Wednesday, November 27, 2013
Thankful for Mr. McCarthy
Mr. McCarthy is an amazing teacher. I think he realizes that English classes should be more about free speech and us having room to think and write than common core standards or fill-in-the-bubble tests. He's hilarious, his beard is great (very impressive) and I learn something new everyday.
Thankful for Alan
Ok, I didn't see Alan's blog on the class list, but I couldn't forget about him! I'm grateful for Alan because the few times he does talk in class, it's always something really insightful. Also, his acting skills are admirable.
Thankful for Natalie
Natalie's really funny. I am also thankful for Natalie because once she was nice enough to let me share her phone and watch Pretty Little Liars with her.
Thankful for Jennie
I don't Jennie well at all, but I'm positive that she's great and full of rainbows and sunshine.
Thankful for Sylvie
I've never had a class with Sylvie before, but she's got a really great personality and sense of humor.
Thankful for Alina
Alina is my locker partner. And while she's really messy and threatens to kill me at least twice a day, I lovelovelove her. She's tough, but I still know that she's there for me and I'm glad we're friends. I really love being around her.
Thankful for Sydney
I appreciate Sydney's originality, her (very educated) opinion, and her hair. Her hair is really gorgeous.
Thankful for Edwin
Edwin contributes meaningful points to our classroom discussions. His opinion is always really interesting and usually sparks a response from someone.
Thankful for Courtney
Courtney doesn't talk much in class, but you know what they say: if someone doesn't talk that often, when they do, something profound comes out.
Thankful for Vivian
Vivian is one of the nicest people you'll ever meet. She brings me muddy buddies almost every day and eating lunch with her is really fun, especially when something gets stuck in the vending machine and we spend about half the period trying to get it out. She's really funny and I'm happy to call her my friend.
Thankful for Nathan
Nathan is a bundle of sunshine. He's really entertaining, and some of my fondest memories of my school bus rides as an ackie are of him doing something really stupid.
Thankful for Annesha
I'm gonna write another post on Annesha because I love her that much. She's my soul sister. That is all.
Thankful for Kamari
Kamari's skits in class are always really funny. Also, she has a great sense of style.
Thankful for Stephanie
Stephanie's really quiet, so I don't know her that well, but I'm sure she's really lovely. And sometimes we need quiet people to balance out all the crazy bouncing off the walls in our classroom.
Thankful for Cali Leeds
Cali is a kind person, funny (her faces are the greatest thing ever) and an amazing writer, too. I genuinely enjoy being around her.
Thankful for Aidan
Aidan is a really kind person, really funny in class, and a pretty good rapper (his rendition of the Pardoner's Tale should win a Grammy.)
Thankful for Genny K.
Genny Kleve is one of the silliest, most fun people I know. She is uninhibited, something I still haven't attained myself, and really talented (she's a great singer and dancer). Genny inspires me to be a little weird (in a good way!) myself.
Thankful for Jenny H.
I'm thankful for Jenny Hernandez because she's a really strong person. I admire her character, think she's really smart, and I think that everyone could do to take a few notes from her.
Thankful for Lejla
I have no idea if I'm spelling her name right (that's how it was spelled on the class blog site) but Lejla is a joy to be around. She's super bubbly and has a great sense of humor, and she really knows her Disney princesses.
Thankful for Harrish
I'm thankful for Harrish because he keeps my basketball team from sucking in P.E. Besides that, he's really funny and smart. I also really value his "unique" opinion.
Thankful for Georgia
Georgia Greenberg lights up my life. She's taught me quite a few things, such as the meaning of lipstick feminism and not to ever let a boy get me down. She's a beautiful person inside and out, wise beyond her years, and just amazing all around. She should stay golden.
Thankful for Perriyana
I'm thankful for Perriyana because she is really amusing. She's really funny and shows just how happy you can be when you are your pure, unadulterated, crazy self.
Thankful for Ioana
I'm thankful for Ioana because she's really sweet and a nice person to be around. She almost always has a smile on her face, and it's really refreshing to be around someone who's positive.
Thankful for John
I've known John since seventh grade, and he's always been a really fun person to be around. He's also really intellectual and I appreciate his views on some of the journal quotes or things we watch in class.
Thankful for Alana
Alana's always great to have in class, because she really understands the readings and sometimes helps me gain more inside into the intricate wording of Macbeth or Portrait.
Thankful for Charlie Bazzel
Charlie's great. He's really nice to me and is really hilarious. His ridiculousness every day we come into class really lightens my mood.
Thankful for Shay Basa
I'm thankful for Shay because she brings really intelligent opinions to the table when we're having class discussions. She's smart, and I appreciate her opinions.
Thankful for Annesha Mondal
I'm thankful for Annesha because, I'm proud to say, she's one of my closest friends. I can talk to her about anything, and she's always there to listen and give great advice. She's funny, sweet, and I'm always a little happier each time I see her during the school day. Words can't explain how great she is.
Love you, Pyt Monzini.
Love you, Pyt Monzini.
Sunday, October 20, 2013
"From the crown to the toe, top full of direst cruelty"
I don't know how I feel about this quote. Allow me to explain.
On the one hand, you have the idea that Lady Macbeth is the only one to blame for the (allegedly) impeding death of Duncan and Malcolm and subsequent crowning of Macbeth as king. Is Shakespeare misogynistic for throwing all the fault off on Lady M?
On the other hand, can't women be villains? If we're striving for perfect gender equality, Lady Macbeth shouldn't be constrained to the typical gender roles seen in Western literature. Instead of being weak and maternal (two traits that are often associated with each other), she is cunning, ruthless, and, quite frankly, cold-hearted. Does this make Shakespeare a feminist, given that he's stepping out of society's typical ideal of a woman and casting her as a conniving - for lack of a better word - witch?
Feminism isn't about declaring women as the superior, perfect gender - rather, it's about allowing women to step outside of boundaries, or stay inside boundaries, or, basically, to do whatever they please. At least, that's what I think. So, I kind of like that Lady Macbeth isn't a simpering soccer mom (not that there's anything wrong with that, of course.) I just think that it's good to get people out of their comfort zones when it comes to categorizing people. Is her being cast in a bad light a good thing? I think, yes. It establishes this crazy idea that women are people, and that we vary and don't come in all one form. We can be kind, evil, powerful, or stay-at-home moms that make really great cookies. We can be people.
Bravo, Shakespeare! You've done it yet again.
On the one hand, you have the idea that Lady Macbeth is the only one to blame for the (allegedly) impeding death of Duncan and Malcolm and subsequent crowning of Macbeth as king. Is Shakespeare misogynistic for throwing all the fault off on Lady M?
On the other hand, can't women be villains? If we're striving for perfect gender equality, Lady Macbeth shouldn't be constrained to the typical gender roles seen in Western literature. Instead of being weak and maternal (two traits that are often associated with each other), she is cunning, ruthless, and, quite frankly, cold-hearted. Does this make Shakespeare a feminist, given that he's stepping out of society's typical ideal of a woman and casting her as a conniving - for lack of a better word - witch?
Feminism isn't about declaring women as the superior, perfect gender - rather, it's about allowing women to step outside of boundaries, or stay inside boundaries, or, basically, to do whatever they please. At least, that's what I think. So, I kind of like that Lady Macbeth isn't a simpering soccer mom (not that there's anything wrong with that, of course.) I just think that it's good to get people out of their comfort zones when it comes to categorizing people. Is her being cast in a bad light a good thing? I think, yes. It establishes this crazy idea that women are people, and that we vary and don't come in all one form. We can be kind, evil, powerful, or stay-at-home moms that make really great cookies. We can be people.
Bravo, Shakespeare! You've done it yet again.
Thursday, September 26, 2013
No New Tale To Tell
Ah, the ages-old question of what women really want.
As if we're foreign beings or something. The idea that most authors of this period put forward - since, for the most part, none of them were female - was that women were these indescribably alien creatures with silly ulterior motives and not a bit intellectually inclined. What I think Chaucer illustrates well with the tale of the wife of Bath - and I love him for this - is that women are equal to men, a concept quite ludicrous in the Middle Ages, and still, to some extent, to this day.
Side note: I don't think that this applies to everyone. Feminism isn't about tearing men down until they're equal to the second-class level of women; rather, it means to build women up until they are equal to the status of men. I think what women really want is to be treated like any other human being - they want to be able to make their own decisions, and hopefully have a partner that loves and supports them for it. Some women will choose to dominate their husbands - something that was so uncommon in those days - and some will choose to be old-fashioned "housewives", and there's nothing wrong with that either. The problem that feminists have is people assuming that you have to be one way or another, and that really ticks us off.
But, really though, the Wife of Bath is just a great character. Not only does she settle the gender debate, she also settles the debate on this idea of a "caste" system and what it means to be poor.
Moral of the story? Women aren't things and can't be told what to do; it's not where you come from, it's where you're going; and money can't buy you happiness.
Really, there's no new tale to tell.
As if we're foreign beings or something. The idea that most authors of this period put forward - since, for the most part, none of them were female - was that women were these indescribably alien creatures with silly ulterior motives and not a bit intellectually inclined. What I think Chaucer illustrates well with the tale of the wife of Bath - and I love him for this - is that women are equal to men, a concept quite ludicrous in the Middle Ages, and still, to some extent, to this day.
Side note: I don't think that this applies to everyone. Feminism isn't about tearing men down until they're equal to the second-class level of women; rather, it means to build women up until they are equal to the status of men. I think what women really want is to be treated like any other human being - they want to be able to make their own decisions, and hopefully have a partner that loves and supports them for it. Some women will choose to dominate their husbands - something that was so uncommon in those days - and some will choose to be old-fashioned "housewives", and there's nothing wrong with that either. The problem that feminists have is people assuming that you have to be one way or another, and that really ticks us off.
But, really though, the Wife of Bath is just a great character. Not only does she settle the gender debate, she also settles the debate on this idea of a "caste" system and what it means to be poor.
Moral of the story? Women aren't things and can't be told what to do; it's not where you come from, it's where you're going; and money can't buy you happiness.
Really, there's no new tale to tell.
Sunday, September 15, 2013
Truth
Does truth come in the form of the cynical dragon, telling you that you are nothing but a blink in the eyes of time? A dust mote, a particle of carbon, a totally inconsequential being that lives for but a second in the infinity of time?
No, that can't be right.
So, perhaps it is the Shaper, telling you that you are nothing but evil but that everyone around you is magical and wonderful and great and heroic.
Nah, that's not right either.
So, what is the truth? Is Grendel a cold-blooded killer, a maniac, a fiend? Or is he just a confused little boy? A victim, even?
But if Grendel is the victim, is Beowulf a bad person for wanting to protect the Danish people from a monster that had ravaged their homes and pillaged their livestock?
What's the truth? The only answer I can think of is 'a two-edged sword'.
Some people may argue that Grendel was born bad; I don't think that's true. Should he have run around the countryside gobbling up anyone who came across him? No. Even if he was abused and demonized by the humans, that doesn't give him the right to take someone's life.
But doesn't the same go for Beowulf? Grendel may have been a serial killer (for all intents and purposes) but does that give this Beowulf dude, who doesn't even know the whole story, the right to storm in and play God?
I think John Gardner may have been commenting on the practice of the death penalty; when you have a Jack the Ripper or Boston Strangler-type "monster", don't they have to be stopped? But, wait: what if they were raised in an abusive household? What if they're not total villains?
Who's telling the truth?
Well, it depends. I think it is very rare to have absolute truth; there are two sides to every story, and both tend to tell a little truth and a little lie.
No, that can't be right.
So, perhaps it is the Shaper, telling you that you are nothing but evil but that everyone around you is magical and wonderful and great and heroic.
Nah, that's not right either.
So, what is the truth? Is Grendel a cold-blooded killer, a maniac, a fiend? Or is he just a confused little boy? A victim, even?
But if Grendel is the victim, is Beowulf a bad person for wanting to protect the Danish people from a monster that had ravaged their homes and pillaged their livestock?
What's the truth? The only answer I can think of is 'a two-edged sword'.
Some people may argue that Grendel was born bad; I don't think that's true. Should he have run around the countryside gobbling up anyone who came across him? No. Even if he was abused and demonized by the humans, that doesn't give him the right to take someone's life.
But doesn't the same go for Beowulf? Grendel may have been a serial killer (for all intents and purposes) but does that give this Beowulf dude, who doesn't even know the whole story, the right to storm in and play God?
I think John Gardner may have been commenting on the practice of the death penalty; when you have a Jack the Ripper or Boston Strangler-type "monster", don't they have to be stopped? But, wait: what if they were raised in an abusive household? What if they're not total villains?
Who's telling the truth?
Well, it depends. I think it is very rare to have absolute truth; there are two sides to every story, and both tend to tell a little truth and a little lie.
Thursday, September 5, 2013
Voldemort: Modern Day Grendel?
If you're not familiar with the story of Harry Potter (which you should be, if you have any sense of what's right and wrong) here it is in a nutshell: this guy's parents die and then he spends sixty percent of a decade trying to kill the guy that did it and then he finally figures it out.
Best story ever, really.
The murderer of Harry's parents, Voldemort, is the main antagonist (with some scary sidekicks, namely Bellatrix LeStrange.) He's demonized, fashioned after Hitler as a "pure"blood oriented racist, a thing that seems to stem from self hate (for he himself is not pure, but half, blood, as Hitler was not the blonde and blue-eyed perfect human being he envisioned.) He is cold, said to never have loved anyone or ever had a friend, and literally doesn't have a whole soul; it has been fragmented into seven unstable pieces. He's not considered human. His death is celebrated.
But was Voldemort not, at least once, a human being? I believe that nature and nurture contribute to personality; I also don't think that anyone is completely evil. Voldemort was raised in an orphanage, with a dead mother and a father who abandoned her and, subsequently, him. Was he born evil? The orphanage matron said that as a young child, he killed the pets of and tormented, controlled, other children. Was he jealous of their pets? Was he trying to make friends by impressing the other kids with his supernatural abilities (because, actually, most non-magic people, Muggles, are narrow minded and would have immediately branded him evil for being differently talented from them.) And when he did get to Hogwarts, the only real home he'd ever have, the only place he could've made any lasting, sentimental relationships, he was put into the House of Slytherin, which many in the other three houses would say made you automatically evil. (Mind you, none of those brave Gryffindors or intelligent Ravenclaws or nice Hufflepuffs ever had any Slytherin friends.) That's already seventy-five percent of the school pitted against you. Add that to the Slytherin pureblood fanatics, and you're almost completely ostracized. And since the other three house will never like you, you might as well try to get those in your own House to like you by taking up their creed: 'Purebloods are better.' By the time Voldemort found out he was descended from the great Salazar Slytherin himself (and would've had some Slytherin friends at Hogwarts), he was already an adult and had, presumably, split his soul and killed his father and grandparents - all who shunned him.
So I ask you: Did Voldemort have any reason to stay human? Anything to live for? There's a quote that says, roughly, 'You are given the love you show.' Voldemort was shown no love by a busy orphanage matron that barely had time to keep him clean, and who knows if he suffered some horrific abuse from older residents there?
Could Voldemort have been a victim? Or was he born "bad"?
Best story ever, really.
The murderer of Harry's parents, Voldemort, is the main antagonist (with some scary sidekicks, namely Bellatrix LeStrange.) He's demonized, fashioned after Hitler as a "pure"blood oriented racist, a thing that seems to stem from self hate (for he himself is not pure, but half, blood, as Hitler was not the blonde and blue-eyed perfect human being he envisioned.) He is cold, said to never have loved anyone or ever had a friend, and literally doesn't have a whole soul; it has been fragmented into seven unstable pieces. He's not considered human. His death is celebrated.
But was Voldemort not, at least once, a human being? I believe that nature and nurture contribute to personality; I also don't think that anyone is completely evil. Voldemort was raised in an orphanage, with a dead mother and a father who abandoned her and, subsequently, him. Was he born evil? The orphanage matron said that as a young child, he killed the pets of and tormented, controlled, other children. Was he jealous of their pets? Was he trying to make friends by impressing the other kids with his supernatural abilities (because, actually, most non-magic people, Muggles, are narrow minded and would have immediately branded him evil for being differently talented from them.) And when he did get to Hogwarts, the only real home he'd ever have, the only place he could've made any lasting, sentimental relationships, he was put into the House of Slytherin, which many in the other three houses would say made you automatically evil. (Mind you, none of those brave Gryffindors or intelligent Ravenclaws or nice Hufflepuffs ever had any Slytherin friends.) That's already seventy-five percent of the school pitted against you. Add that to the Slytherin pureblood fanatics, and you're almost completely ostracized. And since the other three house will never like you, you might as well try to get those in your own House to like you by taking up their creed: 'Purebloods are better.' By the time Voldemort found out he was descended from the great Salazar Slytherin himself (and would've had some Slytherin friends at Hogwarts), he was already an adult and had, presumably, split his soul and killed his father and grandparents - all who shunned him.
So I ask you: Did Voldemort have any reason to stay human? Anything to live for? There's a quote that says, roughly, 'You are given the love you show.' Voldemort was shown no love by a busy orphanage matron that barely had time to keep him clean, and who knows if he suffered some horrific abuse from older residents there?
Could Voldemort have been a victim? Or was he born "bad"?
Tuesday, September 3, 2013
Paper #1 - Description
There was the rattling, heavy thunk of the car door as it closed. Through the open windows played James Blake’s “Retrograde”, the notes floating out the window, through my hair, and into the sky.
Away, so show me why you’re strong.
Ignore everybody else.
He stood with his back to me, watching the willow branches sway in the wind, perhaps, or there with his eyes closed, waiting for me.
He turns as I approach, hearing the sound of my footsteps in the grass, albeit muffled. His eyes light up in that way they do, all sparkling crystal blue waters and light blonde eyelashes, catching the light like a kaleidoscope, reflecting every piece of me and him, all intertwined and insepaberable and strong, so very strong. Strong enough to break my heart into many pieces if he ever leaves.
But he won’t.
He hands me a rectangle of mint green tissue paper. He knows I like pretty things.
There are plane tickets to Paris inside.
****
I am back from Paris, in the same clearing from two months ago, but alone this time.
I can still remember the late nights at the cafe with him, the smell of freshly baked bread and cinnamon. I still remember the days we spent in the library, inquiring of each other French words we couldn’t recall; or, perhaps, looking for an excuse to talk to each other. I remember laying with him, talking about how we couldn’t afford this trip, but how that was okay. Because we were together, and it would always be that way. And we’d lie there, holding hands, looking into each others eyes. Silent.
Now, I am alone. Now, he is dead. Foolish, foolish me.
“Youth” by Daughter plays from the truck, through my hair and into the sky.
One day, we’ll reveal the truth -
that one will die before he gets there…
And if you’re in love
Then you are the lucky one
‘Cause most of us are bitter over someone.
I step from the clearing, to the bank of the Mississippi River.
Setting fire to our insides for fun
To distract our hearts from ever missing them.
Thursday, August 29, 2013
Moi!
Hmm. Posts like this always throw me, 'cause I'm like "Who am I?!" but I'll tell you what I've figured out so far.
My full name is Katherine Marie Powell, though I prefer to be called Katie or KK; I prefer cats to dogs (sounds like I'm a crazy cat lady) but I'm actually a cynophobe. Not that I've ever been attacked by a rabid German Shepherd or anything, but I'm just deathly terrified of man's (worst) friend.
And all my family members have dogs.
Anyway, I'm a violinist and dancer; I am also an aspiring journalist (Yearbook, whaddup) and soccer player (trying out for the team this year, here's to hoping I don't face plant at tryouts).
Favorite music? Lana del Rey, Florence + The Machine, Lykke Li, One Direction, The Rolling Stones.
Favorite food? Sushi, Nutella, Ramen noodles (not together).
Favorite TV shows? Parenthood on NBC, Pretty Little Liars on ABC Family, Friends, The Simpsons.
Who I'd take to a desert island? Robert Pattinson, just in case there was Armageddon. And my cousin.
Inspiration? My grandma, Maya Angelou, Helen Keller.
Wacky fact? I put mustard on my popcorn.
Nice to meet you guys :)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)