"When Everything Changed: The Amazing Journey of American Women from 1960 to the Present"

          The book, "When Everything Changed: The Amazing Journey of American Women From 1960 to the Present," by Gail Collins, focuses on women and how they began to fight against sexism and sex discrimination; how they started to realize that they were not happy with the lives they were living as homemakers and housewives. They wanted something more. They wanted to experience more than just marriage and children and chores. They wanted what only men could have and the women were definitely not happy about that. So some women started to get together and talk about how they felt and what they wanted to do.

          While reading this book, I started really thinking about the main issue being informed about, and I thought about the social inquiry questions we've been learning about in class. So I asked myself: Whose perspective is missing? (Also, keep in mind that I have still not finished the book, so my answers could, and will most likely, change.) In my book, so far, I feel that the black woman's perspective is missing; and maybe also black man's perspective. They have been mentioned a bit, but I haven't heard from them directly. I've mostly been hearing about the white male and female perspective. What is the effect on the story of having that side excluded? Well, we don't get the whole view if we don't have a black male/female point of view. They were also a big part of the movement. But once again, I just think I haven't gotten up to that part yet (hopefully...). The Message: Which type is it? It is a "bearing witness" message because it talks about the history/past of the women's rights [movements]/feminism and how they got here today. Is justice served? Not really, because women today still struggle to be [seen] as equal to men. But there has definitely been a lot of progress, which is wonderful! Who blocks justice? Men and the government block justice. Because it's mostly men that affect the government's decision (because they rank higher) and then the government makes the final decision.

          In conclusion, so far, in the book "When Everything Changed: The Amazing Journey of American Women from 1960 to the Present," a black male/female perspective is missing (and their perspective is quite important!), it is a "bearing witness"—it informs us of the history of women's rights/feminism, justice is not really served, and men and the government block justice.

Should Access to YA Literature be Limited? (Argument Essay)

        Nowadays, young adult literature has been containing more caliginous content (or so some say); and this has caused a stir among adults and teens all across the nation. Some say that access to young adult literature should be limited to teens due to the content it provides—they believe that said content is too much for the teenagers and that it will corrupt their innocence and/or happiness, and so they shouldn't be allowed to view concepts. Personally, young adult books should not be limited in any way—limiting access would not work and YA fiction can be seen as reassuring to its readers.
       
        Access to YA literature should not be limited because limiting it to children/teens will simply not work. In the article, "Should young adult books has ratings?" Patrick Ness, an author with a Carnegie Medal-winning novel, argues that rating systems for young adult literature won't work because, "children are great self-censors." He states, "'if it's got an 18 certificate for adults, then younger children will look it out when their parents are not around…. They know what they can read and they know what they want to read, and if you don't give it to them, they'll find it somehow." This is completely true when it comes to children and teens, in general. It happens with other types of media as well. For example, if a minor wanted to buy a mature-rated video game, they would still get it even if their parents or the seller didn't allow them to. They could get it online or ask to borrow it from a friend who was able to get it.

        YA books shouldn't be limited because it is comforting and supporting to the teens reading it. The author of the article, "Why the Best Kids Books Are Written in Blood," Sherman Alexie states, "And there are millions of teens who read because they are sad and lonely and enraged. They read because they live in an often-terrible world. They read because they believe, despite the callow protestations of certain adults, that books—especially the dark and dangerous ones—will save them." This shows how YA books can be helpful for teens who are struggling. They (books) make them feel like they're not alone and literature encourages them.

        It's easy to see why some people think YA books should be restricted; these books can contain dark content that, according to some people (like Meghan Cox Gurdon), may alter a teen's thinking or perspective on life. Gurdon says, "If books show us the world, teen fiction can be like a hall of fun-house mirrors, constantly reflecting back hideously distorted portrayals of what life is…. It has to do with a child's happiness, moral development and tenderness of heart." I can see where Gurdon is coming from and her thinking process, but I just have to say that books don't show us the world. And not all teen fiction contains such "lurid" or "horrendous" content. Also, if the book has some dark concepts, the readers may be seeking it out for their own good. They want to know that they are not alone and that others have experienced what they're going through. In other words, these teenagers look for reassurance when they can't seem to find it anywhere else. Additionally, if the content in YA literature is too disturbing for the reader, then they don't have to read it! It's their choice if they would like to read it or not. And if one particular teenager doesn't like YA literature, that doesn't mean that a whole bunch of teenagers have to have it taken away from them.

        In conclusion, young adult literature should not be limited because any limitations will not work and the books, that are being challenged, encourage readers to thrive on, despite their struggles. To be completely honest, I don't even know what goes on in the minds of people who want to restrict particular books or genres to adolescents and teens. Reading is good for the mind, even if it has dark content and such. Those people in particular should look past the gory concepts and try to find an important lesson or moral reason as to why that book was written. As I said before (countless times), YA literature can have aspects that encourage teens to thrive on, or as Sherman Alexie would say, "to give them weapons—in the form of words and ideas—that will help them fight their monsters." Maybe those people could try and find the better aspects of young adult literature. What is something positive that YA fiction has taught you or made you think about?

"Popular Crime: Reflections on the Celebration of Violence"

          "Popular Crime: Reflections on the Celebration of Violence," by Bill James, is a book that focuses on popular crime in America from the 1600s to present day (well, 2011-12). Throughout the book, Bill James wrote sections that were about crime in general and he explained the analogy of crimes and such. Some examples: "On American Crime Rates," "On Why Certain Crimes Are Chosen for Fame," "On Weighing Evidence," "On the Evolution of the Legal System," "A System of Categorizing Crime Stories," etc. He would basically bring up an idea (a general idea) on crime, explain it, and tell us about crimes that supports that idea and how the crime supports it. While reading "Popular Crime," I also came up with an idea; well, it's more of an observation. (It showed up a lot and I'm sure James himself has already addressed it, so I can't take credit for it.) It is the problems that occur with/in a lot of crime stories and the negative (problematic) role that the justice system played in the stories.

          There were a lot of parts in the beginning, and throughout, the book that provoked my initial thinking/thought-process but one that sticks out the most was on page 101 and it says, "Pruiett, Rogers, Leibowitz and others defended legions of murderers with hardly a loss. We posed a moment ago the question: How is it even possible that they did these things? Or, stated more accurately from a historical standpoint: How did it happen that these things became impossible, since certainly they are impossible in modern America?" Then, James goes on an answers the question (but of course there's more to it when you look in depth) and I found that these answers are just a part of the central idea and that you have to find more evidence to support these "answers". 1) Bar associations in the years 1915-1940, (gradually) brought under control practices such as: jury tampering, suborning perjury, bribing judges and intimidating witnesses. •These are some practices that resulted in unfair solutions/convictions; these were major problems that occurred in popular crime stories and affected the outcome of them. 2) "The largest charge in American criminal trails over the last 100 years has been the accumulation of layers of pretrial discovery….the Supreme Court ruled that defendants had the right to know in advance what testimony would be introduced against them at trial." 3) "A dramatic shift in the ratio of acquittals to convictions….a high percentage of persons who were accused of murder in that era, were in fact, acquitted or found guilty of lesser charge."

          One part that really secured my thinking/reasoning—"Our system was a disaster [basically my point of view]. The system failed in these four cases; it has failed, at least so far, in the JonBenet Ramsey case, it failed in the assassination of President Kennedy—allowing the accused to be murdered—it failed in the case of the Black Dahlia. In cases like Ted Bundy, John Wayne Gacy and Jeffrey Dahmer, the system 'succeeded' only after many people were dead. This part really secures my reasoning because it gives some examples, vaguely, of when and how the system has failed throughout American history. There are other, more specific examples, as to how the system has failed. "In the O.J. Simpson murder case, the system failed in substantial measure because of the attention given to the case. In the JonBenet case, I think the same is true: that had the press never gotten interested in the case, it is more likely that the investigation would have been handled properly." This is problematic; it's one of the many reasons as to why results to crime stories turn out to be unfair and unjust. "It turned out, at that time [mid 1970s], 'life in prison' generally meant four to six years. The maximum sentence for murder in Kansas was called life in prison, but it was actually fifteen years to life. After fifteen years, you were eligible for parole. You were more than eligible for parole; you were legally entitled to parole, unless you had 'bad time.'" The system was so terrible because it lied and let criminals go when they weren't supposed to leave. "It was a fantastic system. It enabled prosecutors to go before press and announce that they had obtained a life sentence for A.J. killer, but it allowed A.J. to walk quietly out of prison five years later—sometimes less." This, again, goes with the fact that the system was terrible because it lied to the press and the people and just everyone. It was unfair because the criminal deserved to stay in prison, but he/she didn't.

          In conclusion, there have been many problems that have occurred in popular crime throughout American history and the system has been playing a negative role alongside. There were other things I noticed that were problematic in crime stories besides what has already been stated/mentioned. One thing, people don't take all clues/evidence seriously or disregard them completely. Another thing, technology for solving cases was very un advanced, so lots of things (evidence) were not analyzed thoroughly. That, and the system was unfair when it came to rulings. They even let criminals go when they weren't supposed to. Ultimately, popular crime in American history has had a lot of problems and the justice system has played a very negative role in them.

"Flowers for Algernon"

          The book, "Flowers for Algernon," by Daniel Keyes, is about a young man named Charlie Gordon and his experience in becoming a genius. In the beginning, Charlie had an IQ of 68 (he was a delayed/retarded adult) and he was very friendly, kind-hearted and a bit oblivious. There was an experiment of human intelligence concocted on him and he slowly starts to become a genius. He starts to read a lot, and write much better, he studies different scientific topics and he even learns a couple of languages! Now that he's a genius, he starts to change in an emotional sort of way. Charlie begins to have new insights on life, love, and just the world in general. He also becomes a bit more thoughtful and arrogant.

          While reading, "Flowers for Algernon," I noticed how, as Charlie's intelligence grew/developed, his way of thinking and feeling also started to change. He began to think more about the world around him and his own life; his past, present, and his own future. He began to think about things the "old Charlie" would've never thought about! Things like love, relationships and sex. Also the way he has been treated and how he's currently being treated. There was this one part that made me stop and consider this. "Why haven't I ever noticed how beautiful Alice Kinnian is? She has pigeon-soft brown eyes and feathery brown hair down to the hollow of her neck. When she smiles, her full lips look as if she's pouting." I realized that this is the first time Charlie expresses what he feels about someone (Alice Kinnian) ans he starts to fall in love. It isn't just for the looks though, there were some previous parts where Charlie starts to question himself and his feelings for Alice. This particular part just happened to stand out to me.

          Charlie Gordon also starts thinking about the way he's being treated and he starts to express his feelings more openly now. "Everything but treat me like a human being. You've boasted time and again that I was nothing before the experiment, and I know why. Because if I was nothing, then you were responsible for creating me, and that makes you my lord and master....I was always a person—even before...." This part stood out to me because I saw how Charlie starts elaborating on how he really feels about the experiment and how people have been treating him because of it. It really frustrates him how people don't treat him as a normal human, but as an experiment/creation instead. There was one more example, this is the first time Charlie has been so openly angry. "'What do you mean?' I shouted at him. Being so afraid of the inkblots had made me angry at myself and Burt too. Just because you're smart enough to go to college doesn't mean you have to make fun of me. I'm sick and tired of everybody laughing at me." This is actually the first time Charlie openly expresses his anger towards others' actions to him. It's frustrating being looked down upon just because one isn't "smart enough."

          While reading the book, "Flowers for Algernon," by Daniel Keyes, I noticed and started focusing on character change and realization. Charlie Gordon's thinking and insights certainly did change from beginning, to the middle, to the end. He started off as oblivious, friendly, humorous, innocent and started to become more arrogant, sharp, thoughtful. In the end however, the experiment wore off and Charlie became a delayed adult once again. That experience though, changed his life forever. He may not remember all these scientific formulas, or all the languages he's learned, or anything like that, but he remembers how it felt to be loved, how it felt to be able to have a new perspective on things; he basically had another chance at life.

          "If you ever reed this Miss Kinnian dont be sorry for me. Im glad I got a second chanse in life like you said to be smart because I lerned alot of things that I never even new were in this werld and Im grateful I saw it all even for a littel bit. And Im glad I found out all about my family and me. It was like I never had a family til I remembird about them and saw them and now I know I had a family and I was a person just like evryone."

"Outrage in Ferguson"

          The article, "Outrage in Ferguson," by Patricia Smith, focuses on the shooting of an unarmed black teen (Michael Brown) and the events unfolding in the aftermath. All of the reactions to the shooting differ; the main question is—has the situation in Ferguson been justified? I, personally, think that the situation hasn't been resolved and it hasn't even progressed! It's just been going downhill even more; what happened was racist and completely unfair and nothing has been done in terms of punishment towards the officer who shot Michael, Darren Wilson.

          Let me start off by giving some statistics about what other people think of this situation. According to a New York Times/CBS poll from August, 12% of whites believe that the situation has been justified (18% don't think it has), 2% of blacks believe that the situation has been justified (57% think it has not been justified) and 9% of all respondents think it has been justified (25% think it hasn't). Let's review the facts as to why the situation has not been justified/resolved. Michael was only walking (with a friend) when Darren Wilson stopped him. What's the crime in walking? What high crime is walking, on the street? How many have done it? Second fact: he was shot 6 times. You might not know this but, an officer is trained to shoot a person committing a crime, 1-2 times and only on the limbs, not the body or head or anything else. And this happens when the criminal is suspected of carrying a weapon. Michael Brown was unarmed and shot in the head. There was no investigations and no turning back, not until protests started.

          The protests reflect the feelings of anger and resentment of people of color across the United States, not only in Ferguson. There has been too many incidents when white officers have killed others due to the color of their skin. These protests started off as peaceful, they were only trying to send a message and express their feelings towards the death of Michael Brown. The response of the police clearly indicates that they knew what Wilson did was absolutely wrong and they just took it way too overboard. They dressed in riot gear, fired tear gas at the protesters and even brought in military vehicles. They were also given military equipment that they were not trained to use as regular police officers. What were they planning to do with that equipment; that they don't even know how to use? Did they really think using that stuff would help the situation? It made matters worse.

          In conclusion, this situation has not been justified, and this type of incident will occur again until racism is eliminated. Something has to be done. How many more protests will it take? How many more lives, will situations like this, rob? This is ignorance and racism and it's completely unfair. This situation has not been resolved.

Reading Response for "Faithful Elephants"

          The story, "Faithful Elephants: A True Story of Animals, People and War," by Yukio Tsuchiya is about how zoo keepers were forced (by the Army) to kill all their dangerous animals because of the war going on in Japan. It was unsafe to keep them alive at the zoo because at any time, a bomb could drop and dangerous animals would escape and be able to run wild through the city. While reading, "Faithful Elephants," I kept in mind that descriptive details about characters' appearance, words, actions, and the setting might illuminate new meaningful aspects and could also contribute to the conflict/plot. In this story, there were a lot of important, small details. 

          An example of this could be: "One day, an employee of the zoo, while tenderly polishing the stone, told me a sad story of three elephants here." I emphasized on the word 'tenderly' because I think it's pretty important. It shows that the stone matters to the employee and he takes good care of it; it's precious to him. Another quote: "Then it was Tonky's and Wanly's turns to die. These two had gazed at people with loving eyes. They were sweet and gentle-hearted." That particular line was underlined because I think it shows you, the reader, who Tonky and Wanly were. This detail could make the reader establish a more emotional connection to the elephants. (This is because you're thinking to yourself about how great they seemed to be, and then they die! Their death will affect you even more with a connection.) 

          There are still more examples for this! For instance, towards the end of the story there's a statement, "Above them, in the bright blue sky, the angry roar of enemy planes returned. Bombs began to drop on Tokyo once more." To me, this part shows the intensity of the war, which caused the elephants' deaths (in a sense, not directly). This line also interprets hatred and disgust (towards the war) from the employees that had to watch their precious animals die because of the war. There's also one more line, at the very end, and it states, "He was still patting the tombstone tenderly (- still shows the immense care for it) as the cherry blossoms fell on the grave, like snowflakes. The author makes this part sound very serene and it causes me to think that it symbolizes the end of the cruel war and the terrible memories that came along with it. 

          Ultimately, the story, "Faithful Elephants," has many small yet valuable details that could contribute to the conflict/plot and also illuminate new aspects for us. Sometimes, it not always easy to notice how something so small could turn out to be very meaningful and useful! 

Reading Response for "The Great Gatsby"

          The Great Gatsby is a novel by F. Scott Fitzgerald, published in 1925. It takes place in Long Island during the 1920's; the Jazz Age. The novel focuses on Jay Gatsby, a wealthy man who's obsessed with Daisy Buchanan - she's an absent-minded young lady who catches everyone's attention (I should also mention she's married to Tom Buchanan and they're also quite wealthy). This story and its characters are looked upon through the eyes of Nick Carraway, he's a bit of an outsider, really. He's not rich, but he has his connections (he's actually related to Daisy - they're cousins) and Nick is pretty straightforward and honest. I personally think he's the most honest in the whole story. 

           That leads me to another thing; since Nick is the narrator, he meets all types of different people and he really gets a good perspective on everyone and the hypocritical society he lives in. It's kind of hard to explain Nick and his position in this society. He's a part of the inner circle for the rich and powerful, yet he's far away at the same time. He has a strong understanding of the lives of all these wealthy, popular people. Now, onto this society - its corrupt, hypocritical and false. These people lie about their relationships, they lie about their background and they lie about their wealth. Gatsby himself is an example. For instance, no one really knows the truth about him or where all his money came from. Everyone has a different theory/story about him but none of them are correct. It seems to me that Gatsby himself doesn't know the truth. Another example is Tom Buchanan; he's cheating on his own wife and everyone (including his wife) knows about it. No one says anything about it to him though, they just acknowledge it. Through Nick's eyes we can see how lies contribute to relationships and the people themselves and how it leads to a downfall.    

             While reading The Great Gatsby, I liked observing the characters and their deceptive ways through Nick's point of view. It was pretty interesting to see how corrupt and superficial this society was and the things people would do to get it done their way. I also really liked the fact it took place during the 1920's. This book was well-written and it had such a great plot. 

              I wasn't going to do this initially but when I was writing this, I started to really think about this book and how it's been challenged. At first, I didn't really understand why anyone would want this book banned (or something along the lines of that) but then I realized this story has high levels of violence. Domestic abuse/violence, the use of drugs and alcohol, murder. And I guess I didn't realize it at first because it all rolls into the fact that this is a society enveloped around betrayal and lies. Although it has these elements, I still don't think it should be banned. It was written from a great point of view and I think this story has some lessons in it. If you can handle these mature elements, you should definitely read this book.