The End of a Great Era (anonymous feedback)

Junior Year, as we know it, has come to an exciting close, but so has another era: that of the first AP 3's, the first and last of a great group.
I know Mr. Laz asked for some feedback...
Honestly, at first, I did not see the light at the end of the tunnel. I thought the course was definitely a challenge, except the vocab quizzes, which basically kept my grades up.
Hayakawa was AWESOME. It totally opened my eyes to the world, and it hasn't made me more cynical, just more aware.
I think my least favorite part, as with the majority, was NOT the term paper, but the individual tests on each era. I always seemed to run out of time... But they couldn't be avoided, because they did effectively test our knowledge of each era and our utilization of rhetorical analysis.
The term paper steps were organized, and I felt really confident just because everything had a reason and flowed smoothly. Of course, I hate the idea of a term paper (who doesn't), but as far as they go, this was almost enjoyable, to see that each of us could really produce a knock-out essay.
As I reflect back on the course as a whole, I would have to say I loved it. Every moment was intellectually stimulating, whether I was awake for it or not. Thanks LAZ! Thanks for a great year everyone!

Romanticism and Neoclassicim

Hey, it's Erin.
Ah, my last post of the year...
Well, as I've been studying hectically for finals, I was reviewing Romanticism and Neoclassicism. I know that they are very opposite in many ways (form v. content, individual v. group, emotion v. logic), but I feel that they have some similarities as well. An important idea is Romanticism is that of the individual instinct, that people can find their own way because their instincts/emotions will guide them the right way. Even though neoclassicism emphasizes logic as the path to truth, evil is defined as that which destroys happiness; that which promotes happiness is good. In a way, neoclassics relied on their emotions (happiness v. unhappiness) to determine truth. Also, just as the individual is important in Romanticism (the individual must find their own way/truth), the individual is important in Neoclassicism, although in a different way. Religious liberty was emphasized: everyone needed to find their own religious truth; it was an individual matter. What other people had to say about religion was no longer important; Neoclassics felt that they should try to find out using actual religious texts, sort of making their own interpretation. Romanticism simply extended the Neoclassic idea of religion as a matter of the individual to greater extent.
I just thought that it was interesting how two things that are so different in so many ways had similarities.
Good luck on finals everyone!!!!!

My Class Review! -Cristy

Hey it's Cristy, I was looking over the blog for old time's sake. (even though I still can't believe it's over!) and I realized I never got to hand in my class critique that I wrote...so I will blog what I remember of it now. First of all, thanks to Mr. Lazarow for an exciting and interesting class that really woke me up in the morning and left me questioning reality for the rest of the day. I agree that I did not feel that I got too much use out of the Toulmin Sentence and that maybe if we started it earlier in the year I would have gotten a chance to be more comfortable working with it. I really did enjoy the literature we read, and analyzing it afterwards in class. I loved the witch hunt game and I thought the day where we acted as a different personality type was amazing! I think it would be great to incorporate those games into the class next year and maybe add another one!
Hayakawa was amazing and I know that we have all come to love and revere his name. :) It helps so much with rhetorical analysis, and I don't know how I went so long without focusing more on it. I guess the only things I think could be different are #1 I didn't feel like I really knew were I stood grade wise and #2 that I don't think 1 week was really enough time to finish the term paper. Because 5 of the days are school days with lots of other work,(which can slow the whole process down) and then it might take a bit of time to get it checked etc.
But I really did enjoy the class. The random tangents, the heated arguments, the quote game! hahaha. Okay well thank you Mr. Laz and all of my fellow pupils for a great year! Enjoy the summer!

Class Review

Hey, it's Erin.

Well, the last day of class is over, so I guess now would be a good time to review the year. First off, I think that everyone really grew over the year and we should all be proud (we not only survived, we dominated!). I think that the blog should definitely be considered part of the participation grade (because it helps out all the quiet people like me who feel that if they say something they'll sound like idiots and would just rather write stuff down). Hayakawa was definitely one of my favorite parts of the year; he pretty much helped with everything from the beginning of the year on. I also felt pretty prepared for the AP test. We'd done so much rhetorical analysis we could all do it in our sleep and the same with writing essays (although maybe not me in that regard). But in that case, I already knew that writing essays was my weak point rather than my strong point but I feel like I learned a lot along the way (although sometimes the hard way). Also, I really liked learning about the different movements (neoclassicism, romanticism).
As to the term paper unit, I agree with what Ian said that the Toulmin model should be brought up earlier; it would be really helpful on essays. I also agree with what Ashley said that eliminating books, and then supporting material, was really hard. I'm sure it helped us in the long run - focussing our argument more and finding the absolutely necessary information - but it was so hard at times. Finally, I felt that I needed WAY more time before the term paper due date. Suddenly, it was like, "okay, I have a term paper due in a week - help!" Of course, that could just be me but I felt that a bit more time would have been wonderful.
Best memories of this class: Ben acting like he was going to accuse Steph (like a lot of other people) but then accusing Deirdre (so funny), that experiment where we acted completely different for a day, winning the quote game (we rock!)... I would think of more but I'm so tired.
In conclusion, we will always be Mr. Lazarow's BEST AP 3 class ever :)

!!!!!!!

I still can't believe English is over...Or that we beat Mr. Laz in the quote game!

I don't know what I'm going to do without the PACKETS. I have Post-Packet Stress Disorder..........................

Does anyone still read the blog!?

Reality

Well, I've been meaning to write this post for sometime now, and seeing how its the last day, I'm guessing now would be a good time. So basically, we began this year discussing Hayakawa, and how no two of us perceive anything the same way - because we are inherently different in our experiences, our background, etc., in short whatever makes us uniquely us. The question that arises is - is there some form of "truth", as in is there one "actual" reality that we take parts of? In all likelihood, the very nature of using language limits the expression of this truth. The Spanish philospher, Jose Ortega y Gasset, seemingly resolved this problem by stating that we all view part of the "actuality", and the sum total of all our views was this "truth", and that "truth" was what we call God. To me, this seems somewhat of an easy way out, by attributing something we're not sure exists - "truth", to something else that we may not be sure of - God. An interesting road to take here is to consider the notion that truth doesn't actually exist - and is only another figment of our psyches that we strive for. This raises a whole new set of problems. Our entire action is based on the idea that there is some definite reality that we all experience, with common time and space, etc. and that everything has a cause and effect, a principle called determinism. If we throw the notion of an absolute reality out, our existences become very complicated. Even on a scientific level, absolute reality doesn't exist - particles can travel through supposedly solid walls, observing something changes its existence, and it is impossible to know where an object is and how fast it is moving. Technically, when you bounce a tennis ball on the wall, there is a probability that it will go through the wall without damaging it at all. I wonder now how we all function if we really are experiencing different realities - and also if we all disreguard the notion of alternate realities for pure convenience. Is our entire existence based off the false assumption that we perceive an absolute reality that is unchanging for all on some level, and is it even possible to move past this false assumption? Is the notion of false itself flawed? Whether one is a Romantic and loves the individual reality, or one is a neoclassic and loves the reality of the group, the very reality of absolute reality is a problem that must be addressed by all.

June 12 Class

Hey, it's Erin.

We continued learning about the heroic archetype today. We started out by finishing the journey. The journey or quest is filled with dangers, loneliness, and temptation, because the journey is meant to represent life. The hero is in an alien country, because the journey leads them far from home (taking away their feelings of comfort), so they have to face new situations. The responsibility for the quest is on one person - the hero - who is constantly tempted to abandon their quest.
The hero is usually accompanied by companions, who are meant to support the hero and reduce their loneliness. However, sometimes they have the opposite effect and make the hero more lonely. The key point is that all of the hero's companions will fall away before the final battle, which is more of an internal battle.
There are also guides to help the hero. A guide is revealed after the hero in some way reveals themselves. The guide is a revered but unlikely person. Help or advice from the guide will be offered ambiguously and not all of the dangers will be spelled out - otherwise the hero and their companions wouldn't need to use their own common sense. Also, the guide usually has some connection to the opposite side that they are unwilling to reveal. The guide always possesses great power, but never enough to defeat the evil because then the hero wouldn't be needed. Finally, guides usually were heroes in the past.
During the final conflict there is a "descent into darkness." It can be literal, figurative, or both, but that moment plays on the fears of the hero. The descent is the hero's lowest moment, and they are always alone. Once the hero achieves victory, they return to the light. Before the descent into darkness, the hero receives a physical wound; however, it's usually not important to them at that point. In the end, it is not a contest of strength (because of the hero's injury). The hero might even die achieving their goal. There is a difference in the hero after the descent: new maturity and wisdom. They can't make their companions understand their new knowledge. The original goal of the hero is only a symbol. Also, good never really defeats evil; evil defeats itself.
Finally, the hero brings their knowledge back to their community and tries to teach them. If the hero dies, then the companions bring the knowledge back with them.

My Enjoyment of All Movies Has Officially Been Ruined...

Hey guys, it's Allison.

After today's discussion of archetypes, I knew that I'd see movies and stories differently, but I didn't actually think that my experiences with them would be ruined. Today, when I was babysitting, the kids and I were watching Shrek 3. About a month or so ago, this was one of my all-time favorite cartoons. I loved the witty humor and how all the characters always lived happily ever after. However, all of that changed after today's discussion. The movie began with Shrek (who acted as the threshold character) going to a school far from Fiona's kingdom to retrieve a boy who had been outcast by his peers. Shrek proceeded to bring him back to Far-Far Away to be king. I couldn't believe that even children's movies were chock-full of archetypes. It was at this point that I had to stop watching the movie and go color; I couldn't make myself watch and see what other archetypes were thrown into the movie as well.

I think I will never enjoy a movie or fictional novel ever again.
Does anyone else have any other horror stories to tell?

No Name Hero?

Today Mr. Lazarow began talking about the "hero of one thousand faces"- the hero archetype. While we haven't finished notes, what we have learned seems to apply to Kingston's "White Tigers." On the other hand, it seems that an almost opposite effect is taking place in her more disturbing "No Name Woman," for the unnamed aunt haunts, instead of inspires, her descendants. The first condition used in the hero archetype is that the individual must come from outside of a community, or have a hidden difference within a community. Surprisingly, it seems that this step is fulfilled. The aunt is the only daughter in her family, and cares immensely about her looks, often harming herself to become more beautiful. The second condition, however, seems to be misused. Normally, the hero is neither a fool nor invincible, but possesses a great degree of common sense. The aunt seems quite foolish and lacking in "street knowledge." These characteristics not only lead to her unfortunate fate but also give an image of a person to be condemned, not lauded. Finally, it does not seem clear that the aunt has any path to follow. She is led almost entirely by tradition- a tradition that forcefully subdues her because of the subservient place of women in "Old China." The narrator recognizes the situation as tragic, but is also fearful that her aunt is haunting her. Clearly, as the author summarizes, "Goods are not evenly distributed among the dead."

June 11

Today Mr. Lazarow set out to ruin every single book, movie, television show, and graphic novel we have ever enjoyed with a little powerpoint on the Mythic Hero Archetype.

To begin, an archetype is a repeated experience in the lives of our ancestors. We inherit this experience through our collective unconscious. It is then exposed in myth, religion, dreams/fantasies, and literature. Each archetype comes from a universal, human existence. The archetype can manifest through a character type, a plot pattern, or a description. Archetypes provoke profound emotional responses because they resonate with images already existing in our minds.

This theory was created by Karl Jung. He believed that humans have urges and instincts in their subconscious which manifest themselves in fantasies and are present through symbolic motifs. They may appear as characters who help or hinder the "hero" on his.her path to enlightenment. They are seen as archetypal images such as a sequence of events, a certain kind of place, or a talismanic object.

The stories that provoke us deeply make use of these elements quite frequently.
Examples of the mythic heroic archetype include:
-journey/quest
-rite of passage
-loss of/search for Eden
-growth through conflict
-nature/life cycle
-religion (the search for God or a personal code)
-reconciliation of opposites (love/hate, heaven/hell, alienation/redemption, male/female)

As the story unfolds, we find these elements to help us make sense of our own lives.

The first quality of a mythic hero is that he/she must come from a obscure or mysterious background. The hero is either on the outside of a community or within a community but different. The "Threshold Guardian" allows a hero on the outside the freedom to act however they wish when their time of call comes. A hero on the inside, however, is forced to break all ties abruptly.

The second characteristic of a hero is that they are never a fool. They are not invincible, and may only be average in intellect, but they usually possess a great deal of common sense. Furthermore, each hero has his/her weakness. (Like kryptonite.)

The third quality of a mythic hero is that they have a path to follow. It may not be clear, but there is a goal at the end of this path. The hero is seeking something that is far form home. He/she may not know what to expect during the journey, but they know what the goal is.

Walden

Hey, it's Erin.

Well, I felt bad for ignoring Walden, so here it goes. The Romantic concept of the perfectability of man is very present in the conclusion. He says that "if one advances confidently in the direction of his dreams, and endeavors to live the life which he has imagined, he will meet with a success unexpected in the common hours... if you have built castles in air, your work need not be lost; that is where they should be. Now put the foundations under them." Like Romanticism itself, that statement is so idealistic. In reality, it would be extremely hard for anyone, though I suppose nothing is impossible, to achieve everything that they ever wanted to. When Thoreau brought up the anecdote about the artist in Kouroo, I expected a completely different ending. The man devoted his whole life to making the PERFECT staff. I guess that is another Romantic idea, that he pursued, and accomplished, his goal ("his material was pure, and his art was pure; how could the result be other than wonderful?"), even though his friends left him (focusing on the individual. But doesn't - I guess - stubborness like that have both its virtues as well as its faults? If we cannot make something perfect, should we abandon the rest of our lives to do so?

The Romantics seem to put a strong emphasis on honesty. Thoreau says that "no face which we can give to a matter will stead us so well at last as the truth. This alone wears well. For the most part, we are not where we are but in a false position... any truth is better than make-believe." Emerson exaults the honesty of children, in that they express what they feel. Even Whitman approves of honesty ("Listen! I will be honest with you..."). Yet at the same times it is honesty for the individual; Romanticism exaults individualism. The individual has to do what they feel is right for them. Thoreau says that "if a man does not keep pace with his companions, perhaps it is because he hears a different drummer." This sort of connects to the discussion we had about protests and what if only one person protests. I think that the Romantics would say that the individual has do to what is right for them, even if they are by themselves (and lose all their friends by making a staff). When Whitman talks about the open road, he is asking others to join him. But there always has to be a first person in order to get something started, even if they never see the result themselves, just as Whitman never saw the end of the procession on the road. Maybe protesting as an individual isn't always effective, but like Emerson said, if something isn't true for you, how can it be true for everyone else? I'm not saying I agree with that, but I think that you can argue that movements are started by individuals working on their own, and then they are adopted by a group (or not). What do you think?

I thought that it was interesting that Thoreau said, "perhaps it seemed to me that I had several more lives to live, and could not spare any more time for that one." Why perhaps? It seems that he was almost skirting the issue. "Perhaps" makes it seem so ambiguous, and not like the actual truth.

Class of 6/10

Today in class, we discussed Walt Whitman, and his poem "Song of the Open Road". Mr. Lazarow told us that Whitman could be considered the ideal Romantic poet, the best of the best, as he so dramatically changed the structure of poetry. While poetry before Whitman was still restricted by rhyme scheme and meter, Whitman pioneered the free verse and paved the way for almost all modern poetry writers. Whitman is even greater than William Wordsworth, the great English poet. Afterwards, we began discussing the actual poem, "Song of the Open Road" itself. Various people mentioned the romantic aspects found in the poem, such as the individual journey and some of the nature imagery. Mr. Laz added here that Whitman's true strength was to discuss philosophically deep concepts in a simple manner. One can read Whitman for pleasure and still receive a symbolic meaning, as opposed to reading Emerson or Thoreau, where one will in all likelihood have to study the text. Mr. Laz also added that Whitman was not much of a nature poet, but rather one that reveled in city life, especially New York City. For Whitman, the cities was where the true nature, human nature could be found. We then discussed the idea of the individual journey. Nothing can be bad because everything is a learning experience. Furthermore, Whitman is inviting us to join him on this magnificent journey of his, but thats all he can do, as he (or anyone else), lacks the power to make us do what he wants. We continued this discussion about individualism and the focus of the individual - such as a contrast between the primarily outward capitalism and the inward romanticism. Finally, apparently many of the lines from the poem could be used as senior quotes. Warrior woman for tommorow.

The Woman Warrior

Hey guys, it's Allison.

As I've been reading The Woman Warrior, (that should be underlined, but I don't know how to do that on the blog) I was shocked by the way in which Kingston's aunt was treated after becoming pregnant by a man who was not her husband. It's so weird to think how different modern American cultural values are from those of the Chinese during the nameless aunt's lifetime. Today, if a woman gets pregnant before she's married, it's no big deal; however, in the aunt's case, the entire village came and ransacked her house. It's interesting to see how the values have changed. Maybe part of this change in values can be attributed to the fact that food is more readily available and cheaper than during the famine that had been taking place at the time. Due to this widespread availability of food today, it isn't a huge burden if a woman has a child that isn't "legitimized" by being the product of a recognized marriage.

I was also surprised that Kingston's mother did nothing to help her sister, even though she knew that she was pregnant. Her mother knew the values held by the community and must have known what was in store for her sister, but did nothing to stop it or get her away before the mob came. I guess that shows how these values were deeply rooted in Kingston's mother; she let her sister be subject to the village mob, even though she might have been hurt by them because she knew that what her sister had done was wrong.
What do you guys think?

Song of the Open Road

Hey, it's Amy.

I thought that lines 83-84 were interesting, they almost tie in with the section of lines 76-82, but the message is a little different.
"Now I re-examine philosophies and religions,
They may prove well in lecture-rooms, yet not prove at all under the spacious clouds
and along the landscape and flowing currents."
This goes along with the idea of the individual experience, that no two experiences are the same, and that wisdom cannot be shared, you have to understand the experience yourself. But I feel that it more talks about the unpredictablility of life, that nothing is certain and no two views are the same. It illustrates the idea that we want to gain knowledge from science and from technology, that we see ourselves as beings that can go against the path of nature and be above all other creation. The thirst for answers is a human drive that leads us to wanting explanations and not resting until we have those philosophies or rules for the universe. However, there always seem to be exceptions to every rule, for example, the platypus is an egg laying mammal. What's up with that? But it shows us that it is virtually impossible to define a rule that encompasses every situation, that these theories work well in the classroom, but in the world we don't have the ability to predict every occurence, to eliminate exceptions to rules. Even things or ideas that man creates has exceptions ( i before e except after c or that sound like a as in neighbor or weigh). If we can't even account for our exceptions, how can man possibly define a rule to stand strong against the unpredictability of life or the surprises of nature. The flowing currents mentioned in the quote above emphasize the idea that the world is always changing and that the universe cannot be defined by rules.

Whitman also discusses his desire to return to the open road and accept whatever comes his way. In lines 4-7 it appears to say that he wants to leave his earthly attachments and unneccessary desires behind him as he writes
"Henceforth I whimper no more, postpone no more, need nothing,
Done with indoor complaints, libraries, querulous criticisms,
Strong and content I travel the open road."
This section is similar to one of the teachings of Buddha, that suffering is caused by our attachment to worldly desires. In order to be optimistic and accept whatever may come our way, to develop as a person we need to follow the open road and leave the past and our attachments behind us and embrace whatever comes our way in order to truly accept the future. Whitman sees life as good-fortune, as the prize itself as he writes,
"Henceforth I ask not good-fortune, I myself am good-fortune."

It's Paige again

I just wanted to discuss some things about The Woman Warrior. As I read I feel more an more almost smothered by Kingston. As if the struggle of her and the various woman in the chapters is practically leaping out of the book. Her tone seem almost strained as if she was fighting to get the story across. I did some research on the book and I found some interesting things about her struggle with words. Fu Mu Lan the famous woman warrior that Kingston compares herself to seems goes along with this struggle of words. Mu Lan has the problems she is faced with tatooed on her back while Kingston cannot face the words of others such as her racist coeworkers. I felt that she was envious of Mu Lan who wasn't bound down by the hardships of womanhood that seem to be holding Kingston.
I felt that her struggle was also shown through "No Name Woman." She let a loop hole of information given to her by her mother turn into a feeding frenzy for her own imagination. I felt as though Kingston was craving some sort of way to explore unknowns in her life through her deceased aunt by allowing her thoughts to run wild rather than be bound by the pressures of her life.
Anyway these are just some thoughts I had while reading. What do you guys think about it so far?

Hey it's Paige.

Today we had a wonderful discussion about Thoreau and protest. We discussed the question of why people seem to dislike protestors. Ashley mentioned how it's viewed as being ungrateful to the country since we live so prosperiously, and we are lucky to have all that we do. Ian said that it seems to cause unwanted stress and commotion for people and no one wants unecessary drama.
Grace brought up an debate from earlier in the blog started by Ben. She reaffirmed her point that we as people have a right to protest because although there are a lot of great things in America we can still and should still improve. We can't just "let things slide."
Donna said that you have to know that if you protest you have to know it's going to provoke a reaction.
Laz mentioned that protesting works like advertising since it can get the neutral to shift towards what you want, but people are still going to remain dead set against what you are saying if they started out that way.
Erin said that protestors simply see a problem and try to fix it.
Jasmine discussed how it reminded her of the opposite of Billy Bud. In that circumstance the Captain's Oath to his country came first.
Laz then talked about how most protest is "ill-considered" and you have to look at what your motivation is. In Seattle environmental protestors blocked traffic for hours by linking arms with piping. This didn't cause change but rather provoke anger for the people who were inconvienced.
Reason needs to be distinct from the act and shouldn't require explanation.
Ben discussed how lately protest has become a medium of rebellion for teens rather than for actual purposes.
Allison added that violent protest seems to undermine protesting in general and creates negative connotations.
Jasmine was beginning to say something else when the bell rang. Alas! Until tomorrow.

Protests & Activism

Hey guys, it's Jasmine.

Today, at the end of class, I started to bring up a point about protesting. Ben had commented that in order for protests to work, the people watching have to be given something to do. I also think that it has to be easy to participate in the protest - otherwise, people won't be willing to put in time and energy.

Many large corporations nowadays are protesting, in a way, against practices that harm the environment. Although I agree that the environment is currently going down a bad path, I've never thought about doing anything to stop global warming, etc. I know it's something I should care about, but it just doesn't affect my everyday life enough for me to spring into action. People hear about global warming and the perks of recycling all the time, but how many people actually take action? The same goes for most other forms of activism/protests. There has to be an easy task for people to follow that somehow allows them to participate in the movement. For example, a couple of weeks ago, Target (which has become increasingly environmentally-friendly over the years) had an advertisement on the back of the cover of Newsweek. It was a creative idea: they included an envelope that you could easily cut out and tape together. They asked readers to send plastic Target bags to their company so that they could recycle them to make reusuable shopping totes. There was also an incentive: they promised free shopping totes to everybody who sent in bags. I figured that this was an easy way to get rid of a few plastic bags, plus - Target paid for the postage, so I sent them in. If Target hadn't reached out to me, I wouldn't have recycled them on my own.

Also, the International Affairs Club runs a week every year to promote awareness about an international issue (this year, it dealt with modern-day slavery). We know that if students aren't provided with any incentive, they won't participate in the week's events. Every year, we have to ask teachers to give their students extra credit points for going. If we didn't, I'm pretty sure that hardly anybody would show up. Basically, my point is that in order for us to actually care about the issue that protestors/activists are trying to promote, we have to be given an easy way to get involved.

This brings up another interesting question. Is it "right" to participate in a protest or activity just because you want the reward? A lot of people think that doing community service just for the sake of getting community service hours for your college application is wrong and immoral. What do you guys think?

P.S. Last point - I just watched something on msnvideo about 2 people in New York City who climbed the New York Times skyscraper - all without any ropes or nets. They were both taken into police custody - one of the police officers complained that they were "jeopardizing other people's lives" because they could fall and kill innocent bystanders. The first climber said he scaled the building to raise awareness about global warming, and the second one later claimed that he did it to promote awareness about malaria. If you believe them, do you think that their protests were efficient? I think that climbing a 50-story skyscraper has absolutely nothing to do with global warming or malaria, so the "symbol" doesn't quite connect to the "thing."

June 6th Class Summary

On Friday Mr. Laz told us that we will be wrapping up our Romanticism discussion and we should finish up by reading Song of the Open Road. He also gave us a new book called the Woman Warrior and we should finish the first two chapters by Wednesday or Thursday. Soon he's going to be giving us a lecture to make us depressed about literature for next year. And I know we are all looking forward to it.

Ashley started off our discussion with her thoughts on the line 'what's true for you is true for everyone', she felt that it was thoughts like these that caused wars and oppression. However Laz clarified that Emerson believes that we are all in touch with the Truth (with a capital T) but we never actually know what that Truth is. He also noted that this is part of the reason why Romanticism always fails, because it is ideological not practical.

Amy talked about how the youth is used because kids are more honest than adults. Laz also clarified that by justifying that kids don't necessarily speak the truth all the time, but they say exactly what they feel without filtering themselves or thinking about it too much.

A few people also brought up the use of 'is-of-identity' and his emphasis on being direct. Paige said she enjoyed his direct approach because it made it more powerful, but Ashley disagreed because she felt it left his argument full of flaws because it was without any qualifiers.

We ended our discussion when we talked about how much we rely on technology. Many people felt that we are too dependent on technology and that we need to become well rounded. I brought up how we seem to sell the human race short in terms of adaptability and if push came to shove we would be able to adapt to a new environment.

Ashley ended the discussion by comparing captive animals that are set free to humans with technology. I feel that the flaw here is that those are animals and we are human beings. The reason we have been able to survive is not because we have natural instincts that tell us how to hunt and where to hide, but we have learned these things over time and have developed the ability to adapt to them. Most people wouldn't think of the tools of prehistoric man as 'technology' but they are technology, even the simplest arrow head. Man was able to survive climate changes, changes in food sources, and eventually able to adapt from hunters and gatherers to an agricultural society. These are huge leaps and bounds that animals have failed to do. I truly believe that if something were to happen and we were to lose all modern luxury, the human race would certainly survive. Some people might not LIKE or WANT to live without their everyday comforts of modern society, but when push comes to shove I bet that they would to survive.

Class Summary for June 5th, 2008

Hello, fellow pupils. It's Ashley with your class update! Before we began our discussion of Ethan Brand (the last story in the Hawthorne packet) Laz talked with us about letters of recommendation for next year. He said that if we ask, we shall recieve, provided that
1) We give him plenty of notice
2) We provide him with a brief résumé / any anecdotes of class discussions for him to write about
3) We include the necessary college forms
He warned that he is unflinchingly honest in his letters, and he will not write anything other than the aboslute truth. If class discussion did not center on your contributions, he is not going to say so. He also said that it is his right to deny a letter, and no one is forcing him to write them. (I.e. if you are going to ask, ask nicely and be very grateful!)

Then we proceeded to discuss Ethan Brand. This was Hawthorne's ultimate allegory. It has all the elements of the other stories and multiple symbols to interpret. Jasmine brought up the end of the story, and suggested that Ethan jumps in the fire because he doesn't consider imself a part of earth anymore. He commits suicide, but doesn't seem to care. His death is his victory in his mind.
It is obvious that the kiln's hypnotic flames represent hell, but the unpardonable sin is a bit more difficult to decipher. Ian suggested that the sin was placing the quest for higher intellect above morality. Ethan's heart was marble because his pursuit of greater knowledge led to his loss of emotion. In Judeo-Christianity, the greatest sin is denying God and losing contact with human emotion. To Hawthorne, humanity was emotion. So Ethan's marble heart makes him inhuman.
I noted that Ethan rejected nature, but ultimatly became part of it against his will. Try as he did to escape nature, he could not. His bones became lime, a mineral used for agriculture. His remains would be scattered and stay a part of earth.
We then observed the image of the 'wandering Jew'. We decided that he is a prophet with the "hand of Destiny." He carries fear and sin inside his box. Ethan looks in the box at the same time as the boy and sees nothing but a blank canvas, because he himself is sin. This blank canvas is both bad and good- bad in that it is blank, but good in that it represents ultimate potential (especially because Ethan has no moral restrictions).
Paige tied it to the image of the dog chasing its tail. It was symbolic of things 'coming full circle'. (Like ashes to ashes, or in Ethan's case, lime to lime). We begin in nature, and we end as a part of nature again. But just as the dog is not supposed to catch his tail, we are perhaps not supposed to have as much science and technology. It's not natural. (A truly romantic sentiment)

Emotions v. Intellect

Hey, it's Erin.

"Rappacini's Daughter" and "Ethan Brand" contain a lot of different facets of Romantic thought. Obviously both are anti-science. Rappacini parallels Ethan Brand, because both seem to possess the "Unpardonable Sin" within them. Rappacini is a very cold, yet scientific person. He lacks emotion or a sense of reverence toward God or humanity. He basically sacrificed his own daughter for the sake of science and, like Ethan Brand, felt perfectly comfortable experimenting on people. I saw Rappacini almost as the devil. Over and over the garden is described as Eden, only one in reverse, capable of harm, essentially "unnatural." Rappacini tried to usurp God's power of creation, just as the devil tried to usurp God's power. Ethan Brand is possessed by this one idea (the unpardonable sin), and ends up dehumanizing himself and destroying other people. I wondered, why would you want to find the unpardonable sin? Why would you want something that only means evil? I guess that Hawthorne was making a statement about technology and where it can lead: destruction and dehumanization. Intellect without emotion, in both stories, is portrayed as leading to evil.

Throughout "Rappacini's Daughter," Giovanni's instincts or emotions would lead him to the truth, but he chooses to ignore those more "irrational" feelings in place of reason. The child in "Ethan Brand" is immediately afraid of Ethan. Emotion is shown as leading toward truth. Ethan Brand's laughter is described as expressing "the condition of his inward being." The boy is described as having an "intution" of Ethan Brand's loneliness. Finally, another very Romantic idea is expressed in "Ethan Brand," the idea that when we die we return to the earth, one that was brought up in "Thanatopsis" as a way of giving comfort to the idea of death. However, Ethan Brand wants exactly the opposite. Ethan almost seemed proud at the thought that nature would give him up. Yet in the end nature proves to strong for him.Nature is personified at the end of the story, sort of designated as the victor.

A Year in Review..

Hey guys, Allison again.
About a week ago, Mr. Lazarow mentioned how we should review the course and make some suggestions for next year. So here goes..

As far as the course goes, it's very different from all the other English classes I've taken at the high school. Unlike past courses, I was actually encouraged to share my opinion about the literature and how I interpreted it. Throughout the course of the year, I've personally seen a huge improvement in my writing. In my last TWO years of English classes, I have written a TOTAL of TWO essays. Pretty pathetic. So when I was told to write essays on an almost bi-weekly basis, I wasn't surprised to see improved writing skills. One thing I would probably change about the course would be to have the assigned blogging throughout the course of the year so that we always stay on top of the blog and so it never dies for days at a time.

As far as the term paper goes, when I first realized that it would have to be between 8 and 10 pages, I got extremely anxious. The longest paper that I had ever written was probably no longer than five pages, so I didn't see how i could possibly find enough things to say to fill a ten page paper. The process turned out to be extremely helpful and, in the end, I found myself having to cut information to make the paper fit on just ten pages. The only part of the process that I didn't find incredibly helpful was the annotated bibliography. Having the MLA formatting checked before we turned it in with the final draft was definitely beneficial, but I didn't find the annotations to be quite as helpful.

What did you guys think of English III?
P.S. We're still more special than AP IV :)

June 4th

Hey guys, it's Allison.

Today, Mr. Lazarow started off the class by telling us about the man in England who was not allowed to board a plane because his t-shirt had a picture of a transformer bearing a gun and the t-shirt was "threatening". Someone suggested that we mail a copy of Hayakawa to the security people..

Then we began our discussion of "Rappaccini's Daughter" and the question of "just because we can, should we?" Paige argued that we shouldn't do something just because we have the power to do it. She mentioned how we have the ability to destroy the planet but we obviously shouldn't do that. Donna said that it's hard to decide what's ethical and what's not. She brought up the fact that during the Holocaust, the Nazis performed horrible tests on the Jews that resulted in advancements that are still used today. Mr. Lazarow then told us about Perncopf. Perncopf was involved in the testing during the Holocaust and used live models to create an anatomy book that is more accurate than one created based on cadavers. This brought up the question of whether or not this book should be used. Some argue that Perncopf's text is more accurate and will therefore save lives, and that this will somehow "make up for" the lives sacrificed to create the text. Others use the "fruit from a poisoned tree is poisoned" argument and say that there is no justification for using the book. Erin argued against the use of the book saying that allowing its use would open the door to similar behavior in the future.

Hopefully that wasn't too depressing for a Wednesday!

“A hero is no braver than an ordinary man, but he is braver five minutes longer.”-Ralph Waldo Emerson

Today's discussion was deep. I must say some of the things we brought up in class truly revealed the weakness within human morality. I am easily convinced by arguments that urge me to take the moral high ground, but aren't we all trying to hike out of an endless chasm? There are no answers to our questions, just more questions. Would you save the baby or the group of 10 adults? Was the slaughter of innocent Jews worth a priceless medical advancement? What makes his or her life worth more than mine? Do I really care about the faceless masses?

There were plenty of hypothetical questions put forth today, none of which had easy answers (or answers at all really). Talking about it made me feel cynical and pessimistic, because somehow I was always able to justify the 'wrong side' of the argument. But I feel that there was a part of the scenario that was missing.

Heroism.

There is something brilliant about that word, perhaps it is because I associate with great mythological stories or classic literature. Tales of valor and bravery have existed since the dawn of time on cave walls when the saber tooth tiger was the enemy. Many people in class today noted that they would not be able to make the decision about whose life is 'worth more'. Every time someone said that I thought of all the great heroes, real or fictional, that prevented people from making that decision.

Most people would agree that when faced with death human beings rely on instincts, rather than emotion or logic. When trapped without food for long periods of time people have often reverted to cannibalism in order to save themselves. However in some cases there are those that rise above and make the sacrifice for the greater good. Instead of forcing two people to die in order to save a million, we would rather ask for volunteers, because it would put our minds at ease.

I believe that a reason why we have such a problem with the book made by Eduard Pernkopf is that these people were not willing subjects. Free will was brought up a few times in our discussion, and I think that's because as human beings free will is literally what makes us, us. The inability to exercise our free will becomes a challenging concept to grasp. If Perknkopf had done his dissections on people that agreed to have it done, we would still think it's gross but would we think that it violates any moral grounds? Does that make it right?

It is okay for a hero to gallantly lay down his life to save others, but if we force someone to lay down their life it causes extreme guilt and bitterness. Humans are extremely indecisive creatures. This may be taking the discussion way off the radar but what about cultures that believe in human sacrifice? Religion tends to make any discussion really messy but, are the other cultures wrong for sacrificing one human life for the 'greater good'?

The Birthmark

Hey it's Amy, again.
With the Birthmark, the line that I found most interesting was, "...it was not unusual for the love of science to rival the love of woman in its depth and absorbing energy." In today's society we also have this major dependence on technology and science, and in some cases put it above emotions or the importance of others in our lives. When someone is asked to name three things that they would want to bring with them on a deserted island, I've never heard anyone say their family or friends, it's always their laptop or cellphone or TV, along with food and some movie star.

Even back when this story takes place, society is becoming dependent on technology to solve its problems, like the little birthmark on the wife's face. Not only is perfection a theme in this story that we can all relate to, but also the impact of science on our lives. It is technology that has created this strive for perfection, with the ability to change the way we look or even the ability to spread information on the web or through the media, so that we see these celebs that have a certain "look" that we all need to have. Technology is the leading cause behind the obsession with appearance and self-perception. With science we can have those plastic surgeries, those operations, we can almost play God in some senses. Man's love of technology out-weighs the importance of other humans, as we become more and more dependent on advancements in science. I hope this makes sense, I'm really tired and falling asleep as I write this.

Hawthorne vs. Poe

Hey, it's AMy.
Just going back somewhat to Young Goodman Brown, in the pre-information we were told that Hawthorne is similar to Poe in that he took a dark view of human nature and there are definitely similarities in the atmosphere and style of writing between both authors. However, I feel that they are distinct from one another in that Poe focusses more on the internal conflicts of his characters, such as the narrator of the Raven or in the House of Usher with the collapse of both the house and the family line. Hawthorne, on the other hand, uses experiences, from what I can tell, that involve the environment and outside influence more than Poe. He focusses on sin and human flaws rather than the spectrum of human emotion described by Poe. For example, in Young Goodman Brown, the main character experiences the change in attitude from seeing the good in everyone to seeing the worst in people due to an internal change resulting from what he perceives in the environment, that everyone around him is guilty of being tempted and therefore no one is truly who he thinks they've been. In the Birthmark, Aylmer's obsession with removing the imperfection from his wife's face is an issue of his environment. And according to the pre-info, The Blithedale Romance examines the flaws of a utopian New England Community, much less the innerworkings of the individual's self, rather the influences that the environment has upon an individual's attitude or perception.

Class Log June 3, 2008

Hey everyone, it's Steph...

"For we are always what our situations hand us - it's either sadness or euphoria."
--billy joel (the piano man)

Today in class we talked about Hawthorne's 'The Birthmark'. The three main characters are Aylmer, Aminadab, and Georgiana, whose names will be frequently mispelled throughout the remainder of this post.
Aylmer represents a secular being, a man of science for the sake of man-made aesthetic appeal. He kept a log book of his failures. Aylmer married Georgina mainly for prestige and egotistic love for status, rather than love itself.
Mr. Laz quoted 'If you tell someone they are ugly enough times, they will eventually believe it', and sure enough Aylmer hates the birthmark that Georgiana has. this birthmark has a bunch of symbolism associated with it:
-the birthmark is the grounding for the character of Georgiana, and makes her (in a sense) tied to the earth, rendered natural
*Alymer tries to eliminate this, tries to make her man-made, unnatural,
transcended
-it is a tiny red-hued hand , as if touched by a fairy
*This represents a force of nature, a blessing bestowed upon her skin,
and Alymer wants to remove this, to again de-naturalize her

This story is clearly Romantic. In a similar work, Frankenstein, Shelley advocates the point that humans should not try to play God and bring about life, because by man-made creation comes destruction. Well, here Aylmer seems to view himself as a divine power, as God, and thus decides that science eradicates the need for God ('if ya got a test tube you're all set...').
The only character I haven't really mentioned is aminadab, who represents the natural man, with his unkempt appearance and shaggy hair. He seems to really be in tune with the earth. He is but a peasant, a worker, a man-of-the-land, someone real, humanesque... He himself says that if Georgina were his wife, he would not bother with the birthmark.

Perhaps one of the more interesting aspects of this story is that it correlates directly to today's society and is hence applicable. The overwhelming need for people to perfect their physical forms, to create something aesthetically pleasing and societally accpetable, is extremely prevalent in the modern world. Also, trying to look better externally may also influence an internal make-over. Are we more internally comfortable when we are externally satisfied?
We briefly touched on 'nature vs. nuture' and how both genetics AND environmental factors come into play when it comes to societal acceptance.
We discussed giving into physical alteration versus being content with yourself as you are and repressing the urge to change external appearances.
Ian's comments about key celeb plastic surgery jobs were quite excellent.


******************Assignment: Read rappaccini's daughter (hawthorne) and be ready for discussion.***********************************************************

Class Summary 6/2

Hey, It's Ben...

Today our class discussion focused on Nathaniel Hawthorne's Young Goodman Brown. Although you could technically read this pleasent little story purely for its plot and ints entertainment purposes, it's really more of an allegory (every element in the literal story operates as a symbol for something else). Young Goodman Brown isn't just leaving his wife named Faith behind; he's leaving the actual idea of faith. He's "losing faith."
This story, like other Gothic works, is a deep investigation into the human mind. The names are even smybollic in the story..."goodman" is obviously "good man" which shows that even the best of us leave faith behind and do do the right thing oftentimes; it's human nature. Nothing can beat human nature. We also discussed the symbolism of the pink ribbon. Pink is chosen because the it's a color that you get by tainting white (the "pure" or "sinless" color) with a drop of red. Hawthorne is trying to show that all faith is tainted.
Puritan values are shown in the way that Hawthrone just OBSESSES over sin. In the end, you could go on and on analyzing every symbol in the story but it all comes down to the triumph of human nature overall all other forces. That's what causes people to stray from faith and from what they know is right. I beleive Mr. Lazarow mentioned the Ghandi quote in closing, "I like man, but not men."

Young Goodman Brown and Faith

Hey, it's Erin.

I thought what Mr. Lazarow said about faith not being true faith until it's tested was interesting. Goodman Brown's faith is tested in this story and ultimately fails, as he ends up believing in nothing and no one. However, Brown fully intended to come out of the temptation stronger in his faith. When he talks to himself after leaving Faith, he says "after this one night (his temptation) I'll cling to her skirts and follow her to heaven." I thought the fact that he would be clinging to her skirt was symbolic of a kind of mother-son relationship or a relationship of dependence, where his faith was carrying him. Of course, his faith failed because he allowed it to, making this a Gothic horror story. In a way, Brown fulfilled the devil's words by himself ("by the sympathy of your human hearts for sin, ye shall scent out all the places... where crime has been committed"). When we learned about Puritanism, one of the major features of their society was doubt (about whether they were one of the elect, etc.), which is also present in the story, in the lack of faith that Goodman Brown has at the end. It's also interesting that we can doubt whether what Brown saw was true or not; but for him it was enough to alienate himself from those that he loved and respected.

I also thought it was weird that Goodman Brown asks himself in fear as he's walking through the forest, "what if the devil himself should be at my very elbow!" If he realized that he was going to be tempted, wouldn't he associate that with the devil? Or did he not know he was going to be tempted. I know that Goodman Brown never refers to his companion as the devil, but I thought he was. On page 2 of the story Brown travelling companion is referenced as "he of the serpent," which refers to his staff, but also could refer to the devil (who took the form of a serpent when he tempted Eve in the garden of Eden). I guess though that in that case the man was only "of the serpent," not the serpent himself.

Young Goodman Brown Pre-Class Discussion

We didn't much of a chance to discuss "Young Goodman Brown" on Friday with the shortened schedules and the "Lost" fans discussing the latest episode (seriously, how can it be that good?), so why not talk about it on the blog? I know it's past eleven, but still...

Overall, I found it very interesting how Hawthorne relies so heavily on the Puritan heritage in America. It seems that everything else we've read was based in the 1800s or slightly before (Revolutionary War Era). The Puritan time period seems to counter the Romantic period in every way- feelings are repressed, and religion is followed strictly and by the book. While I haven't had a chance to read "The Scarlet Letter" (which I now know the ending to because of the intro...), I've heard that it is in part a criticism of Puritanism. Hawthorne, whose family had strongly Puritanical roots, definitely seems to be echoing that sentiment in this tale. The supposedly devout Christians are led to a Satanic ritual in the forest, and even Brown's mentor and wife, Faith (how appropriate), are led astray by the Devil. Most shockingly, Hawthorne even tells of how the town minister was making his way to the meeting- perhaps he was trying to point out that outward devoutness did not necessarily indicate true faith.

Another very important part is the outcome. "Young Goodman Brown" can hardly be said to end on a good note, as Brown is distrustful of everyone around him, including Faith, because of his inability to know whether his experience was a dream or a reality. I feel as though Hawthorne, like Poe, was making a statement about the human psyche, in that emotion and the irrational have a critical role in people's lives. What do you guys think? Can you draw any other connections between the two?