Blaming others for things you did is never a good idea. It will seriously come back to bite you in the butt. It really depends on how your personality is though. Many things can happen when The most obvious one is that an innocent person may be punished. That is not a good thing. No one likes to be punished, but it is especially bad when the punishment is undeserved. In the end, they paid the price for whatever YOU did, and that is unfair to them. They did not deserve the punishment that you should have received. Besides that, a perfectly happy person that gets blamed for something they did not do will get bitter. Even if the whatever you blamed them for does not end in punishment, the innocent person would feel like they have been wrongly persecuted, and that is enough to ruin anyone's cheerful attitude. Not to mention that wrongly blaming someone can ruin a friendship. If my best friend blamed something bad on me, it is likely that I would be pretty upset at her until she apologized or until I got bored of all the hate in the atmosphere. If she thought I was responsible for some bad happening, it is also quite possible that he would be upset with me, and over something I had not even done. This has not happened yet, I believe, but I am sure it would be a bad experience.
A big repercussion of wrongly blaming someone is that the person who was blamed may carry a bit of a grudge. They are obviously not going to be happy that you wrongly blamed them. That grudge can cause friendships or other relationships to fall apart. That is never good...
As you can see, blaming people for the things you do can really come back to bite you in the butt. Especially when you only blame one person, because that is just not fair. Instead, you should blame EVERYONE equally for everything bad that happens. I"m kidding. That would be bad too. You should refrain from blaming people until you are absolutely sure they have done what ever it is that is in question.
Monday, September 10, 2012
Sunday, September 9, 2012
The Crucible - 2 : Characters
I still remember when I took the True Colors test in Heath last year. I think they are pretty legitimate in their answers. They make a lot of sense when you think about it. When I come to think of the most
important characters in the Crucible within the context of happy little colors, it
seems clear enough to me.
Proctor is gold, I think. Golds are typically very family centered and organized. He is willing to soil his own reputation in order to save his wife, showing how much he cares about her (Miller 80). People with gold personalities often care a great deal about their families. I believe that golds would act more like blues when they are under stress, and perhaps Proctor was under a lot of stress with his wife when he had his affair with Abigail. Having a lover seems more like a blue sort of thing to do than a gold kind of thing - blues being the type of people who care most about relationships with other people. If he were really a blue, I doubt he would be putting Abigail on ice as well as he has by this part of the play. The play mentions that he has a sort of moral superiority about him, and this is keeping with a gold personality as well (Miller 20).
When it comes to Abigail, I believe she has more of an orange personality. Orange people are most interested in being active and having a good time. She danced at night with other girls at a heathen ceremony because it seemed like it would be fun and entertaining (Miller 11). This shows that she was more concerned with having a good time than with her family - whose reputation she put in jeopardy -, the rules -which she obviously broke-, or much of anything else. She seems very uninclined toward learning, so that definitely rules out green. I think that she is really just a very immature orange type. She is not a very likeable character in my opinion.
I believe that Rebecca has a very blue personality. Even though she has not really said much so far in the play, every time she speaks her words seem to be very comforting. She really cares about Betty and her illness in the first act, even though she knows that Betty had been out dancing in the middle of the night (Miller 39). When in the second act it mentions that she was arrested, the reader cannot but feel sympathy and worry for the kind old woman. I really like Rebecca's character.
The Putnams were very hard to decide one color for. At best, they will have to be a mixture of at least two. They put a lot of effort in their plans for how to best get their revenge on people who they feel have done them wrong. I am not sure if this would be more green or more orange because of how hard they work at their schemes. On one hand, their schemes revolve around who they think has done their family wrong in some circumstances, like when a family member of theirs -due to some neighbors- was not allowed to be minister (Miller 15). On the other hand, some of their plots are purely about economic gain. Anyway, I think the Putnams are a very close call between green and gold. I cannot place them into one category.
Miller, Arthur. The Crucible. New York, NY: Penguin, 1996. Print.
Proctor is gold, I think. Golds are typically very family centered and organized. He is willing to soil his own reputation in order to save his wife, showing how much he cares about her (Miller 80). People with gold personalities often care a great deal about their families. I believe that golds would act more like blues when they are under stress, and perhaps Proctor was under a lot of stress with his wife when he had his affair with Abigail. Having a lover seems more like a blue sort of thing to do than a gold kind of thing - blues being the type of people who care most about relationships with other people. If he were really a blue, I doubt he would be putting Abigail on ice as well as he has by this part of the play. The play mentions that he has a sort of moral superiority about him, and this is keeping with a gold personality as well (Miller 20).
When it comes to Abigail, I believe she has more of an orange personality. Orange people are most interested in being active and having a good time. She danced at night with other girls at a heathen ceremony because it seemed like it would be fun and entertaining (Miller 11). This shows that she was more concerned with having a good time than with her family - whose reputation she put in jeopardy -, the rules -which she obviously broke-, or much of anything else. She seems very uninclined toward learning, so that definitely rules out green. I think that she is really just a very immature orange type. She is not a very likeable character in my opinion.
I believe that Rebecca has a very blue personality. Even though she has not really said much so far in the play, every time she speaks her words seem to be very comforting. She really cares about Betty and her illness in the first act, even though she knows that Betty had been out dancing in the middle of the night (Miller 39). When in the second act it mentions that she was arrested, the reader cannot but feel sympathy and worry for the kind old woman. I really like Rebecca's character.
The Putnams were very hard to decide one color for. At best, they will have to be a mixture of at least two. They put a lot of effort in their plans for how to best get their revenge on people who they feel have done them wrong. I am not sure if this would be more green or more orange because of how hard they work at their schemes. On one hand, their schemes revolve around who they think has done their family wrong in some circumstances, like when a family member of theirs -due to some neighbors- was not allowed to be minister (Miller 15). On the other hand, some of their plots are purely about economic gain. Anyway, I think the Putnams are a very close call between green and gold. I cannot place them into one category.
Miller, Arthur. The Crucible. New York, NY: Penguin, 1996. Print.
Thursday, September 6, 2012
Journal #5 - Proper 21st Century Punishment
I personally have never been grounded or had anything taken away from me. I really do not do much in the ways of bad behavior. That, or my parents are just really lenient. If I were to do something worth punishing, though, I agree with the video that we watched that certain electronic items should be taken away. I would absolutely hate having my phone taken away, my facebook rights taken away, or my video game/television privileges taken away. Though, I suppose punishments are not necessarily supposed to be enjoyed. Nowadays, children and teenagers cling to their electronics like lifelines. I admit to it myself. I am almost always on the computer, and where that is sad, it is the truth. If those privileges were taken away, I would not be happy, and I would certainly not do whatever I did to deserve that punishment again.
On another note, I did not agree with the video that parents should be able to friend and monitor their children online. Sure, I am friends with my parents on facebook, but I know that they respect my privacy enough to not check my wall, my friends, and my friends' walls routinely. I know that they are able to see the things I do on facebook, but I feel it would be really rude for them to invade our privacy because they felt that we needed to be punished. I just do not agree with that aspect of the video.
Overall, I believe that, under certain circumstances, taking away electronics would be a good punishment for the average 21st century child/teenager.
On another note, I did not agree with the video that parents should be able to friend and monitor their children online. Sure, I am friends with my parents on facebook, but I know that they respect my privacy enough to not check my wall, my friends, and my friends' walls routinely. I know that they are able to see the things I do on facebook, but I feel it would be really rude for them to invade our privacy because they felt that we needed to be punished. I just do not agree with that aspect of the video.
Overall, I believe that, under certain circumstances, taking away electronics would be a good punishment for the average 21st century child/teenager.
Wednesday, September 5, 2012
Journal #4 - Traveling
Normally, I am not one to want to travel much. Nor do I get too excited about it. Sure, if my parents suddenly said, "We're going to Disney World!", I would be more than excited to go. Despite my happiness, I would not be looking forward to the actual trip, but the time spent there. Over the years, I have become more and more accustomed to long road trips. I go to church camp every year and the sites of the camp are usually 8+ hours away. I have found ways to enjoy these long trips, but it has become somewhat of a routene for me.
Last year, things changed. Early in 2011, I met a girl online who would become one of my best friends in the world. (Yes, online. I know that is pretty sketch, but we skyped and everything and I was happy to find that she was in fact not a forty-year-old creeper man, but a fourteen year old girl.) We have many things in common so we became fast friends. I began to "plot" against her, as I would say, and in October I went to North Carolina to meet her in person (without her knowing, I might add. Her parents knew, though.). Though the entire process of planning, packing, and driving there took a rather large portion of my time for a while, I was jumping with excitment. The entire drive, where it was very long, was one of the most enjoyable rides of my life. I was going to see my friend! We arrived after the 17 hour drive and had a great weekend of teenager antics. Then, I had to leave. That ride was not as fun.
After that trip, I realized that long trips can be fun. They are an adventure of sorts. Sure, they are more fun if you actually are wanting to go on them, but they are not too bad. That particular road trip had a big impact on my life. I now know that me and her will probably be friends forever. Because of this, I have more respect of long trips, because you never know how they will turn out. They could change your life. =)
Last year, things changed. Early in 2011, I met a girl online who would become one of my best friends in the world. (Yes, online. I know that is pretty sketch, but we skyped and everything and I was happy to find that she was in fact not a forty-year-old creeper man, but a fourteen year old girl.) We have many things in common so we became fast friends. I began to "plot" against her, as I would say, and in October I went to North Carolina to meet her in person (without her knowing, I might add. Her parents knew, though.). Though the entire process of planning, packing, and driving there took a rather large portion of my time for a while, I was jumping with excitment. The entire drive, where it was very long, was one of the most enjoyable rides of my life. I was going to see my friend! We arrived after the 17 hour drive and had a great weekend of teenager antics. Then, I had to leave. That ride was not as fun.
After that trip, I realized that long trips can be fun. They are an adventure of sorts. Sure, they are more fun if you actually are wanting to go on them, but they are not too bad. That particular road trip had a big impact on my life. I now know that me and her will probably be friends forever. Because of this, I have more respect of long trips, because you never know how they will turn out. They could change your life. =)
The Crucible - 1 : Puritan Qualities?
Reading through The Crucible, I noticed that it was written in the early nineteen fifties. That is not exactly the time in which most Puritan writing was written. Despite this, I noticed quite a few
characteristics of Puritan writings about it. The sentence style
is very much puritan sounding in the narration. Arthur Miller uses fairly short,
declarative sentences with little extra in them to add much flavor. This can be
seen very well in the beginning narration, and especially in the following
passage.
"The edge of the wilderness was close by. The American continent stretched endlessly west, and it was full of mystery for them. It stood, dark and threatening, over their shoulders night and day, for out of it Indian tribes marauded from time to time, and Reverend Parris had parishioners who had lost relatives to these heathen." (Miller 5)
It uses more description than actual Puritan writing- the phrase "dark and threatening" probably would have been omitted- but the lack of drama and passion when talking about Indian killings certainly savors strongly of Puritan. Arthur did not want too focus to much on his opinion on the killings.
A major Puritan-like characteristic I noticed in the writing was the many references to religion. The main difference in the play and Puritan writing is who the characters reference when they talk. In Puritan writings, God is talked about in every aspect of every event. In The Crucible, the devil is the constant religious figure being referenced and talked about. Despite the play being centered around accused demonic encounters, if were it written by a Puritan, there would have been many more references to God.
We can see how the Puritan faith was declining through all of Reverend Parris' sermons about the impending doom awaiting in hell for the faithless. Mr. Proctor says "I have trouble enough without I come five mile to hear him preach only hellfire and bloody damnation. Take it to heart, Mr. Parris. There are many others who stay away from church these days because you hardly ever mention God anymore (Miller 29)." When the Puritan faith was declining, the preachers tried to pull their parishioners back by scaring them with such speeches of hell. I am really not surprised that that did not work, because no one really wants to be told they are going to hell. Who would?
I could also tell throughout the play that the Puritan religion was declining because of Mr. Proctor's continued respect in the community. He did not go to church often, which in normal cases would lead to your persecution in the community, but people still respected him. In the days of the Salem Witch trials, faith must have become a lot less important for such absence from church to make so little difference to everyone.
In the end, I think that The Crucible is a very good example of Puritan writing even though it was written over a hundred years after most Puritan writing had been written. Despite this, I think that a lot of it is different than Puritan writing, especially in all of the details in the author's descriptions. It still came very close to average Puritan writing.
Miller, Arthur. The Crucible. New York, NY: Penguin, 1996. Print.
"The edge of the wilderness was close by. The American continent stretched endlessly west, and it was full of mystery for them. It stood, dark and threatening, over their shoulders night and day, for out of it Indian tribes marauded from time to time, and Reverend Parris had parishioners who had lost relatives to these heathen." (Miller 5)
It uses more description than actual Puritan writing- the phrase "dark and threatening" probably would have been omitted- but the lack of drama and passion when talking about Indian killings certainly savors strongly of Puritan. Arthur did not want too focus to much on his opinion on the killings.
A major Puritan-like characteristic I noticed in the writing was the many references to religion. The main difference in the play and Puritan writing is who the characters reference when they talk. In Puritan writings, God is talked about in every aspect of every event. In The Crucible, the devil is the constant religious figure being referenced and talked about. Despite the play being centered around accused demonic encounters, if were it written by a Puritan, there would have been many more references to God.
We can see how the Puritan faith was declining through all of Reverend Parris' sermons about the impending doom awaiting in hell for the faithless. Mr. Proctor says "I have trouble enough without I come five mile to hear him preach only hellfire and bloody damnation. Take it to heart, Mr. Parris. There are many others who stay away from church these days because you hardly ever mention God anymore (Miller 29)." When the Puritan faith was declining, the preachers tried to pull their parishioners back by scaring them with such speeches of hell. I am really not surprised that that did not work, because no one really wants to be told they are going to hell. Who would?
I could also tell throughout the play that the Puritan religion was declining because of Mr. Proctor's continued respect in the community. He did not go to church often, which in normal cases would lead to your persecution in the community, but people still respected him. In the days of the Salem Witch trials, faith must have become a lot less important for such absence from church to make so little difference to everyone.
In the end, I think that The Crucible is a very good example of Puritan writing even though it was written over a hundred years after most Puritan writing had been written. Despite this, I think that a lot of it is different than Puritan writing, especially in all of the details in the author's descriptions. It still came very close to average Puritan writing.
Miller, Arthur. The Crucible. New York, NY: Penguin, 1996. Print.
Monday, September 3, 2012
Journal #3 - Hostage Situation
I can imagine that in a hostage situation, I would not be able to keep my cool. It is a well known fact that while in a bad situation, you must keep calm so that you can think clearly. While picturing this potential hostage situation, I can only picture myself kicking and screaming to be free from whomever/whatever was holding me hostage.
However, there is also the slight possibility that I would be in complete control of the situation despite the fact that I was being held hostage. I would remember what I had been taught to do in that situation and stay calm. In fact, I would probably do what my captor least expected. I would talk to him/her/it. I would make small conversation. For example, lets say I was being held hostage and I noticed that my captor was very nervous about everything. Obviously, a newb at holding people hostage. Let's say that this person is male. Depending on how much I was restrained, I would mention how I noticed his nervousness. This would probably cause him to get very defensive at first, but that would cause him to become unstable. They are showing weakness. They are not confident with their hostage-ing skills. I would then bring the conversation to where we discuss his home life and I would discover that he was only doing keeping me hostage because he needed the money. I would continue to prod him with questions until I discover that he has been so unsuccessful because no one believed in him as he grew up. No one gave him to confidence to go far in life. So, being the caring person that I am, I would convince the man that I believed that he could do anything. He would be so overwhelmed with happiness that someone believed in him, he would let me free. We would then skip happily with our arms linked out of wherever I was being kept and when questioned by the police, I would not press charges.
With these two possible scenarios in mind, it is easy to see that it is better to stay calm, which is what I intend to do if I was placed into such a situation.
However, there is also the slight possibility that I would be in complete control of the situation despite the fact that I was being held hostage. I would remember what I had been taught to do in that situation and stay calm. In fact, I would probably do what my captor least expected. I would talk to him/her/it. I would make small conversation. For example, lets say I was being held hostage and I noticed that my captor was very nervous about everything. Obviously, a newb at holding people hostage. Let's say that this person is male. Depending on how much I was restrained, I would mention how I noticed his nervousness. This would probably cause him to get very defensive at first, but that would cause him to become unstable. They are showing weakness. They are not confident with their hostage-ing skills. I would then bring the conversation to where we discuss his home life and I would discover that he was only doing keeping me hostage because he needed the money. I would continue to prod him with questions until I discover that he has been so unsuccessful because no one believed in him as he grew up. No one gave him to confidence to go far in life. So, being the caring person that I am, I would convince the man that I believed that he could do anything. He would be so overwhelmed with happiness that someone believed in him, he would let me free. We would then skip happily with our arms linked out of wherever I was being kept and when questioned by the police, I would not press charges.
With these two possible scenarios in mind, it is easy to see that it is better to stay calm, which is what I intend to do if I was placed into such a situation.
Puritan Qualities of Bradford's Writing
In my opinion, Bradford's writing seems to be very typical of the time period. It fits so well
that I am beginning to wonder if these examples of early American literature
were specifically picked out to make a point, or if the style really was that
consistent. They are all very much alike.
In the first passage of Bradford's book, it shows how many people of the time considered everything that happened in their life to be an act of God. He writes about a young man who was making fun of all the people who will die on the boat ride, when he himself is the first to get sick and die (Bradford 15). In the second passage in the book, Bradford talks about how it was God's will that a sailor was saved (Bradford 64). Reading through Bradford's writing, we can see how he references to God's strong influence of people's lives.
The most Puritan characteristic I noticed in Bradford's writing was its very simple style. With some writers, reading their prose is like to reading poetry, but such is not he case with Puritan style writing. Bradford's work, along with other Puritan writing, is very plain. I am not a huge fan of then simplicity of this writing. Sure, it can be interpreted easily, but I prefer more detail in the things that I read. I did not find the writing bad, but it is just not my favorite. I actually liked reading about some of the passages in his novel.
One thing we talked about last class was how Puritan writing often references scripture. The Puritans were very knowledgeable about the Bible. When he talks about how the Pilgrims landed in America, he mentions how some apostles were received in a foreign land (Bradford 65). Most Puritan writing has a lot of references to the Bible in it, and so does Bradford's writing. Despite my being a Christian, many of his passages I had never even heard before. People during that time must have read their Bible a lot more often than we do now.
Bradford, William. "Of Plymouth Plantation." Comp. Jeffrey D. Wilhelm, Ph.D. and Douglas Fisher, Ph.D. Glencoe Literature. American Literature ed. Columbus: McGraw-Hill Companies, 2009. 97-99. Print.
In the first passage of Bradford's book, it shows how many people of the time considered everything that happened in their life to be an act of God. He writes about a young man who was making fun of all the people who will die on the boat ride, when he himself is the first to get sick and die (Bradford 15). In the second passage in the book, Bradford talks about how it was God's will that a sailor was saved (Bradford 64). Reading through Bradford's writing, we can see how he references to God's strong influence of people's lives.
The most Puritan characteristic I noticed in Bradford's writing was its very simple style. With some writers, reading their prose is like to reading poetry, but such is not he case with Puritan style writing. Bradford's work, along with other Puritan writing, is very plain. I am not a huge fan of then simplicity of this writing. Sure, it can be interpreted easily, but I prefer more detail in the things that I read. I did not find the writing bad, but it is just not my favorite. I actually liked reading about some of the passages in his novel.
One thing we talked about last class was how Puritan writing often references scripture. The Puritans were very knowledgeable about the Bible. When he talks about how the Pilgrims landed in America, he mentions how some apostles were received in a foreign land (Bradford 65). Most Puritan writing has a lot of references to the Bible in it, and so does Bradford's writing. Despite my being a Christian, many of his passages I had never even heard before. People during that time must have read their Bible a lot more often than we do now.
Bradford, William. "Of Plymouth Plantation." Comp. Jeffrey D. Wilhelm, Ph.D. and Douglas Fisher, Ph.D. Glencoe Literature. American Literature ed. Columbus: McGraw-Hill Companies, 2009. 97-99. Print.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)