The valley of ashes and T.S. Elliot's The Hollow Men

Compare the "valley of ashes," described at the beginning of chapter 2 in The Great Gatsby, with Part 3 of T.S. Eliot's  poem, The Hollow Men. Include evidence from the text

The valley of ashes from The Great Gatsby and T.S. Elliot's The Hollow Men describe many of the same images and give an overwhelming feel of misery, loneliness, and helplessness. "This is the dead land, This is the cactus land" from the poem and Nick Caraway's description of the shambled town compliment one another. In the book, the valley of ashes is described as "a fantastic farm where ashes grow like wheat into ridges and hills and grotesque gardens." By reading this, I got a feeling of loneliness and nothingness, or at least nothing there but ash and soot. The same goes for The Hollow Men. The only thing that is visible in this macabre battlefield is death, and the only form of greenery or other life are cactus plants. "Under the twinkle of a fading star" from the poem, explains the pitiful and helpless state that the soldiers are in. In Gatsby, the line on page 23: "... of men who move dimly and already crumbling in the powdery air.", shows that the people of the valley of ashes are simply rotting away, and the last thing that they will see is the smokey, "powdery air" that drifts about them eternally. 

The terrifying truth about income inequality

What information about income inequality surprised or disturbed you the most? Explore some reasons why you think this information surprised or disturbed you.

While watching the short movie on the unequal distribution of wealth in America, there was one particular fact that disturbed me. When it was made clear that the 1% of Americans make 50% of the entire nations money. To make it even clearer, a complete half of the U.S.'s money is going to the smallest percentage that hail here. The people that make this are movie/music stars, politicians, and other jobs that would earn one a recognizable title and an abundant salary. The only startling part of this is that this much money is given to such a small portion of the citizens. To relate this to the American Dream, I feel it couldn't be any further from the original goal. The goal was to make everyone's wealth equal. This shows how things are easier said than done, and how optimistic and wishful thinking may increase people's hopes for the future, but may not be very realistic. Personally, I think that the American Dream is a wonderful concept, and many would thrive from it, except, it is quite confusing at the same time. After listening to this video, I had two primary questions. If someone with no work ethic is poor because of their laziness (which is not always the case), should they still receive payment for doing nothing?  If someone has worked hard throughout their years and accomplished amazing things, should they receive an incomprehensibly large paycheck? I think that the small percentage that have accomplished more than others  should definitely be payed significantly more than someone who has not accomplished the things they have, but to hand that small group of people an entire half of the nations money is completely ridiculous. 

ELA class review

Ever since I was little I've always enjoyed a good story. I was pleased to find that this year, every book that has been assigned was exciting, thoughtful, or unique from any book I have ever read. I have yet to find one that's interested me so much that I would call any of them my favorite, but, they were very entertaining. The books were indeed, very enjoyable, but I found it quite hard to question the story or annotate things that particularly stood out. I found myself taking quite a long time to come up with a good question to write in the book. Perhaps, we wouldn't have to annotate, but go back to the methods we used last year, which was to simply write a question on the board for seminar. I do agree that it would take a while to get through everyone's question, but we could still save them for another time. The students who didn't read the book would still be noticeable because they wouldn't have very intricate things to say about the chapters. Aside from this, I think that the ELA class should stay the same in every aspect except for the annotations. I have always enjoyed my time in this class, and I am excited for the next reading. 

Odysseus' nostos

Analyze the purpose of all of the violence in books 22-24. Do you think that this is necessary for Odysseus' successful nostos? Why or why not?

I had mixed emotions about Odysseus' nostos. He did go through 10 years of monsters, witches, sirens, storms and other various forms of mayhem, only to come home to several men harassing his wife and plotting to murder his son. He definitely has a right to be angry, and gathering that he is a great and mighty hero who is favored by one of the most powerful goddesses on Mount Olympus, his reputation exemplifies his possible bloodlust during situations like these. Also, this book was based back in Ancient Greece, which means the majority of female characters in Greek mythology were described as either obedient housewives or magical sex-symbols (minus most of the goddesses on Mount Olympus). Odysseus fell victim to the charm of many of these women. Calypso, Circe and the sirens all thwarted Odysseus on his journey back to Ithaca. Keeping in mind that it was a man who wrote this book in Ancient Greece, Homer probably wanted to keep the male characters stronger than the women. This is why I think it may have been necessary for Odysseus to claim his nostos by slaughtering everyone and ending strong, instead of coming home, tired and weak after his ordeals. Although this is only one side of the argument, I also felt that Odysseus could have fulfilled his nostos without the blood and gore.

On the anti-violence side of things, I think it would have made more sense if Odysseus simply murdered the suitors, and spared all of the innocents. The maids received the worst of it all. If Odysseus was supposed to be the protagonist, I would think of him as kind and compassionate. By executing the maids, my image of this character shattered like glass. I understand that Odysseus might feel betrayed by the maids since they chose to serve the men who came into his home and harassed his wife, but in the end, what were the maids to do? They were maids, not queens. The maids may have been the lowest of the low in terms of the palace-dwellers. They aren't really maids at all, they are slaves. They live to serve. They would have (most likely) been killed anyway, if they denied service to the suitors. Things may have been different if the suitors were women. People seemed to be a bit more lenient towards women bickering with other women in literature of this time. Yet, if a woman talked back to a man during this time period, especially a slave like they were, it simply wasn't heard of, and probably wasn't taken lightly either. In other words, I'm not quite sure if Odysseus' actions should be labeled as correct or not. There are so many things that justify both sides of the argument.    

Xenia in the Odyssey

Xenia, or, simple hospitality is shown in every single home that's been described in the Odyssey (except for the cyclops). Telemachus visits both Menelaus, and Nestor's households. On page 45 (book 4), Menelaus has Telemachus and Mentor (Athena in disguise) to join a massive feast complete with maids that lathered them down in various oils, dressed them in furs, and then served them a silver tray, filled with water that had been poured from a golden pitcher so they could wash their hands before eating. On page 42 (book 3), Telemachus was bathed in oils by Nestor's youngest daughter. She then dressed him in lavish robes, and he was then sent forth to take a seat by Nestor himself. 

Telemachus' father, Odysseus received similar treatments. Calypso, the nymph daughter of Poseidon, obsesses over Odysseus and sort of holds him captive on her island paradise. On page 74 (book 5), when Calypso goes to give Odysseus to Hermes, e book mentions that Odysseus had been reluctantly having intercourse with the nymph. Even if it was unwanted, she still treated him with the greater fineries that the world outside of the island had to offer. Before this, Calypso seats Hermes in her cave, which is fragrant with different nature-based perfumes. After escaping Calypso, Odysseus comes across the lotus eaters (book 9, page 127). These people give Odysseus and his men some lotus flowers to eat, which may not seem like much, but, it is really an intoxicating drug that puts the consumer in a state of ecstasy. Circe, the witch/goddess ( book 10, page 154) has her unsuspecting male guests bathed in oils and clothed in fleecy garments. 

Why does The Odyssey start out with Telemachus' journeys instead of his father's?

The first four books of The Odyssey are known as the "Telemachy," as they introduce us to the voyage of Odysseus' adolescent son, Telemachus. Why do you think that The Odyssey begins with this story, and what are the most important things that we learn about Telemachus?

I believe the book starts off this way because Telemachus has to find his father, Odysseus, for whom this book is written for. Odysseus has to come back some how, and since he seems to be caught under some sort of love enchantment/spell with the nymph, Calypso, I don't think he will be completely available to continue the rest of his Kleos and then his Nostos without being given a small bit of assistance. Aside from this, we learn more about Telemachus and his personality. He is a young adult, who has yet to recognize it. He is constantly degrading himself and throwing mini- tantrums when he is in any sort of dilemma or something doesn't go his way. Now, these actions aren't very surprising coming from the spoiled, rich, and slightly bratty child of the Queen and King figure of an entire city in Ancient Greece. Having read this much about Telemachus and his few encounters with people outside of his palace back home  makes me wonder about how long he may last during his  journey to rescue his father.  

Living in a video game.

I don't play video games very often. I have never been very good at finding my way through cyber space land where my main goal is to shoot people, grab coins, or win a car race. Yet, I have always marveled at these different cyber-worlds that you (the gamer) would explore. Since I have never been very good at playing them, I usually watch others do it, giving me plenty of time to think about the setting, characters, and effort that was put into making the entire thing. I do remember one day, my friends were talking about "how cool it would be to live in a video game!" I, however, hold a completely different opinion.

 Life would be completely awful if one lived in a video game. If I was a video game character and my game is opening up for the first time on someone's screen, I would begin by begging the player to actually do a good job. If he or she is a total failure at video games, I would be the one character in the game that glitches all of the time, telling them to just hand the game over to someone that will win. The majority of video games made today involves death in a horribly slow and painful way. It seems like the only way to actually fail a level is to fall of a cliff, get shot, get eaten, set on fire, etc. Take a character like Mario for example. It is a pretty harmless game, but, you have to pass through 12 or so worlds that range from awkwardly happy and dangerous to extremely dark, shady, and dangerous. All to rescue a ditzy princess who will just get kidnapped again in the next game. If you pass through these worlds, great, that means you gotten passed the singing turtles, enraged mushrooms, murderous venus flytraps, and all of the cliffs and pitfalls. You wouldn't even have to be a main character to have a completely horrible life. 

 Even if I was an unimportant character in the game. One that could quietly slip in and out of my cyber-space realm without being noticed, I would still have a horrible time. Simply because I would have to travel into another land, pass through all of those levels without dying, just to get to my location. Every place you go, you are in some form of danger. Buying a house in a video game land would be completely out of the question. Considering that the majority of the time would be spent running away or hiding from dragons, aliens, natural disasters, assassins/ hit men, and various mythical creatures, simply to walk across the street or travel somewhere. So, to sum this post up in a few words is to say that if someone feels like a video game would be in any way a normal living condition, they wouldn't last an hour without gunpowder, magical swords, or a force field.