. Meanwhile,
American settlers saw the good land and started moving into the Mexican-controlled
territory. Because of this, the population of Texas increased drastically from
1823-1828. The Mexican government was not happy that the settlers were moving
in because they could see that it was sparking a revolution. The Tejanos, on
the other hand, were happy because they saw it as a chance for Texas to gain
statehood. The Mexican government was angry, so to stop the revolution they
made it so that no American settlers were allowed to enter the Mexican
territory. That only made the settlers and Tejanos angrier, and that was the
real reason for the Texas revolution.
The
battle of the Alamo lasted for many days and the number of people killed topped
an astounding 1,800. The number of
people injured were countless. All though we don’t know exactly how many people
there where, we know that all of the 187 Texan defenders were killed, and in
the fort only a few people such as slave and a woman with her child were
spared. At the battle of the Alamo, the Texans did lose but they actually got
more kills. But General Santa Anna fought hard to make sure all Texan troops
were killed because he did not want one to be spared. He also did not want to
keep any captives not even the Texan army generals (such as William Travis).
David
Crocket was a famous speaker, a congressman, and a very good hunter. He wanted
move to Texas when he saw a nice plot of land, although his wife did not want
to move and she thought that they were perfectly fine were they were. Later,
when the Texas revolution started he and 12 of his men fought in it and died
defending the Alamo from the Mexican troops. The reason he fought was because
he could see that the Mexican government was being very unfair to the people
living in Texas. David Crocket is now commonly known as Davy Crocket although
back when he was still alive people always called him David, not Davy.
James
Bowie was also a famous man even before the battle of the Alamo. His brother
Reza Bowie invented the bowie knife which is still used today. James Bowie used
the bowie knife while fighting at the Alamo and the other Texas volunteers used
similar knifes. James Bowie spent most of his time growing up in Louisiana
although he was born in Kentucky. He moved to Texas in 1830 were he married the
vice governor’s daughter Ursula Veramendi. He was a nineteenth century,
smuggler, pioneer, slave trader, soldier, and speculator.
Unlike
David Crocket and James Bowie, William Travis was really famous before he dies
at the Alamo. William Travis went to Sparta academy were he learned subjects
such as Greek, Latin, History, and Mathematics. After his education was
finished at the age of 18, he became an assistant teacher at Monroe County were
fell in love with Rosanna Cato. William and Rosanna married in October 1828. Just
a year after their marriage Rosanna gave birth to their first son Charlie. He
took charge of the defenders of the Alamo when Colonel James Neill had to leave
due to sickness in his family.
The
defenders of the Alamo were mostly American settlers who moved to Texas and
didn’t think the Mexican government was doing a good job ruling over the Texas
province. The Alamo defenders were besieged for about thirteen days starting in
late-February and ending in early march. On one of the walls, there were cut
down trees and an armored deck with cannons. The defenders dropped loads like
stones on the attackers below. One of the main defenses of the Alamo were the
heavy cannons. The defenders also had ditches on many of the walls where the
defenders could lay on their stomachs and shoot at the Mexicans.
General
Santa Anna was also not just a general but the president of Mexico too. General
Santa Anna had almost 2,400 troops in San Antonio, although more were also
coming. One tactic the Mexican soldiers used was put ladders up to the walls;
this meant that the front row of defenders would die. The reason so many
Mexican troops died was because Santa Anna was careless. One time when the
Mexican officers protested against the ladder tactic because it would lose too
many men, he held up a piece of chicken that he was in the middle of eating and
said: “What are the lives of soldiers more than so many chickens? I tell you,
the Alamo must fall, and my orders must be obeyed at all hazards. If our
soldiers are driven back, the next line in their rear must force those before
them forward, and compel them to scale the walls, cost what it may (Walker, 47).”
Children
and women were also in the Alamo, so because the Mexican government didn’t want
everyone to think they were careless, they had to be careful not to kill
children and mothers who were civilians and didn’t pose any threat upon the
Mexican government. The battle of the Alamo had many effects. First of all, it
gave people something to fight for. At later battles, people were heard
screaming, “REMEMBER THE ALAMO!” and having so much courage that they could
destroy enemy lines easily. Because of this battle cry, the Texans were able to
win battles easily.
At
the battle of the Alamo, the Mexican army suffered over 600 hundred Casualties
and all 187 Texan defenders were killed. That means that if there were the same
amount of Texans as there were Mexican soldiers, the Texans would have won the
battle of the Alamo which would have made it even more famous than it is today.
The battle of the Alamo made its defenders into martyrs and heroes. The famous
men Davy Crockett, William Travis, and James Bowie were among them. Texans could
also have more to fight for then they did before.
Works Cited
Alphin, Elaine M, and Tim Parlin. Davy Crockett. Minneapolis:
Lerner Publications Co, 2003. Print.
Connor, Seymour V. "Alamo, The." Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia. Grolier Online, 2014. Web. 6 Mar. 2014.
The Official
Alamo Website. N.p., n.d. Web. 6 Mar. 2014.
Riehecky, Janet. The
Siege of the Alamo. Milwaukee, WI: World Almanac Library, 2002.
Print.
Walker,
Paul R. Remember the Alamo: Texians, Tejanos, and Mexicans Tell Their
Stories. Washington, D.C: National Geographic, 2007. Print.
Wednesday, May 28, 2014
The Lay of the Were Wolf
Hanu had to analyse this story, and argue who is the monster; Bisclavaret or his wife?
http://www.gradesaver.com/the-lais-of-marie-de-france/e-text/section9/
Here is his essay:
Logos
Pathos
Ethos
http://www.gradesaver.com/the-lais-of-marie-de-france/e-text/section9/
Here is his essay:
In defense of Bisclavaret:
Logos
Bisclavaret hid his secret from his wife to protect her, and
to protect himself. When she demanded the truth, he told her. She loved him
before she knew his condition, so why should she not love him afterward?
Logically, she should have seen that he had always been a werewolf, and yet she
loved him. So his being a werewolf did not make him a monster.
Pathos
When the wolf who was Bisclavaret saw his former wife and
her new husband, he was overcome with fury. Any man who had been betrayed in
such a terrible way would have behaved the same way. If fact, an animal might
not care if his mate left him for another mate. His pain at his love’s betrayal
shows that he is human, not a monster.
Ethos
After finding out about her husband’s condition, the wife
conspired behind her Lord’s back with another man, stole from him, and caused
him to live as an animal while she and her new lover usurped his kingdom and
properties and left him to die in the wilderness. Bisclavaret, on the other
hand, remained faithful and loyal to the king despite the terrible
circumstances he was put in. Bisclavaret was loyal and his wife was not. So she
is the monster.
Closing
Argument:
A
logical person must see that Bisclavaret is not a monster. He rightly expected
that if he told the truth, his wife may fear him. So, rather than ruin his
marriage over a thing he had no control over, he hid the reason for his
disappearances from his wife who he loved dearly. When pressed, he revealed the
truth to her. She loved him before she knew his condition, so why should
she not love him afterward? Logically, she should have seen that he had always
been a werewolf, and yet she loved him. So his being a werewolf did not make
him a monster. Instead she betrayed him. But
even after he was betrayed, he remained in the forest to avoid harming anyone.
As a wolf, he could have done great harm to his former wife. But rather than
recklessly act as a monster would, he just lived in the woods before becoming the
trusted confidante of the king. The fact that even as an animal he was only aggressive towards his former wife
and her usurping suitor, shows how just and rational he had always been, as a
beast or a man.
Bisclavaret
was deeply pained by his wife’s actions and the pitiful situation into which he
was tricked. Still, rather than becoming violent and acting terribly, he
instead acted peacefully and surrendered to his conditions. He lived a life of
peace in the forest before becoming the king’s dog. He not only was just as
trustworthy and kind as a wolf as he had been as a man, but he acted like a gentleman
through all his troubles. When the wolf who was Bisclavaret saw his
former wife and her new husband, he was overcome with fury. Any person who had
been betrayed in such a terrible way would have behaved the same way. If fact,
an animal might not care if his mate left him for another mate. His pain at his
love’s betrayal shows that he is human, not a monster.
An
ethical person has loyalty to those they love, but a monster has no love or
loyalty. The wife claimed to love Bisclavaret, but she did not truly love him
or she would have accepted him for who he was. He tried to live as honestly and
happily as could, given his unfortunate predicament. But after his wife
found out about her husband’s condition, she conspired behind her Lord’s back
with another man, stole from him, and caused him to live forever as an animal in
the wilderness while she and her new lover usurped his kingdom and properties.
Bisclavaret, on the other hand, remained faithful and loyal to the king despite
the terrible circumstances he was put in. Bisclavaret was loyal and his wife
was not. So the wife is clearly the real monster.
Tuesday, April 1, 2014
5 Flowers, 4 Stories, 3 Cheers for Animals!
Anjali is working on a Daisy Girl Scout Journey called, "5 Flowers, 4 Stories, 3 Cheers for Animals!" There is a workbook, and in addition she is doing many educational activities to earn each of the three smaller badges which go on the larger patch:
Right now, she's working on the birdbath patch. Here are some pictures of her at the library "PAWS for Reading" event, where she read to a therapy dog and learned about how dogs can help people.
She also made a dog hand puppet there. A few of the other things we've done this week were making popcorn garlands for birds, putting out lint and yarn scraps for birds to build nests with, making a honeycomb collage.
Hanuman's Psychological Analysis Essay on Jane Eyre
Hanuman P. Durina
Honors English II B
Bringing It All Together
March 25, 2014
Why Is Jane Eyre an Orphan?
Oliver Twist,
Mary Lennox, Heathcliff, and Harry Potter; all of these memorable characters
are orphans, as are many main characters in both children’s and adult fiction. Orphans
have always been plentiful in literature, because they are often sympathetic and
memorable characters, but also because their unique situation allows them to
have experiences that most children, who have doting and protective parents,
could not have: “They are a manifestation of loneliness, but they also
represent the possibility for humans to reinvent themselves. Orphans begin with
a clean slate because they do not have parents to influence them either for
good or for evil” (Kimball, 559). In Jane Eyre by Charlotte Bronte, the titular
character was orphaned at a young age, and as a result she underwent many hardships.
She was abused, spurned, betrayed, humiliated, and belittled. Although she
eventually found happiness at the end of her journey through the book, it could
easily be argued that happiness would have come to her far easier had she not
been an orphan and had been protected and supported by her parents. Jane Eyre’s
parents’ death and her being raised as an orphan changed the course of her life
drastically and had a notable effect on her psychology—both for the worse.
Because of
her early orphanage, Jane went through many hardships, and her life was
completely upset by her parents’ deaths. Losing her parents resulted in her
being forced to live with her aunt, Mrs. Reed “and orphan heroines are often
cruelly treated by their female relations” (Kimball, 562). Her extended family
did not treat her as one of their own; instead she lived a life of
Cinderella-style servitude and artificially imposed poverty, as is the case
with many orphaned heroines, “Abbot says I
have less right to be here than a servant" (Bronte, 16). Jane would have been a far happier child if
she had parents, as she would have not been abused by her Aunt and cousins such
as when her cousin caught her reading a book;
You have no
business to take our books; you are a dependent, mama says; you have no money;
your father left you none; you ought to beg, and not to live here with
gentlemen's children like us, and eat the same meals we do, and wear clothes at
our mama's expense. Now, I'll teach you to rummage my bookshelves: for they ARE
mine; all the house belongs to me, or will do in a few years. Go and stand by
the door, out of the way of the mirror and the windows."
I did so, not
at first aware what was his intention; but when I saw him lift and poise the book
and stand in act to hurl it, I instinctively started aside with a cry of alarm:
not soon enough, however; the volume was flung, it hit me, and I fell, striking
my head against the door and cutting it. The cut bled, the pain was sharp: my
terror had passed its climax; other feelings succeeded (Bronte, 4-5).
Her mistreatment never broke her spirit,
though; “"Unjust!--unjust!" said my
reason, forced by the agonizing stimulus into precocious though transitory
power: and Resolve, equally wrought up, instigated some strange expedient to
achieve escape from insupportable oppression--as running away, or, if that
could not be effected, never eating or drinking more, and letting myself die”
(Bronte, 9). Still, she probably would have grown into a happier adult
and lived a normal life apart from the heartbreak of her teenage years, as well
as being supported after retirement from Mr. Rochester’s estate. She also may
not have been sent to the same school and followed the same career path as a
governess, thereby not experiencing many of the great hardships she faced on
her journey. We might assume that Jane would have led a far happier life if she
had not been orphaned, although she may have never met Mr. Rochester, with whom
at the end of the book she achieves perfect marital bliss.
When an
Author makes the main character an orphan, such as in J.K. Rowling’s popular
Harry Potter series, he or she does so not only to enable certain plot points
to move forward, but also because of the way orphanhood affects the
psychological condition and inner psyche of the character. For Jane, the main
psychological effects are her pessimistic world view and her determination and
resilience. . She is resistant to change, and this is one of the reasons she
leaves Mr. Rochester and cancels her marriage with St. John. I think that much
of her personality was molded by all the hardships she went through, and though
it made her stronger, it made her sadder. She even tried to convince herself
that she should have no feelings for Mr. Rochester "You have nothing to do
with the master of Thornfield, further than to receive the salary he gives you
for teaching his protégée - He is not of your order: keep to your caste; and be
too self-respecting to lavish the love of the whole heart, soul, and strength,
where such a gift is not wanted and would be despised" (Bronte, 84). Jane
would have been far happier if she had parents as a child and had not been confined
to the life presented by her family and had not become as defensive and
self-destructive a character. Her aunt was hateful and abusive, as were her cousins,
and it led to very strong defensive barriers. The nasty Reed family taught her
that poverty was synonymous was with degradation, and she thought that “Poverty
looks grim to grown people; still more so to children: they have not much idea
of industrious, working, respectable poverty-for me [it] was synonymous with degradation”
(Bronte, 63). This led to her early on having problems dealing with her own poverty
and happiness. We might assume that Jane would have led a far happier life if
she had not been orphaned, although she may have never met Mr. Rochester, with
whom at the end of the book she achieves perfect marital bliss, “He loved me so truly, that he knew no reluctance in
profiting by my attendance: he felt I loved him so fondly, that to yield that
attendance was to indulge my sweetest wishes” (Bronte, 432).
Jane Eyre was
a very free spirited woman, not only for the time in which she lived, but also today.
As Dave Astor writes in The Huffington Post, “Jane
has to mostly make her own way in the world” (Astor). Because of this she
would rather be happy and poor than sad and rich, but because she is an orphan,
she tries very hard to not hold onto things that may not last. This causes her
to have many problems with relationships and friendships, and she feels like
unless she can find somewhere she can be truly happy she cannot stay. She also
regrets many decisions she makes because she fears that they were the key to
her happiness and that she made the wrong decision. In the end of the book, she
claims to be truly happy, “My Edward and I, then, are happy” (Bronte, 433), so
maybe her difficult life brought her to a great reward, but I think she would
have found happiness sooner if she had not had to undergo such strife.
Works Cited
Brontë, Charlotte. Jane Eyre:
Introduction by Joyce Carol Oates. Bantam Books, 1987. Print.
"Dave Astor: Orphans in
Literature." The Huffington Post. N.p., n.d. Web.
25 Mar. 2014.
Kimball, Melanie A. "From Folktales to Fiction: Orphan
Characters in Children’s Literature."Library Trends 47.3 (1999): 558-578. , Graduate School of Library and Information
Science, University of Illinois. Web. 31 Mar. 2014.
<https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/bitstream/handle/2142/8216/librarytrendsv47i3p_opt.pdf?sequence=1century>.
"Orphans - Childhood Studies - Oxford
Bibliographies -." Oxford Bibliographies - Your Best Research
Starts Here -. N.p., n.d. Web. 25 Mar. 2014.
Problem-solution essay
Vidura wrote this short problem/solution essay for school.
When
Your Room is a Mess
Sometimes, if your room is really
messy and you have to clean it, you don’t know where to start. But just sitting
there won’t help. You need to know what order to do things in so that it goes
faster.
Here are some tips; first separate
the things on your floor into three groups: clothes, toys, and garbage. Put
them where they go to get them out of the way. Next, you put the rest of the
things left on the floor, like books, in their designated places. Now you can
vacuum and make your bed, then you can straighten up the last few things and
then you’re done! The room will look way better than it did before.
Theodore Boone: The Abduction by John Grisham
Rasa got some books from my mother-in-law last week, which had belonged to my husband's younger cousin Sydney, who is now in college. Among them was this, one of John Grisham's young adult novels. Rasa liked it, and for her book response activity, she made a "MISSING" poster. Here it is:
The baby crumpled it a bit when we were trying to take the picture. :)
Raghu Finished "The Lord of the Rings" today.
This is his Book Response Activity from last week. It is a Venn diagram comparing Boromir and his brother Faramir.
This week he will do another activity on "The Return of the King." Then he can move on to other books.
Friday, March 21, 2014
Raghu is still reading "The Lord of the Rings"
Raghu, who is 8 years old and was for a while behind in learning to read, is plugging away at his one-volume, pictureless, fine-print version of Tolkien's LOTR trilogy. He is now finishing "The Two Towers" and decided to draw a map of Rohan for his Book Response Activity this week. Here it is:
Rasa's Illustration of "The Golden One" from "Anthem" by Ayn Rand
This week Rasa read "Anthem" by Ayn Rand. She drew a picture of how she imagined the Golden One to look while she was working in the field. You can see other nameless women in the background, bent double, while the Golden One stands tall. This is what she was trying to convey. She wanted to have the girl and the forest lit with sunlight while the left side of the picture was darker. That was hard to achieve, but even in the scanned version you can see it a bit. For those who have not read the book (and those who have), here is Rush's take on it:
And here is Rasa's illustration:
And here is Rasa's illustration:
Wednesday, March 19, 2014
Adding more to this blog
Because it is primarily a way for me to look back at the kids' schoolwork, I have decided to add the kids' online school assignments too. I just added a few items Hanuman and Vidura finished recently. And here is cute Anjali selling Girl Scout Cookies.
Vidura's advice to Raghu
Vidura had to write a "Letter of Advice."
Dear Raghu,
I heard you were going to Connections Academy and I wanted
to help.
First, there’s a box named to-do-list-which allows you to
access your overdue lessons and it shows you if you have any new webmails.
Under the to-do-list is your daily planner which to me is like my school
checklist because when you’re done with all the things on your planner you’re
done for the day.
I hope this helps.
Sincerely yours,
Vidura
Vidura
Vidura's Cardinal Story
One day I went outside
and saw a cardinal sitting on a branch. I looked down from the branch to the
ground underneath. The cardinal’s nest had fallen. I went back inside. As the
cardinal flew I watched it from my bedroom window. It went back and forth carrying,
bits of mud, twigs and leaves using them to build a new nest. When it was done
it laid eggs then it flew of. Well it was gone little cracks started to appear
on the eggs and then the eggs broke one after another until there were for
little chicks sitting there and then the cardinal was back with four worms
which it fed to the baby cardinals. It is very wonderful to watch an animal in
their natural habitat; nature is truly full of wonders.
Hanuman's Essay on The Premature Burial By Edgar Allen Poe
Imaginary
Burials
In “The Premature Burial,” Edgar
Allen Poe explores the theme of imagination. Whether because we are dreaming,
ill, beguiled by tricks, or under the influence of drugs or medication, what we
perceive is not always real, and we can become very fearful of imaginary
things. The terror experienced by the narrator of the story shows that the mind
is often stronger than we think. The narrator’s mental state is not rational,
because rather than perceiving reality for what it is, he saw his surroundings
in a small sloop’s cabin as a coffin, and he panicked at the thought of being
buried alive. Specific story elements such as the dark, close, and confined setting
in both the coffin in the narrator’s perceived reality as well as in the sloop’s
cabin in his reality inspire fear and foreboding. In paragraph two, Poe builds
suspense with this darkness, and the narrators feeling of being unable to move,
being trapped, while those around him move freely and separately from himself. The
men on the ship, while not comforting, still provided immense relief as they
show that the coffin is not real, but just a figment of imagination. The coffin
represents imagination or hallucination, and the characters such as the men on
the ship represent our reality, true, not always pleasant, but very much real,
helping the narrator to gain a sense of balance upon awakening after what he
perceives to be his burial. Both the setting and symbolism are essential in
developing the theme because they show the contrast between the dark unknown
and surrealism of the man’s imagination against the reality of the trip on the
boat.
The theme in “The Premature Burial”
is very similar to that of “A Telltale Heart”, another story by Poe. Both
stories involve the character’s mind tricking itself into believing something
unreal and dreamlike, even while awake. The narrator of “The Telltale Heart” is
different than that of “The Premature Burial” because he is by far more mad,
and his madness led him to murder an old man, after which he believes he can
hear the man’s heart beating under the floorboards where he hid the body. So it
is not himself being buried alive that he fears, but the old man. Of course,
the beating is not real, but imaginary. This all ties into the theme of mind
overpowering reality, and in both stories, Poe uses themes of fear, death,
despair, madness, entrapment, and imagination. While in “The Telltale Heart”
the protagonist actually committed terrifying acts, which consume his mind, in
“The Premature Burial,” the terror is not at all real, and entirely in his
mind, but it is just as frightening nonetheless.
The Boarded Window
Hanu had to analyse "The Boarded Window" by Ambrose Bierce for a class assignment. You can read the story online here. Here is Hanuman's analysis:
In Ambrose Bierce’s “The Boarded
Window”, the physical setting of the story is the cabin with a boarded window
in the Mid-Western wilderness of the 1800s. The main thing that creates an
unsettling feeling is the mystery of the boarded up window, and how very few
people knew why it was boarded up, and why it remained that way. The mood that
results from the author’s description is one of ambiguity and foreboding. The
theme seems to be that people often try to lock up their secrets and grief, and
keep them inside where no one can know. In the final lines, however, an ironic
twist influences the final theme or meaning of the story by showing that we,
like the old man, may have been deceived about the woman’s death. Bierce uses
many techniques to create mystery, such as the unreliable narrator, who uses
words like “perhaps” and “apparently” in almost every sentence, as well as
Murdock’s mental state and the darkness itself, which don’t allow Murdock or us
to see what is really happening. I was surprised by the twist, but not shocked,
because even the twist is uncertain and unfulfilling. The reader does not have
enough information to be sure if the wife was alive the whole time, in a coma
which she woke from when attacked by the panther, or when, if ever, she fought
with the animal and bit its ear. Did it happen before Murdock woke up, or after
he fired his rifle and lost consciousness again? In reading the story, my main
feeling was sadness for the man, who we know lived a long and lonely life.
Afterward, the impossibility of knowing what really happened made me think of
the story again and again, but then finally give up unsatisfied.
Morgan freeman reviews "Eye Contact"
For school Hanuman had to record himself reading his review of this short film. He decided to use his Morgan Freeman voice to read it. Probably spiced up his teacher's day a little, grading assignments. He got an A.
Monday, March 17, 2014
The Lord of the Rings
Raghu’s book response activity
for book 1 of The Lord of the Rings by
JRR Tolkien. Book one is the first part of The Fellowship of the Ring, up to
Rivendell.
Today I am going to
make a list of things that are wrong in the movie:
The first thing is that the movie does not mention
Tom Bombadil.
The
second thing is that it does not mention Furno and his pony.
The
third thing is that the elf who comes to help them get to Rivendell is not a
girl, and they spot him- he doesn’t spot them.
The
fourth thing that I want to say is that Frodo is on the horse by himself, not
with the elf.
The
fifth thing I want to say is that it was Frodo who made the river flood, not
the elf.
Sunday, March 16, 2014
Wednesday, January 22, 2014
Rasa's Book response activity for "Jacob Have I Loved"
Rasa wrote a review for amazon. Here it is:
This review is from: Jacob Have I Loved (Paperback)
As I read books, I like to immerse myself into the world—so much so that I can feel and sympathize with the main character. However, when the main character is somebody that you would hate in real life, it’s impossible to relate to their feelings, which is something I feel has to happen if you are to read a book and feel at the end like you have learned something and that you are better off afterwards. In the case of “Jacob Have I Loved,” the main character, Sara Louise, is envious and mean and the exact kind of person that makes other people miserable. Throughout the book, all she does is complain about life, although she never really tries to make it better.
In the book, one of the messages that is portrayed is that it’s wrong to try to be good and work hard to reach your goals. For example, Caroline, her younger twin sister, is pretty, good at singing, and everybody likes her, while Sara Louise seems to insist on not adapting to society’s expectations. As somebody who can relate more to Caroline, I found that I couldn’t read the book without hating Sara Louise, for the whole book is a rant about how everything and everybody, including God was against her.
In the book she falls in love with this old man who is 53 years older that her, who I might add her crazy grandmother also loves, even though he is married. The whole situation is extremely weird and you feel awkward just reading it. She also has an obsession with hands and for a good part of the book; you just hear her talking about hands, including the old man’s. She goes on and on about what hands symbolize in a person, while you (impatiently) wait for her to stop talking.
At the end of the book you just think ‘what did I just waste my time reading?’ and like I said before, you're supposed to feel like you gained something and that you’re a better person after reading a book, but after finishing "Jacob Have I Loved," I feel worse and like nothing was gained, but time was lost. in the end I just feel "what was the point of this book?"
In the book, one of the messages that is portrayed is that it’s wrong to try to be good and work hard to reach your goals. For example, Caroline, her younger twin sister, is pretty, good at singing, and everybody likes her, while Sara Louise seems to insist on not adapting to society’s expectations. As somebody who can relate more to Caroline, I found that I couldn’t read the book without hating Sara Louise, for the whole book is a rant about how everything and everybody, including God was against her.
In the book she falls in love with this old man who is 53 years older that her, who I might add her crazy grandmother also loves, even though he is married. The whole situation is extremely weird and you feel awkward just reading it. She also has an obsession with hands and for a good part of the book; you just hear her talking about hands, including the old man’s. She goes on and on about what hands symbolize in a person, while you (impatiently) wait for her to stop talking.
At the end of the book you just think ‘what did I just waste my time reading?’ and like I said before, you're supposed to feel like you gained something and that you’re a better person after reading a book, but after finishing "Jacob Have I Loved," I feel worse and like nothing was gained, but time was lost. in the end I just feel "what was the point of this book?"
You can see the 2-star review here.
Raghu's book response activity for "Crispin: The Cross of Lead" by Avi
I read Crispin by Avi this week. For my book response activity, I made a model in minecraft. This picture is of the White Stag Inn’s back door. This is where Crispin climbs over the garden’s wall to tell Bear what he saw.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)