In “The Giver” by Lois Lowry, Jonas lives in a community specifically made to be perfect. However, when he turns 12 he gets his job of being a Receiver, one who receives memories of long ago from The Giver. From these memories, Jonas goes from knowing only the bliss of ignorance to the burden of knowledge that nobody else knows.
One specific memory he received is of war. He was surrounded by dead or dying people and horses, and it overwhelmed him greatly, as knowledge can be overwhelming. A few days after he received his memory, his friends (who were ignorant as to war was actually like), were playing a war game and wanted him to join in. It reminded him of the memory and he’d felt so sick he couldn’t even move. In their ignorance, his friends had no idea what they were doing wrong. Jonas probably wished he’d never knew this memory of war, I know I would if I was in his position. It must be a huge burden to carry that much knowledge that no one else knows, after all.
Also, because Jonas knew of simple things in the world no one else did such as color, sunshine, and snow, he rebels against the rules and stops taking the pills that make him exactly like everybody else. With Jonas, rebellion also comes with knowledge. But it’s understandable; color and sunshine are simple yet wonderful, and Sameness forbids these things in his world. He wants his world to be interesting and natural like it was long before Sameness. Later on, he runs away with his little brother Gabriel, reaching places in the world he had no idea existed & that were still natural. Jonas realized with the memories and knowledge that “Sameness” is actually unnatural, oppressive, and limiting. That’s what I believe, at least. The point of living, growing up, and being human is to experience real life for yourself and learn from it, which is exactly what Sameness prohibits in order to “protect” people.
As for another Receiver, unlike Jonas she couldn’t bear the memories she had to receive. She had asked for a Releasement (meaning, she wanted to die). She did die, which for some reason was seen as so shameful for the community that they would not even speak her name. Interesting enough, the girl was the Giver’s daughter. I keep wondering why the Giver didn’t do anything to prevent her death -- was he so wise, that he somehow knew for some reason it was best to let her go? The Giver is the most wise out of everybody in the community, even more wise than the Receivers who become Givers when they’re old.
In conclusion, this book shows that knowledge really is power. It’s also a burden that can lead to rebellion or insanity, or anything else. And as we grow, we take hold of more knowledge, burden, responsibility, power, experience, and anything else that can personally come with it. It is also our choice as to what to do with all this knowledge or even how to handle it. But we’re all human, and humans are meant to know. Which begs the question; If the community is trying to “protect” everyone from the outside world and how it once was, then why do they have Givers and Receivers of memories of the real world? The Receivers are forbidden to tell of any of their memories. But why is it a job if the things in the memories are forbidden?
Thursday, June 9, 2011
Thursday, May 26, 2011
8. What inner and outer conflicts arise in the transition from childhood to adulthood?
In adolescence, teens start to act differently than they did in their childhood. Some kids rebel against their parents and/or teachers. You start to lose some friends, or just realize who your real friends are. You have way more choices to make in your life each day. You have to do way more things, like spend more time with school-related things like projects and worry about high schools and which ones you're going to get into and how you're going to get into them (although not at this point; the high school process passed, yay). You start to wonder what will happen in the future. You spend too much of your conscious time at school. You'll usually become more anxious and stressed all the time because so much can be going on at once, which sometimes also creates a feeling of helplessness. You're not a child, you're not an adult, what are you? Confusion can lead to rebellion. (Many) Adults either treat you like a little kid or a grown adult.
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
"The Catcher In The Rye" Reading Response/Essay
In The Catcher In The Rye by J.D. Salinger, Holden Caulfield symbolizes teenagers who find a lot of wrong in the world. He sees much of the world and people in it as fake, only appreciates certain people, and hated his time at school. Holden, as well as other teens in real life, greatly dislikes the way the world is.
Holden finds many people to be fake or "phony", and uses the word a lot of the time to describe people and things. For example, on page 100; "I figured that anybody that hates the movies as much as I do, I'd be a phony if I let them stick me in a movie short". So Holden also believes that he, himself, is not phony unlike many people he sees. Also on page 164: "You never saw so many phonies in all your life, everybody smoking their ears off and talking about the play so that everybody could hear and know how sharp they were". Holden uses the word phony so often throughout the book, it becomes apparent he believes most of the world and its people are fake. He also tends to speak and think in an exasperated-seeming tone, which also gives support to his dislike of things.
However, although it's obvious Caulfield doesn't appreciate many people, there are still some people he believes are not phony, and enjoys talking to. These people include his sister Phoebe, and his girlfriend Jane. On page 87, Holden was saying how he wanted to call Phoebe because she was "somebody with sense and all". You can tell when Holden likes and appreciates someone when he'll describe and tell stories about them that last for pages, which he did with Phoebe from pages 87-89 and with Jane from pages 99-104. If he dislikes someone or something, he'll still describe them, but not nearly as much as if he liked them. Holden is very opinionated on everything he talks about.
Holden's experiences at school also could have shaped the way he thinks of people and the world, as it does for other teenagers too. Holden had a very bad time in all his years at Pencey Prep. He didn't get along with his peers or teachers and didn't get good grades. He was a social outcast, and thinks that he's stupid (he mentioned early in the book that he's the "only stupid one in his family"). He strongly disagrees with anyone who tries to tell him that Pencey is a good school. I think that since he had such a bad time at school, that that's what shaped the way he thinks of the world around him and the people he encounters in it. School can also affect other teenagers in the same way. His lack of trust in people is probably the reason he had no real place to go and just wandered around New York City on his own, speaking briefly with many people but wasn't open to tell the truth at the same time (ex: he lied about his name a lot).
In conclusion, the things Holden goes through throughout his story can connect to many teenagers who have same or similar viewpoints and experiences as Holden. Many other teens can relate to Holden if they think people and/or the world are fake, or if they only talk to some people that they know, or if they had a bad time at school, etc. I think every teen can relate to at least one thing Holden goes through in his entire time in the story, in at least one point of their lives.
Holden finds many people to be fake or "phony", and uses the word a lot of the time to describe people and things. For example, on page 100; "I figured that anybody that hates the movies as much as I do, I'd be a phony if I let them stick me in a movie short". So Holden also believes that he, himself, is not phony unlike many people he sees. Also on page 164: "You never saw so many phonies in all your life, everybody smoking their ears off and talking about the play so that everybody could hear and know how sharp they were". Holden uses the word phony so often throughout the book, it becomes apparent he believes most of the world and its people are fake. He also tends to speak and think in an exasperated-seeming tone, which also gives support to his dislike of things.
However, although it's obvious Caulfield doesn't appreciate many people, there are still some people he believes are not phony, and enjoys talking to. These people include his sister Phoebe, and his girlfriend Jane. On page 87, Holden was saying how he wanted to call Phoebe because she was "somebody with sense and all". You can tell when Holden likes and appreciates someone when he'll describe and tell stories about them that last for pages, which he did with Phoebe from pages 87-89 and with Jane from pages 99-104. If he dislikes someone or something, he'll still describe them, but not nearly as much as if he liked them. Holden is very opinionated on everything he talks about.
Holden's experiences at school also could have shaped the way he thinks of people and the world, as it does for other teenagers too. Holden had a very bad time in all his years at Pencey Prep. He didn't get along with his peers or teachers and didn't get good grades. He was a social outcast, and thinks that he's stupid (he mentioned early in the book that he's the "only stupid one in his family"). He strongly disagrees with anyone who tries to tell him that Pencey is a good school. I think that since he had such a bad time at school, that that's what shaped the way he thinks of the world around him and the people he encounters in it. School can also affect other teenagers in the same way. His lack of trust in people is probably the reason he had no real place to go and just wandered around New York City on his own, speaking briefly with many people but wasn't open to tell the truth at the same time (ex: he lied about his name a lot).
In conclusion, the things Holden goes through throughout his story can connect to many teenagers who have same or similar viewpoints and experiences as Holden. Many other teens can relate to Holden if they think people and/or the world are fake, or if they only talk to some people that they know, or if they had a bad time at school, etc. I think every teen can relate to at least one thing Holden goes through in his entire time in the story, in at least one point of their lives.
Saturday, May 14, 2011
14. What are some questions or concerns you have about growing up and adulthood?
(Note: I'm sorry this post is late. When I tried to access Blogspot to do my homework, it said it was unavailable).
Some of my questions and concerns about growing up are:
(Most of these are about high school, as that is what's on my mind all of the time these days.)
1. What job/career will I have?
2. What is high school like?
3. What college will I go to? Will I go to college?
4. Is high school difficult?
5. Will I have a good/okay time in high school?
6. Is high school like middle school?
7. Will I have more or less free time in high school?
8. What would I study in college?
9. Will I stay in New York after I graduate high school?
10. Where will I live after I graduate high school?
Some of my questions and concerns about growing up are:
(Most of these are about high school, as that is what's on my mind all of the time these days.)
1. What job/career will I have?
2. What is high school like?
3. What college will I go to? Will I go to college?
4. Is high school difficult?
5. Will I have a good/okay time in high school?
6. Is high school like middle school?
7. Will I have more or less free time in high school?
8. What would I study in college?
9. Will I stay in New York after I graduate high school?
10. Where will I live after I graduate high school?
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
Finished Reading Response to “My Papa’s Waltz”
I believe that this poem is actually about the abuse of a child, but could
have been intentionally written in a way so that the reader could interpret it in an
either/or way. For example, one line of the poem is “At every step you missed My
right ear scraped a buckle”. Some people could think that this line is about being
hit with a buckle, but some could think that it’s about playing around and the little
kid was short enough so that he could accidentally scrape his ear on his dad’s
belt buckle if he missed a step. When I first read this poem in the 7th grade, I
actually didn't think it was about the little kid getting abused; I interpreted it as
him and his father playing around the house after dinner. But after the whole
class shared their interpretations, most of them thought it was about the boy
being hit, and that's when I realized that the poem actually did sound like it was
about something more negative and dark than just lightly playing around.
When I reread this poem again in the 8th grade, the image of a kid being
hit by his drunken father in the kitchen came to mind instead of playing around
and breaking things by accident, the way it did last year because of how my
classmates interpreted it last year. I noticed lines like “You beat time on my head
With a palm caked hard by dirt” and “Such waltzing was not easy”, and how they
could be describing child abuse. And today I'm not sure how I didn't see all this
when I was in seventh grade. This is where I believe rereading literature more
than once in different perspectives and with more than one idea in mind can add
more sides to it and even help you understand the text more and build onto your
ideas on it. Not just in poetry, but in any kind of writing it's best to not just think
one-dimensionally about what you're reading, even if a text may seem like it's
simple and straightforward at first. For example, when we reread Charlotte’s Web
earlier in the year, I realized even what seems like a book just for children like t
that can actually have a lot of meaning behind it.
I do think that both points of view, being abused or playing, can work out in
interpreting the poem since I have thought in both points of view, and that the
author could possibly have written the poem in a way so that you can’t really be
sure if it means something light or something dark, which is a writing tool that I
think is very interesting and can make writing really great. If a piece of writing is
multi-dimensional and colorful instead of cliche and completely forward, then the
writing is certainly enhanced.
In conclusion, I don’t want to pick one specific side on if the child in the
poem was being abused or really just playing, because the two both could work
and I’m not sure which is the “right” or “correct” side, if there is one. Good writing
is supposed to be multi-dimensional, and that’s what this poem is. It may be a
short poem, but there are so many ways you can interpret it.
have been intentionally written in a way so that the reader could interpret it in an
either/or way. For example, one line of the poem is “At every step you missed My
right ear scraped a buckle”. Some people could think that this line is about being
hit with a buckle, but some could think that it’s about playing around and the little
kid was short enough so that he could accidentally scrape his ear on his dad’s
belt buckle if he missed a step. When I first read this poem in the 7th grade, I
actually didn't think it was about the little kid getting abused; I interpreted it as
him and his father playing around the house after dinner. But after the whole
class shared their interpretations, most of them thought it was about the boy
being hit, and that's when I realized that the poem actually did sound like it was
about something more negative and dark than just lightly playing around.
When I reread this poem again in the 8th grade, the image of a kid being
hit by his drunken father in the kitchen came to mind instead of playing around
and breaking things by accident, the way it did last year because of how my
classmates interpreted it last year. I noticed lines like “You beat time on my head
With a palm caked hard by dirt” and “Such waltzing was not easy”, and how they
could be describing child abuse. And today I'm not sure how I didn't see all this
when I was in seventh grade. This is where I believe rereading literature more
than once in different perspectives and with more than one idea in mind can add
more sides to it and even help you understand the text more and build onto your
ideas on it. Not just in poetry, but in any kind of writing it's best to not just think
one-dimensionally about what you're reading, even if a text may seem like it's
simple and straightforward at first. For example, when we reread Charlotte’s Web
earlier in the year, I realized even what seems like a book just for children like t
that can actually have a lot of meaning behind it.
I do think that both points of view, being abused or playing, can work out in
interpreting the poem since I have thought in both points of view, and that the
author could possibly have written the poem in a way so that you can’t really be
sure if it means something light or something dark, which is a writing tool that I
think is very interesting and can make writing really great. If a piece of writing is
multi-dimensional and colorful instead of cliche and completely forward, then the
writing is certainly enhanced.
In conclusion, I don’t want to pick one specific side on if the child in the
poem was being abused or really just playing, because the two both could work
and I’m not sure which is the “right” or “correct” side, if there is one. Good writing
is supposed to be multi-dimensional, and that’s what this poem is. It may be a
short poem, but there are so many ways you can interpret it.
Thursday, March 31, 2011
Revised Response to "My Papa's Waltz"
I believe that this poem is actually about the abuse of a child (because
that’s just my personal point of view), but could have been intentionally written in
a way so that the reader could interpret it in an either/or way when it comes to
the subject matter. When I first read this poem in the 7th grade, I actually didn't
think it was about the little kid getting abused; I interpreted it as him and his
father playing around the house after dinner. But after the whole class shared
their interpretations, most of them thought it was about the boy being hit, and
that's when I realized that the poem actually did sound like it was about
something more negative and dark than just lightly playing around.
When I reread this poem again in the 8th grade, the image of a kid being
hit by his drunken father in the kitchen came to mind instead of playing around
and breaking things by accident, the way it did last year. And today I'm not sure
how I didn't see all this when I was in seventh grade. This is where I believe
rereading literature more than once in different perspectives and with more than
one idea in mind can add more sides to it and even help you understand the text
more and build onto your ideas on it. Not just in poetry, but in any kind of writing
it's best to not just think one-dimensionally about what you're reading, even if a
text may seem like it's simple and straightforward at first.
I do think that both points of view, being abused or playing, can work out in
interpreting the poem since I have thought in both points of view, and that the
author could possibly have written the poem in a way so that you can’t really be
sure if it means something light or something dark, which is a writing tool that I
think is very interesting and can make writing really great. If a piece of writing is
multi-dimensional and colorful instead of cliche and completely forward, then the
writing is certainly enhanced.
that’s just my personal point of view), but could have been intentionally written in
a way so that the reader could interpret it in an either/or way when it comes to
the subject matter. When I first read this poem in the 7th grade, I actually didn't
think it was about the little kid getting abused; I interpreted it as him and his
father playing around the house after dinner. But after the whole class shared
their interpretations, most of them thought it was about the boy being hit, and
that's when I realized that the poem actually did sound like it was about
something more negative and dark than just lightly playing around.
When I reread this poem again in the 8th grade, the image of a kid being
hit by his drunken father in the kitchen came to mind instead of playing around
and breaking things by accident, the way it did last year. And today I'm not sure
how I didn't see all this when I was in seventh grade. This is where I believe
rereading literature more than once in different perspectives and with more than
one idea in mind can add more sides to it and even help you understand the text
more and build onto your ideas on it. Not just in poetry, but in any kind of writing
it's best to not just think one-dimensionally about what you're reading, even if a
text may seem like it's simple and straightforward at first.
I do think that both points of view, being abused or playing, can work out in
interpreting the poem since I have thought in both points of view, and that the
author could possibly have written the poem in a way so that you can’t really be
sure if it means something light or something dark, which is a writing tool that I
think is very interesting and can make writing really great. If a piece of writing is
multi-dimensional and colorful instead of cliche and completely forward, then the
writing is certainly enhanced.
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
"My Papa's Waltz" Response
When I first read this poem in the 7th grade, I actually didn't think it was about the little kid getting abused; I interpreted it as him and his father playing around the house after dinner. But after the whole class shared their interpretations, most of them thought it was about the boy being hit, and that's when I realized that the poem actually did sound like it was about something more negative and dark than just lightly playing around.
Today when I reread it again, the image of a kid being hit by his drunken father in the kitchen came to mind instead of playing around and breaking things by accident, like it did last year. And today I'm not sure how I didn't see all this when I was in seventh grade. This is where I believe rereading literature more than once in different perspectives and with more than one idea in mind can add more sides to it and even help you understand the text more. Not just in poetry, but in any kind of writing it's best to not just think one-dimensionally about what you're reading, even if a text may seem like it's simple and straightforward at first.
I actually think that both points of view, being abused or playing, can work out in interpreting the poem, even though right now my interpretation is still the poem being about abuse.
Today when I reread it again, the image of a kid being hit by his drunken father in the kitchen came to mind instead of playing around and breaking things by accident, like it did last year. And today I'm not sure how I didn't see all this when I was in seventh grade. This is where I believe rereading literature more than once in different perspectives and with more than one idea in mind can add more sides to it and even help you understand the text more. Not just in poetry, but in any kind of writing it's best to not just think one-dimensionally about what you're reading, even if a text may seem like it's simple and straightforward at first.
I actually think that both points of view, being abused or playing, can work out in interpreting the poem, even though right now my interpretation is still the poem being about abuse.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)