Prompt from V-blog: Is it true that we spend too much of our lives convincing others that we are someone we are not?

Be yourself – eat the potatoes!

To be blunt, yes – we each expend disproportionate amounts of effort and time on attempting to convince others that we are something or someone we are not.  The most obvious example I can think of from The Great Gatsby is the fact that four people are kept from living their lives with the one each truly loves, because three of them are pretending to love someone else – namely, each maintains the façade of loving his or her present spouse.  Myrtle is married to George Wilson, but Myrtle loves Tom (who reciprocates her affections), though Tom is married to Daisy, who is in love with Gatsby, who loves her as well.  As Catherine confides to Nick, speaking of Tom and Myrtle, “Neither of them can stand the person they’re married to.” (Fitzgerald 37).  She follows this with a suggestion heaping with beautiful common sense like delectable potatoes on a Thanksgiving platter, asking “Why go on living with them if they can’t stand them?  If I was them I’d get a divorce and get married to each other right away.” (Fitzgerald 37).  This really would seem to make the most sense – if two divorces were attained in short order, four people would be much happier: Myrtle, Tom, Daisy, and Gatsby would each be free to marry the person he or she loves (sucks to be George).  Sadly, at least as far into the book as I have read, each involved sustains the pretense of being someone he or she is not.  The lesson would seem to be stated more plainly, in actuality, in Hawthorne’s The Scarlet Letter: “Above all else, to thine own self be true.” (I don't recall the page number).

I’ll be true to myself by going to devour some of the aforementioned potatoes now, since I truly love good food J

“What’s in a name?” – Juliet, balcony scene

                In the first two chapters of The Great Gatsby, Fitzgerald caused me initial confusion by using multiple names for the same character.  In class, though, Ms. Valentino explained that Fitz changes how he refers to his characters depending on whom else the characters are with.  For example, the woman whom Tom loves is referred to by her first name, “Myrtle,” (Fitz 40) when she discusses how she met Tom, to represent how in that situation she felt a free person and an individual.  However, when Tom is arguing with her about her right to say the name "Daisy" (Fitz 41), she becomes “Mrs. Wilson” (Fitz 41), to show the separation between Tom and herself created by others who have influence over their lives (Tom is married to Daisy, and Myrtle to George Wilson).  Others around us constantly influence who we are, and Fitz chooses multiple names for a person to show this.

                In Romeo and Juliet, Juliet contemplates the significance of name.  Specifically, she notes that Romeo’s last name, Montague, can only keep him her enemy if he and she allow the feud between their families to control the individual choices Juliet and Romeo make.  She remarks “’Tis but thy name that is my enemy.” (Juliet, balcony scene)  Our names control us in that they may affect how others perceive us.  However, we ultimately choose for ourselves who we want to be.  Romeo and Juliet perceive each other not as a Montague and a Capulet, mortal enemies, but as Romeo and Juliet, who love one another. 

I WROTE A POST UNDER 200 WORDS!!!!! (It matches my point).

Claim:  There should not be a static set of punctuation rules enforced, as flexible punctuation maintains freedom of expression, enables efficient communication, and allows for adaptation of the written word as society morphs continuously.

Paragraph: Enables efficient communication

            Punctuation’s purpose is to aid communication.  Out-dated, misunderstood, and occasionally contradictory rules for punctuation can get in the way of those trying to communicate their meanings with speed and accuracy in the modern world.  Far from “contributing to the downfall of literacy in the modern world” (Associated Press), changing ways of expressing ideas with the written word are helping to create a new type of literacy that prioritizes, valuing speed more than formality.  When the barriers of the old rules are broken down, “a trail of possibilities” (Austen) opens up.  As Ben Dolnick, a writer for The New York Times, states, “simplicity, in all things, is a virtue” (Dolnick).  Why should one bother to use – or omit – punctuation in a manner that follows a rule, but isn’t the most easily written or understood?  In times where speed is often of vital importance, “less is more.” (Cosco)

 

 

 

Understanding is the way

(Um, I kind of wrote an essay … don’t read this post if you’re looking for something short and sweet.)         

Confusion is one of the most terrifying difficulties to face.  With enough clarity, a solution can be found to any problem; without understanding, hope is scarce.  Throughout The Bluest Eye, Morrison encourages the realization that comprehension is already present, and that a solution can therefore be found if initiative is taken.

When Soaphead Church writes a letter to God, Morrison shows a surprising depth of understanding in the man of an otherwise twisted mind.  Reflecting on his past attempts to be something he was not, Church writes, “We were not royal but snobbish, not aristocratic but class-conscious” (Morrison 177).  Morrison juxtaposes these similar words of differing connotation to demonstrate the clarity Church has found.   He realizes as he reminisces on the errors he committed in his attempts to be white as he perceived white to be, and avoid being black as he perceived black to be, the truth: he needed to accept his black heritage to truly be the best he could be.  If only he had realized it sooner, things could be different, as he writes, “Now.” (Morrison 177)

Cholly knows subconsciously what does not occur consciously to him – the reason he hates his own people, the black, instead of the white.  Morrison describes with a simile how his hatred “would have burned him up like a piece of soft coal” (Morrison 151) if directed toward the white men who were truly to blame for his shame.  Cholly feels internally the truth: he does not risk the peril of hating those who have power over him because hating those who do not command such power is easier.  His misdirected animosity towards the members of his own race is destructive both to himself and to others.  If only he had listened to what he heard from within.

When Pecola is tricked into poisoning a dog, the dog looks at her with “soft triangle eyes.” (Morrison 176).  Morrison chooses these two adjectives to indicate two related aspects of the dog’s gaze that are central to Morrison’s message: soft represents forgiveness, and triangle is an ancient symbol for change.  As poison destroys his body, the dog communicates this hopeful message to Pecola: forgiveness for actions past can lead to change for the future. 

For all of Morrison’s characters, it is too late to save themselves.  However, there is an extant chance that those for whom there is still time can save themselves and all those around them.  Understanding is present in all, but action present in few.  If only people can find it within themselves to accept their instinctual understanding and put the past behind them, change will be at hand, so that all might proclaim, “Thank God Almighty, we’re free at last.”

[Does anyone remember whom that quote is from?:)]

Grammar’s relevance in today’s society

We took are lovely Grammar Test on Thursday – how exciting!  We now (hopefully) have an excellent grasp of English grammar.  Yes, that knowledge may have got us (again, hopefully) good grades on our test, but how much does that matter?  Do we even need the goodest grammar anymore?

In that paragraph above I make three grammatical errors – one ridiculously obvious, one semi-apparent, and one that I'll be impressed if you catch.  Can you find all three?  The kicker is this: regardless of whether you do or do not see all three errors, my meaning is still clear.  Why, then, does grammar matter?

Sometimes, a grammatical error does change the meaning.  For example: then vs than.  I was taught the importance of that difference when I was shown this humorously errant post on twitter: I’d rather be pissed of then pissed on.  Then refers to time; than refers to comparison.  This person should have used than then, rather than then.  Get it?

In addition, a lack of grammar savvy can totally destroy your credibility, as when a person campaigning to make English the mandatory language in the U.S. became infamous for holding up a protest sign that said: “Respect are country!  Speak English!”

Does proper grammar matter, as long as a meaning is communicated?  What’s your opinion?  Weird Al shares his: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Gv0H-vPoDc  Actually, I have his voice in my head every time I think of certain grammar rules, and I don’t think I’ll ever forget them. J