Flaw in the Establishment

"Sometimes you are the pigeon, Sometimes you are the statue." A bird sits atop a statue covered in feces in the poster which displays the above quote. Not one day has passed in AP English, this year or last, that I have not taken note of the poster and self-evaluated whether the bird or the statue better fit my mentality on that particular day. The bird- on top of the world, graceful, content, and pooping on whatever happens to pass underway. The statue- lonely, filthy, victimized, and at the will of all animate objects. Some days I think about how similar to the statue my day progresses, and others, undoubtedly I feel like the pigeon. Yet upon recent observations of the poster, I stumbled upon a newfound realization. In my humble opinion, the creators of the poster woefully messed up! Allow me to explain. If anyone has studied the image as thoroughly as I, I would expect them to approach the same conclusion that I have: the statue represents the better human being and lifestyle! Take another glance at the poster! Why does the poster imply that we should put ourselves above others and sit on them and make them feel like crap (no pun intended!)? If I may re-analyze the figures: the bird- cocky, superior, ignorant, and one that must put others down to lift themselves up. Meanwhile the statue- selfless, independent, calm, and unaffected by other's rudeness. I am rather confused as to the creator's motive behind the poster and whether they recognize this as I have. Or, whether they assumed people would understand that the statue clearly embodies better character traits than the condescending pigeon and I have simply misinterpreted it these past years. Otherwise, why would these people advocate putting others down, and asserting our superiority over them as the pigeon has done? Has faculty not taught the students since day one to not let others affect us no matter how they treat us? As the articulate Allen Iverson once said, "homie, you gotta do you" I believe the statue perfectly practices this behavior. The statue remains standing and does not allow the defecating pigeon deter him from watching over the city! He ignores the "bully" and does not show weakness whatsoever yet refuses to retaliate in any manner. I greatly admire these positive and peaceful qualities in the stone. I did not reach this conclusion until today however, which just proves how if someone searches for hidden meaning long enough in something, they will find it. Therefore, I believe someone on the team that designed that poster must have recognized this flaw and simply wants those who ponder it long enough to achieve this insight. Please just take a quick glance at the image and reconsider which YOU prefer to act like and remember the personality traits I have identified in each.

This Means WAR!

I foresee a war. A great, nasty war. A war so immense that even those beyond petty high schooler's feelings, such as Ms. Serensky, cannot help but partake in. A war comparable to WWI in magnitude and participants. I foresee a war amongst the geniuses of AP English 12 - 7th period.
              In recent weeks, I have noticed a singular common theme in the stories we have read thus far: adultery. Oh, what an ugly word. Disloyalty. Infidelity. Immorality. No one wants to have such a label and all shy away from the mark. However, I have learned that such a topic evokes great conversation in our class for it seems like we try to spend as much time as possible discussing hanky-panky. Over the last three reads, a certain divide has sprung up in the class, those who abhor the practice, versus those who find ways to justify it. Initially, only a few people in the class fought the war, the extremists. Derek and Lauren versus Kate and Alex, Italy and Germany versus Great Britain and Russia.We rather tentatively put forth our opinions of the matter and merely waded into neutral waters. Few sides formed, and even fewer alliances. No one could risk angering the almighty force, the force that no one dared to cross, the force that nearly guarantees victory in any verbal or written debate which had yet to enter the conflict, Ms. Serensky, or to continue the metaphor, the United States of America. Next, The Winter's Tale re-excited our strange point of contention upon Leontes' accusation that Hermione cheats on him. In this battle I firmly staked my ground with the Axis in their stand against adultery at all costs. My current writing partner, Claire, opposed me and justified disloyalty for true love. I felt as siblings did when they crossed one another in the Revolutionary War. However, still no one portrayed their rage, or threw moral cheap shots, or hand-grenades, at one another. Rather contradictorily, we feigned calm and politely discussed our opinions of the matter in vague terms. Now, we reside in the present, on the brink of battle, and utter anarch. In our story, The Great Gatsby, we learn that Tom, frequently and openly, cheats on his wife which blatantly begs one's judgement of the deed. Today's discussion represented the assassination of the Archduke Ferdinand. Teams formed, sides aligned, and tempers flared. Or so we thought. Until someone who claimed to have a "soft spot for Tom" changed his mind! Derek, in congruence with Italy, switches his opinion and now supports the Allies because for Tom, he can validate infidelity! This monumental moment greatly shifted the balance of power I had so carefully calculated in my mind to equilibrium, foreshadowing a clash of equally powerful foes. Please Ms. Serensky, give us insight as to where you stand so that one side may back down and we may prevent this catastrophic collision of ideologies.

Pink and Flashy, Apparently My Style

I hate journal days. Actually, I enjoy writing in them because I have no fear of Ms. Serensky's instant and seldom positive (in my case) feedback, yet I still despise journal days. Last year I felt no such emotion, however due to my pink and flashy notebook, I now dread hearing, "Open up your journals, write today's date, and this will be entry number seven." I remember our assignment on the first day of school to bring in a notebook with a cover that represented us and our personality. Well, as usual, it slipped my mind, and I had to resort to stealing said journal out of my six year old sister's backpack. Needless to say, the tiny drama queen discovered with terror her missing notebook yet I will save the full story for a future time. As I walked to class that day, I planned to present my journal to my honorable writing partner, Lauren, as somewhat of a joke to mask my embarrassment. As always, she took it in stride which did not irk me then as it does now. Why, why did she expect nothing less than for me to bring in a pink notebook with flowers on the front cover? I do not consider myself a very funny kid, and do not believe my classmates perceive me that way either, therefore Lauren could not have foreseen a joke which means she must have simply expected me to bring in something different! Until very recently this event did not bother me, yet over the last 72 hours, nothing else has broached my mind. Time and again the justification has eluded me... Until now. As insensible as this sounds, I believe that people expect me to bring the exact opposite of what I should bring to the table! Let us look at the most current writing partner situation for example, I certainly remember Claire exclaiming with joy when Ms. Serensky set our AP English fates together for she sees me as an intelligent guy. Should not that have a direct correlation with quality of writing partner? So Claire believed. Unfortunately, her expectations and my production do not tend to coincide for I seem to consistently do the exact opposite of what I am expected. Do not get the impression that I think of this as a curse however, for it works positively in the realm of sports for example. If a bystander saw me they would not receive the impression that I am an athlete, although I actually hold my own rather well in the sports world. Come on - a gangly, big-footed kid? Yessir, since I am expected to fail, I strive to succeed. Therefore, after examining these two unrelated fields, I have reached the conclusion that perhaps my pink and girly notebook really DOES represent me well. Since I am expected to do the unexpected, should I fret when someone thinks of me strangely or differently? I feel as though I am the incarnate form of the old saying, "expect the unexpected." Or perhaps, as in "The Balloon," I am simply trying to find significance in an event that yields no deeper meaning whatsoever.

Yeah But It's Still ARMED ROBBERY

Quite frankly, I am rather disturbed by the mental state and perspectives of our class. While I have always expected to find the deranged and unstable in AP English, because it becomes clearer everyday that one must possess certain delusions about their own intelligence in order to believe they can conquer Ms. Serensky and AP English, I have never questioned their priorities and values until now. Well, they always say with great brilliance comes great insanity, or do they? Perhaps I fashioned that quote from nothing with the sole purpose being to further my point; but then again would not such an imagination foster your belief that I am mad? Yet I am rambling and off topic, now to return to my original point... Oh yes, I need not look past the first of the short fictional stories to base my argument, for my belief manifested during our discussion of "The Second Bakery Attack" by Haruki Murakami. Ms. Serensky posed the question "was it wrong for them to attack the bakery?" And at first I thought to myself, does this matter truly necessitate discussion!?! Although, as I tuned in to my peer's responses, I sat back flabbergasted. The question I deemed unworthy of debate actually sparked a raging one amongst my classmates. I could not believe it, especially when I heard the overwhelming majority arguing that if the attack eased the couple's minds, then they had no problem with the act! WHAT!? If not for common courtesy and a simple lack of desire to argue on that certain day, I would have derailed my peers! As I listened to them use quotes such as "our hunger... vanished" to support how much the deed benefitted the man and his notoriously criminal wife, I wanted to scream - "DO YOU ALL NOT REMEMBER THAT THEY COMMITTED ARMED ROBBERY?" (9). Being the advocate of self-sufficiency and capitalism that I am, you may seem appalled that I am thinking about the handful of McDonald's employees whom the couple forever traumatized. "Ah, they took action and simply sought to improve their lives." Yes, however they did it at the expense of the well-being and mental state of others! Furthermore, I am taken aback by the author's refusal to condemn these people one of which has clearly practiced the act before. Murakami seemingly justifies it with his description of their contentment: "drifted back to where I belong" (9)! Yes I can somewhat understand they "needed" to do the crime to mask underlying marital issues, however I cannot excuse the illegality behind it. They deserve a prison sentence and should have a "gun wobble" in their direction to feel the terror they selfishly imposed upon innocent individuals (7). I apologize to those I have contested, but I fundamentally oppose supporting or rationalizing their horrendous act of "redemption." I would have preferred to orate this in class, however I do not believe time nor Ms. Serensky would have condoned such a rant.

Mule Like

Brown. Such an ugly word. Stubborn, unchanging, steadfast, and beautiful. These words come to my mind when I think of the color brown, because no matter what color one adds to brown (excessive amounts excluded) it will not change. Perhaps become a shade lighter or darker, but in essence, will not change. The reason I identify Olive Kitteridge by Elizabeth Strout with brown stems from the fact that I have never seen a more stubborn and steadfast group of characters! Henry, Olive, Harmon, Christopher, Ann, the Larkins... they all remain set in their ways! For example, Strout indirectly characterizes Olive as unchanging for she has "sharp opinions" (11). This remains constant throughout surfacing again when Olive refuses to acknowledge she shares in the blame and accuses Chris through harsh diction of "You haven't...!" (230). I demonstrate this "brownness" with Olive however the same holds true for all the characters. This brings me to the final word I think of with brown which is beautiful. There is something magical about remaining true to oneself. If I took the route of a skeptic, I would say that the times of the work attributed to the character's personalities however I want to accredit the author, Ms. Strout. In her calm, methodical, never changing style I believe she put some of herself into the work subconsciously. If I were a betting man, I would wager that Elizabeth Strout rarely waivers in her steadfast opinions - a trait I very much admire and attempt to emulate.

Mom am I Allowed to go to the Restroom?

As teenagers I am sure my peers can identify with the feeling that their parents oppress or "over-protect" them at times hindering their social lives. Some parents do this better than others, but I have never seen, heard, or experienced someone as good at keeping their child on lockdown as well as Olive Kitteridge. In fact I honestly do not understand what compels Olive to take every decision Christopher makes as a personal attack against herself. For example, when Chris moves to California Olive takes it so far as to call him a "stranger" to the family (145). The negative connotations behind "stranger" simply build my case that Olive primarily seeks personal gain out of her son's life in the form of grandchildren (80). She completely overreacts to the news and cannot grasp that he simply wants a better life with his newfound wife in a place where he does not have to worry about his mother analyzing every decision he makes. I applaud her husband Henry however, for he foils Olive and simply asserts that the coastline is his home, and therefore, someday he will come home. I beg that Olive adopts Henry's "live and let live" attitude for it will only help find greater peace for herself and others. Yet for now, if Christopher remained living near his parents, he may still have to ask his mother for permission to use the restroom.

-Rabindranath

Blame it on the A-a-a-a-a-adolescents!

At long last when on page 80, I found a character who had views similar to my own. A man that believes in people, a man that burdens his share of the blame and does not thrust it upon others, and a man that willingly accepts his role within society. Strout names said character, Harmon, and paints him in a very positive light throughout the novel. The event that struck me so clearly however, occurs when Harmon speaks about "young people" (80). The kind diction "young" sheds light upon his understanding that they may make mistakes yet his belief that the world unfairly blames them as the cause for "steering the world to hell" (80). He refutes this mainstream assertion by claiming "it's never true" (80). I have conflicting emotions about this section for the common belief that young people are in the wrong infuriates me because I beg the question... Who raised us??! How can you attack our actions when YOU and YOUR "elder and wiser" peers provided the example on how to speak, act, and live. Simultaneously however I am overjoyed by Harmon's characterization of adolescents as "hopeful and good" (80). I concur! I am very glad Strout at least includes this minimal positive light on the younger generation for I am of the opinion that she too sees the new generation as the downfall of the planet. Earlier on Strout writes of how Olive's son Christopher does not have any friends yet Olive is glad because "you can't trust folks" (68). Her obvious reference to people his age appalls me and forces me to question the bias behind the story. Thank you Harmon for sticking up for us.

-Rabindranath