Social commentary in "Great Expectations" by Charles Dickens.

If we were to go back 150 years in history the technology, social norms, and vernacular language that people use would be drastically different than today. Charles Dickens brings us back to that world in his book "Great Expectations." The book tells the story of Phillip Pirrip, otherwise known as "Pip", and his rise from a humble apprentice blacksmith to a gentleman aided by a mysterious patron. The settings of this book range from a small village in england were Pip is brought up, to the big city of London. Aside from involving a plethora of different settings, this book contains characters of varying social status, and temperaments. The author comments on social norms profusely, devoting whole paragraphs to it. And one thing that I perceived was that, although this book takes place in 19th century england, people's misdirected attitudes towards certain things have not changed in the last few centuries.

For example, one area in which people's attitudes haven't changed is the way they view speaking to children. In the book, Pip's adult older sister is very mean to him. She complains about him to no end, saying that, "He was", referring to Pip, "A squeaker." She also speaks to him in a "Reproachful voice." In addition to his sister degrading him, other adults degrade Pip, saying that the young are, "Naturally ungrateful", since his sister brought him up and they perceive that he is ungrateful to his sister even though they're is no solid evidence of this. They speak of him in a degrading way without thinking about the consequence and without restraint, similar to the way many people speak to their children today. I'm sure that we've all heard a children being chewed out by their parents, while the child sits helplessly doing nothing. This reflects a lack of change in parenting, or child rearing. Parents still overreact and chew out their children and also degrade them in public. They also expect them to respect them while doing this. Children who obey parents like this, obey them out of fear, not respect. The author is using this scene to make social commentary on a system he probably took issue with as a child. He is trying to raise awareness about this issue by having examples of adults speaking normally to children in the book.

Another area in which the attitudes of the characters are similar to attitudes today, are people's attitudes regarding those of other social classes. In the book, Pip is invited to "entertain" Ms. Havisham, an older rich lady. Pip's older sister takes this commission very seriously and prior to Pip's going to Ms. Havisham's washes him very thoroughly and dresses him in his sunday best. Obviously she respects Ms. Havisham, because prior to sending Pip off to "entertain" her, she dresses Pip like she would dress him before sending him to church. We see a complete opposite example of this later on in the book when Estrella, a young rich girl who happens to be at Ms. Havisham's house when Pip is there, degrades him due to the fact that he is a, "Common working boy," and has calloused hands and thick boots. Today we see this in our society, were the word, "poor" is an insult. Dickens includes these scenes in the book to show the difference in how the poor view the rich and the rich view the poor. This is definitely an injustice, since both Estrella and Pip had no control over the way they had been brought up to that point and the class they were born into. To think yourself better than another disadvantaged child is ridiculous. Dickens comments on this by having this scene in the book, showing how this attitude is pervasive to even young children.

In conclusion, I would like to qualify that I am not saying that all have the same attitudes regarding how you should talk to children, and those of other social classes. However these are to some extent still the predominant attitudes for most of the general population. Also we live in America were people are relatively open-minded and not afraid to voice their newer opinions. These two attitudes that have remained unchanged are terrible. But no one is to say that they can't change eventually. After all, major institutions that have been in power for centuries that were in the wrong have been changed. However this is not a matter of changing laws, this is a matter of changing attitudes, something much more subtle and not as easy to do. In order to fix these problems, we need to make a concerted effort as people of this world,

"Upfront October 27th 2014"

Religion, though considered ridiculous by some, still has a definite effect on this worlds affairs and rightly so, 88.5% of people in this world are religious. What ethnicity people are can also have a huge affect on what religion they are. So why did the chart displaying the multiple different important statistics for each country, such as literacy rate, life expectancy, money made per capita, and languages spoken, in this most recent upfront magazine not include religion?

I think that the fact that the article didn't display the religion is a reflection of the worlds trend to disregard religion as something that isn't important politically. However, it is. Take for example the situation in the middle east. The whole area is being ravaged by a militant group that is motivated by religion. I'm not saying that religion is bad by any means at all. In fact, I think it's beneficial for promoting morality. However this is another reason why religion is so controversial, some people may feel as strongly as I do, but also have the means to protest for their beliefs. Some in more violent ways than others. Some people are extremists and give a bad name to all other religious people. Why I'm trying to say is, religion can also be very secular. So secular that the dominant religion should be posted on the charts.

Now you may argue that Upfront did post a pie chart listing all the religions and the different percentages that they take up. However  they still didn't list all the highest concentration of people of each religion in each country. I like to know information. It always interests me to read what denomination most people in each country are. It's doesn't give enough information to write that, "32.9% of people globally are christians. Again, religion isn't given much consideration in these articles, something that I think is unjust.

Response to "Darkness too visible"

The Article "Darkness too visible" by Megan Cox Gurdon" addresses the all too prevalent issue of young adult fiction, and what's considered "appropriate". Gurdon backs the side of those who believe that overly adult themes such as, Incest, pederasty, and self mutilation should be banned.

She uses loaded words and imagery to suppport her point. For example she she calls books of this sort "Horrendous" and says that any young reader who seeks out this "Depravity" will be surrounded by, "brutality and losses", of the, "Most horrendous kinds." She also uses imagery by describing the world of teen fiction as a "hall of funhouse mirrors, constantly reflecting back distorted portrayls of what life is.

Lastly, she quotes a person who's viewpoint is opposite of hers, and then describes his ranting against censorship as "bemoaning". The restrictions set on him. This is effective because she gives her counterattack an ear, then points out faults in it to weaken it. Explaining how not censoring books can be considered a "dereliction" of a parents duty. Yet when editors do this as part of their job, they are incriminated.

I partially agree with the author. I don't think that adolescents should be sheltered, and have an idea of the dark parts of this world. However they shouldn't be entertaining themselves with it by reading a book solely about self-mutilation. When it comes down to how much children are influenced, it really depends on the child's maturity and their parents decision.

Book Report

10/19/14

           

             What can be defined as holy? I have a personal definition of holy, and I’m sure you do as well. However, your view of religion may differ from what I believe. As we grow up, we all develop our own belief system. Whether it’s through organized religion or personal experience, these can be easily affected by books, holy or secular. Parents who belong to a certain religion, might want to guard their children from holy books of other religions or books that have very religious or anti-religious themes. Dracula is a fine example of a book parents might want to censor. The book features characters with strong personal ties to Christianity fighting the forces of evil. Some may look at this and argue that since Dracula is a time tested, well-loved classic, it is appropriate to read for people of all faiths and ages and therefore could fall into the category of mandatory reading. I believe that books like this should not be assigned as such.

            One reason that this book is inappropriate for school is Dracula’s involvement in black magic. As a vampire, he practices telepathy, shape-shifting, and mind control. These practices are demonic. The practitioner relies on supernatural and uncanny power. Because of this element, this book can confuse and frighten the reader. You would not be surprised to know that the characters in the book are equally terrified by these things, and combat them by using “holy” items, things such as Crucifixes that scare Dracula away. This book blatantly promotes idolatry. For example regarding Crucifixes, Van Helsing a character in the book says that,  “whilst this is close to you no foul thing can approach.”  This raises another problem, some youths, scared by these items and presented with a seemingly effective route of combating supernatural things may begin to put faith in amulets. Many people’s religions don’t teach Idolatry as acceptable. If a child were to pre-maturely changed what he was raised to believe based on this book, the results could be disastrous.

            Another way that books like Dracula can be inappropriate for children, is the way it challenges religious norms. Most of the classics I have read are against Catholicism. Toward the beginning of Dracula, one of the main characters, Johnathan Harker, being a devout Anglican wants to refuse a rosary from a catholic woman. He calls it “Idolatrous.” Such language would offend a devout Catholic. Another book that is similar in this respect is “The Three Musketeers” by Alexander Dumas. In this book Dumas portrays a Cardinal as an immoral person, with a political agenda on top of being a priest. This could offend a catholic person as well. In addition to being detrimental in this way, the books can cause young Catholics to doubt catholic doctrine as well as their Patriarchy.

            Now please don’t misunderstand me. I’m very much for independent thinking children. I don’t have anything against people reading innovative material. However would you call heavily embellished, biased material like this appropriate? Bram Stoker was an Irish Protestant and most likely hated Catholicism. Therefore his writing about Catholicism is biased. Dumas could very likely have exaggerated Richielieu’s immorality and corruption to serve as an antagonist in his book. As children mature and develop discernment, they may realize how embellished and biased these authors are. However, in schools, there is a huge disparity in levels of maturity and reasoning power. This makes schools the least appropriate place to introduce these books.

            I personally regret having read Dracula. It didn’t challenge my beliefs because I understand that there is no such thing as vampires. I also understand that the effect of the amulets was fabricated. I am neither Catholic nor Anglican, so the religious controversy doesn’t offend me. What does offend me is Stoker’s graphic  descriptions of black magic, as well as how he describes the power of amulets. I read Dracula independently as an intellectual challenge. However I can’t separate my heart from my mind. This book left me feeling disgusted. If I were to be mandated to read this book, I would refuse. I feel every reader has the right take that position based on their religious beliefs. When it comes to such controversial literature, this situation should not even arise.

The Great Gatsby

For it's size the Fitzgerald's Great Gatsby is a remarkably powerful book. It's about a Jay Gatsby, born James Gatz. A criminal who's humble origin's lie in the glorious state of Wisconsin. Though he is a criminal, he's a very amiable person, and generously holds glamorous parties every weekend. He is motivated by a passion for Daisy Buchannan, This relationship is the basis for the whole book.

The book is told from the point of view of Arthur. He lives next to Gatsby and gradually builds a strong relationship with him. He is also, coincidentally, the cousin of Daisy. Arthur dislikes Daisy's husband and for good reason. Tom Buchannan is a self inflated quintessential rich jerk. Tom also has an explicit relationship with Myrtle Wilson, one of the reasons he moved to long island, the main setting of the book. Gatsby, Ironically, moved to long island in order to be closer to Daisy. The book is a thriller. Written so smoothly that reading it makes you feel like you're in a dream. I highly suggest it!!!