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

In the End... Does it Really Matter?

How come I have to complete this assignment? In total honesty I beg the question, in the grand scheme of things what rank does homework hold? After finishing the story Cat's Cradle by Kurt Vonnegut it has made me reconsider my priorities and the importance I place upon day to day tasks. Purely from the context of the story, I discovered a sense of searching from Vonnegut. I believe he felt worthless, or at least made the attempt to appear that way. One of the many themes I unveiled in these pages rocked my world. Not that it has never surfaced in text before or anything like that, Vonnegut just presented a sense of pointlessness to everyday life in an unconventional way that really made me question if I am leading a worthwhile life. I cannot stop pondering the way Bokonon went about his life, it seemed very meaningful, providing hope for his followers, until the end in which he denies his book as all lies, and presumably commits suicide. Furthermore the way Vonnegut had everyone in San Lorenzo perish after a lifetime of suffering but hope in the future through Jonah forces me to believe that Vonnegut hardly valued Bokonon's work and essentially killed him off as well! Although I am reluctant to believe that this human toil was entirely fruitless, perhaps Vonnegut tries to send the message that no human deed lasts. Everything crumble under a greater force. Contradictory to this message however comes with the final sentence where in a positive light Vonnegut tells of Bokonon's desire to thumb his nose at "You Know Who" (287). I am left very perplexed at the end of this story with a great passion to rise up and make my life meaningful yet also feel dejected for as proven in San Lorenzo, all human feats and works eventually fade away. 


- Rabindranath

JUSTICE!!!!!

juvenile delinquency
— n
	antisocial or criminal conduct by minors (Dictionary.com) Punishable by death.....? OF COURSE IT IS. How can one argue against hanging a boy for stealing a car his friends peer pressured him into doing? I wish we had more Crosby's in the USA because in my opinion he has the right idea about how to punish children who engage in thievery and/or other harmless yet bothersome criminal behavior. I love his ruthless tone when he admits how he would approve if the law would "String up... teen-age car thieves" and send a picture of them back to their mothers (94). His merciless diction of "String up" provides me with vivid imagery and a quick, effective plan to stop juvenile delinquency. How tired I am of hearing about misdemeanors and blemished records wiped clean once the adolescent reaches 18, Crosby has the right idea. On the other hand, Crosby does make the concession that "the hook's a little extreme" in order to paint himself in a more desirable light (94). I pride myself on being a law-abiding citizen and therefore I must agree that "the hook" seems to fall under the category of "cruel and unusual" which protects convicts from unfair, torturous deaths. I can live with that. However at the two-thirds point in the novel, I have yet to find an event or statement so thoroughly riveting that vibrates soundly with every notion I have ever had in regards to punishment of minors. "An eye for an eye" holds true in capitalistic societies like the USA pre-Obama and obviously in San Lorenzo a car just holds the same value as an immature boy's life... - Rabindranath

Focusing on Expertise

Upon reflection of the first third of the story Cat's Cradle, I am forced to publicly convey my admiration for Dr. Felix Hoenikker. The man behind the United States asserting itself at the top of the food chain in military power, comes off a little rough around the edges and definitely rather eccentric. However I cannot envision a man that better embodies qualities I strive for everyday - focus, ignorance, and indifference. To begin with his focus, Felix could instantaneously fixate his mind upon a single matter and ignore everything else presented to him if he so chooses. At one point in the story Felix describes how anything can make him "stop and look and wonder" (11). At moments such as these, Felix indirectly characterized himself as fascinated by single objects to learn from. I am willing to excuse Dr. Hoenikker for his actions even though at times this extreme focus led to his ignorance which occasionally endangered or caused struggle in his own family. The author writes of how Angela "was a mother" because their real mother had perished and their father more often than not disregarded the family in a harm-inducing manner (11). Not physical harm, no. Felix simply deprived his young children of the attention and influence they need to mature. However I do NOT condemn Felix for his utter nonchalance towards the well-being of his family, the man created the atomic bomb! Of course he had to devote every neuron in his brain into creating a bomb so powerful that it single-handedly forced the Japanese to step down and recognize the USA, the greatest country on earth, as the dominant entity in either hemisphere. I read these parts in a time where I had great passion for my home country due to the onset of the Olympic Games, perhaps this patriotic notion led me to admire Dr. Hoenikker even more. Briefly I would still like to touch upon the scientist's indifference. Indifference allows a man to do his best work. Period. Why can surgeons not operate on family members as patients? Because they care too greatly for the life at stake. Dr. Hoenikker found himself able to set aside all emotions and devote himself to the task at hand - destroying Japan - which better enabled him to complete his job ASSIGNED to him! I do not believe Felix was a heartless killer! I see him as a loyal subject seeking to make a living and dedicating all of his talents to his area of expertise, creation of nuclear weapons. Although this meant putting his family aside, or disregard for innocent lives, Vonnegut writes that on the day of the bomb Felix did not care and simply played with his "cat's cradle" (15).



 - Rabindranath