Unanswered [1] | Urgent [0]
  

Posts by bizkitgirlzc
Joined: Feb 25, 2007
Last Post: Aug 16, 2010
Threads: 29
Posts: 2  

Displayed posts: 31
sort: Latest first   Oldest first  | 
bizkitgirlzc   
Aug 16, 2010
Undergraduate / "The Key Club" - Florida State University Essay [4]

Your essay has very good potential. I see you decided to go with the word Vires as an important value to you. I think that you have done well in choosing Key club (moral strength) and Tae Kwon Do (physical strength). You might want to mention an academic involvement in your life as the intellectual strength or an academic pursuit you see yourself going for if you were at FSU. You might also want to try to connect all the strengths together in one way or another. For example the strength you learned to defend yourself in karate inspired you to become involved in defending the lives of those less fortunate through Key club. Although, it may seem redundant considering you already know what the prompt is, you should still make sure the reader can read it in a flowing manner.

Like I said, this has great potential. Also, your introduction is very vivid and captivating! Good work!
bizkitgirlzc   
May 4, 2009
Undergraduate / Summer Calculus and it's Interdisciplinary Role [3]

Hi!

I need some help with this statement of purpose for a summer term, I was wondering if someone could look it over for me?

Thanks!

Summer Calculus and it's Interdisciplinary Role

A while back, when I applied for Columbia's Summer High School Program, I remember writing about my fascination with interdisciplinary studies. Now, years later, I still stand by that assessment of the academics. While people often say that 'the more you learn, the less you know', I personally have never seen it as something to hinder my desire to explore interdisciplinary studies. In fact, I feel that that in itself has been more of a motivation for me to study various disciplines. In realizing how there is so much more for us to learn as we explore other fields of academia, it makes me wonder why scholars would not be stimulated to try to understand how everything comes together to make our world function. It only demonstrates that in turning a blind eye to disciplines that we feel unnecessary to our major or concentration, we are fooling ourselves. You cannot understand Biology without Chemistry and you cannot understand Political Science without History. It is not about having a foundation of knowledge but having a reliable source of knowledge. In trying to specifically specialize in one thing and ignoring the rest, is purposely blinding oneself to the reality of things. Everything in the world is co-dependent.

As a student who seeks to study evolutionary genetics, I cannot help but see how there is so much to understand about biology, chemistry, anthropology, geography, and almost every other discipline out there. I feel that if I were to solely dedicate myself to only study the necessary than I would simply be lying to myself. It's cliché to say that 'we never stop learning' and taking to that in account scares me enough to feel the obligation in learning more than what's asked of me. I refuse to study inside a bubble of falsities where I can pretend that by completing the requirements of a major I will fully comprehend the intricacies of genetics, evolution and the human genome.

In taking only a single class for the summer, I will have the opportunity to concentrate in laying out an excellent mathematical foundation for the sciences. Calculus, I believe, will greatly benefit my future studies in the physical sciences since it will support numerical and analytical thinking in my studies. It is with great incentive that I look forward to a summer term at Columbia University.
bizkitgirlzc   
Sep 19, 2008
Writing Feedback / Beautiful death of Hektor [NEW]

Hey, I was just wondering if you could correct my essay for grammar and whether I proved my thesis. Thanks!

Are the aesthetics of one's death defined by one's virtues...or by one's sins? In Homer's Iliad, Hektor's burial is used as a means to highlight how his death is a product of his honorable and selfless reasons for fighting. Homer ends with Hektor's beautiful death to contrast with Achilleus' anger throughout the epic poem.

Hektor's burial is significant in that it weaves the completion of a selfless character - a man who fought for his family, for his city, and for his people. Andromache, Hektor's wife, gives basis to this claim when in her lamentation she mentions all those who Hektor looked out for, "...for you, its defender, are gone, you who guarded / the city, and the grave wives, and the innocent children..." (24. 729-730) In this one statement, Andromache encompasses not only how important Hektor was to the Trojans but also how the Trojans were important to Hektor. He gave his life in protecting his people. Although given a tempting offer by his wife, who earlier in the poem supplicates him to stay with her, he is not waivered. In response, he explains that he, "...would feel deep shame / before the Trojans.../ if like a coward...were to shrink aside from the fighting (6. 441-443) This demonstrates Hektor's strong sense of honor since he refuses to take the easy way out - remain with his wife while his city, Ilion, is trampled down. Instead, he chooses to continue battling for the sake of those he feels obligated to protect.

But aside from the obvious loyalty that Hektor shows towards his oikos , there is a much more touching side that lets the audience see that Hektor's selfless reasons for fighting also include his loved ones - "But it is not so much the pain to come of the Trojans / that troubles me.../ ...[it] troubles me the thought of you when some.../ Achaian leads you off, taking away your day of liberty..." (6. 450-455) This declaration, which is directed to Andromache, reveals the importance of maintaining his loved one safe from harm. It also portrays Hektor as a character who is equally caring for his people as he is for his own kin. Hektor's reasons for fighting and partaking in the bloody war within the Iliad are not limited to self-glory but rather they are founded on much nobler grounds.

On the other hand, the audience encounters a character within the Iliad that is made out to be completely dissimilar to the noble Hektor. Achilleus is the hot-tempered warrior whose foundations for fighting (and not fighting) come from a much more selfish rationale. Achilleus' anger is best presented when Odysseus, the king of Ithaka, advises Achilleus to put away his resentment for Agamemnon, leader of the Achaians - "...Yet even now / stop, and give way from the anger that hurts the heart." (9. 259-260) Instead of reflecting on this piece of advice, Achilleus refuses to forgive or forget - "He cheated me and he did me hurt." (9. 375) The following dispute shows how even though Achilleus knows of the numbers of his fellow Achaians who are falling, he refuses to see reason and fight for his oikos sake. Achilleus anger is the selfish basis for his decision making throughout the Iliad. Unlike Hektor, who sought the good of his family and his people, Achilleus can only see through the tinted lens of resentment and realizes this too late when he sees the death of his beloved companion, Patroklos - "For thus not all these too many Achaians would have bitten / the dust, by enemy hands, when I was away in my anger." (19. 61-62) It is only when Achilleus is hit by a direct blow that he is moved to act and therefore admits that had he taken action and fought, his oikos wouldn't have been so screwed over. This selfishness that arises from Achilleus rage is used to contrast the honorable selflessness that Hektor demonstrates throughout the poem's entirety.

Yet, the strongest proof of Hektor's noble and selflessness is found in the lamentations of the women of Troy. Helen, wife of Paris and Queen Hekabe of Troy grieve, along with Andromache, the wonder of a man that was Hektor - "...and here now is the twentieth year upon me since I came /...In this time / I have never heard a harsh saying from you, nor an insult." (24. 765-767) Helen sings Hektor's praises not only out of respect for the dead but also as a form of gratitude for the man who did not judge her for being the supposed cause of the war. Rather, Helen's words show that Hektor was a rational and just person who treated everyone with the utmost respect even while still considering that Helen was not an actual Trojan. This evidently contrasts with how Achilleus reacts when avenging Patroklos by killing Hektor. However, Achilleus realizes his error (again) when confronted by Priam, Hektor's father, who reminds him of his own father - "Yet surely he, when he hears of you and that you are still living, / is gladdened within his heart and...is hopeful / that he will see his beloved son.../ But for me.../ not one of them is left..." (24. 490-494) Achilleus weighs Priam's words and is overcome with sorrow when he realizes that in his selfish revenge, he too has killed the loved one of another. Priam, unlike Achilleus' father does not have to opportunity to hope for his sons' well-being seeing how they are all dead - including Hektor. Instead of considering the casualties of war, Achilleus does not see reason in the sense that Hektor is not to blame for Patroklos' death. Rather, it is the circumstances of the war and his prior anger that brings on the death of his beloved companion.

So, what truly ties the significance of Hektor's burial in the end of the Iliad is the concept of Hektor dying the beautiful death . This idea is explained as being a death when "...the flower of youth is his, where man's strength is highest..." (13. 484-485) It is through Hekabe's lamentation where we see that Hektor has in fact been treated to such a glorious death - "...while you still lived for me you were dear to the gods, and even / in the stage of death they cared about you still." (24. 749-750) This statement from Hekabe references to the provoking of the highest love from the gods through her son's death - an element that pertains to this idea of the beautiful death. The fact that Hektor is in his prime - has a family, is at full potential of his strength as demonstrating in both is fighting and valor, we see that he is honored with hebe - death in the flower of youth. Since Hektor's burial shows the audience how many people he left behind, including his young wife and child, it is reasonable to conclude that Hektor died an early death - yet a glorious. However, what is most important of this beautiful death is the fact that Hektor dies lovely because of his selflessness in defending his people and his honorable decision of not allowing his city fall even though who could have decided to remain with his wife in idleness.

Ultimately, it all comes down to Hektor's burial as the defining moment in the Iliad when Hektor's virtues are highlighted to compare precisely why he receives the beautiful death and, most importantly, why he deserves it. Achilleus' anger throughout the epic poem lets the audience reflect on the contrasting between one man's selfishness and another man's selflessness. While it is Achilleus' anger that leads to the death of Hektor, it is Hektor's noble reasons for fighting that actually allow him to have his beautiful death.
bizkitgirlzc   
Jun 27, 2008
Scholarship / Application - why you think you should get a textbook scholarship [2]

Prompt: Your application needs to include a description of why you think your financial situation warrants a $250 textbook scholarship, not to exceed 500 words.

If someone can help me with my grammar and whether I did a good job in convincing why I should get that scholarship, that would be great. Thanks!

If I ever compared myself to Abraham Lincoln who walked twenty miles to return a book - I'd be exaggerating. However, according to MapQuest I have traveled 13.46 miles on the New York City MTA subway to return a book - which I guess is still a lot of distance to cover to return a book.

For me, it has always been a luxury to actually go into a Barnes & Nobles or Borders and actually buy a book. The truth is that the cost of life varies from city to city and unfortunately while FAFSA's formulaic estimates may make out my family to be able to afford college expenses, the reality of our circumstances is completely different.

If it was difficult for me to buy books before, now it's ten times worse. You see my father suffered an accident that left him incapable of working until an extended period of time. Living in the city of New York is certainly no easy place to survive and definitely when you find yourself unable to work.

This ill-fated turn of events has left my family and me without a significant income which we depended on. As it is, financial aid has been hard to come by making our situation only more difficult to juggle in terms of how we will cover direct expenses and now indirect expenses - expenses that happen to include textbooks.

My education has been extremely important to me all my life and not being able to pursuit my academic goals and ambitions because I can't afford the required material would not only be heartbreaking but ridiculously mind-boggling.

The truth is that it would be infinitely saddening and, in my opinion, unjust to not be able to alleviate this burden on the already taxing economic hardships we're facing. The only way I see myself making the best of this is by putting my mind to good use and studying my way to a better future. Books shouldn't be the problem here - they should be the solution.
bizkitgirlzc   
Jun 3, 2008
Letters / Letter to the reader - insightful year [NEW]

Hello, could someone help me to check grammar on this letter?
Thanks!


Dear Reader,

This year has been very insightful. I think I actually learned something - and I don't mean to make that sound offending but I think this is one of the few classes where I actually felt a change. And it reflects when I read things: if it's good I'll be able to do a better analysis and point out the author's technique and if it's trash I won't be able to read past the first two pages.

In terms of my writing, I see the difference throughout. I think I definitely write with more substance than I use to. I see the improvement ad the progress when I look back and see my plot oriented work versus my recent work that's more developed in analysis of literary technique and use of literary terms.

I feel more confident about my writing and I think I'm able to express myself better these days through writing - there were times where I felt so restricted on what to write that I didn't know how to word things. I definitely feel more competent about what I write, especially poetry which made me want to cry every time I had to annotate.

I realize that our class got more work than those of the other AP English classes but even though there were nights where I wanted to throw myself out the window because of the work we had to do...it did pay-off.

But what I personally value above all else from your class - not the writing or the reading or the understanding of literary works - but my participation. I swear to god, your class has been one of the few classes where I'll open my mouth and say something. It's a class that I fear (I do cross my fingers that you're in a good mood when I walk in) but it's also a class I look forward to because it's one of the only classes where I feel secure about what I'm going to say when I raise my hand. You can ask anyone from your ninth period class who had Mr. Baldwin or you could even ask Mr. Baldwin himself, I barely ever spoke. I might have raised my hand like a total of five times that entire year - although it might have had to do with the fact that I really thought Mr. Baldwin was God and that I wasn't smart enough to say anything of substance.

In your class, even though you sometimes make faces at our retarded answers or lash-out when we say something that isn't relevant, I feel less inhibited and comfortable with voicing my ideas and responses. Though I like politics and history, I only spoke three words the entire two years that I had AP U.S. History and though I loved Mr. Baldwin's class and his lectures, I only raised my hand a good five or six times. Your class is fun...from a masochist perspective. I got to say things I often don't voice and I've been able to grow analytically from it.

All I can say is that as a teacher you've done a pretty awesome job. Just don't scare the kids too often (that's why they're less likely to participate) and it's all good.

I've divided this portfolio in sections that I thought I showed good improvement and which I thought I progressed most throughout the year. I admit to including mostly essays but my motives for doing that lie in the fact that I truly believe that everything - the amount of classwork, my participation, and my individual growth is reflected in these essays. All the work I have done this year is eventually embedded into an essay and that's what I believe really demonstrated my progress -my ability to put the things I learned together.

I'm not going to say I hope you enjoy reading my revised work as much as I enjoyed writing it because I didn't really have any fun doing it since I had to look at my old work that was just really sad and depressing at how much it sucked.

So instead, I hope you're in a good mood while you're doing my portfolio so that you won't throw it outside your window and have it accidentally injure some poor soul who was walking by in the middle of Park Slope.

Yours truly,

Cindy
bizkitgirlzc   
Jun 3, 2008
Writing Feedback / A Doll House Essay - True Man Wants [NEW]

Can someone please check my grammar and see if the essay discusses how their relationship and how it presages what is to become of the couple in the end?

"The true man wants two things: danger and play. For that reason he wants woman, as the most dangerous plaything," said the well-known German philosopher, Friedrich Nietzsche. Interestingly enough, this idea is also created by Henry Ibsen in his play A Doll House. Ibsen uses dialogue, tone and stage directions to convey the master-pet relationship that exists within the dysfunctional marriage between Nora and Torvald Helmer, which builds up to their inevitable separation.

The title of the play is not at all misleading - the fact that Ibsen titled it A Doll House is sensible since the entire play does in fact take place in the house of the Helmers' - a home that can be metaphorically compared to a doll house, given that the characters act in a routine that is more or less equivalent to a playroom. The roles of doll and master are given, respectively, to Nora and her husband. These assigned roles are seen in the way Helmer speaks to Nora. He treats her like a pet or a child - often using terms such as "little lark, squirrel or little songbird." (1080) What is most interesting is the connotative diction that Helmer uses when he talks to Nora - "So little wastrel has been throwing money around again?" (1080) At first glance, the word wastrel doesn't sink in for what it is - a highly negative word meaning some one who spends carelessly, a good-for-nothing. It isn't noticeable at first because it is being surrounded by artificial diction like "little" and "throwing...around," in other words, Ibsen has Helmer sugarcoat the insults and the degradation towards Nora. The audience can begin to notice the lack of balance between these partners since one obviously believes to have the authority to control the other which foreshadows that the marriage will fail. Ibsen clearly points this out when Helmer refers to Nora as an expensive pet:

My wastrel is a little sweetheart, but she does go through an awful lot of money awfully fast. You've no idea how expensive it is for a man to keep a wastrel. (1082)

What this demonstrates is how Helmer doesn't even see his wife as a person but rather a thing he has to maintain. By using the word "wastrel" he's calling her basically a spendthrift and an idler but the tone he uses is frivolous making it more of a mock than coddling. A marriage is based on balance in respect and trust - Torvald treats Nora with neither and thus the marriage cannot hold. Unfortunately, the audience is not privy to what Helmer is thinking since this play falls under Realism Theatre - there are no asides or soliloquies from him to really know what he thinks of Nora. Ibsen uses their interaction through dialogue and detailed stage directions to show the audience the nature of their relationship and how it's destined to fail.

But this isn't one-sided either, because Nora plays the part of a doll or a pet well enough to go along with Helmer's role of master. Her behavior is that of a child, and when she speaks it lacks development, "...Just a tiny little bit?...Now that you're going to get...lots and lots of money." (1080) The lack of maturity in the way she speaks, using terms like "lots and lots" characterizes her as frivolous, even childish. It basically presents the deficiency of seriousness in this marriage. Furthermore, Helmer helps in Nora's characterizations of a pet or child - basically seeing her as a defenseless, lost creature. The dialogue between them shows precisely how this role-play works.

HELMER: (Takes out wallet.) Nora, what do you think I have here?

NORA: (turns around quickly). Money!
HELMER: Here. (Gives her some bills.) [1081]

What is presented here is Nora quickly turning to grab the money which easily reminds the audience of an all to eager dog wanting a doggie treat that its master is waggling with a "look what I have here!" It's a metaphor of the master-pet relationship that they have and Ibsen uses the stage directions along with the dialogic interaction between the two in order for the audience to visualize this. So far we see that there is an evident lack of equality in terms of respect for one another in this marriage - further evidence that the union cannot last. Nora evidently sees Helmer as her master and even hints to it when she says, "You know I wouldn't do anything to displease you." (1082) The submissiveness that is implied by saying that she won't do anything to displease her husband can be seen as a sign that she has been well-trained to be a good, tame little pet that is at her master's every beck and call. The reciprocity can be seen with Helmer. For example, the fact that he often uses repetition when speaking to her in order to scold her is also proof of the mater-pet relationship they share - "Nora, Nora." (1085) Syntactically speaking, this creates the effect of chiding her the way one would chide a child. Ibsen does this to emphasize Nora's characterization of a child/pet and enforce Helmer's role as her master - a marriage that cannot hold up with this system because Nora must eventually grow-up.

The frivolous tone that Ibsen has Helmer always use with Nora is recurring and the fact that he has Helmer use the word "little" throughout the dialogues along with words like "wastrel and prodigal" makes the insults almost affectionate and almost confuses the audience into forgetting the negative connotation of those words. It mirrors the way an owner would speak to a dog - using a cooing tone to sugar-coat the things he's saying to the dumb animal. In the same way, this can be applied to the way adults talk to babies - where the tone of their voice goes through more than the actual content. However, Ibsen uses this technique of conveying a frivolous tone to confuse the audience by creating the scenario where Nora and Helmer will role-play. At the same time this unsettles the audience of how degrading this treatment of a husband to a wife is in the Helmer marriage. In addition, the comparison that Ibsen uses in having Helmer compare Nora to different sorts of birds is in itself a foreshadowing symbol because in the end, Nora, like a bird, grows wings and flies off to find herself and her own path in life - it's a metaphor for what she will do. It isn't until the final argument between Helmer and Nora that we see her shed her child-like character and become a real a character and even a real person. This is perhaps the most realistic transformation out of the Realism Theatre Ibsen strives to achieve - Nora reacts and becomes a real person making her the protagonist of the play. She changes unlike Helmer who does nothing to resolve the societal problem he represents - Nora is the one to take action. She takes her final decision of leaving her family for the welfare of not only them but herself as well. Nora finally makes her own decision and does not care about her husband's consent.

Ultimately, she stops being "poor little Nora" (1083) and becomes a clearheaded woman that no longer tolerates being talked down to or used as a doll or as a plaything. Ibsen is able to show us that the build up of Nora's degradation and dehumanization in the rising action of the play that will lead to the inevitable break-up between Helmer and his wife in the play's dénouement and resolution. The upset balance in the relationship between them is never set to equivalence until Nora decides to become an adult and a real person - not a pet or a doll. The master-pet relationship that Ibsen creates for these two characters builds up the inevitable failure of Nora being a doll in a fake marriage.
bizkitgirlzc   
Jun 3, 2008
Book Reports / Essay on Hamlet - Ophelia as a victimized woman. [2]

Could someone check my grammar and see whether I proved well enough that Shakespeare characterized Ophelia as a victimized woman?

Women are ambiguous because they are often too complex for the minds of men. In William Shakespeare's Hamlet, Prince of Denmark we see how a woman who plays many roles is difficult to label. Shakespeare characterizes Ophelia, a character who throughout most of the play seems to have little substance or depth, as a victimized woman – a woman mistreated, a woman scorned, and a woman ultimately shamed by the men in her life. Shakespeare achieves this through her dialogues with others and her behavior throughout the play.

The mistreated woman that Ophelia becomes can be best interpreted if one were to look at her familial situation. Shakespeare introduces her to the audience along with her brother Laertes who is set on giving her advice that shouldn't come from an older brother in normal circumstances:

Then weigh what loss your honour may sustain,
If with too credent ear you list his songs,
Or lose your heart, or your chaste treasure open
To his unmaster'd importunity. (1.3.33-36)

Laertes is advising Ophelia not to believe Hamlet's affections – no matter how much sweet talk he uses towards her. But most importantly he emphasizes "chaste treasure" – a metaphor for her virginity – and how she must take care of it. In a normal family, this sort of talk would be a mother's responsibility. However, in the play, Shakespeare does not include nor mention the mother of Laertes and Ophelia. Figuring that Shakespeare purposely did this, we can assume that Ophelia's lack of a mother figure was done to impact her character and only contribute to the eventual characterization of a victimized woman. A woman in those times usually had an older woman to guide her in learning proper comportment in polite society. Here Ophelia has no maternal figure to show her which can very well explain her behavior later on. Now aside from the fact that she didn't have a female figure to look up to, her family talks down to her and treats a like a dummy – their condescending tone and close to vulgar diction demonstrate this best:

Marry, I'll teach you: think yourself a baby;
That you have ta'en these tenders for true pay,
Which are not sterling. Tender yourself more dearly;
Or--not to crack the wind of the poor phrase,
Running it thus--you'll tender me a fool. (1.3.114-118)

Shakespeare has Polonius openly insulting her intelligence by calling her "a baby." Before this she has received a similar chat from her brother who also talks to her in a condescending tone, nevertheless we can see from Ophelia's mocking diction when she answers her brother that she is not in fact as stupid as her brother and father think her to be:

I shall the effect of this good lesson keep,
As watchman to my heart. But, good my brother,
Do not, as some ungracious pastors do,
Show me the steep and thorny way to heaven;
Whiles, like a puff'd and reckless libertine,
Himself the primrose path of dalliance treads,
And recks not his own rede. (1.3.49-55)

Ophelia is smart enough to realize her brother's hypocrisy in giving her advice that he himself does not follow. Shakespeare giving her dialogue with the words "libertine" and "reckless" in reference to her brother are best in interpreting precisely what type of person Laertes is. To be talked down by someone like Laertes on the subject of chastity should be degrading as it is. Her father's words are no better and if one were to look at Polonius's line "you'll tender me fool," it's evident that he's more concerned for his reputation than Ophelia's benefit. With no mother and both a father and brother who leave much to be desired as paternal figures, Shakespeare has evidently set out to have her play the role of victimized woman. From the beginning, Shakespeare uses the power of dialogue to show the obvious mistreatment of Ophelia through the condescending tone and vulgar diction of her father and brother – a background that sets her up for doom.

As the play progresses, we see that Ophelia is a woman of little strength – and though some may interpret it as being a dutiful daughter – it adds up to simple weakness and another form of degrading Ophelia by her father. Throughout most of the play Shakespeare uses Ophelia as a tool so that other characters may reach their alternative ends. We first see this with Polonius, who does not hesitate to use his daughter for his own needs. When Ophelia describes Hamlet's strange behavior towards her, Polonius immediately interprets this to his convenience.

Come, go with me: I will go seek the king.
This is the very ecstasy of love,
Whose violent property fordoes itself
And leads the will to desperate undertakings
As oft as any passion under heaven
That does afflict our natures. (2.1.113-118)

Polonius interprets his daughter's description as madness from love which is in his convenience because it can very well mean Ophelia marrying into royalty which would consequently bring him up in society as well. Polonius's intentions are seen through the desperate tone in he speaks with. He is quick to follow through and this is seen when he quickly says "I will go seek the king." What Shakespeare does is basically have Polonius's action and dialogue happen almost simultaneously. He does not lose one minute in searching out the king because the quicker he informs him, the quicker his social status rises, but this is simply the beginning of using Ophelia as a tool. Almost right after, Polonius informs the king and queen that he has in his possession letter from Hamlet to Ophelia.

I have a daughter--have while she is mine--
Who, in her duty and obedience, mark,
Hath given me this: now gather, and surmise. (2.2.114-116)

Ophelia has given Polonius her letters from Hamlet – this is weakness of will. What woman in her right mind would give up her love letters to her father so he can read them aloud? Especially letters that say things like "excellent white bosom." Even if in said possibility that Ophelia were playing the part of obedient daughter this only further proves that she is a victimized woman because in obeying her father – her dutiful role is taken advantage of and used for the benefit of others. The possessiveness of Polonius saying that his daughter is his, also shows through his dialogue that he considers his daughter property – something he can do what he wants and thus is able to get the letters from her – he explains it as "he duty and obedience." Polonius does not talk about Ophelia in terms of open trust or affection. The detached diction that Polonius uses to describe his having Ophelia's letter demonstrates the lack of affection Ophelia must suffer through.

But her father is not the only one to abuse her trust so does the king. In his decision to see whether Polonius inferences are true, the king and Polonius agree to use Ophelia as their tool so that they may spy on her conversation with Hamlet. Hamlet too abuses her, not only verbally, but he also uses her as his pawn to distract those watching from any suspicions of what he might be conspiring against the king:

Get thee to a nunnery: why wouldst thou be a
breeder of sinners? ...
What should such fellows as I do crawling
between earth and heaven? We are arrant knaves,
all; believe none of us. Go thy ways to a nunnery. (3.1.131-132, 138-140)

Shakespeare uses the pun of going to a "nunnery" as a double-message of either going to a convent or a prostitution house. Basically, what Hamlet implies is that Ophelia is prostituting herself to her family and ironically enough, she is also "prostituting herself" to him since he uses her as a distraction for others. In further irony, Hamlet is also warning Ophelia not to trust men because they are all "knaves" – an allusion to the satire form of knaves and fools. Ophelia, however, is too naïve and too gullible towards others to understand that she really is being used or the pun Shakespeare has Hamlet use. What is really impacting about all this is that those who Ophelia has closest to her do her most harm. All in all those who she loves most humiliate her and degrade her the most. Hamlet is especially guilty of this. Here, Hamlet is openly rude making indecent conversation to Ophelia:

OPHELIA
You are keen, my lord, you are keen.
HAMLET
It would cost you a groaning to take off my edge.
OPHELIA
Still better, and worse. (3.2.272-275)

Shakespeare has Hamlet make a lot of sexual innuendos towards Ophelia through lewd diction which, for any lady in that time period, should have been beyond humiliating, yet Ophelia quietly allows him to go on, even when she is well aware of what he's implying from her response, "still better, and worse." The fact that Hamlet is doing this all in public – the King's court – makes his words even more insulting and humiliating. Ophelia is ultimately trapped by all the pressures that are surrounding her – Hamlet's rejection of her and her obligation to her family. She is a victim of her circumstances and those around her take advantage of it. What can be seen so far from Ophelia is that she is more naïve than she is stupid – with no one of her side it's impossible for her to be able to move out of the overwhelming bubble she is in. Shakespeare shows this through her answers in dialogue such as in her reaction towards Hamlet's vulgarities. She is meek in responses and does not stand up for herself – her position as someone who's used to being abused is what makes her meek and it's reflected in her speech as well.

Now, rejected by her lover and used by her family – Shakespeare characterizes Ophelia as both a woman scorned and humiliated by the way those close to her talk to her and use her. However, she does not burst on a vengeful rampage but instead bottles all in making her into a figure of a defeated woman and finally a victimized woman. The cherry on top of the Sundae is her father's death – a plot device which Shakespeare uses as a catalyst to finally drive Ophelia over the edge into insanity. Strangely enough, it is during Ophelia's lunacy that the audience finally gets to see the lucidity of her character. Shakespeare's use of poetic yet truthful diction to make up Ophelia's songs are what show her issues clearly – while it's evident that she's pained by her father's death, we learn something more.

Quoth she "Before you tumbled me,
You promised me to wed."
He answers:
"So would I ha' done, by yonder sun,
An thou hadst not come to my bed." (4.5.67-71)

Ophelia's song reflects a mistake she made – she lost her virginity to Hamlet. With her father dead, her brother away, and her virginity lost, Ophelia really does not have a future left as a woman. She is a pitiful character in the end – her insanity is only a product of the victimization she goes through from all ends. It is finally with her suicide that thing for Ophelia change. While she is, in fact, dead – it is only after her death, that anyone says anything good about her, which shows something very painful about Ophelia. Not once throughout the play does someone say anything affectionate or demonstrate at all that she is loved. Right before she does commit suicide the queen is also guilty of not wanting to speak to Ophelia, yet after learning of her death, Shakespeare gives her poetic diction when revealing her suicide.

When down her weedy trophies and herself
Fell in the weeping brook. Her clothes spread wide;
And, mermaid-like, awhile they bore her up:
Which time she chanted snatches of old lauds; (4.7.199-202)

While the queen maybe speaking nicely of Ophelia – using the metaphor of a mermaid – out of respect for the dead, it is disturbing to know that only when dead was Ophelia praised. Finally, the one who hurt her the most is the one who admits to having cared.

I loved Ophelia: forty thousand brothers
Could not, with all their quantity of love,
Make up my sum. What wilt thou do for her? (5.1.285-287)

The hyperbole Shakespeare has Hamlet use emphasizes the hypocrisy of his words now and his former action when humiliating her. The fact that his humiliations have been in public just like his words of affection at her burial make it more difficult to no if he's being honest or whether he is saying this out of the heat of the moment.

She was in fact a victimized woman who was used for every one's convenience but her own and not given much thought upon until her death. With no one to guide her she gave her virginity away to the first man who promised affection and with constant condescending treatment, Ophelia stands a defeated woman until her insanity finally pours out all her grief leading up to her inevitable suicide.

A mere innocent bystander, Ophelia's degradation, insanity and untimely death are all products of the people around her. She's without a mother figure and left with an ambitious father who puts himself before his daughter. Finally, she is wronged by the one whom she swore loved her. To top everything off, Ophelia is used as a means for everyone to get a little of what they want – ultimately prostituting herself to her family and Hamlet. Becoming pathetic and pitiful in the end, Ophelia is best characterized as a victimized woman, who was defeated by those around her, making insanity and death her only escape.
bizkitgirlzc   
Mar 28, 2008
Letters / Letter to Financial Aid Office - FAFSA and CSS [8]

Can someone please review my letter for me? Thanks!

To whom it may concern,

I am a high school student who has been accepted at Reed College under the Early Decision II process. I am certainly honored to have been accepted by such a prestigious institution and by the college which I have fallen in love with. However, when I received my tentative award it found me under very different circumstances than when I filed my FAFSA and CSS profile.

My father was injured at work on September 26, 2007 and since then has not been working. He was supposed to receive pay from worker's compensation but since the nature of his case was unclear, according to them, he has not been receiving a single penny. Now that we are left without one of our main sources of income, we have been scrapping by to cover our basic needs. I realize that my parents' current IRS income tax forms do not reflect a big difference but that's because our major struggle only begun at the end of that year.

To make matters worse, my father's union which provided our family with medical benefits has now recently cut them off since he hasn't been working. So now my family, aside from being without one source of income we are also without healthcare.

We do not know when this problem will be resolved seeing how my father's court trial against worker's compensation will not begin until April 10, 2008. And even after the trial, it will take many weeks if not months to come to a solution about my father's situation. This has currently left us in very uncertain circumstances.

Therefore, if my final award remains the same as the tentative estimate award that Reed offered, I will not be able to attend. I have already sent in an enrollment deposit but if I am not offered a better financial aid package from the school I will have to appeal my decision and go somewhere more affordable. I truly want to go to Reed College but without the financial means to do so I won't be able to attend this coming Fall.

I will be patiently waiting for your re-evaluation response of my new financial circumstances.

Sincerely,
--------

P.S: I have attached supporting documents of my father's injury, worker's compensation, and awaiting court trial.
bizkitgirlzc   
Nov 28, 2007
Undergraduate / 'a Chilean with a love' - World I come from essay [2]

Hello, I need feedback on my essay for UC. Can anyone help me with my grammar and whether I answered the prompt correctly and if I should add more or not...? The word limit is 1000.

Here's the prompt:
Describe the world you come from ï for example, your family, community or school ï and tell us how your world has shaped your dreams and aspirations.

When I was a kid, I remember my mother would play this song. It was a Latin American folk song that at the time I considered to be incredibly corny. It went a little like this, "...Y asï como todo cambia, que yo cambiï no es extraïo." In other words, "and in the same way everything else changes, for me to change isn't strange." I guess I thought it was corny because I didn't understand it and it wasn't what I was listening to when I was eight. But as the years have gone by, I feel more moved by this song. It's a song that talks about how everything in the world changes ï that life in itself is a constant change. And now I realize that I have been a part of that change. The egoism within every human may say otherwise, that it's our surroundings that have changed. But I would be a fool to not realize that I too have changed. I have been changed, shaped, and molded into the person I am today by both the things around me and the people around me.

Like with all people, the foundation in which people begin to shape comes from their families. And to say that my foundation was built from my family would be an understatement because my foundation and basically my entire structure can be very well credited to my family. We live in Queens, New York being the only Chileans of our neighborhood. And I'll tell you that being Chilean in NYC, in my opinion, is a rarity. I mean New York itself is the world's melting pot with so much diversity that if Globalization were a man, he'd smile upon this multicultural city. Yet, how is it that we manage to be the only Chileans in our neighborhood, in NY? How is it that I manage to be the only Chilean out of the 4,000 student population of my school? If that isn't rare, I don't know what is. So as you can see, my foundation has been formed on rarity and that for the main part of my life has been upheld in my family. We are traditional and pretty hardcore with or "Chilean-ness." Or at least we'd like to think so.

Honestly, I can't say we're hardcore Chileans because I eat turkey dinners for Thanksgiving and hamburgers on Fourth of July...that's not too Chilean is it? ...No it's not and whether we like it or not, we've changed. I've changed. When I celebrate Chinese New Year with my friends, or when I decide to fast with my friend during Ramadan, or when I throw colored powder at my friends during the Holi festival...that's not very Chilean. In reality, it comes down to the simple fact that I have my school ï Brooklyn Technical High School ï to thank for changing me. I planned on going into high school learning about science and math yet I came out learning more about the world then I ever thought possible.

And learn math and science I did as well but I got more than I bargained for ï I got an education with more than just a little culture spiked into it. I learned that my love for the physical sciences could tie into the social sciences and that my friends from all different backgrounds would be there doing the same as me ï striving to be better people, better humans.

The world around me has changed since I was that eight year old kid listening to that corny song. But I too have changed. I realized that me being a rarity in my origin shouldn't be the essence of who I am but rather the essence of what I'll be able to contribute to those I come in contact with. My rarity shouldn't be what molds me but what improves the mold. Between my family and my school I think I've grown into not only into a Chilean but a Chilean with a love for the academia ï a Chilean who carries the growing knowledge and respect for the cultures that surround her and that continue teaching her. Now that is a rarity.
bizkitgirlzc   
Oct 29, 2007
Undergraduate / Setback essay - Applying to Tech College [4]

Can someone help me with my college essay? i hope I've answered the question well...
Here's the question:
Describe a setback that you have faced.How
did you resolve it? How did the outcome affect
you? If something similar happened in
the future, how would you react?


Setback Essay - is this better?

When I was in middle school, I didn't give much thought in applying to high school. I knew that I wanted to be in one of the three specialized science high schools - Stuyvesant, Bronx Science or Brooklyn Technical. My first choice had been Stuyvesant.

I ended up in Brooklyn Tech.

And so I went along with what fate had decided for me - I attended Brooklyn Tech. My decision seemed simple at the time considering that I was being offered to go to one of the top schools in New York City. How could I possibly refuse?

But I was upset. I wanted to go to the top school in New York City. I didn't want to be third or second best. I believed I deserved better, that I should have gotten into what I wanted... but I didn't.

And in my anger I hadn't bothered looking into Brooklyn Technical High School.

I hadn't thought about the 4,000 other high school students that would be attending or about the student body that studied as fiercely or fiercer than I did or about the immense competition. I hadn't given Brooklyn Tech too much thought. I just went.

I was doubtful, at first. I wasn't sure whether this would be an agreeable. But instead of transferring out, I decided I wasn't going to take the cowards way out - I would stick to my fate, no matter what it was. Or perhaps I decided to stick to my fate because in some twisted way, I grew to like Brooklyn Tech.

It was full of diversity, a cultural wonderland where I had friends from all different backgrounds and who were as ambitious and as studious as I was. It was an excellent alternative by far.

Brooklyn Tech had showed me a world of academic insightfulness that would forever be branded in my mind. It showed me things that Stuyvesant may not have been able to show me. It oriented me to subjects where I hadn't dared venture before.

I learned to love Tech and it no longer seemed to be the second or third best choice. May be on my list it had been in that ranking, but it was obvious that it had been first choice on fate's list.

My experience in applying to high school is certainly similar to what I'm experiencing now in applying to college. Of course there are times when I fear I'll be rejected by every institution but then I look back and remember Tech - Brooklyn Tech who had given me a home when those other schools left me in the dark.

While I may not get into my first choice for college, I know that there are alternatives in life. If I cannot become an anthropologist, I'll be an enologist, and if I can't be an enologist, I'll be an agronomist. Sometimes, we may not like our options but there are alternatives out there for everyone. It's all up to us whether we decide to make the best of it or not.

I know I made the best of my experience at Tech and I certainly hope to do the same throughout college and throughout the rest of my life.
bizkitgirlzc   
Oct 29, 2007
Writing Feedback / Choosing the areas of academic interest - U Mich short answer II [2]

Can someone help me with my essay? Here's the question:
What led you to
choose the area(s) of academic interest that you have listed in your
application to the University of Michigan? If you are undecided, what
areas are you most interested in, and why?


History and science - my first true loves. And of course they were my first loves because they had taught me what and how. Yet, as my academic journey moved on from global to American, from biology to chemistry I felt unsatisfied with what and how - I wanted to know why.

Anthropology? What was that? At the time, when I had first heard of it, I didn't even know what it was and it certainly sounded lime something farfetched. My friend had mentioned it to me after having taken a career oriented survey and the list included anthropology. Out of curiosity that same night, I looked it up and I realized that I had found what I wanted, the answer to my whys in life.

So I took on classes and fell even deeper in love with the subject that offered me the understanding of civilizations, of societies, of people. It offered me an area of study so interdisciplinary that I would never lose interest -combinations that ranged from genetics to culture to language to media.

It was a perfect combination of both the physical sciences and the liberal arts. Investigation would be limitless and there were so many options and alternatives for me to choose from. Anthropology was my yin and yang - it was the academic balance I craved for and wish to indulge in. It is the balance that is represented in nature because life itself is interdisciplinary...why should my life and love be any different?
bizkitgirlzc   
Oct 29, 2007
Undergraduate / 'Science Fair victory' - Diversity Essay for University of Michigan [2]

Can someone help me with this mini-essay for U Mich? Here's the prompt:
"We know that diversity makes us a better university ï better for learning, for teaching, and for conducting research."
(U-M President Mary Sue Coleman)
Share an experience through which you have gained respect for intellectual, social, or cultural differences. Comment
on how your personal experiences and achievements would contribute to the diversity of the University of Michigan.


I was in eighth grade, when I won over all first place winner of my middle school Science Fair. To say I felt completely and incandescently happy would be an understatement. The joy I felt was ineffable.

That day and that success will remain in my heart always for a reason that, inexplicably, has nothing to do with winning. Rather it had to do with me reflecting on my racial ethnicity and who I was.

I felt pride at my triumph. I loved science, I loved learning, and most importantly, I loved being who I was ï what I represented.

And today, I'm still proud of who I am.

I come from a background with so many layers that if you could peel me, you'd never get through.

But in every academic environment I participated in, I didn't just have my culture to offer, I had myself. My potential has only merged more with my own breedï a Chilean New Yorker. That by definition should be a rare breed considering how scarce we are in the first place, but more than that, it's that fact that simply being a New Yorker makes us understand diversity because we are diversity.

University of Michigan must have diversity of every sort, and even though my Chilean rarity has always left an impression on almost everyone I've met, I'm not about just one culture ï I'm multicultural and I'm an open book, for anyone who's willing to dare, to be read and learnt from.
bizkitgirlzc   
Oct 29, 2007
Writing Feedback / Poetry Essay (the poet's attitude toward war) [2]

Hello, can someone help me with my essay? I want to know if I've answered the prompt carefully and if my grammar is alright:

Read the following poems very carefully, noting that each presents the poet's attitude toward war. Then, in a well organized essay, examine how each poet uses literary deices such as imagery, diction, figurative language, tome and structure to express his particular vision on the value of war.

Pink Floyd, 1960s band once sang, "Hanging on in quiet desperation is the English way." In poems "How to Die" by Siegfried Sassoon and "The Happy Writer" by Herbert Read, British poets express their anti-war sentiments on how society idealizes the cruel reality of killing and dying in war. Both Sassoon and Read present the desperation of war and how society silences it by romanticizing its horrors.

While the atrocities of war can be summed up in a few crude words, the diction and imagery in Sassoon's and Read's poems make the reader see their contempt for war. In "How to Die" is stunningly picturesque in the way its imagery can weave the entire scene in the readers head. Sassoon uses this sort of graphic diction when depicting a battle scene where the imagery is vivid and striking:

The dying soldier shifts his head
To watch the glory that returns;
He lifts his fingers toward the skies
Where holy brightness breaks in flame; (Sassoon, LL 3-6)
This very same depiction of battle that is beautiful illustrious is also terribly romanticized. The beauty of the scene is false and may very well be an artificial memento that is idealized by society. Sassoon alludes to God and holiness and basically all that is portrayed as an ideal death in this specific scene. Words like "glory" (4), "skies" (5), and "holy" (6) all give hint to the religious aspect that romanticizes heroic death. The narrator of the poem confirms this with his last line in the first stanza, "And on his lips a whispered name" (Sassoon, LL 8). It wraps up the religious beauty of a warrior's death by alluding to the fact that a soldier in battle dies with the single word of "God" on his lips when in reality the last thing on a soldier's mind would be God or religion. This stanza is plainly scenic and represents the wrong propaganda society feeds off. Sassoon uses it to show what society sees a soldier's death as while at the same time showing that what he hates the most about war is the absurdity of society's portrayal of death in war. The reader can assume that it is society Sassoon mocks when he mentions, "You'd think, to her some people talk" (Sassoon, L 9), because of the sarcasm he uses throughout the second stanza of the poem.

In contrast to Sassoon's technique, "The Happy Warrior" uses diction differently. Whereas, Sassoon uses picturesque diction to portray society's romantic view of war, Read uses picturesque - if not horrific - diction to convey the ruthless reality of killing in battle. Unlike Sassoon's figurative diction, Read prefers more precise language that is, for the most part, literal and even grotesque. The straightforward description of killing in battle shows the reader that Read also hates war:

His wide eyes search unconsciously.
He cannot shriek.
Bloody saliva
Dribbles down his shapeless jacket (Read, LL 4-7)
It is a descriptive scene that is horridly vivid with its imagery and words like "shriek" (5), "bloody" (6), and "shapeless" (7) give us a taste of the disgust the narrator feels towards war. This depiction is supposed to capture the appalling truth of killing on the battlefield, of killing another human being, of killing moral standards. The image that is given by line 6 gives the impression of a beastly animal with gory drool hanging from its mouth. It presents the perspective from which Read views war as: barbaric and primitive. And since the narrator has described the soldier as primitive in his actions by having killed another, his primitiveness has also killed his sense of ethics along with the enemy.

Even though both poems are against war, they are written with different voices - with different tones. Sassoon, for example, prefers a subtle sarcasm that is quiet in its mockery of society's idealized version of war:

But they've been taught the way to do it
Like Christian soldiers; not with haste
And shuddering groans; but passing through it
With due regard for decent taste. (Sassoon, LL 13-16)
What the narrator shows in these lines is a mockery of society. The soldiers have been taught to die the Christian way, not quickly or in agony but with decency. What the narrator is doing is making fun of the way civilians believe that soldiers die - in a heroic pursuit, with bravery and courage. They do not possibly conceive the idea that soldiers agonize with pain and pray for a swift death during war as lines 14 and 15 suggest. Sassoon's sarcasm is cleverly weaved in the poem: not obvious at first but still there.

Read, on the other hand, prefers to use a reflective tone that is only shows sarcasm until the poem reaches its end. His description is shocking but his conclusion to the poem is sarcastic:

I saw him stab
And stab again
A well-killed Boche.
This is the happy warrior,
This is he... (Read, LL 8-12)
The narrator not only recounts how he sees a killing of an enemy soldier but he also reflects on the irony of this. He calls the surviving soldier the "happy warrior" and even though by all rights the soldier should be relieved to be the one alive, he cannot be the "happy warrior" because he has killed another human being. If Read's description of the soldier is any hint, the reader can easily assume that the soldier is in a state of shock if not traumatized, "His wide eyes search unconsciously. / He cannot shriek" (Read, LL 4-5). The description of the soldier is a strong one considering that it is accurate in the representation of an after-shock after committing such a gruesome act. The sarcastic tone in calling the soldier the "happy warrior" serves to tell the reader how disgusted Read feels towards war.

The poetic nature as well as the expression of both poems lies greatly within the figurative language. Allusions play a great role in both poems. In Sassoon's "How to Die," the narrator makes many religious reference to God and Christianity:

When holy brightness breaks in flame;
...
And on his lips a whispered name.
....
Hankering for wreaths and tombs and hearses.
But they've been taught the way to do it
Like Christian soldiers; (Sassoon, LL 6, 8, 12-14)
The allusion first appears in the beginning of the poem such as in lines 5 through 8 where Sassoon uses the allusion to mock society's idealized version of a soldier's death. He uses God to romanticize the perfect death scene. Later, however, the narrator mentions in lines 13 through 14 that the soldiers have learnt to die the Christian way. By expressing this, the author is also mocking Christianity and the absurdity of religion and how it exaggerates the death of soldiers which can be clearly seen in like 12 where the polysyndeton found in "wreaths and tombs and hearses" serves to symbolize the extravagance placed on military deaths. Furthermore, Sassoon pokes more fun at the ridiculousness of how society aggrandizes and romanticizes soldiers' deaths when he mentions that it would seem they are "hankering" (12) for their funerals. Sassoon also uses the simile of "sullen faces white as chalk" (11) to show the pessimism of how many of the soldiers leave off to war, knowing that they are going to face their doom. Lastly, Sassoon ends his last lines with a paradox, "...not with hast / And shuddering groans; but passing through it / With due regard for decent taste" (Sassoon, LL 14-16). These lines express the contradiction of death and decency - how can death be decent? And furthermore, it hints to the absurdness of dying in a manner that is acceptable to society. The paradox is found that death cannot be a decent act and it certainly should not be done in a way to please others.

In Read's poem, "The Happy Warrior," however, the figurative language is made differently. While Sassoon immediately introduces the religious allusion to God, Read does not allude to anything until the end. He starts off with the symbolism of lines 6 through 7, "Bloody saliva / Dribbles down his shapeless jacket." This represents the poet's view of the barbarity of war. Read then moves onto repetition when the narrator describes how he saw the soldier the constant stabbing of the already dead enemy, "I saw him stab / And stab again / A well-killed Boche" (Read, LL 8-10). It shows the desperation and the brutality of killing another on the battlefield. Furthermore, to top off the poem, read concludes with an allusion to another poem by William Wordsworth, "The Character of the Happy Warrior." The irony in the conclusion is fond in this allusion where Wordsworth mentions that a "happy warrior" finds "comfort in his self and in his cause." But as one can see from what Reads grotesque description shows the reader, the soldier is neither comfortable with himself nor with his actions. Since Wordsworth's characterization of the "happy warrior" is most likely accepted by society as the fighting soldier at the front, it only serves to reinforce this mock of society's view of killing as well.

Finally, what brings together all the elements of diction, imagery, tone and figurative language is the structure of the poems. In "How to Die," Sassoon divides his narrative into two stanzas. The first stanza, lines 1 through 8, depicts society's romantic portrayal of a soldier's death. The second stanza (LL 9-16), however, mocks the way those who aren't present of the war, idealize the reality of war to the point of absurdity. In the other narrative poem, "The Happy Warrior," Read divides the poem into four separate stanzas with enjambment. It serves to divide separate thoughts throughout the poem and to mark emphasis on certain parts of the poem as well. The structure is what helps both poems fluctuate for the reader to interpret the poem a certain way. Sassoon separates what is ideal from reality while Read isolates the horrific parts of war by emphasizing certain sections of his narrative.

War is hated by both Sassoon and Read. There is no doubt about that throughout either poem. One talks about dying in war while the other talks about killing in war. Either is equally as atrocious according to both poems. Both discuss the way society romanticizes horror in such a way that it should horrify the rest of us.
bizkitgirlzc   
Oct 8, 2007
Writing Feedback / Billy Budd Essay Final (AP English) [2]

Hello, could someone help me with my essay - with my grammar and whether I answered the prompt or not?

Morally ambiguous characters - characters whose behavior discourages readers from identifying them as purely evil or purely good - are at the heart of many works of literature. Choose a novel or play, in which a morally ambiguous character plays a pivotal role. Then write an essay in which you explain how the character can be viewed as morally ambiguous and why his or her moral ambiguity is significant to the work as a whole. Avoid mere plot summary.

Human nature consists of trying to balance both matters of the heart and the mind. For some people, following their instinct is more valuable than logic. Others, however, prefer to trust concrete facts over their wavering sentiments. Every person will weigh out what they think against what they feel hoping that their choice in judgment is for better rather than for worst. In Herman Melville's Billy Budd, Captain Edward Vere, of the ship the Indomitable, struggles in balancing what is moral with what is rational when sentencing one of his crewmen to their death. This confliction between morale and rationale create Vere's moral ambiguity.

Like in any average human, it is intellectual curiosity and the ability to rationalize that builds the greater portion of a person's nature. With Captain Vere, his intellectual curiosity along with his way of rationalizing things creates an enigmatic character. This makes it difficult for the reader to interpret Vere's actions as purely "good or evil." When Vere is first introduced, the narrator gives us an overview of his persona pointing out his merits, "Aside from his qualities as a sea-officer, Captain Vere was an exceptional character" (7, 1). Yet the narrator does not fail to mention Vere's flaws, "...some officers of his rank...found him lacking in the companionable quality, a dry and bookish gentleman..." (7, 1). His "bookish" nature gives us insight into what sort of man he is, but most importantly it tells us what sort of captain he is. From what the narrator explains, it is obvious that Vere is an antisocial fellow. We learn that his love of reading, strangely enough, consists of only non-fiction, "...books treating of actual men and events no matter of what era-history, biography..." (7, 1) This adds a large streak of ambiguity through Vere as a character not only because of his odd taste in books being more than just a little "pedantic" but because his intellectual curiosity does not match his position as captain - "...he would be as apt to cite some historic character or incident of antiquity...unmindful of the circumstance that to his bluff company such remote allusions...were altogether alien to [his] men..." (7, 1). He does not communicate much with his crew which contradicts what any good captain should do. Basically, Vere's character is a strange juxtaposition that leaves the reader feeling perplexed. What we can conclude about Vere though, is that he is altogether a professional man who abides by the rules and applies them equally - no matter what the circumstance, "...nature's constituted like Captain Vere's...sometimes far-reaching like that of a migratory fowl that in its flight never heeds when it crosses a frontier (7, 2)." Both Vere's finicky intellectual curiosity and his straightforward rationality make him an enigma. Does the reader trust the man who has "...shown...a virtue [that is] aristocratic in kind" (6, 1)? Or should there be precaution in judging the man "...never tolerating an infraction of discipline..." (6, 1)? It is the way how Vere's virtues and flaws are presented that makes him morally ambiguous from the very beginning.

The trusting of instinct or logic varies from person to person yet in Vere, it seems that the struggle to keep both in equilibrium is beyond difficult. When the pernicious John Claggart comes to his captain to accuse the ever innocent and naïve Billy Budd of mutiny, Vere does not know whether to believe the accusation or to go with his own instinct:

Though something exceptional in the moral quality of Captain Vere made him, in earnest encounter with a fellow-man, a veritable touch-stone of that man's essential nature, yet now as to Claggart and what was really going on in him, his feeling partook less of intuitional conviction than of strong suspicion clogged by strange dubieties. (19, 4)

Even though Claggart's accusation struck as odd having "...deemed Billy Budd to be what...was called a 'King's bargain'..." (19, 4), Vere still saw it necessary to interrogate Billy either way. It is when Captain Vere interrogates both Billy and Claggart that we see Vere's true fight between his feelings and his sense of duty:

Going close up to the young sailor, and laying a soothing hand on his shoulder, he said, "There is no hurry, my boy. Take your time, take your time." ...these words so fatherly in tone, doubtless touching Billy's heart... (20, 1)

Here, Vere seems to show Billy a fatherly compassion and lets his feelings favor Billy. Yet, when Billy strikes Claggart, resulting in the Man-at-arms's death, Vere changes his composure immediately and switches to rationalizing the crime that has just been committed:

Regaining erectness Captain Vere with one hand covering his face stood to all appearance as impassive as the object at his feet...Slowly he uncovered his face; and the effect was as if the moon emerging from eclipse should reappear with quite another aspect than that which had gone into hiding. The father in him, manifested towards Billy thus far in the scene, was replaced by the military disciplinarian. (20, 2)

When it comes for Vere to decide Billy's fate we see more of how difficult it is for Vere to decide between the regard he personally holds Billy in and what military law expects him to do:

In a legal view the apparent victim of the tragedy was he who had sought to victimize a man blameless; and the indisputable deed of the latter, navally regarded, constituted the most heinous of military crimes. Yet more. The essential right and wrong involved in the matter, the clearer that might be, so much the worse for the responsibility of a loyal sea-commander inasmuch as he was not authorized to determine the matter on that primitive basis. (22, 1)

Torn between what his feelings tell him and what his "by-the-book" personality dictates him to do, Vere has a conflict within himself that makes the reader wonder whether his decision to sentence Billy to hang makes him evil or simply the victim of his position in the Navy.

Then again, it is perhaps Melville's intention to make Vere morally ambiguous. Or better yet, to demonstrate that humans are morally ambiguous. Throughout the novella, the three main characters - Billy, Claggart and Vere - play pivotal roles in developing the conflict of the plot. These characters together form a triangle of sorts in which each angle pertains to a certain quality. Billy Budd, for example represents the heart with his innocence and inner goodness:

Now Billy like sundry other essentially good-natured ones had some of the weaknesses inseparable from essential good-nature; and among these was a reluctance, almost an incapacity of plumply saying no to an abrupt proposition...(15, 1)

On the other hand, there is John Claggart with his own corner of the triangle who represents the mind with his intellect and malice:
Claggart's envy struck deeper...the Master-at-arms was perhaps the only man in the ship intellectually capable of adequately appreciating the moral phenomenon presented in Billy Budd. (13, 1)

Both Billy and Claggart's qualities build up the third corner of the triangle which is represented by Captain Vere, who is the most human of the two, having both heart and mind. What Melville tries to get across with Vere is that humans are neither purely evil nor purely good. Moral ambiguity is human. Melville's biblical allusions of comparing Billy to Adam and Claggart to a serpent (Lucifer), gives us the standards of what is good and what is evil, of what pertains to the heart and to the mind. Vere is a combination of both which ends up becoming his dilemma. He becomes a victim of the clash between the pathos and the logos within his nature. And like any other human, his flaws lead to his mistakes. Vere's antisocial nature leads him to make the ill decision of sentencing Billy to death:

No, to the people the Foretopman's deed, however it be worded in the announcement, will be plain homicide committed in a flagrant act of mutiny. What penalty for that should follow, they know. But it does not follow. Why? they will ruminate. You know what sailors are. Will they not revert to the recent outbreak at the Nore? Ay. They know the well-founded alarm--the panic it struck throughout England. Your clement sentence they would account pusillanimous. (22, 7)

If Vere had spent more time with his crew rather than isolated with his books, he would have been able to see that the crew would have loved him more for letting Billy live than hanging him. Vere's ill judgment is not due because he is good or evil, it is due to his flaws - his human flaws. After all, it is only human to make mistakes. Vere's decision of upholding rationale over feelings leads him to judge wrongly represents his error, his flaws, and his humanness.

Vere's moral ambiguity is essential for the plot of Billy Budd because it is what leads Vere to decide Billy's sentence. It is the tug between Vere's mind and heart that make him morally ambiguous and what makes him human. His difficulty in balancing both his feelings with his reasoning creates the enigma that is Vere and that is human. In Vere the reader can understand how human nature is conflicting within itself and how ethical dilemmas become more of an inner struggle than an outer one. It is in Melville's Billy Budd that we see how moral ambiguity can be creates by choosing whether to moralize rationality or rationalize morality.
bizkitgirlzc   
Sep 30, 2007
Scholarship / Impact Essay (significant experience, achievement, risk) [2]

Hi, this my essay for a scholarship the essay prompt is the following:

Evaluate a significant experience, achievement, risk you have taken, or ethical dilemma you have faced and its impact on you. (500 word limit) *

Can someone help me revise it grammatically or how I can answer the question better?

Thanks a bunch for correcting my other writings, I know I've been terribly annoying today with my essays.
____________________________________________________________ _______________

"Look, mi hija," said an aged woman to the little who watched me intently as I stirred chemicals in a vial. "See, you should be like that, too. I bet she's very smart." I smiled nervously at the elderly woman and said, "Muchas gracias, Seńora." The woman's eyes widened proportionally as she said to me incredulously, "And she's Hispanic too!"

I was in eighth grade, in a minority dominated junior high school, when I won over all first place winner of my middle school Science Fair. To say I felt completely and incandescently happy would be an understatement. The joy I felt was ineffable. I felt like I had won the Miss Universe award, just better because I was actually smart. Truth be told, that, I feel, has been my greatest achievement. I've won other awards throughout high school and I've been invited to become a member of honor societies as well, but I never felt so good about myself than when I won that science fair.

That day and that achievement will remain in my heart always for a reason that, inexplicably, has nothing to do with winning. The surprise in that woman's eyes that day made me reflect on my racial ethnicity and how we were looked at from the rest of the world's perspective when it came to the academics. The look I had received that day from that little old lady said some thing loud and clear to me: "How could you be Hispanic and smart?"

As painful as that realization was, it was the truth. I had realized that, aside from that woman, many people here in America, didn't take Hispanics seriously. Sure, there was financial aid available for Latinos, there were educational opportunities for Hispanics along with other innumerable resources for our ethnicity but in the end, deep inside the majority, I knew that we weren't expected to get very far. And the worst part was that, like that lady, our own people didn't take themselves seriously.

Because, it wasn't the first time that someone had looked at me or my kinfolk in disbelief at showing well-roundedness or academic potential. The negative Hispanic stereotype was so imprinted into people's minds that it was hard to conceive the notion of one of us "breaking the mold." When I won the science fair, I felt pride. I loved science, I loved learning, and most importantly, I loved being who I was - what I represented. I had stood up for Latinos that day. I had proved that we Hispanics could be good at subjects like science that not all of us worked as gardeners or day laborers. We were just as intelligent with the same potential as any other race.

That old lady with her disbelieving eyes impacted me more that day than the award I was given. That day I decided I wanted to follow science, where ever it led me. I will forever thank that woman and her disbelief; the disbelief that encouraged my belief.
bizkitgirlzc   
Sep 30, 2007
Writing Feedback / I like to see super heroes as a mock to society; Superhero Essay [2]

Hi, this my essay for a scholarship the essay prompt is the following:

If you were a super hero, what would your super power be? How would you use that power and why? (500 words*)

Can someone help me revise it grammatically or how I can answer the question better?
____________________________________________________________ _______________

Super heroism can be summed up by men in tights fighting crime and often portrayed, strangely enough, as idyllic. I like to see super heroes as a mock to society, a sort of jest on man kind, as if this single, unique figure with extraordinary powers can solve our day-to-day problems with special flying abilities or laser vision. Oh! If Spiderman could save New York City by climbing on walls and making giant cobwebs, surely things like 9/11 wouldn't happen...right? As incredible as having super powers may be, I'd say there are very few abilities introduced by DC Comics which would make a difference in the real world.

Nothing is super about superheroes. They dress in funny suits. They flaunt around their powers. They impress. They don't solve problems. In real life, there is no fighter of good to help us from our issues. Because in reality the real danger in our lives is ourselves; we're these little bundles of emotion that constantly change the way we perform, the way we behave, the way we live. If I were a super hero, my special ability would be reading emotions and absorbing them. I'd grab onto all the negative feelings that build up in the human soul and filter them, leaving only the positive emotions. I would be, what I would like to call, an Empath.

As a student coming from a competitive academic society, I suppose I should have chosen to be telepathic instead so I could know the answers to tests or what my teachers are thinking. So while sucking someone's emotions may seem uncanny and not very useful, I will heartily argue that it would be much more beneficial than knowing the answers on a test.

You see, we are beings of complex feelings and unfortunately, most of them are negative. We feel anguish, vengeance, hatred, and most of all sadness. We start wars based on what we feel. But we produce positive contributions based on our feelings too. We learn better based on how high our confidence is. We function on our emotions and our emotions have highs and lows. But what if they could be channeled? What if the pain over a failure could be mended, if the umbrage against another could be cleansed, if the human soul could be healed, would the world be a better place?

If the hatred of racism could be wiped away, if the anger that lies in war could be placed to rest, if the world could be relieved of pent up resentments, could that not make us all progress as a people, as human beings? I believe so. The world is a terrible fiasco because of what we feel and because of how we feel it. I'd help those in pain and cure those who inflict pain. To put an end to resentment and insecurity, I'd use that empathetic ability. I'd shed light on people's past and brighten their future ï one person at a time.
bizkitgirlzc   
Sep 29, 2007
Scholarship / Chilean /Steady Grades; Personal life&Aspirations - Biography(SCHOLARSHIP) [2]

Hi, this my essay for a scholarship the essay prompt is the following:

We are interested in learning more about you and the context in which you have grown up, formed your aspirations and accomplished your academic successes. Please describe the factors and challenges that have most shaped your personal life and aspirations. How have these factors caused you to grow? (800 word limit) *

Can someone help me revise it grammatically or how I can answer the question better?
____________________________________________________________ _______________

My father hates his job. He's always hated his job. Maybe that's why I take it so seriously when my dad tells me, "Study my girl or you'll end up like me, cleaning toilets."

When I was a kid I wasn't precisely aware of how unusual my parent's pairing was. I was much older when I realized it wasn't ordinary. The incongruity of it often became both a blessing and a curse in my life. My parents who are both Chilean and both the same age really wouldn't have a problem if it weren't for one thing ï their occupational background. My father who worked in housekeeping in a run down hospital had married my mother who worked in the ever prestigious Columbia University as a Radiation Safety Officer.

You see, from my mother's perspective of the world I got to see all the wonderful things about life and the academics. It was from her that I learned to love science, to love learning. From my father, I learned that the world could be an unjust place where money was what really mattered in getting what you wanted. So while, I grew up in, what I believed as, an ideal balance of the world, I eventually realized I was living within a conflicted reality.

As a child, their fights often went unnoticed by me, but as I entered high school, I realized the severity of their arguments. That it affected my school work is to say the least. I'd go to my room trying to block their shouts to no avail. Their spars often consisted of cruel words blaming one or the other for our financial dilemma. My father blaming my mother for not studying further when he brought her over to the US; how it was her fault he wearied himself out physically at work. She'd blame him for not having any friends because she couldn't invite them over out of fear that he'd blurt out something embarrassing. They'd often bring me into their problems as a buffer of sorts. Unfortunately, I was absorbing the negative energy from both sides.

My grades were steady for the most part even though in high school I felt them become less consistent as my parents' quarrels intensified. Pressured from both sides, I was told to study not only something I wanted but something that made money as well. I felt supremely troubled because I realized that in my life money was a big problem even if my mother worked at a prestigious institution. My mother would say, "Sadly, we don't eat off of Columbia's prestige." My education simply meant dollar signs in their minds.

But I studied because I wanted to, not because I planned on making millions one day, even though I'm sure that's what my father had in mind. Hating his own occupation, he often projected his own dreams onto me. He'd pressure me into doing things I had no real interest in, like taking piano for example. I didn't enjoy playing it but every time I mentioned possibly dropping it, my dad would say, "Then you'll probably drop your studies, too." I did drop piano, but not my studies like my father had predicted.

I may have disliked piano, but I loved knowledge. When I entered high school, I fell in love with the social sciences and the arts ï subjects which weren't really taken seriously at home. As I took more honors and advance placement classes, I realized that when I went to college, I wanted to study something interdisciplinary, something that combined my love for the physical sciences and the liberal arts. I choose anthropology.

Of course when I told my parents, my father was the first one to jump up and say how I wasn't going to eat off of ancient bones. I thought I had only two choices ï I studied what I wanted or I starved. But I realized that I didn't have to choose. I saw this at the American Museum of Natural History, where I decided to take on an Internship in anthropology. I met people who were young filled with life and who enjoyed their jobs and weren't starving. They had pursuit their passion and still worked with decent salaries.

The reason my parents weren't happy with their lives was because it functioned solely on the basis of money. They didn't enjoy other simple things in life; they didn't have hobbies, or any outside interests. They were parasites who were leeching off each other and off of me for contentment.

But I've decided to overcome these "trifles" and move on. I'm sticking to my decision because anthropology is my passion and if I put myself to it I know will succeed. And money won't get in my way.
bizkitgirlzc   
Sep 24, 2007
Writing Feedback / Reed Essay (interest in a liberal arts and science education) [3]

Hello, here is a college essay I'm writing for Reed College and their essay asks for to describe your interest in a liberal arts and science education and in Reed itself. Could someone help me with it?

High School Application



When I was in middle school, I didn't give it too much thought in applying to high school. I knew that I wanted to be in one of the three specialized science high schools - Stuyvesant, Bronx Science or Brooklyn Technical. I ended up in the latter. And so I went along with what fate had decided for me - I attended Brooklyn Tech. My decision seemed simple at the time considering that I was being offered to go to one of the top schools in New York City. How could I possibly refuse?

But I didn't think. I didn't think about the 4,000 other high school students that would be attending or about the student body that studied as fiercely or fiercer than I did or about the immense competition. All in all, I didn't give Brooklyn Tech too much thought. I just went.

It wasn't until I began my third week there that I realized that in this school I was just another number - a statistic. But I didn't transfer out, like so many had done and that was because in some twisted, distorted way, I liked Brooklyn Tech. It was full of diversity, a cultural wonderland where I had friends from all different backgrounds and who were as ambitious and as studious as I was. Yet something was missing, something essential.

I went to Tech because I wanted to learn science in a way that no other school offered. But I ended up discovering that I could love the arts, the social sciences as well. And those too I wanted to learn about. Sooner than later, I began to realize that I wasn't fitting in with the "Technite" mentality anymore. And the reason was simple - I just wanted to learn. I didn't care for my monetary ambitions as much, because they didn't seem as important as contributing to humanity or learning. In short, I wanted to know and they wanted the dough.

But the more classes I took, the more interdisciplinary I craved to be. I didn't want to be specified in just one area, I wanted to mix science with art - I wanted to see Marie Curie and Salvador Dali do wonders. I didn't stop at chemistry and turn my back on history, I combined them.

I realized that it was okay for me to love the physical sciences and still crave the liberal arts - to love anthropology and genetics. And most importantly, it was okay for me to want to learn and not care about whether I was going to end up a millionaire or not because there were others like me too; others who enjoyed intellectual stimulation for nonprofit reasons.

It was then when I decided that the college I would attend would let me combine my passions. It would allow me to be myself. It would have a small student body, unlike my current school. It would be an intellectual atmosphere where learning was loved above all else. It would be paradise. It would be Reed.
bizkitgirlzc   
Jun 1, 2007
Writing Feedback / Vocabulary Composition on Soccer [2]

Can anyone help me with my grammar and with the use of the vocabulary words in bold? I'd appreciate if someone told me if the storyline/argument is okay too.

____________________________________________________________ _________________
Everyone knows that soccer is the best sport in the world. While I'll probably get lynched by baseball fans for writing that phrase, I think there is a good enough argument to perhaps not prove soccer is the best sport in the world but certainly the most important sport in the world.

When I was a kid, I remember my father telling me in his moments of anger during a game that you can see how a country is doing politically by just watching how they play. This would eventually be meant for the soccer teams that played disgustingly and coincidentally weren't doing too great politically. Nevertheless, I realized that this law didn't always apply to every game I watched especially because my father's words of wisdom tended to waiver along with his mood throughout the game. But what my father said that night while watching a game of Argentina versus Chile did have some truth. While how soccer teams play may not exactly show the turmoil or the prosperity behind the team's nation, the history behind the team does give us a little insight about certain nations and even about the world in general.

My knowledge of soccer, I shall warn you, is quite limited. But if my father's commentating of soccer games has taught me anything, it's that soccer isn't just a game - it's politics, it's economics, it's globalization. The world works in a funny way and it becomes even funnier when you see it through the lenses of soccer. It wasn't until recently that my curiosity for the sport began to peek. What I learned was that it's a sport with a background that goes beyond shooting goals into a net.

My first encounter with what lied beyond the basics of the sport was understanding hooliganism. Hooliganism is a very scary thing in soccer or at least it can become quite scary. Soccer fanatics are capable of going to large lengths to defend their favorite team or club. And the reason that fans are capable of going to such lengths, such as beating opposing fans to bloody pulps, is more complicated than you'd think.

Soccer clubs represent certain ideas or perhaps I should say certain ideals. In Scotland, the city of Glasgow is famous for being the home of two famous teams - the Celtics and the Rangers. One club is identified as Irish Catholic and the other as Scottish Protestant. A soccer game between these two teams isn't a game at all. It's another feud of what they call the "Old Firm." It's a deep hatred between religious sects that runs back to the 1600s. Hardcore fans and hooligans are capable of the most pernicious crimes in defense of their team. Walking with the wrong jersey in the wrong neighborhood can get you killed. Violence in soccer is common and so are the representative ideals behind soccer clubs.

Another case where soccer represents more than a sport was a game of Brazil versus Portugal before the World Cup of 2006. Now, the reason that this game is the most salient in my mind is because Brazil versus Portugal wasn't just watching two countries play against each other - it was watching the Colony against the Colonizer. This idea was ever present in people's minds; of that I have no doubt. The game was awkward to watch. Maybe it was because my dad kept on yelling different insults when ever he switched sides. When he was rooting for Portugal during a couple of minutes he'd yell out something about respecting the motherland. When he was on Brazil's side he'd yell out "imperialist bastards" or something of that sort. In any case, the game consisted of quite a rowdy crowd where both sides probably felt uncomfortable on some subconscious level. It's been more than 180 years since Brazil got it's independence from Portugal. The funny thing is that they still feel that their in a Colony versus Colonizer situation.

I think that on some level soccer satiates a certain hunger. It's a hunger for defending certain ideas, ideas that you would expect to find in the classroom or in academic debates. Soccer is a release for those who don't know how to express their beliefs in the scholarly manner. And hooliganism is a product of this release. Instead of arguing political and social differences civilly, violence has become the outlet of expression. In Latin American soccer as in European soccer, this is commonly seen. At home, I realized that the country of my parents was very different from the one I was born in. Chile is a very political country. In America, SATs ask you what ethnicity you are; in Chile, college tests ask you what political party you feel most affiliated to. So why should soccer not be political too? I grew up knowing the differences between two of the most known Chilean soccer teams - La Católica and Colo-Colo. These teams are different as day and night or at least that's how I've been taught to see it.

La Católica is a soccer team that pertains to the Catholic University in Chile and Colo-Colo on the other hand is a private club with very humble origins. What does that mean? It means that La Católica is right-winged and that Colo-Colo is left-winged. La Católica being from the Catholic University automatically strikes dollar bill signs in any Chilean's mind - all your preppy rich kids attend that university. Colo-Colo on the other hand, is the team where most of its players come from neighborhoods that resemble the projects. It's the working-class team and what the right-wingers call the team for the "vulgar." I had an aunt who always tried to sugar coat everything. She used to say that the differences between these two teams were mere trifles. I hold that till this day as more than a specious argument.

Ultimately, I don't think the craziness behind soccer will ever dry out. Like a seared steak that seals the juices within, the media has tried to burn their portrayal of soccer in people's mind while the craziness of the sport still remains sealed behind a false image. Soccer is the representation of the problems that exist today in the world and while some might dismiss its significance as 'mere trifles,' I'd have to say that if we used soccer more often to see what problems we need to solve in our society, we'd definitely be on our way to understanding ourselves better. Maybe if soccer fans came to a certain agreement they can love each other as much as baseball fans do.
bizkitgirlzc   
May 28, 2007
Writing Feedback / Essay on Kafka's Metamorphosis [3]

Could some help me with my grammar and tell me if it's a good argument? Thanks!
____________________________________________________________ _________________

As humans, we are dependent creatures. We are dependent to things like our environment, our financial situation, and our social status; in short, we are dependent on one level or another. Thus, when our surroundings change, in our dependency, we must change as well. We are forced to evolve and to adapt to our new surroundings. W must learn to live with our new conditions. In Frank Kafka's Metamorphosis, the transformation of Gregor Samsa leads to the transformation of the rest of his family. They are dependent upon Gregor and when he changes, they are forced to change as well. There was always an antithetical relationship between Gregor and the rest of his family, and thus there are two metamorphoses in Kafka's story: when Gregor functioned as a human, the rest of the family is dysfunctional; when Gregor, due to his metamorphosis, became increasingly dysfunctional, the rest of the family began to function and flourish.

Almost immediately after Gregor's transformation we begin to note his dysfunctional behavior. He wakes up an insect and instead of focusing on the problem that being an insect presents, he is worried about getting out of bed and going to work:

No matter how hard he threw himself onto his right side, he always rolled onto his back again. He must have tried it a hundred times, closing his eyes so that he would not have to see the wriggling legs, and gave up only when he began to feel a light, dull pain in his side which he had never felt before.

"O God," he thought, "what a demanding job I've chosen! (428)
This shows the reader immediately that there is something very wrong with Gregor. Considering his current condition of being an insect, it is difficult to understand how his daily responsibilities could be the first thing on his mind. This is the first step towards his dysfunctional state. However, prior to his transformation, Gregor is very functional meanwhile his family is not. Perhaps this is because Gregor's ability to function depends on his ability to work. Before he transforms, being in full capability to work, his efficiency is at its best. His family's dilemma of paying off debts motivates him to work hard to bring money home and to satisfy his family:

And so he had set to work with unusual ardor and almost overnight had become a traveling salesman instead of a little clerk, with of course much greater chances of earning money, and his success was immediately transformed into hard cash which he could lay on the table before his amazed and happy family. (442)

Gregor's ability to maintain his family gives him control over them thus making him the only one serviceable while they are forced to depend on him - "...although later on Gregor had earned so much money that he was able to meet the expenses of the whole household and did so...the money was gratefully accepted and gladly given..." (442) Gregor's function is dependent on their dependence.

Yet, what truly makes Gregor purposeful is his family's dysfunction. While his family is incapable of maintaining themselves and while they are reliant on his income, Gregor can keep his position of control over the family issues and keep his ability to function - he improves where they deteriorate and he strengthens where they weaken:

...he [Gregor's father] had done no work for the past five years and could not be expected to exert himself; during these five years, the first years of leisure in his laborious though unsuccessful life, he had put on a lot of weight and become sluggish. And Gregor's old mother, how was she to earn a living with her asthma, which troubled her even when she walked through the apartment and kept her lying on a sofa every other day panting for breath beside an open window? And was his sister to earn her bread, she who was still a child of seventeen...? (442-443)

It is Gregor's days as a commercial salesman that are his days of purpose. Once Gregor transforms he is unable to work thus unable to meet his family's needs and as a result loses his family's dependency. Everything that once made Gregor functional is lost. His family, in consequence, is forced to change and become independent from him. In Gregor's dysfunction is born his family's function. No longer the source of his family's income, he cannot be in control. The family begins to adapt to their new circumstances and begins to function without him. This is seen when Gregor's father begins to show his beginnings of moving forward - "...Gregor's father explained the family's financial position and prospects to both his mother and his sister...his father tended to repeat himself in his explanations...because it was a long time since he had dealt with such matters..." (442) This shows the awakening of Gregor's family's productiveness. While Gregor was the source of reliance for the family, they were too dysfunctional to look after themselves and too dysfunctional to look for other financial solutions. Now, without Gregor, they are obligated to seek out any form of economic aid or back up. They begin to realize that even with the capital leftovers from the father's business failure they must still work to earn money for their daily needs.

The changes that occur in Gregor's family begins to bring them up while he is pulled down in his insect form - "...Gregor realized that the lack of all direct human communication for the past two months together with the monotony of family life must have confused his mind...He had indeed been close to the brink of forgetfulness..." (445) His deterioration of human qualities, such as memory, marks the significant spiral of dysfunction that he starts going through. On the other hand, his family builds a path of productivity which leads them to becoming efficient. The most notable changes are seen in Gregor's father, the one who was most dysfunctional prior to Gregor's metamorphosis:

Now he was standing there straight as a stick, dressed in a smart blue uniform with gold buttons, such as bank attendants wear; his strong double chin bulged over the stiff high collar of his jacket; from under his bushy eyebrows his black eyes darted fresh and penetrating glances; his formerly tangled white hair had been combed flat on either side of a shining and carefully exact parting... (448)

The once lazy, freeloading father who spent his days lying on the couch now works in a normalcy that was never seen during Gregor's days of function. It is now Gregor who is dependent on his family. Gregor's dependency is seen when his father attacks him by throwing apples at him. After having landed an apple into Gregor's back, which then sinks in, he's left with the damage - "The serious injury done to Gregor, which disabled him for more than a month-the apple remained stuck in his body as a visible reminder, since no one dared to remove it..." (449) Since no one is willing to take out the apple from his back, he must remain with the injury. Like so many other things, such as food, space, and acknowledgement, Gregor is dependent on them for basic necessities. This adds to his dysfunction. His family, however, begins to flourish with his deterioration and his weakening - "...his mother...stitched at fine sewing for an under ware firm; his sister...had taken a job as a sales girl...learning shorthand and French...on the chance of bettering herself." (449) In their process of becoming functional they begin to place Gregor aside more and more - "Who could find time in this overworked and tired-out family to bother about Gregor more than was absolutely necessary?" (450) Gregor grows weaker during the process of his family's reformation. He becomes frail, "eating hardly anything. Only when he happened to the food laid out for him did he take a bit of something in his mouth as a pastime...usually spat out again." (450) Even in his dysfunctional state, Gregor dreams of going to work again and taking charge - "He was often haunted by the idea that the next time the door opened he would take the family's affairs in hand again just as he used to do..." (451) Finally, when does Gregor die, we see that his family's development of function is complete. In fact, Gregor's family grows more practical than Gregor ever was simply because they are no longer dependent on anything. Unlike Gregor's paranoiac behavior of having to go to work, Gregor's family is functional enough to ask for days off to go out to the country:

They decided to spend this day in resting and going for a stroll; they had not only deserved such a respite from work, but absolutely needed it. And so they sat down at the table and wrote three notes of excuse, Mr. Samsa to his board of management, Mrs. Samsa to her employer, and Grete to the head of her firm. (459)

The Samsa family is more functional than Gregor ever was because they do not depend on anything besides themselves to be productive and to get what they want. Gregor's dysfunction is no longer needed to motivate them to be efficient. They are now reliant only upon themselves. Gregor's metamorphosis becomes his family's metamorphosis.

Ultimately, what is seen in Kafka's Metamorphosis is the opposing relationship between Gregor and his family. When Gregor functions as a human, his family does not. When Gregor cannot complete his duties, his family becomes functional as humans. However, the most interesting relationship in this story is how dependency plays a role in both Gregor and his family's ability to function. Gregor is always dependent on his family one way or another and that is why his family is able to surpass his ability to function. When Gregor functions at his best, he is dependent on his family's dysfunction in order to be in control of the family matters. When Gregor becomes dysfunctional, he remains dependent on them but for his own survival. When his family is dysfunctional, they are dependent on him for income. But when Gregor's family becomes functional, they are only dependent on a dysfunctional Gregor to push them to become further functional. After Gregor dies, his family is practical enough to not depend on Gregor at all in any sense. They are independent and fully efficient. In contrast, Gregor was always in need of his family and was never able to function completely as a human. Gregor's metamorphosis is dysfunctional dependence. His family's metamorphosis is functional independence. Gregor's metamorphosis was his transformation and his transformation was his family's metamorphosis.
bizkitgirlzc   
May 20, 2007
Writing Feedback / Vocabulary Composition in my Storyline [3]

Can someone please check if I'm using the bold words correctly and tell me if the storyline is OK?
____________________________________________________________ ______________

I was eleven when I caught Father Thomas screwing my next door neighbor's wife. I guess they were just getting ready for Confession.
My altar boy years were both the funniest and the weirdest years of my life. I'd give credit to the Catholic Church for that but I prefer to think of it more romantically - that God had something to do with it.

I was five when I realized that religion was one messed up piece of work. Every Sunday my mother would literally drag me out of bed at seven in the morning to get ready for Mass. It was when mother dearest threw a bucket of ice cold water over my head that I realized that God and I were going to have some problems. Who ever made a kindergarten kid suffer that early in the morning was either a sick son of a gun or in my case, God. Once the early torturing was over, it was off to church. Mass was usually held by Father Octavio who would go on about the Lord while I stared at the large stain glassed window behind him. I'd glare at that stained glass Jesus while in my head I'd tell God, 'You and me got a score to settle.'

And that's how it went every Sunday until I was seven. On my seventh birthday my mother decided that the Catholic Church was just what I needed to 'reverse the direction of my reprobate road.' So mother dearest, in her determination of redeeming me from my seven year old sins, decided that if I were closer to God he might not condemn me to hell for my wrongs. Next thing I knew, I was an altar boy.

Now that I look back at my life, I realize that being an altar boy didn't really put me closer to God but it did put me closer to Catholicism. That means I was no where near God. The joys of being an altar boy were often few, they were often memorable. One of my most memorable memories as altar boy was when Father Octavio ordered the lot of us altar boys to organize the storage room. I must have really loved that storage room because every time I came out it, I was stone drunk. As a seven year old I really didn't get why adults liked alcohol because it didn't taste all that great. But church wine is different. Church wine is good. Or at least it was in my country. It was a sweet sun-kissed wine that was brought from the northern desert. And as the seven year olds we were, we let ourselves become enthused by the provocative sweetness of the beverage. We'd eventually find ourselves laughing like idiots while the world rotated around us in the most dizzying manner.

Of course the next day, Father Octavio would tattle on us to our parents for drinking down almost half of the wine jugs in the storage room. Mother dearest would give me the beating of my life and I would feel myself moving farther away from God. But, I still went on as altar boy and did my duties. On Sundays I'd be obligated to stand next to Father Octavio while he held out a wine goblet which we were required to fill with half wine and half water. On one occasion we added more water than wine. He yelled at as for it after Mass. The next Sunday we added more wine than water. He didn't complain.

The altar boy duties that I had such as cleaning the steps of the church, helping during religious festivities, helping out during Sunday Mass, and being part of the choir didn't make me closer to God. And those other altar boys who were with me didn't become closer to God either. In fact, later on as I found out, some of them became delinquents and others, drunks. While this certainly wasn't something that shook me all too much, it did make me realize that sometimes those that are the most devoted are the worst.

In one of the most impacting experiences as an altar boy was getting to know the different priests of the church. There were three different Fathers that I have most memories of - Father Octavio who you already know, Father Macmillan who was Irish, and Father Thomas who was Canadian. Now Father Macmillan and Father Thomas were the most popular among the ladies of the neighborhood both being young and gringos. These young men who were both a credit to their race were quite admired in the third-world Chile that I grew up in.

Father Macmillan was the most educated of the two gringos and often gave recondite lessons in theology to us kids when we were suppose to learn about the Crucifixion. Father Thomas was the nicer one and the one that spoke Spanish least fluently which brought him up on the attractive charts of the ladies. While Father Octavio was always strict with us about how we went about our work, Father Thomas would laugh at our travesties and let us procrastinate when it came to our obligations. We never once thought of ill of him and had no reason to. He was well-mannered and never disrespected any of us. Many a flirtatious hint would women throw his way during Mass and even during Confession yet he seemed immune to all this. He was our role model and our favorite Father.

It was on the Festival of the Virgin Carmen that my opinion of Father Thomas changed as well as my opinion of religion and God. Now before this, I always was a bit of a cynic when it came to religion, the Bible, the Church, and anything tied to God but after this little eye opener, I was completely convinced that I had the right idea all along. At this point I was eleven and I had known Father Thomas for about three years. It was a bright morning and I had traded my duty of sweeping steps for the sedentary task of watching everyone else put up decorations. Father Octavio, who never failed to make sure that I was making myself useful, ordered me to go to the Back House to get Father Thomas. The Back House was exactly that - a house in the back of the church where the three Fathers resided in. The house however, was divided into separate sections each belonging to one of the priests. I entered and sought out Father Thomas. Finding his room, I was about to knock when I saw the door slightly open. Not bothering to knock I opened the door quietly believing that Father Thomas might be concentrated in prayer. What I found was a very concentrated Father Thomas, except not in prayer. She was on top of him and they were both so into their 'activities' that they didn't even notice me. So, in the same quiet way I opened the door, I closed it.

That day was a turning point in my life. I realized that all that religious instruction and the respect they made us have towards God and the Church was just a load of...it was just like it claimed to be - holy. It was holy because there were so many holes within the Catholicism and within the teachings we were taught and even in God. I didn't find it traumatizing what I saw and even today I wonder why. Perhaps it's because that day I realized that Father Thomas was a man and he was a person just like I was. There was no real difference between me and him. The only difference was that he knew more things about Catholicism. But that really was it. Did I feel betrayed? Perhaps. Everything that I was taught since infancy about respecting priests and respecting God all seemed like a big joke after that. After seeing that, I stopped taking my duties seriously until one day Father Octavio told me that he had no need for me anymore. Mother dearest didn't take it too well but after a few beatings she bestowed upon me, she was over it.

I never told anyone what happened that day and I never found out what happened to Father Thomas or to my next door neighbor's wife for that manner. I'm sure these things were kept secret and neither of them got in trouble for it. Either way, I don't think I'll ever see Father Thomas again in my life. But if I did, I'd thank him for making me see things clearly and I'd ask him if he was trying to help my next door neighbor find the Holy Spirit.
bizkitgirlzc   
May 13, 2007
Writing Feedback / Analytical Essay - characterize Capote's view of Holcomb [4]

Can someone please help me correct my essay and whether it meets the following assignment:

Write a well-organized essay in which you characterize Capote's view of Holcomb, Kansas and analyze how Capote conveys this view. Your analysis may consider such stylistic elements as diction, imagery, syntax, structure, tone, and selection of detail.

____________________________________________________________ _________________
The first thing that could come to one's mind when reading about the rundown Holcomb, Kansas is an old Cont Eastwood western movie with "The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly" theme song playing in the background. With its men with "high-heeled boots with pointed toes," Holcomb seems to have directly come out of a cowboy movie. Truman Capote's excerpt, "The Last to See Them Alive" from his book In Cold Blood, depicted exactly how the reader should be imagining this town to be - a small town in 'nowheresville,' Kansas.

"The Last to See Them Alive" talks about a small village in Kansas that is insignificant that even few Kansans know about it. From the beginning, it's evident that the narrator wants the reader to see Holcomb as a beat-up and torn-down town - just as if it were coming out of one of those cowboy movies. The narrator, who probably is Capote himself, is seeing this from a more refined and perhaps from even a more sophisticated perspective. This can be concluded by the tone that the narrator uses which is a condescending tone of sorts - "Holcomb, too, can bee seen from great distances. Not that there is much to see..." He has a sarcastic manner when talking about Holcomb. The narrator often uses quotation marks on certain words like when he expresses how the Holcomb School is a "consolidated" school. Like the rest of the town, it probably is not "consolidated."

He mentions how "other Kansans" call the town 'out there' and he describes the local accent as "barbed with a prairie twang"with"ranch-hand nasalness." Then he goes on to describe the town buildings such as the Holcomb Bank with a "flaking gold [sign] on a dirty window" and a "old stucco structure The diction is clear and by his word choice, he makes it evident that he wants the reader to see this town as broken, old, and insignificant. The imagery he produces only furthers this idea when he speaks of a "falling-apart post office" by a depot "with its peeling sulphur-colored paint" that "is equally melancholy." This place really is gloomy and the picture that comes to one's mind is this deserted like town that's dusty and deteriorating. He then end's his description with a new paragraph that begins with a "and that, really, is all." It has a powerful effect this small sentence. It starts with an "and" and it is short and concise. This sentence has conveyed what the narrator thinks about this town - small and unimportant. The effect of structuring the paragraph in this manner, starting it with that small sentence, has gotten the narrator's point across. With that one sentence he has dismissed Holcomb as being nothing exceptional.

The truth is that there is nothing special about this town and that's exactly the image he wants the reader to have in their head when they think 'Holcomb.' It is town that is so insignificant that it is not even worth mentioning. But he does. He mentions it and that makes all the difference. If Holcomb is not special and if it is not worth mentioning, then what is the purpose of talking about this town? This place is a boring place where nothing out of the norm ever happens. Capote's way of expressing just that is interesting in when looking at the syntax of this one particular sentence:

Like the waters of the river, like the motorists on the highway, and like the yellow trains streaking down the Santa Fe tracks, drama in the shape of exceptional happenings, had never stopped there.

He starts out the sentence mentioning all these things that in one way or another may cause excitement and ending it with "never stopped there." Out of all the things that could happen nothing of importance, of "drama," or that comes out of the ordinary, happens in this town.

The purpose of talking about Holcomb is to make sure the author understands how ordinary Holcomb is. And it is the fact that Holcomb is so ordinary that makes it extraordinary. It is the perfect setting for something of exception to occur and it is the reason why the narrator goes out of his way to talk about this lame town where "the inhabitants of the village...were satisfied...quite content to exist inside ordinary life..." He is setting up the stage for something big to happen where nothing of importance ever happens. Perhaps it should come to be the stage for a murder if the title gives us any clues. The purpose of all of this is to catch the reader by surprise or simply to make the story all the more intriguing. The audience is suppose to eat up the isolated, broken down, plain description of the town and then be staggered to find Holcomb to be the spotlight of an "exceptional happening."

Ultimately, this is a great opening to a story that might turn into something of suspense or a thriller. It establishes the perfect setting for something of that sort because it creates a mental image for the reader to follow throughout the story and then to have something thrown out at them which doesn't match this guideline makes the story all the more unpredictable and entices the reader to want to continue reading. Capote has done an excellent job in setting Holcomb as the ordinary town that no one knows about "until [that] one morning in mid-November of 1959." It is Holcomb's plainness that makes it famous.
bizkitgirlzc   
May 4, 2007
Scholarship / AMNH Internship Essay [2]

What do you think?

G. Please write a 250-500 word essay about yourself that addresses the questions listed below. Type your essay on a separate piece of paper and attach it to your application; make sure you put your name at the top of the page.

Why are you a good candidate for an AMNH internship? Why are you interested in the sciences? How will this experience at the Museum help you further your academic and career goals?


____________________________________________________________ _______________

A couple of years ago I came across a phrase that until this very day has stuck with me - "When science finally locates the center of the universe, some people will be surprised to learn they're not it." Of course, it wasn't until years later that I came to realize what this quote really meant. And when I did realize what it meant, I knew that I didn't want to be one of those people who believe the world revolves around them. I didn't want ignorance get the best of my ideas. It was then that I saw science as the eye opener I was looking for and that the rest of the world needed.

Since I was very young, I had a connection with science. At home, my mother who worked in molecular biology would teach me basic concepts of biology and chemistry. I was the only kid in my kindergarten class who knew that steak was a protein that macaroni and cheese was carbohydrates with calcium and lipids. While you may think my parents scientifically traumatized me so that I could never see a plate of food the same way again, I wasn't. In fact, I think I was more aware of diet than anyone else. And even though I was the only kid in third grade who actually knew why the sky was blue, I found a sense of security in knowing why things were the way they were. However, when I came across things I didn't understand and which my parents or teachers couldn't answer, I wasn't satisfied with a 'that's just how it is.' And since then, I've clutched on to science to be the thing that will lead me to understand this very interdependent world.

If I were given the opportunity to work in the Museum I know for sure that I would carry that experience with me to college and probably the rest of professional life. I've had experience in working in professional labs and I have also carried out projects with successful result. I believe that I could very well work at the Museum with diligence, with motivation, and with absolute interest. With college decisions just around the corner, I have thought thoroughly that I want to study something interdisciplinary, something that doesn't just specify in one area but something that is connected with other fields. Nature is a working network that is supremely interconnected and I believe that in order to be successful in one thing we must comprehend the things that surround it. If I could work with professionals I'm sure that I could begin to formulate my own ideas for research and the experience would certainly give me a heads up in my own academic and career studies.

In what I must say what seems like weaknesses in my application - such as the lack of classes I've taken - I must truthfully say that I regret not having had enough curiosity in my former years to have searched out these classes on my own, however, I strongly believe that my enthusiasm and my background in the sciences will make up for what I have missed. I truly believe that I could be a very good candidate for the AMNH High School Internship Program and that this could not only help me in the academic sense but help me in experience science first hand rather than having to see it through teachers and books. I'm sure that in this program I could be a part of science rather than seeing it as an outsider.
bizkitgirlzc   
Apr 22, 2007
Writing Feedback / Cluster Munition Essay [2]

Please Help Me Correct my essay! Thanks!
____________________________________________________________ ______________
Many people say that war is primitive. But it is not - quite the contrary. War is completely human: it is not humane but it is human. It is human because it is born from the hatred between governments, between nations, and between people. And hatred is human - an animal does not attack out of contempt, it attacks out of basic self-defense. Yet, our reasons for war are never out of 'basic' self-defense; our motives for war are complex motives that can only be human. Yet, it is the act of war that makes us judge war as barbaric - the action of settling things through violence. It is the action of taking old habits with deadlier technology that makes war primitive. Today, we still suffer from our old bad habits of war. However, we can now add that we suffer from delusional perspectives on war. We now think that there are safer ways to make war. How very wrong we are. We do not make war safer; we simply make things safer for war.

Modern-day arguments on war procedures include the controversy of cluster munitions or better known as cluster bombs (air-dropped or ground-launched shells that eject multiple smaller "bomblets"). The argument on this form of armament is the danger that it poses for civilians when they are dropped. The "bomblets" often scatter in a broad radius, which are hazardous whether they have exploded or not. In fact, one dispute involves how cluster bombs present more danger unexploded. The Cluster Munition Coalition explains that "unexploded submunitions can explode when children pick them up and play with them, they can explode when people hit them." Furthermore, it is said that "children are often attracted to their small size and bright colours." (BBC News) This leads to the frequent casualties that places like the Falklands, Laos, Kosovo, and Kuwait still suffer today even after conflict has ended. (Norton-Taylor) There are many civilians that have fallen prey to undetonated cluster bombs in ignorance of not knowing what it was or mistaking it for something else:

Sayyid Ahmad Sanef believed the bright yellow object lying on the ground near his home was one of the 37,000 plastic humanitarian aid packages of the same colour dropped on Afghanistan by US military aircraft - but it had come from a cluster bomb. (BBC News)

These small and deadly packages are more likely to take out more civilians than their military targets. Nevertheless, US military continues to use cluster munitions in the war in Iraq as it did in Afghanistan.

The Pentagon especially defends the uses of cluster bombs claiming it to be efficient as well as effective. Regarding the criticisms of cluster bomb failure, the Pentagon has counter-argued that they have the same initial failure rate like other forms of munitions even though in reality "the initial failure rate range from 2 percent to 30 percent or more, depending on conditions." (Human Rights Watch) History shows the mixed record of cluster munitions and its success:

In the Gulf War these munitions were seen to be highly effective in destroying tanks, guns, missiles and strategic installations. But in Kosovo the damage that cluster bombs inflicted on Serb forces in the field was minimal. (Beach 3)

NATO also defends the use of cluster bombs claiming that they have been sending soldiers to places like Kosovo to educate children to stay away from cluster "bomblets" and landmines. (Kahrs) Criticisms on cluster bombs are built on morals; advocacies, on convenience.

The convenience that the Pentagon, NATO, and other organizations demonstrate in defending the use of cluster bombs comes down to a monetary issue. The truth is that cluster bombs are quite economic in comparison to other forms of munitions that are unitary or attack only one target at a time. While the U.S. claims to be now using what is called "smart" submunitions, which are similar to guided missiles and have the ability to locate and attack a certain target, they still use standard cluster munitions. In addition, the "'smart' submunition...are many times more expensive than standard cluster bombs, which are cheap and simple to manufacture." (Wikipedia) Perhaps to some, the lives of civilians are equivalent to the price of a cluster bomb. It would seem that way to the American government and many of the NATO governments. In the Israel-Lebanon conflict, Israel asked the Bush administration to send them weaponry with wide blasts - among this sort of weaponry fell in cluster bombs. With only slight reluctance, the U.S. obliged with Israel's demands:

Arab governments, under pressure to halt the rising number of civilian casualties in Lebanon, have criticized the measure for not calling for a withdrawal of Israeli troops from southern Lebanon.

While Bush administration officials have criticized Israeli strikes that have caused civilian casualties, they have also backed the offensive against Hezbollah by rushing arms shipments to the region. (Cloud)

Currently, unexploded cluster bombs are still found in Southern Lebanon resulting in casual incidents. ("Landmines...") Israel, in its way, has left a deadly legacy behind.

Meanwhile other countries around the world have taken action against the use of the cluster bombs such as Australia. Their Cluster Munitions (Prohibition) Bill 2006 clearly states:

...this Act is to ensure that innocent civilians in conflict zones are not maimed, killed or put at risk, as a result of Australians possessing, using or manufacturing cluster munitions. (Allison et al. 2)

In reality there is neither justification for war nor a right way of making war, however, if civilian casualties can be prevented by using slightly more expensive and effective weapons, why must these deadly bombs be used? How is it that the cost of a war budget becomes more significant than the cost of a life? In the end, the wars that use this form of weaponry will only leave scars - scars that are found in the unexploded cluster bombs. They are the constant reminders of the pain of war.

Years, decades, centuries and millennia will pass and war will still exist. And as long as war exists, the conveniences of war will stay alive as well. We will continue to use cluster bombs, we will continue to kill innocents, and we will continue to ruin lives. War is about motives and it in war it is the ends that justify the means. If cluster bombs are cheap, efficient, and effective, the last thing governments like the United States will care about are a "few of casualties." There is irony in this debate. It is an irony that comes from arguing about the 'safety' of 'war' and about how 'humane' a 'weapon' may or may not be. But more than irony, there is absurdity. The level of ridiculousness in debating about whether cluster bombs should or should not be used is as ridiculous as questioning whether it's alright for a child to be blown up. The answer is simple - cluster bombs should be prohibited. If some governments can do so, why can't all? War should be prohibited as well, but that isn't in debate.
bizkitgirlzc   
Apr 16, 2007
Writing Feedback / Captain Richard Montero - Composition II [2]

Hi, I have another vocab composition...
Could someone please check this for me for grammar, spelling and whether I'm using the bold (vocabulary) words correctly. It would be nice to know if the story is alright. Thanks!!!

____________________________________________________________ _______________
Captain Richard Montero was a man who ignored his birthright. He was a man who laughed at his inferiority, longed for power, and clutched at his ambitions. There were no barriers which kept him from his goals except one. That barrier, that obstacle had a name - the people. The people were equally as powerful in raising him to glory, as they were in drowning him to perdition. And it seemed that they had decided to use their power to do the latter. The people did not hate him - they abhorred him. The passion in their loathing had been, for a time, the involuntary homage towards his person. A slight chuckle would escape from his throat when recapitulated the atrocities he had done to the town with his power. It was no wonder that they hated him.

Yet, he had laughed at their hatred at first. To him their animosity had only been part of the fear they would inevitably feel. But he was wrong, very wrong. He had misunderstood the words of Machiavelli and now not even reading The Prince could give him counsel. What use was it now to read the book that had led him to his misfortunes? The people who he once believed dense enough to accept his false charity and kindness were in fact much more keen than he thought. They were accustomed to being fooled, tricked, and bribed. They never took his acts of benevolence, that were place on top of his crimes, as a reason to love yet fear him. Neither love nor fear ever came for Captain Montero and his little coup d'état.

And now he was under their lock and key. The very prison he was once leader of was now his cage. Albeit ran by the people. His overthrow had been displaced by one of their own. It was now, in the solitude of his cell, that he resuscitated the many dreams and ideals that at one time had controlled his actions. The slovenly state he found himself matched the turbulent and unclear future ahead of him. Every torpid moment in his cell felt like an eternity. If death was the clarity of his confusion, then so be it. He did not want to be handled on the delicate strings of a puppet because that was worse than death. Perhaps they knew, perhaps they knew that their indecisiveness was driving him insane - would they kill him or would they let him rot? Would they torture him or would they forgive him? Not knowing what was to become of him was mind racking.

How foolish his supposition was! To think he thought them unintelligent when he, in fact, was the stupid one. And that had been his deadly fault. He knew that the flaws of his character would eventually be the end of him. He just never thought it would be this soon.
bizkitgirlzc   
Apr 13, 2007
Writing Feedback / the New York Times selects its reader; Times Fashion Magazine [2]

Could you please help me with my essay? I'm suppose to talk about what the magazine is trying to say and how the language used in the articles helps convey the underlying message...

____________________________________________________________ ______________

The media is very powerful. It is powerful because it is credible. And it is credible because people make it credible. In this case, credibility is power. We read newspapers, we watch TV, and we read the news online. We are constantly being informed by sources which are sometimes reliable and sometimes...not. It's up to us to decide what we think is best for ourselves; whether the New York Post is a more efficient than the Wall Street Journal or whether Stars is a better read than the Times magazine. A lot of factors are involved when a lector chooses a newspaper or magazine to follow. In some cases, it is the media that selects its audience. In the Times Style Magazine, from its diction to its advertisements, the type of audience the magazine is directed to demonstrates how highly selective it is.

I've often heard people stereotype newspapers and other forms of media into categorizes. For example, I've been told that if you're a liberal you would be more inclined to read The New York Times and if you are a conservative, you should go with The Wall Street Journal or how Fox News is Republican and incredibly biased while BBC is British and therefore a much more reliable source of news. But this only proves how people really want to hear what they want to hear. If I were a hardcore liberal the last channel I'd put on is channel five. This just demonstrates the way we, in part, select our source of information while, in part, the media selects us. Now, while many magazines, newspapers, and news channels are targeted at certain people with certain interests, there are other subtle hints of selectiveness in them as well. Sometimes, this underlying selectiveness can, in fact, be discriminatory but which we fail to see. If it is not too bold to say, I see the New York Times as one of these subtly discriminatory forms of media.

About a year ago, I was asked to get the Sunday New York Times which is noticeably bigger than the weekday version and slightly more costly too. Of course I had occasionally read the Times whenever I'd come across it but I wasn't a loyal reader to it and I never really gave it a second thought. It wasn't until I came across the Times Style Magazine inside the newspaper that I began to realize certain differences I hadn't noticed before. For starters, the Times Style Magazine was not like your average Cosmopolitan-like magazine ï it was, in a way, more...sophisticated. First of all, instead of Britany Spears on the cover it was Rachel Weisz, who is an actress that is perhaps not as famous as Paris Hilton or Jennifer Lopez but she definitely was an actress that had a well-known film history with definitely a better acting reputation than Paris Hilton. Not to mention she is British. So by just looking at the cover I could tell that this was no Cosmo Girl magazine that offered "100 Ways to Keep Your Boyfriend" but instead expected its readers to have a certain level of culture, vocabulary, and financial status.

One of the articles that caught my attention was called "The Full Maharani" which talked about the jewelry presented in an Indian movie that was an Oscar nominee. There was nothing too special about the level of vocabulary of the article, making it fairly simple to read. Nevertheless, I realized that the article was not directed to teenage girls who often read magazines that encouraged them to become anorexic or to spend their parents' salary at American Eagle Outfitters. This article had a few requirements for its readers. It was obvious that the person reading it had to be some what well-rounded, someone who watched films aside from mainstream Hollywood. They had to have interest in fashion on not only the aesthetic level but in the understanding of fashion industry, which pretty much spoke out for the majority of the other articles. This was certainly the type of magazine girls my age would not find appealing.

Other articles in the magazine were similar, this one short article "About Typeface" spoke about fonts while comparing almost everything to a designer line or certain style ï "Typefaces are becoming as fashionable in their own way as Chloï's white embroidered tunics." This article had a bandwagon appeal. It talked about typography as if it were the latest chic thing out there, indirectly telling you that you should be informed on fonts too. The vocabulary level in this article was not too elevated either even if word like "modernism" and "ubiquitous" might confuse a teenage girl accustomed to reading Seventeen. This article, like the majority of the magazine was appealing mainly to Logos. That discovery was fairly interesting considering that most other magazines that talk about fashion and love life often appeal to pathos and ethos. This magazine, however, was appealing to Logos with some ethos here and there. The audience this magazine was directed to was not to someone my age level and it wasn't directed to the common working class either it seemed.

I think the evidence that really shows the sort of discrimination that the Times presented was in the advertisements. The ads alone sent out the message just who was supposed to be reading that newspaper which had that magazine. When was the last time I saw a Bottega Veneta, a Bvlagari or a Donna Karan advertisement in Seventeen? This magazine was advertising designer clothing that someone with my economic status could not afford. The message to me was that in order for me to be reading that magazine and the New York Times I had to be either from the middle or upper class. Did that mean that only that group was capable enough to read the Times? In school we were encouraged to read the Times because it was reliable and educational and we had to read it no matter what financial situation we found ourselves in. Yet we were also seeing the advertisements and it was easy to realize that those weren't meant for many of us. I certainly didn't own anything from Prada or Rochas, so did that mean that I wasn't suppose to read it? This was indirectly a discrimination of class.

From the language to the topics to the advertisements this whole magazine said a really big statement. People who were well-rounded read the Times and people who read the Times were middle or upper class. Did that mean that someone from the working-class couldn't be well-rounded? As a student who could not afford the luxuries offered in the Times I felt perfectly capable of reading its newspapers and magazines without being from the middle or upper class. This entire magazine was one big hasty generalization that stereotyped people with certain incomes. It is obvious that readers don't select the New York Times; the New York Times selects its readers.
bizkitgirlzc   
Apr 1, 2007
Scholarship / List and describe the 5 factors that shaped who you are [4]

thanks for your help, here is my personal statement essay:
____________________________________________________________ _________
What are you most passionate about and how do you see your college experience developing this passion?

The great mathematician Blaise Pascal said that "Clarity of mind means clarity of passion, too; this is why a great and clear mind loves ardently and sees distinctly what he loves." I believe in what Pascal says and that is why I love the study of language. There is lucidity in my passion because there is clarity in my motives for loving language. I see the understanding of tongues as the understanding of humanity. What lies beneath a noun, a verb, a phrase, has the power to move people. It can create and unite the same way it can divide and destroy. The power of language is limitless.

As a Hispanic, my love of language is nourished daily from the transition I make from the English that I speak in school to the Spanish that I speak at home. Long ago, in my childhood, I realized that certain words in one language did not carry the same power in the other. I would find myself translating things literally and finding that its power died on my lips once I spoke them. While in my younger years, I did not give much thought to the reason why certain words in certain languages carried a different weight in them, it was not until I was a teenager that I began to see the significance of my discovery and the graveness.

The significance of what I had uncovered helped me throughout my foreign language classes and even in my daily life. When I read books from Spanish to English I finally realized why translators did not translate the words literally. They translated based on the weight of the words used, what was meant to convey, and how to impact the reader the same way the original language did. The graveness of this discovery fell on me when one day I called someone 'stupid' in Spanish. Up until then, I had not given the word much thought because I often used it in English. However, once I had uttered those words, I could not take them back. They were more powerful in Spanish than they were in English. The word 'estúpido' sounded much more insulting than simply saying 'stupid.'

In my innocence, it dawned on me - how many people must have fought because of a misinterpretation of a word? How many people must have feuded because of a certain tone? How many nations must have gone to war because of a misunderstanding? I realized then that I wanted to learn languages. I wanted to speak to be understood. I wanted to voice my opinions, my feelings, and my ideas for everyone. Language was a barrier of vowels and consonants that had the ability to annihilate but also had the power to create. I saw language as a way to help humanity. Through language, I saw a cure to prejudices, war, and the differences among the human race.

Today, I still firmly believe in the supremacy of language. I believe in it almost as if it were a faith - a faith that is made up of grammar, spelling, fluency, and pronunciation. In believing this, I decided that in order to begin mastering language I had to start by mastering my own first. That is why I decided to continue taking Spanish in high school. I want to perfect my form of expression in Spanish. I wanted to avoid the risk of being misunderstood. And it is now that I feel I am close to attaining that goal. With my studies of Spanish in high school coming close to an end, I feel I must take up another form of expression to stay true to my belief in language. I know very well that my college experience could grant me my wish of taking up a new linguistic ambition - Arabic. My passion for the flow of words in a sophisticated combination of vocal cords with moving lips and articulating tongues would only be intensified if I had the opportunity to learn Arabic.

Like the sciences, I believe the arts especially the art of communication, can be beneficial to humanity. There could be so much disagreement that we could avoid if we understood each other. We can learn so much from someone just by the way they speak. Imagine how well we could understand a culture by understanding their language. Perhaps my linguistic aspiration is an idealistic one but it is sufficiently tangible enough for me to work for it and to desire it. Language is something so interdisciplinary that in understanding one, there is a chain reaction where many other things are understood in the process. Everything is tied to communication, so there is no reason that I should stay tongue-tied when it comes to my dreams.
bizkitgirlzc   
Mar 31, 2007
Scholarship / List and describe the 5 factors that shaped who you are [4]

Please help me. I'd like to know if it is good enough to submit! Scholarship essay, due tonight. Thanks!

List and describe the 5 factors (events, accomplishments, failures, circumstances, special relationships, etc) that have most shaped who you are. (100 words max per description) *

Death of Nanny

My nanny died when I was nine. She had been my nanny since birth. This event is marked in my mind so well because it represents a new chapter in my life. Until my nanny past away, I was dependent on adults. While her death brought sorrow to my heart, it also opened the doors to my independence. I learned to walk to school and back alone, and to stay home alone. In that time of solitude, I learned much about computers becoming more technologically competent than my peers. Her death marked the end of my absolute reliance to grown-ups.

Chatting with Dad

My father talks a lot. Sometimes the words that my father speaks are necessary and other times...he should have kept his lips sealed. But my conversations with him are what I like to think of as his greatest virtue. Unlike other parents, my father speaks to me plainly, giving me advice on everything and anything. He has shaped who I am because he can foresee upon things that come to pass. My father is the lens of experience that I look through - it is tinted with cynicism and pragmatism. When I look through them I am never disappointed.

MTA, going my way?

NYC subways are disgusting. That is a fact. It is because of this that I detest traveling by train. But how can a train ride change your life? For me it is quite simple. I often find myself obligated to eat, sleep and study on the train - trains that smell like public bathroom and dirty metal. I waste a total of 3 hours everyday traveling on those filthy trains. This is an obstacle I fight daily. It has made me into a durable and adaptable person. If I can adapt to NYC subway systems, I can adapt to anything.

Parent's Economic Struggle

My parents have worked hard all of their lives. They have worked for me. They have worked so that I may one day become better than them, to live better than them. Yet, while they believe that if I become successful I will be happy, I think otherwise. My parents' struggle has helped me realize that the purpose to life is to serve others. They are happy because they work to serve me. My happiness with not come from my success - it will come from helping humanity. My parents' economic struggle has shaped my ideas of what life means.

From Quiet to Loud

I was a quiet student. I was the student that said nothing and observed everything. Yet, it wasn't until high school that I was missing out on something. I was missing out on having a voice - an opinion. In high school I realized that I wanted to share my ideas. That I wanted to say something but I was afraid. But then one day something changed. I began to voice my ideas, my questions, and my observations. This change in me has shaped someone more confident in her work and in her ideas. It has made me believe in me.
bizkitgirlzc   
Mar 24, 2007
Writing Feedback / Vocabulary Composition [2]

Hi, I would like someone to check this for me please for grammar, spelling and wheteher I'm using the bolded (vocabulary) words correctly. It would be nice to know if the storyline was interesting or not.

____________________________________________________________ _____________

He was perfect - perfect in every sense of the word. Well...at least to us he was. It was so difficult to find someone so willing, so docile...so malleable. And he was. He was all these things. Getting a sleeper onto the throne was not an easy job. There were many requirements to fulfill so that our plan could work. It was an ambitious plan; it promised salvation to those in despair and despair to those who believed themselves promising. However, as promising as our plan seemed, it was difficult and dangerous. Firstly, our sleeper had to be royalty. It was unquestionable - no man could be emperor unless he had royal blood flowing through his veins. Yet, our sleeper did not have royal blood. So, with a flick of our wrists we made him a certificate of nobility. A simple piece of paper had converted him from a peasant into an eligible king. He had no name, so we gave him one - Amalric. We told him it was a fitting name for an Emperor, the name of a former King of Jerusalem. He did not protest.

When we first found Amalric he sold jewelry, sculptures...anything metal. And like the metal he shaped we found that he was shapeable as well. We had thought that molding him from a simpleton artesian into a refined lord would be difficult. We were wrong. Amalric was deliciously subservient. He followed our every word, our every step, our every action. He was a quick learner and an exceptional protégée. There were times when we wondered if he perhaps did have royalty in him. But of course he didn't, because if he did he would not have been so complacent, so quiet, and so obedient. Poor fool, for all his intelligence he was still simple minded. With all his knowledge he was still ignorant. With all his exposure he was still naïve. We had exposed him to a world of caprice - world of elegance and sophistication. And within that world we had exposed him to a world of corruption and perfidy. But he remained the same in being. Amalric was still the nameless artisan, unblemished by the world of power and politics. And that was why he was so perfect - he had no beliefs, no ideals, and no opinion. He was simple, susceptible to nothing political.

So now that we had our main pawn ready, a more difficult matter had to be faced - the true Emperor. Now the truth of the matter was the real emperor possessed no threat for he was on his death bed knocking at death's doors. Nevertheless, the real threat laid in his successor - a spoilt boy, a boy who held the world in the palm of his hand and could easily crush it with a clench of his fist. Just imagining that brat on the throne making decisions for the empire on the behalf of his whim made us squeamish. What would become of our country, our empire...our people? The idea of having no control over our nation was shook us sick to our very cores. We placed every bit of faith in our plan. We had faith in that false certificate that named Amalric first successor, relegating the brat back to where he had been. It was only a matter of time before we had our sleeping Amalric on the throne. The throne that belonged to that spoiled spoiled Henry the VII.
bizkitgirlzc   
Mar 11, 2007
Writing Feedback / All Quiet on the Western Front - Comradeship [2]

Please help me correct any mistakes my essay may have. Thank You!!!

There is a difference between friendship and comradeship. In friendship, individuality is praised; in comradeship, commonality. The distinction of the two is born out of the distinction of the circumstances. During peacetime there is friendship. Why? There is friendship because in peacetime there is a concentration in self-awareness, self-knowledge and all that surrounds oneself. Friendship is self-serving. But comradeship is not. Comradeship can only be born through hard times, wartime. Why? War creates comradeship simply because it destroys. It annihilates lives but it annihilates spirits as well. There is lose of identity in war and that common loss unites - it unites and emphasizes unity. That is comradeship. Friendship and comradeship demonstrate the two sides of human nature. Friendship represents human selfishness when times are good. Comradeship represents human altruism when times are tough - after all, it's better to despair together than to despair alone. In All Quiet on the Western Front, characters like Paul Baümer experience the importance of comradeship. Upon entering the war, Paul finds that camaraderie is the most important aspect of his life.

In war, there is reformation. There is change of perspective. What was once taken as propriety is dismissed. What was once considered vulgar is commended. This shift in behavior is explained when Paul comes to understand "latrine-rumor":

I well remembered how embarrassed we were as recruits...Since then we have learned better than to be shy about such trifling immodesties. In time things far worse than that came easy to us.

Here in the open air though, the business is entirely a pleasure. I no longer understand why we should always have shied at these things before. They are, in fact, just as natural as eating and drinking. (5)

The loss of embarrassment over trivial modesty is the starting point of comradeship. It is the beginning of oppressing self-awareness and promoting unity. Modesty promotes individuality. Lack of privacy promotes commonality - the path to camaraderie. Unity is an important factor of comradeship and in All Quiet on the Western Front it is enforced in different ways. The common resentment towards the older generation that many soldiers shared helped to strengthen their comradeship. Paul expresses "We had to recognize that our generation was more to be trusted than theirs. They surpassed us only in phrases and in cleverness." (8) That sentiment of betrayal only bound them more together. They realize that they can only trust themselves and this creates the reliance on one another that comradeship calls for. It becomes part of their being through the drill, the battle, and the war. They become comrades through their common cause - their common purpose. There is no patriotic fervor in their camaraderie - there is only commonality in their loss and in their pain. The militia calls for the renunciation of their very beings. They are now part of a machine that demands them to unite and loose their humanity. It demands them to not think, question, or believe - it demands them to simply do:

At first astonished, then embittered, and finally indifferent, we recognized that what matters is not the mind but the boot brush, not intelligence but the system, not freedom but drill. We became soldiers with eagerness and enthusiasm, but they have done everything to knock that out of us. (15)

It all becomes the process of their comradeship which helps them to adjust and survive throughout the war - "Kropp divides a cigarette and hands me half. Tjaden gives an account of his...broad-beans and bacon...Kat appears...he has two loaves of bread under his arm and a bloodstained sandbag full of horse-flesh in his hand."(27) This aiding of one another becomes of great importance in every soldier's life and Paul understands its significance more and more as the war proceeds. He understands that without the essence of individuality they are comrades - they are one in the same.

Comradeship is the ability to understand. It is not the ability to sympathize but to empathize with your fellow comrades. This is vital and Paul comes to see this when he deals with new recruits who are fresh to the war:

Beside us lies a fair-headed recruit in utter terror. He has buried his face in his hands...He looks up, pushes the helmet off and like a child creeps under my arm, his head close to my breast. The little shoulders heave. Shoulders just like Kemmerich's. I let him be. (41)

Paul comforts this new recruit and understands his suffering. In a similar situation, Paul and the others come to the aid of another recruit who seems to be on the brink of insanity during bombardment:

One of the recruits has a fit. I have been watching him for a long time, grinding his teeth and opening and shutting his fists. These hunted, protruding eyes, we know them too well...Though he raves and his eyes roll, it can't be helped, we have to give him a hiding to bring him to his senses. We do it quickly and mercilessly, and at last he sits down quietly. (73)

They must be cruel to be kind. Perhaps, it was not the most humane ways to comfort the new recruit, but comradeship is not about being humane. It is about aiding and understanding. Comradeship is profound understanding and this is seen when Paul and Kat have caught a goose to roast:

We don't talk much, but I believe we have a more complete communion with one another than even lovers have. We are two men, two minute sparks of life; outside is the night and the circle of death... What does he know of me or I of him? Formerly we should not have had a single thought in common-now we...are so intimate that we do not even speak. (64)

The intimacy between comrades is unique and platonic. It is a relationship Paul comes to experience with Kat and the rest of his comrades. He -knows them - "I know their every step and movement; I would recognize them at any distance." (101) He knows them because he is them. It is their comradeship that makes him who he is and that is why camaraderie is the most important part of his life.

No one survives war. Those who do not perish physically, perish emotionally and psychologically. With this loss, there is also a loss of comfort in what once was consoling in the past. The only consoling for a war torn soul is the comfort comradeship offers. Paul realizes this after having been on leave and seeing his comrades again - "I could almost weep. I can hardly control myself any longer. But it will soon be all right again back here with Kat and Albert. This is where I belong." (130) Paul's comrades are who inspire him to live, to fight for his life. Without them, Paul would not have felt the need to keep on fighting. This is seen when Paul hears the voice of his comrades when he has lost his nerve:

At once a new warmth flows through me. These voices, these quiet words, these footsteps in the trench behind me recall me at a bound from the terrible loneliness and fear of death by which I had been almost destroyed. They are more to me than life, these voices, they are more than motherliness and more than fear; they are the strongest, most comforting thing there is anywhere: they are the voices of my comrades. (137)

He finds the voice of his fellow soldiers reassuring. This motivates him to keep on fighting. This is the beauty that is seen in comradeship. The will to live is built on the foundation of camaraderie and on the dependence upon one another. There is no selfishness in camaraderie:

I am no longer a shuddering speck of existence, alone in the darkness;-I belong to them and they to me; we all share the same fear and the same life, we are nearer than lovers, in a simpler, a harder way; I could bury my face in them, in these voices, these words that have saved me and will stand by me. (138)

There is only harmony, unity, and endless companionship. There is infinite empathy and the redeeming desire to live. The bond between comrades is one greater than that of family. It is much more powerful. Paul experiences this when he tries to save Kat and fails - the orderly is perplexed at Paul's desperate need to save Kat:

The orderly is mystified. "You are not related, are you?"
No, we are not related. No, we are not related. (184)
The bond in camaraderie flows deeper than blood. It something that Paul comes to understand at Kat's death. To him Kat was the world; to the orderlies, another number. Comradeship is the nucleus of Paul's life throughout the war. It is his reason for fighting, for living, for existing.

For Paul, the war meant renouncing to all that he was and all that he could have been. The intensity of war and the situations paved the path to the comradeship that would save Paul's life and desire to live. Paul came to know camaraderie as the most significant part of his existence. Upon entering the war, Paul lost his individuality but gained commonality.
bizkitgirlzc   
Feb 25, 2007
Writing Feedback / All Quiet On the Western Front - academic essay on Betrayal [2]

Please help me with my essay!

Betrayal is truth that clings. It is a truth that is so painful that it clutches on to the mind, soul, and heart. Deep disappointment and agonizing anguish comes with this betrayal. It is the betrayal that discredits false ideals and harbors empty hopes. In All Quiet on the Western Front, youths like Paul Baümer must deal with the disillusion they feel towards what they were taught to believe in. Once Paul and his fellow classmates are shipped off to war, he and the others learn that they have been betrayed on all fronts.

Teachers who cultivate the minds of the young and fuel their insatiable ideals become the primary objects of resentment for young soldiers in All Quiet on the Western Front. It is a resentment produced by the lies that teachers fed their students. Depictions of romanticized death in glorifying battle and of the chivalry of soldiers in combat, fighting for their motherland was what they would sermonize. They were sermons of false passions. While at the front, Paul reflects back on his instructor, Kantorek, who knew nothing of war but still sent mere innocents to their deaths:

Kantorek had been our schoolmaster... [He] gave us long lectures until the whole of our class went under his shepherding to the District Commandant and volunteered. I can see him now, as he used to glare at us through his spectacles and say in a moving voice:

"Won't you join up, Comrades?"(7)
It isn't long till the students that enlisted find themselves realizing that they had been deceived. They had been deceived by the older generation who failed to explain that war was not about glory or idealism but about crude survival - "The first bombardment showed us our mistake, and under it the world as they had taught it to us broke in pieces."(8) Educators like Kantorek betrayed the image that their students had for them once they came face-to-face with the reality of war:

The idea of authority, which they represented, was associated in our minds with a greater insight and a more humane wisdom. But the first death we saw shattered this belief. (8)

Teachers, in their ignorance, spoke easily about the war believing they understood it better than the soldiers. Claims of understanding the war as a 'whole' were part of the older generation's rationale. This is seen when Paul comes back to his hometown after one year of enlistment and encounters a head-master:

He dismisses the idea loftily and informs me I know nothing about it [the war]. "The details, yes," says he, "but this relates to the whole. And of that you are not able to judge. You see only your little sector and so cannot have any general survey..." (109)

Yet, Paul and his fellow comrades manage to forgive their former teachers for their empty promises and false assumptions. Paul explains this when he speaks of how deeply those like Kantorek had disappointed them because of their easier-said-than-done preaching:

Naturally we couldn't blame Kantorek for this. Where would the world be if one brought every man to book? There were thousands of Kantoreks, all of whom were convinced that they were acting for the best-in a way that cost them nothing. (8)

Ironically enough Paul gets to see Kantorek as a home guard running under the orders of a former student. Seeing Kantorek in ridicule, as if punished by fate, gives Paul a certain amusing satisfaction:

Mittelstaedt stops in front of him: "Territorial Kantorek, do you call those buttons polished? You seem as though you can never learn. Inadequate, Kantorek, quite inadequate--"

It makes me bubble with glee. In school Kantorek used to chasten Mittelstaedt with exactly the same expression-"Inadequate, Mittelstaedt, quite inadequate."(114)
Mittelstaedt, one of the many deceived soldiers, did not hesitate to take advantage of accosting Kantorek. It was out of the resentment towards the older generation for misleading them, for manipulating them and for failing them.

Among the betrayals of their elders is the very army they enlist in. They believe that they are joining to fight for their country. What they do not realize is that they are joining to fight for their government. For Paul and his classmates, this fact did not dawn upon them until after they become soldiers. This is revealed in a conversation they have when they ask themselves about the war:

"Then what exactly is the war for?" asks Tjaden.
Kat shrugs his shoulders. "There must be some people to whom the war is useful."
... "There are other people back behind there who profit by the war, that's certain," growls Detering. (133-134)
Their heads are so full of romantic portrayals when they first arrive that it becomes no surprise that they feel betrayed when the y experience military life. One of the first demonstrations of betrayal that the army shows is when it comes to food. In one instance the sergeant-cook, Ginger, displays bureaucratic behavior towards the soldiers when he serves them saying that "Eighty men can't have what is meant for a hundred and fifty."(3) This angers many of the soldiers seeing how he will not be charitable in dividing the surplus food among them. One soldier, Tjaden, tells Ginger that "It doesn't cost you anything! Anyone would think the quartermaster's store belonged to him!"(4) The fact that the army refuses to be generous with its own soldiers is another deception for Paul's generation. Thus, they are forced to seek other methods of getting better food and improving their conditions - namely through a more experienced soldier, Katczinsky:

For example, we land at night in some entirely unknown spot, a sorry hole, that has been eaten out to the very walls...There are beds in it, or rather bunks-a couple of wooden beams over which wire netting is stretched. Wire netting is hard. And there's nothing to put on it...Kat has found a horse-box with straw in it. Now we might sleep... (26)

But then there is also the shamelessness of the army when it comes to other things as well such as when the army hands out its soldiers new uniforms for the Kaiser's visit - "To make matters worse, we have to return almost all the new things and take back our old rags again. The good ones were merely for the inspection."(134) There is also the cold indifference of the army medics that adds to the betrayal of the Army. In the case of Paul's friend Franz Kemmerich, the neglect of medical attention is seen - "The doctor passes by Kemmerich's bed without once looking at him." They don't care about Kemmerich's life, in fact it would seem as if they would prefer him dead:

Hospital-orderlies go to and fro with bottles and pails. One of them comes up, casts a glance at Kemmerich and goes away again. You can see he is waiting, apparently he wants the bed. (20)

Instead of looking at Kemmerich as a person, they simply see him as another patient, another number, another statistic. These injured soldiers who sought compassion received indifference. When Kemmerich is about to die, Paul finds himself devastated to find a doctor who will help him yet none seem to care even the slightest about his friend's health:

"Come quick, Franz Kemmerich is dying."
"Which will that be?"
"Bed 26, amputated thigh."
"How should I know anything about it, I've amputated five legs to-day..." (21)
Paul is enraged by the behavior of the doctors and feels only further let down. The falsities of chivalry that were painted for these former students further disintegrate when they encounter the abuse of power from higher ranking officials. Examples of this abuse in power are seen in the figure of Corporal Himmelstoss. Himmelstoss is often cruel to the young soldiers and takes out his own insecurities on to them. Under his regiment, he often makes the soldiers do insignificant tasks solely to torment them:

I have remade his bed fourteen times in one morning. Each time he had some fault to find and pulled it to pieces. I have kneaded a pair of prehistoric boots that were as hard as iron for twenty hours...until they became as soft as butter...I have scrubbed out the Corporals' Mess with a tooth-brush. (15)

Similar to Kantorek, Himmelstoss eventually falls into some twisted course of fate and goes from teaching basic training to having to participate directly in combat. To say the least, this brings a revengeful joy out of many of the soldiers - "Beaming with satisfaction he stammers out: 'Himmelstoss is on his way. He's coming to the front!'"(31) Along with the abuse of power there is also the suffering of neglect from the State. The neglect of the State obligates the soldiers to have to endure fatal accidents due to obsolete weaponry:

After we have been in the dug-outs two hours our own shells begin to fall in the trench...If it were simply a mistake in aim no one would say anything, but the truth is that the barrels are worn out. The shots are often so uncertain that they land within our own lines. To-night two of our men were wounded by them. (67)

Throughout everything that these young soldiers must undergo, their perspective of the world they thought they knew completely changes. They realize that war is not romantic and that the army simply trains for them to put on a show of valor - "We had fancied our task would be different, only to find we were to be trained for heroism as though we were circus-ponies."(15) In the war's ruthlessness, soldiers come to terms with reality. As students they were taught ideals; as soldiers, truth.

In learning truth, Paul and his comrades feel betrayed by their own people as well. They feel that they have been deceived by their friends, their families...their loved ones. Paul understands that the betrayal of the civilians is out of ignorance also. It is that same ignorance that led many parents to push their sons onto the path of death. Those soldiers like Joseph Behm who Paul recalls did not want to fight but was forced to do so:

There was, indeed, one of us who hesitated and did not want to fall into line. That was Joseph Behm, a plump, homely fellow. But he did allow himself to be persuaded, otherwise he would have been ostracized. And perhaps more of us thought as he did, but no one could very well stand out, because at that time even one's parents were ready with the word "coward"; no one had the vaguest idea what we were in for. (7)

These civilians, these poor ignorant fools who lived blissfully in their ignorance - they believed they understood but they couldn't. They could not understand the war on the level that the soldier did. Paul comes to acknowledge this when he visits his home during leave:

They understand of course, they agree, they may even feel it so too, but only with words, only with words, yes, that is it-they feel it, but always with only half of themselves, the rest of their being is taken up with other things, they are so divided in themselves that none feels it with his whole essence...(110)

And in their ignorance, they did not realize that they troubled the soldiers with their absurd questions and constant talk of war. Paul feels the irritation in this when his mother questions him:

Suddenly my mother seizes hold of my hand and asks falteringly: "Was it very bad out there, Paul?"
Mother, what should I answer to that! You would not understand, you could never realize it. (105)
These sorts of questions asked in civilian ignorance made soldiers like Paul feel betrayed in the sense that they had trusted this older generation to know what the war would be like. Yet, here in the midst of the war, this older generation who had pushed them toward false notions had no idea of the war's true horrors. They constantly talked and talked about the war and did not realize that on some level, it disturbed the soldiers. During his leave, Paul feels uncomfortable with the constant talk of the war:

I prefer to be alone, so that no one troubles me. For they all come back to the same thing, how badly it goes and how well it goes; one thinks it is this way, another that; and yet they are always absorbed in the things that go to make up their existence. (110)

The civilians see the war as if it were something on the side of their lives - it is not a part of them. The war was not part of the civilian as it was part of the soldier. It was the older generation that started the war and it was their younger generation that had to fight it. And this is why the youths that were sent off to the war felt betrayed. They felt betrayed because their parents pushed them towards the war and then used them as trophies. Paul's father tries to use his son in this manner and without regarding Paul's feelings:

But my father would rather I kept my uniform on so that he could take me to visit his acquaintances.
But I refuse. (107)
These disappointed youths that were misled into believing that the war would glory, honor, and an act of patriotism were exposed to the truth of the war. It was a war of State caprice and the treachery of the older generation.

Ultimately, it is the disappointment that makes the world of the soldier difficult. It is difficult because it is unlike anything they imagined. What they imagined had been sickly twisted into a truth that was so painful that it gripped their very beings. It was the truth of betrayal - the betrayal of their mentors, their militia, and their people. In All Quiet on the Western Front, young innocents are ruthlessly betrayed on all fronts.
Need Writing or Editing Help?
Fill out one of these forms:

Graduate Writing / Editing:
GraduateWriter form ◳

Best Essay Service:
CustomPapers form ◳

Excellence in Editing:
Rose Editing ◳

AI-Paper Rewriting:
Robot Rewrite ◳

Academic AI Writer:
Custom AI Writer ◳