Go Pick On Someone Your Own Size!

The debate today turned out quite interesting. First and foremost I would like to point out the fact that you, Mr. Beddingfield, changed your position a tad bit today. On Friday you said that you were going for the book being banned from all schools and today you were leaning towards it being praised over other books by teaching it in a classroom setting. I feel as though the debate was just beginning to pick up and we weren't able to express all of our great ideas/points with the time given. It was especially difficult given the fact that everyone gathered their own information and we had a limited time to decipher which point would best represent our position. Plus, everyone was throwing ideas left and right so that sorta put a lot of pressure on us to represent the entire class as a whole. You, on the other hand, were able to represent yourself and all of your brilliant ideas independently making it much more easier and concise. 

But if it makes you feel any better, you beat a bunch of teenagers in the debate.

To improve this activity in the future, I think that we should be allowed more time to review all of our ideas with our classmates. You should also not ease drop in our conversation prior to the debate. Oh and you should split the class in half instead. I find that more fair.

That is all.

Literature has left me speechless

The review that I liked, enjoyed, and agreed with the most was the one by T.S. Eliot ... Obviously! And no, its not just because that was the article that I was assigned. I find that Eliot's perspective and ideas about the book was quite interesting and agreeable. For starters, it is a masterpiece. I mean think about it: A whole book was written just to argue if Huck, one of the characters in The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, was black (Shelly Fisher Fishkin). That's pretty BOSS if you ask me!

Eliot does a great job with talking about all of the major aspects of the novel. He right away mentions the boy and the river (two key symbols) and states that they are what makes the book great. One of the key ideas that Eliot talked about that stood out to me was Huck's point of view. Twain wrote the novel so that the audience would see it through Huck's eyes. This did indeed give it a more realistic feel. His comparison of the two characters, Tom and Huck, were also quite interesting. Tom is said to have imagination while Huck has vision. This is the result of all the books that Tom has read and Huck's expedite to mature and think as an adult ("unlike other boys, he has to bear the responsibility of a man"). What I really loved about Eliot's article was when he characterized that Huck was a passive observer and Jim was a submissive sufferer. There are many instances in the novel where Huck would just sort of sit in the background when there's action going on and Jim suffering because of that. For example: Huck knew that the Duke and the Dauphin were not who they claimed to be and were very malicious people. However, he just went with the flow and that eventually led to Jim being sold to Silas Phelps. Eliot also talks about how Twain's way of writing lets you experience the river rather than just hear about it. It is a "dictator to the raft/steamboat" that controls the voyage of Huck and Jim. He concludes the article by stating that the novel's ending simply just disappears. There's no tragic or happy ending, it just ends with "I been there before." This reinforces the idea of letting people judge things for themselves similiar to how Huck allows the world to judge him rather than he judge it himself.

I've come to the conclusion that this novel is indeed a masterpiece. I'm with all of the critics out there that have positively commented on it! Yes it has been a century long controversial novel, but I think that's what's so great about it. There are so many formed opinions, ideas, and views of this novel from so many great literary people that it just can't be ignored. When Twain wrote this book, we can all assume that he did not intend for it to become such a hit as it has. Like Huck, his novel was quite innocent and he wrote it the way that HE believed a child would have given the same circumstances.

Just remember that at the end of the day, it is just a book. Go easy on the guy! He's dead for god's sake, he no longer has a voice. Two thumbs up for the awesome packet that Mr. Beddginfield has put together for us. I'm overwhelmed by all these mind blowing reviews that I no longer have anything to say.

The 5-Year-Old Screenwriter Of "Fast Five"

http://www.theonion.com/video/today-now-interviews-the-5yearold-screenwriter-of,20188/

This video is Today Now!'s interview of the 5-year-old-screenwriter of "Fast Five." Judging from it's title, you can already tell that this video is not entirely true or at least there's something fishy about it. Obviously Chris Morgan was not the real screenwriter of "Fast Five." He's a kindergartner for god's sake! This, however, pokes fun at the movie's simplicity. It may even be suggesting that the story line is so simple even a kid can write it when Jim says, "Now I understand that the movie pretty much stays 100% true to your original script." Note that it says he spent a whole DAY working on the script which is written in crayon ... (cue laughter) Hahaha! Tracy even asks when Chris was writing this were there certain elements that he wanted to include. He replies with, "I want the cars to drive fast and some to explode." Wow, what a complex idea. (See what I did there? Haha!) She then proceeds to talk about the return of Jordana Brewster in which Chris replies "She's a girl and she likes to kiss so she doesn't play with the cars, but sometimes she does; mostly just the boys." She comments by saying, "All the female characters are so strong!" This part of the video pokes fun at how woman are portrayed in this movie and their subordinate roles to men. They are basically just a bunch of "boy toys" next to cars. Next, Jim asks Chris is there any chance that he'll be seeing another Fast & Furious sequel to which Chris replies, "Yes, 600!" Now c'mon guys, what movie have you seen has 600 sequels!? Quite frankly, that's ridiculous impossible. The point they're trying to get at is that there's one too many sequels as if there's no end to it. And before the interview is over, he ends up falling asleep in his chair.

You can pretty much tell that this video is faux from the tone of the speaker's voice. For me, I sensed the sarcasm when they were appraising the movie and talking about how "great" it was. There was also some over-exaggeration which sealed the deal. Oh and did you guys pay attention to the yellow box at the bottom of the screen while the interview was going on? Um, so sarcastic! Instead of coming out and saying how they really feel, they made this video. "Why?" you must ask. Well for starters it's freaking hilarious! Way better than sitting here listening to someone rant about something. On a more serious level though, comedy is a great median for authors to connect with their audiences. By bringing down the seriousness of the subject, it is easier for the audience to relate to and take in the information presented.

[Insert clever title here]

Dear Mark Twain,

Although I've heard a lot about you, I haven't read any of your novels up until now. I must say that you are indeed an excellent writer. Your novel Huckleberry Finn is quite an impressive piece of work. It comes off as a simple story about a boy named Huck and his adventures down a river, but it is sooo much deeper than that (as expected). Props to you for creating layers upon layers upon layers of symbols, themes, and motifs in this novel. Its so "deep" that I don't know what to do with it or where to start. Well, maybe I do ..

So I know you've probably been asked this a lot, but what really motivated you to write a novel such as this one using the language that you did? Moreover, what is your personal take on the "N" word? It is easy to see how this novel can become the center of controversy amongst readers and writers, but more props to you for being different and really challenging the literary world. I mean someone had to do it (eventually). Anywho, back to the novel.

I must say, so far so good. Although the dialect gets a little hard to read sometimes, it really puts a nice touch to the novel. I really like the concept that you have going on as well; how Huck and Jim (two totally different classes of people) are running away from their problems by traveling down the river of freedom together. They both have their own problems and reasons for running away, but as they spend more and more time together on the raft it seems to me as though they've come together as one. As if to say that they're not that different from each other at all. This leads me to think of the raft as a symbol of unity. See?? Now THAT'S deep!

Other opinions about Huckleberry Finn, hmm .. Well I kind of also feel as though it's a bit contradicting. Or at least Huck is. There's constant battles between what's good, bad, right, wrong, so on and so forth. It really gets me thinking about what is the right thing to do? For example, turn Jim in because (according to society) that's the right thing to do or keep him because he's my friend. No kid should have to make decisions like that, but Huck was forced to which brings about his more mature side. From pulling pranks on Jim to finally standing up for what he believe is right, Huck has really grown as a character which makes the novel a Bildungsroman. Your characters are undoubtedly very round.

As far as criticism is concerned, I sort of feel like certain events in the novel were "staged". What are the odds of the dauphin encountering someone who talks about a recently deceased man leaving behind a large lump sum of money? And what are the odds that he has sent for his two brothers that lives in a different country? It's far too coincidental to my liking. And the way the two con artists pull off their tricks so easily ... What is this, the tragedy of Othello!? Hahaha. No, but overall I'm really enjoying your novel. I'm so looking forward to writing more blogs about you and your novel. Thanks man.

Sincerely,
Sandy Nguyen

To Be Or Not To Be

As the novel progresses, Huck and Jim also progresses (down the river, that is). It seems to me as though with every pit stop that they make, we are placed in scenarios in which we unravel more and more of Huck as a person. It's almost as if layers are being added onto his character as he journeys down the river. The river is a symbol within itself. For Huck and Jim, it represents a path towards freedom. However, all the situations that they've encountered so far has been negative and seems to only get worse with every pit stop they make. This novel reminds me of Joseph Conrad's "Heart of Darkness" and how the Congo River was the key to Africa for the Europeans.

Although the duke and the dauphin appear to just be comical characters on the surface of the novel, I picked up a deeper reading from them. First off, they aren't necessarily what we consider "good people." They lie, cheat, steal, and rip people off for their money. Speaking of "ripping people off" .. When the two attempts to put on a nice show called the "Shaksperean Revival" it fails miserably so they end up putting on two, short shows and running off with the money the third time around. I took this scene as them trying to make money the moral way which doesn't work out so they end up turning back to their old, thieving ways. This leads to the fact that nearly everything and/or everyone that Huck encounters so far has been portrayed negatively; this possibly depicts the hardships of life.

A guy that acts as a drunk wanting to ride on a horse turns out to be a performer in the circus. Can this be a depiction of how thin the line is between what's real and what's fake? Oh and what about the man, Sherburn, who shoots an innocent drunk? His actions seem to be unvigilant, but his mind seems to be very bright judging from his thoughtful speeches. It's all so contradicting and hypocritical; a constant battle between good and bad, right and wrong.

Confused yet? Because everyone is this novel seems to be! The fact that the duke and the dauphin use the death of Peter Wilks to collect money shows us how morally messed up society really is. It presents to us a "new low" as if the novel isn't messed enough as it is already.

Ho, I'm dead!

ACT IV


By this time in the play, Iago is able to add circumstantial evidence to Othello's case against Desdemona. The evidence being the handkerchief that Othello gave to her as a symbol of his love. To Othello it symbolizes Desdemona because just like how Cassio is in possession of the handkerchief, Othello believes he possesses her as well. Because it was woven by a female prophet using sacred materials and his mother used it to keep his father faithful, it may also suggest one's innocence/fidelity. The fact that Bianca was flinging it at Cassio just as Othello was looking on seemt a bit "scripted" if you know what I mean. Can we say good timing? Iago's beautifully evil plan falls into place and the belief that Desdemona has slept with other men and is the "whore of Venice" prevents him from being moved by her words. When ordered to her room, she brings up Lodivico's attractiveness which leads the conversation to the thought of infidelity which reveals their true colors. Desdemona proves to be the woman that Othello wants as his wife; someone who is faithful and cherishes her chasity. Emilia, on the other hand, takes infidelity very lightly and even suggests that Desdemona go and find someone who can keep her happy. The dramatic irony most memorable in this act is the scene in which Emilia states that the villain who made her husband think she was cheating on him with Othello may be the same man that is deceiving him. The irony in this is that the "villain" is her own husband, Iago.

Dun dun dunnn!


ACT V


I must admit that Iago's plan was quite impressive. However, as with any other tragedy, it doesn't quite work out leading to his downfall and own unmasking. This occurs after the death of Desdemona when Othello and Emilia are in his bedroom discussing the motives for his action. Here, the handkerchief is brought up and Emilia proceeds to tell him the true story behind how Cassio got it from Iago who got it from her. Othello finally realizes the truth and falls weeping as Iago's villainy begins to unmask itself. In my opinion, Othello killed Desdemona out of jealousy and a wish to be a public avenger who punishes. He couldn't live bearing the thought of his wife sleeping with other men, or his men at that. To imagine her giving Cassio what he gave her was what really enraged Othello to the point of murder. He may have also killed her so that she won't be able to sleep with anyone else which can lead back to jealousy; if he can't have her then no one can. To call himself "one that loved not wisely but too well" can mean one of several different things. He can simply be describing himself as someone who falls in love quickly without any second thoughts. In other words, he was someone who loved too much and wasn't wise about it. Othello's speech towards the end was very powerful for it was his last. You can never forget about something that has already happened; especially a fault because no one is perfect, but it may be safe to say that he succeeded in restoring his original dignity and nobility. In the end Othello understood/admitted to his faults and like a true man, he suffered his own consequence-death. It is true what Cassio said, "He was a man great of heart."

Love, Marriage, Death

Since you have failed to give us a topic to blog about, let's go on a ranting rampage!

O-freaking-thello! Why so gullible, huh? This play has been so dramatic that it kind of reminds me of Korean dramas. You know .. The typical "I know what's going to happen, but then again maybe I don't why are you doing this" type of thing. You wanna know what really urks my nerves though? IAGU! That guy, I swear .. Now I see why you said some people now refer to bad guys in literature as an Iagu. He's the epitome of all things evil. I've heard of someone being two-faced before, but Iagu no-doubtly already topped that. I must admit though, he does have a way with words. He's pretty good for a guy that knows nothing outside of war and fighting. Its almost as if he's a little philosopher. Haha! As for Desdemona, she's starting to become a real round character. She definitely knows how to stand up for herself and let her voice be heard; especially with the Cassio issue. Othello, how I wish you were wiser for a man of your position! I certainly feel pathos towards these two lovers knowing that their failure in marriage is inevitable. 

Oh Shakespeare, why you gotta be so deep man?