Commentary 11/21/15 #2

Shakespeare is one of, if not the most, recognizable names in literature. His plays are beloved by millions of people. And yet, he is also the most widely feared name among high school and even college students. The second video discusses this problem and comes with an interesting conclusion. The video successfully argues that the problem lies with the teachers and not with the Bard's plays themselves. Shakespeare's plays are very relatable, as the video says. He makes statements that, although they can be hard to understand at first, become clear and true upon further inspection. For example, the video gives a statement made by Lady Macbeth. Upon her husband expressing his fear of failure, Lady Macbeth states, in a somewhat odd manner, that if Macbeth is confident he will not fail then he will not fail. Any athlete today can relate to Lady Macbeth's statement. Nearly every high school coach tells their athletes at one point or another that one of the keys to success is believing in oneself. Shakespeare's plays are full of these little phrases, so why is it that students have such a hard time relating to his characters. One of the reasons, as implied by the video, is that many teachers are too rigid in their interpretation of Shakespeare. If they would just let their students come up with their own ideas, the students would probably find themselves enjoying his works much more than they do. This idea is not limited to Shakespeare, it can be applied to reading any work of literature. I find that when I am forced to see the book not as how I would make it, but how the teacher sees it, then I do not enjoy the book nearly as much as I would if I were to read it independently of school. As the great Mr. Miyagi once said, "No such thing as bad student. Only bad teacher."

Commentary 11/21/15 #1

The first video, the one titled "Shakespeare is Everywhere" was an interesting. I find it odd that a man we know so little about can have such a large impact on the English language. I have looked into Shakespeare's influence before and the things he has done are simply amazing. The most obvious place in that Shakespeare can be found is in cinema. It is on film that his plays are often watched, outside of the theatre. The largest way in which Shakespeare influences us can be found in what we say. that Shakespeare can be found is in our dialect. We owe an unbelievable amount of our daily words to the bard. Words such as assassinate, besmirch, moonlight and others were coined by him. Even ones that seem impossible, such as eyeball and even skim milk belong to him. In this way, whether or not we are aware of it, Shakespeare is almost always with us. He is around in other, less obvious ways as well. His influence on literature, the main reason he is so widely studied in the classroom, is enormous. His trace can be found in innumerable works, from fiction novels, to essays written on him by college professors. But despite all his influence, he is still dreaded by thousands, possibly millions of students every year. The reason why he is so dreaded, the language of the plays can make deciphering their meaning extremely difficult, seems to contradict his influence. No wonder he is so mysterious.

Hamlet Commentary #2

The fact that there are still movies being made for the Bard's plays is a testament to his relevancy. Even though it has been four hundred years since he wrote the plays, they still intrigue members of the public. The plays are so fascinating and interesting that some people spend their life as players in theaters which solely perform them. There have been doubts that Shakespeare is still relevant. In today's world, it is nearly impossible to relate to any of the characters in the novel. Our lives are driven by technology and we are constantly connected, something that the characters in Shakespeare's plays were not and a cause of more than a few misfortunes in his plays. Furthermore, our language is distancing itself from that of Shakespeare more and more, so that with each generation it becomes harder and harder to read the plays. But despite the odds, Shakespeare remains a literary force. He is still widely read in classrooms, much to the dismay of students. His plays are still filmed, albeit more often than not the plays are released straight to DVD. What exactly makes him so important, I do not know. But for those that do, shakespeare is no less relevant today than he was a hundred years ago.

Hamlet Commentary #1

I have never read Hamlet. I have heard of its incredible influence and how elements of the play can be found everywhere in literature. For me, the movie was interesting to watch. I have only ever seen one play, but that was The Lion King. The movie impressed me, but at the same time, there were some times where I didn't know what was going on because of the language. The other main gripe I have was the bizarre mix of new and old. for example, the movie begins with the men holding up lanterns in a castle, at night. Clearly, then, electric lighting was not very common in the castle. And yet, there were scenes where Hamlet was wearing a t-shirt that looked like he bought it in 2015. The mixing between new and old did not go smoothly for me and as a result, it stuck out like a soar thumb. Things I enjoyed about the movie were many in number. I enjoyed the little things, like seeing Patrick Stewart act in a Shakespeare play. I have heard that he is very fond of theatre, but until we watched Hamlet in class, I had not actually seen him act. I also enjoyed the play that was put on at the end of the movie. I thought it was goofy at first, but I slowly saw how it was a satire on plays that were popular at the time. It was funny to see the nobles enjoying it, even though it was so bad it was hard to listen to. I am looking forward to reading the play, so that I can move at my own pace and take more time to think over the many soliloquies.

Commentary on Shakespeare's Sister

Virginia Woolf makes a profound observation in this passage from A Room of One's Own. She first makes an argument for what would most likely have happened if Shakespeare had an equally talented sister. Her claim makes sense. Despite her enormous potential, Judith Shakespeare's voice would have been silenced from birth. Due to the patriarchy that was Elizabethan England, she would have been stuck at home while her brother attended grammar school. Instead of being able to read books, she was required to wash clothes and do the dishes. Judith's voice was silenced, while her brother's was allowed to flourish. And thus, the world lost a Shakespeare. Virginia Woolf takes this very possible situation and asks just how many voices like Judith's have been silenced because of society's ignorant pre-convictions. Woolf brings in powerful examples of times where someone was killed for no reason, such as "witches" being burned at the stake and those who have killed themselves because of the torment the forced suppression of her gift. This idea that the world may have missed another Shakespeare or Einstein because of blind ignorance is a difficult one to handle. Woolf's arguments can also be applied to men as well. Today, many people know of autistic savants, people who are extraordinarily bright, but are autistic. How many savants have been kept in mental hospitals because their plight was misunderstood? The world may never know, and this can be hard to swallow. Hopefully, the ever increasing availability of technology and scientific discoveries will educate the public, so that we no longer inadvertently silence a genius.

Comment on "Is Shakespeare Still Relevant?"

Although the essay "Is Shakespeare Still Relevant?", by Alexandra Petri, is easy to read, and full of the author's voice, it is seriously lacking direction. The first thing the author writes is about how if Shakespeare's play's were adapted today, they would have to replace the dialogue with words pertaining to poor cellular service. Her example may be good for a little humor, but it is not good for much more. From here, she quickly moves into other arguments about the Bard, leaving one wondering what angle she was trying to work with her first example. To her credit, it can be implied that she is trying to say that Shakespeare is not relevant because the prevalence of smartphones disconnects us from the works, it is not clear. Petri than makes the argument that we are disconnected from the works because we have to use tools like "No Fear Shakespeare" to understand them. She then goes on to claim that maybe he is famous simply because he is famous, not because of what he has to say. How she makes this claim is apparently left to the reader to find out, because Petri gives almost no concrete support for this claim. She simply states her claim, then in a conversational, yet pointed paragraph, describes how Shakespeare "beat out" other English writers as the most famous one. To wrap it all up, I would have absolutely no idea what Petri was arguing if it weren't for the title. Not once does she mention in her essay the word relevance.

Don't Stand Next To The Main Characters

In a chapter of How To Read Literature Like A Professor Thomas Foster makes the claim that it is a bad idea to be next to the hero. He claims that those closest to the hero(es) are usually the first to go, as they are used as a symbol to show the main character the price of his actions. This idea can easily be found in Faulkner's As I Lay Dying albeit in a different manner with different results

In As I Lay Dying there is no hero. Instead, the aforementioned claim revolves around the Bundren family, a family that just won't seem to change its ways, even when they are the result of problems. The major example, and the one that I am choosing to write about, is when the Bundren's ask Tull to lend his mules so they can cross the river. There had been a crazy storm, and as a result, the bridge that crossed the river had been destroyed by the flood. The Bundren family would not let that stand in the way of them granting their mother's dying wish: to be buried in Jefferson, where she is from. After arguing with Tull for a good while, the family convinces Tull to lend his mules, despite his reluctance. At first, all is well. Anse, Tull, Dewey Dell, and Vardaman successfully cross the river. Now it's Jewel, Cash and Darl's turn. They have the mules pulling the wagon, which is carrying Addie Bundren's coffin. As they are crossing, a log that was caught in the flood crashes into the wagon, and the mules drown. Now Tull is stranded on the far side of the river, and his mules are drowned. Faulkner uses Tull in the manner that many authors use the hero's best friends to prove to the Bundren family the error of their ways, unfortunately for Tull.

Sexism in Faulkner

Faulkner was fascinated by several facets of normal life. He was so intrigued, in fact, that nearly all of his literary works take place in a fictional county created by him, a county that mirrors normal life. Faulkner was especially curious about the lives of once rich families and their downfall due to internal corruption. The main source of this corruption? Woman. In at least two of his major novels, a female plays a predominant role, and it is usually a sexist one at that. In The Sound and The Fury, Caddy Compson, who is seen as a very promiscuous girl, is a poignant example of how far the once great Compson family, a family whose members included a judge and a civil war general, has fallen. In As I Lay Dying Dewey Dell is pregnant, a fact that Faulkner uses to portray her in both a negative and a positive (which I will come back to later) light. Dewey Dell seems a little crazy. In one scene, she imagines killing Darl with a knife she used to cut a fish earlier in the novel. As Dewey is the only living female in the novel, her craziness is more obvious than Darl's. Furthermore, when the Bundren's make it to Tull's farm, Tull repeatedly feels like Dewey Del is giving him a look seems like she is warning him to stay away, even though Tull has never had any intention to harass her in any way. These two examples paint women in a negative light and make them seem like intricate but paranoid and delicate creatures.

Faulkner also uses Dewey's Pregnancy as a commentary on the treatment of pregnant women. Dewey is afraid to tell anyone about her pregnancy, which might be why she imagines killing Darl, the only other person who knows. Dewey is afraid to tell the doctor, the only one capable of giving her an abortion. The fact that she cannot tell anyone shows that Faulkner believed that pregnancy should not be seen with as a harsh a light, whether good or bad, as it was at the time.

Vardaman's Importance

Vardaman, as the youngest Bundren, understands the world differently than the rest of the characters. Unable to fully comprehend everything, Vardaman attempts to understand one thing through the lens of another. For example, Vardaman uses the fish in order to understand his own mother's death. This becomes clear when Vardaman becomes irrationally upset over the idea that Dewey is going to cook the dead fish. Vardaman is trying to understand his mother's death through the fish, but he mixes the two together, and now believes his mother is the fish, as evidenced by his chapter on which he states, "My mother is a fish." For Vardaman and therefore for the reader, the fish is a symbol. Vardaman also doesn't understand the idea of the coffin. He thinks that his family is imprisoning his mother and that Addie will suffocate even though the family is doing what they should do and Addie is dead. Vardaman is so upset by seeing his mother in a coffin that he drills holes in it so that his mother can breathe. The coffin is also a point of conflict between other members of the family due to its different connotations. So far, Vardaman has acted as a lens through which the reader can come to understand different parts of the story symbolically, which is why he is critical to the story.

Stream of Consciousness

As I Lay Dying is a modernist novel using stream of consciousness style narration. Stream of consciousness is when an author writes down character's thought processes instead of telling the reader what a character is thinking and doing, and is a hallmark of modernist literature, and more specifically Faulkner. Stream of consciousness narration means that the reader is interpreting a character's interpretation of the world around them. This can be very confusing, which is why I find reading Faulkner so hard. For example, part of As I Lay Dying is narrated by Vardaman, the youngest of the Bundren family. Vardaman is very young, and as such, doesn't comprehend the world in the same way that most people do. A shining example is Vardaman's perspective on his mother's death. Vardaman doesn't understand truly understand death, so he tries to understand it through the fish that he had caught earlier. This was confusing to me at first, but I eventually came to understand what Vardaman was doing. The main problem that stream of consciousness results in for me is that sentences or passages will often have random interjections in the middle, making it harder to follow the story. For the most part, however, it isn't to difficult to follow the story. In fact, there is a major benefit from stream of consciousness.

Thanks the narration style, as a reader, I get a unique look at the way the characters look at and interact with the world. Characters' chapters are each narrated in their own unique point of view, so each chapter gives insight into the different characters. Darl, for example, has a very clear conscious and so it is easy to focus on what he is thinking. It quickly becomes clear that Darl sees almost everything. He even knows that his sister, Dewey Dell, is pregnant, even though she never tells her. Another character, Jewel, is filled with hate. His sections are full of angsty words, making it clear that Jewel is angry with the world. These are just two observations that the reader can make about Darl and Jewel thanks to stream of consciousness. Like Darl and Jewel, much is revealed about the other characters in the novel through their style of narration. 

Bertrand Russell's Four Desires

I have never read any argument more clearly supported than Bertrand Russell's claim that human action is ultimately driven by desire. He clearly articulates why it is that no matter what else happens, humans act upon four "infinite" desires: acquisitiveness, rivalry, vanity, and love of power. And for the most part, I agree with him.

His argument for acquisitiveness is especially strong. In AP European History, we went over the different theories describing human nature to come out of the Enlightenment. There were two main schools of thought: one that said humans are inherently good and mostly selfless, and one that said humans are naturally selfish. Russell makes a strong case for the latter. He perfectly captures the feeling of never having enough. Like the Estonian girls he met, I have plenty to eat, a bed to sleep in, and can afford various luxuries. And yet, I can't help but feel a twinge of jealousy when I see videos of people driving their limited edition Ferrari's. Some desire which I cannot stop makes me wish that I could afford such a thing, even though it may not increase my happiness level by all that much. I understand well the desire for acquisitiveness that Russell speaks of.

I do not, however, agree with him that rivalry is an infinite desire. He states that the world would be better if acquisitiveness was always more powerful than rivalry and that too many men would rather see their opponent destroyed than to achieve more for themselves. I understand often it is not enough to do your best, you need your rival to do poorly. This is extremely poignant with regards to sports. I know from experience that not only do you want to do well, you want the other team to play poorly. But outside of sports, I do not wish for the people around me to do worse, I only wish to improve myself. In conclusion, while I feel a desire to gain more, it is not overpowered by a desire for those around me to do poorly, unless it's with regards to sports.

I agree with Russell that vanity and a love for power are indeed infinite desires. I believe, like Russell, that humans are inherently narcissistic. This is not necessarily a bad thing, but it appears to be true. Russell's example of children always shouting "look at this" is especially powerful. Children are supposedly born as blank slates, and are therefore an impression of their parents or major caretakers. This is important, because more often than not, parents/caretakers are very selfless, giving their attention to their children more than themselves. So if children are essentially molded by those around them, why would they be so narcissistic? They cannot help but want attention, because it is an inherent trait of human beings. Examples of people doing anything for attention are abundant in the world of technology and communication that we live in today. I agree with Russell that the desire for attention is an infinite desire. As for a love for power, I can understand why it may be the most potent, despite not being the most common: many people would rather not deal with the responsibility that having a lot of power comes with. But for those who seek power, it is impossible to resist. The reason it is so potent is because it combines acquisitiveness and vanity. Once a man experiences the ability to control another person, they begin to desire more and more control. This is why dictators throughout history often attempt to put themselves in charge of everything they can. Few, if any, have chosen to allow others any control, which goes to show how irresistible the desire is. Dictators throughout history are known for the ostentatious lifestyles just as well as their consolidation of power. All one has to do is look at the current leader of North Korea, Kim Jong-Un.

While the rest of his country lives in a society that is at a level of technology sixty years behind us, Kim Jong-Un lives in a palace, where he eats caviar as a snack. He also requires a family-like loyalty from all his citizens, and nobody is aloud to question him. Kim Jong-Un's lifestyle and ever-increasing control over his country shows the desire of acquisitiveness while his need for the endearment of his subjects shows his inability to resist his own vanity.

In conclusion, I believe that there are three infinite desires that dictate human actions: Acquisitiveness, Vanity, and a Love of Power.

The Little Wars

The chapter Ghost Soldiers adds to the harsh description of Vietnam. The narrator of the chapter is currently at base as a result of being shot. He tells the reader of the first time he got shot, Rat Kiley, the medic, had done an amazing job of treating the wound, allowing the narrator to return to fighting. The second time, however, the medic was a newbie named Bobby Jorgenson, who was so afraid to move that he almost let the narrator die of shock. Even after he got to the narrator, he did such a poor job of addressing the wound that it became gangrenous, and that's why the narrator is at base and not in combat.

The narrator is frustrated by his time on base. He mentions that although it does have its perks, he wishes he could be back in the fire, taking down "spooks" again. His frustrations come to a boiling point, however, when his old team returns to base for a little rest. The team appears tightly knit, with bonds like family, except this time, the medic is with them, and not the narrator. The narrator becomes upset because he should be with the team, but the medic, who is the reason that the narrator is out, is there instead. The last straw occurs when the narrator approaches Mitchell Sanders to ask him if he will help to scare Jorgenson a little. Sanders is disgusted by the narrator's intentions, and when the narrator mentions feeling that he is no longer part of the family, Sander's tell him that he guess he isn't.

What O'Brien is saying is that the war is always with soldiers, whether or not the enemy is the same one the whole time. The narrator, like many of the soldiers, is probably young. What this means is that he probably didn't have much of a life of his own outside the war. So when he is cut off from his family, he suddenly feels the need to exact revenge from the person who cut the bonds. The narrator mentions that prior to being a soldier, he never felt the need to take revenge. But the war had done something to him. It had changed something inside him. Even though he had left combat, the war was still with him. And now his enemy was an American soldier. This idea that the war never stops is an important one in The Things They Carried.

Speaking of Courage

Speaking of Courage is one of the most powerful stories I have ever read. It is set up as the story of Norman Bowker. It takes place after the war, and Norman Bowker is now back at home. He is driving around a lake. The lake, he mentions, is the only one for miles, so despite it's ugliness, it is a source of pride for the townspeople. During the drive, Norman thinks about many things, but his thoughts mostly circle around what the town is like now vs. what it was like before the war vs. Norman's experience in the war.

Early in the chapter signs that Norman is having trouble adjusting to normal life begin to pop up. For example, while driving around the lake, Norman passes two boys. He honks at them, but they do not look up. It is odd that the boys do not look to see who honked because the town is described as being quiet, so the boys most likely heard the truck. The next sign occurs when he thinks about talking to his old girlfriend Sally Kramer (now Sally Gustafson). Norman thinks about how he would talk with her briefly, asking her how she’s been and nodding at her answers. He Thinks about telling he how he almost won the Silver Star, but decided not to because she wouldn't understand. Later, Norman stops near a fast food restaurant. A woman, whom Norman thinks is a waitress, is outside serving cars. He honks but she apparently doesn't hear him. Nobody understands him, and he is frustrated by it. He thinks about how he could've saved Kiowa. He thinks it's a good war story, but remarks that the town didn't want to hear about the war, it wouldn't listen. It didn't understand the war. As a result, Norman cannot adjust to daily life, and ultimately takes his own life.

Speaking of Courage is a powerful chapter that uses Norman Bowker as a device for explaining why it was so difficult for veterans to adjust. 

Symbolism in TTTC

Weight plays an important role in The Things They Carried. Tim O'Brien mentions the weight of nearly every item that the men carry, both tangible and intangible. For example, Rat Kiley, the medic carries various medical supplies for a total of 18 pounds.. Henry Dobbins, a big man, carried a 23 pound gun and up to 15 pounds of ammo. But the heaviest things. On top of this, the men carry around 16 pounds of necessities, plus other heavy items such as guns and helmets. But the heaviest items are carried by Lieutenant Cross. What he carries goes beyond physical items. No, Cross carries responsibility for his men, guilt for letting a soldier die under his command, and the knowledge that the girl he loves, Martha, does not feel the same way about him. The average age of the men under Cross's command is just 19 years old. That means that Cross has been tasked with ensuring that these young man return to their families at the end of the war so that they may carry out the rest of the lives. Not only that, but these men have absolutely zero experience with war, and may not even want to be there (in Vietnam) fighting one. On top of this, Ted Lavender, one of Cross's men, was shot and killed because Cross was too busy thinking about the Martha. Whether or not he actually could have prevented the death, Cross believes that it's his fault Lavender died. So now, Lieutenant Cross carries the weight of making sure no more of his men die and the guilt that he already failed to protect one. Finally, to top it all off, Lieutenant Cross knows that Martha doesn't love him back. Here he is, half a planet away from someone he loves, and there's nothing he can do to figure out why she doesn't feel the same way. I cannot think of anything more frustrating than that. All together, Cross carries the responsibility for his men, the guilt of letting one die, and the frustration of loving somebody who doesn't love him back. Together, these things way more than any physical item the men have to carry.

Compassion and War

The first thing we learn about Lieutenant Cross is that he loves a girl named Martha. We learn that he has many letters from her, and that he likes to pretend that they are love letters. Even the knowledge that Martha doesn't love him back, doesn't stop him from constantly thinking bout her. But Crosses love for Martha is not harmless. In fact, because he was too busy thinking about her, Cross let Ted Lavender, a soldier under his command, wander away from their camp to go pee. As a result, Lavender is shot and killed. Cross realized that as the commanding officer, it was his job to keep an eye on his men. And he realized that his love for Martha kept him from performing those duties. Cross feels responsibility for Lavender's death, and decides that he can no longer think about Martha, essentially shutting out his love for her. Through Lieutenant Cross, O'Brien shows that in war, compassion and feelings get in the way of survival. This is why the Cross's men seem unfazed by Lavender's death. Since they have had to separate themselves from emotions other than fear and anger in order to survive, the men have become desensitized. This also explains why the normally "very gentle" Norman Bowker carries around a human thumb. Lieutenant Cross shows and his men are perfect examples of the incompatibility of compassion and war

The Importance of Don Quixote

Although I have already written one post about the writing style in Don Quixote, it is so unique I feel obliged to write another post about it. As I mentioned in the previous post, Cervantes speaks directly to the reader throughout the novel, and at some points, he even describes how difficult it was/is to write the book. Cervantes mentions early on that he would have liked to publish the book, plain and simple, without all the "...sonnets, epigrams and eulogies." (12), but that he can't, because without them the book will be viewed poorly by public and scholars alike. As an author, Cervantes claims that he cannot avoid being concerned about the perception of his book, and so he is in a stump, unable to write anymore without putting in the sonnets and other things. So finally, with the help of a friend, he decides to write the sonnets, epigrams, and eulogies himself. The result is that throughout the novel, random sonnets, latin phrases, and quotes from famous people appear, adding zero value to the novel whatsoever. So why would Cervantes go through so much trouble to include them? The answer is that Cervantes is satirizing the main view of literature of his time. Cervantes wrote Don Quixote during the 16th century, a time when only a select few scholars decided what was good literature and what was not. Good literature had to meet certain requirements. First, the best canon rarely included fiction; the few cases where fiction was considered canon were if the author was known to have written other books, or the book was considered to be the first of its kind. Second, the text had to contain sonnets, epigrams, and other often useless devices in order to be considered well written. This lead to a majority of the writing being pretentious and unnecessarily boring to the uneducated masses.

What Cervantes does by mocking the use of these sonnets is show the world, or at least Spaniards, that good literature does not need to obey the rules. He also makes it obvious that he is mocking tradition so that the lay reader will understand him. He does this by making the material in his sonnets almost exactly the same as what he had written earlier. For example, at the end of Part I, Cervantes includes several sonnets about Lady Dulcinea del Toboso, and Don Quixote and his companions. In these sonnets, he writes about the beauty of Lady Dulcinea, and the courage of Don Quixote. In other words, he writes in his sonnets exactly what he has written perfectly well throughout Part 1. Even to the worst of readers, it this is obvious. Cervantes also includes random quotes and latin phrases, which also add zero value. One such quote, "And they should go, as they say, adventuring away" is mentioned a few times. It is separated from the paragraph because it is a quote by some famous author, but it could easily have been included in the paragraph as Don Quixote's dialogue.

Don Quixote was voted the Greatest Book of All Time by the Nobel Institute for a few reasons. One such reason is that by the satirical use of sonnets, epigrams, eulogies, latin phrases, and quotes, Cervantes paved showed authors that they can be successful without including them, allowing for a much larger variety of literature than had been previously thought possible.

Point of View in Unaccustomed Earth

Most of "Unaccustomed Earth" is written in third-person omniscient, and because of this the reader gets a more complete picture of each character. Lahiri includes characters thoughts, which help to bring the reader into the picture, but to me, it still feels as if I am watching over the characters in the novel. Since I am watching over the characters, I do not feel as involved in the story. But Lahiri makes a unique choice by switching to a different point of view for Part Two.

Part Two is written in second-person, which is unique in that the characters talk directly to you, the reader. Second-person point of view can make a reader feel more directly involved with the novel, which is why it is the style used in choose-your-own-adventure books. Unfortunately for me, however, Lahiri's use of second-person point of view only serves to further alienate me from the characters.

Since the first part of the book is written in third person, I feel as if I am watching the characters go about their lives. I can observe the way they feel and act, and it helps me to further understand the logic behind the actions of the various characters. And since the POV is omniscient, Lahiri goes out of her way to give the reader insight into the lives of Bengali Americans. What this means is that every action is explained so that those like me, with zero Bengali heritage, can understand more fully the characters in the novel. However, in Part Two, the reader becomes Kaushik, a Bengali American. This hurts my connection with the novel for one main reason. Although Hema address me directly by referring to Kaushik as "you", I do not feel like Hema is talking to me. This is because Kaushik has lived a completely different life than mine, so I cannot connect with him. As a result, reading this portion of the novel is more difficult, since I don't feel like I am Kaushik.

Connecting to Unaccustomed Earth

"Unaccustomed Earth" by Jhumpa Lahiri follows the lives of eight different people. One of the characteristics that each character shares with the others is that he/she is in or has been in a dysfunctional relationship. Relationships are a focus of the novel, and since I come from a loving family with strong bonds, I find it very difficult to relate to the book. For example, one of the first characters that the author introduces to the reader is Ruma, a Bengali wife, mother, and daughter. Within a few pages of Ruma's introduction, Lahiri begins to hint at Ruma's poor relationship with those around her. One such hint comes in Ruma's description of her preschool-age son, Akash. Ruma mentions that although Akash is only three, "...she already felt the resistance, the profound barrier she assumed would set in with adolescence." (10) I find it very difficult to connect with Ruma through this statement because my family has always been very close. I love my parents and they love me. I feel as if Ruma is overreacting; how could she conclude from the actions of a three year old that he is resisting her and will only continue to separate himself even more as he gets older? A three year old is completely dependent on his parents for survival, so how could the normal Akash possibly be putting up a barrier between him and Ruma? Furthermore, outside of parents, there are maybe two other people who could possibly show Akash as much love as Ruma and her husband Adam, and they are Akash's grandfather and his uncle. A three year old may not know much, but they are able to tell who loves them, so why does Ruma feel like Akash wants to be separated from her? Because I have never felt the barrier that Ruma feels, and because I cannot imagine a three year old truly rebelling against his parents for more than just a trivial reason, I find it difficult to connect with Ruma. Furthermore, the absurdity of Ruma's feelings makes the book lose much of its power, as I cannot seriously believe that a mother feels that her three-year old son is rebelling against her.

Writing Style of Unaccustomed Earth

Jhumpa Lahiri tells the story of a Bengali family through the point of views of eight different members of the family, but does so in a peculiar manner. Rather than write in first person for each character, Lahiri uses third person omniscient, focusing on one character at a time. There are both positive and negative aspects to this writing style. A positive aspect would be that the reader is given a more complete picture of each character. For example, Ruma hints at the poor relationship between her and her father at various points throughout the beginning of the novel. She describes how it has been a long time since her father had sent her a postcard. She also mentions that her father called her to ask if it would be okay for him to spend a week in Seattle with her family, while her mother simply would've told Ruma that she was going to stay with her. The fact that the father has to call and ask shows that the relationship between Ruma and her father is distant at best. Why is her father so distant? Rather than continue to describe the various ways in which Ruma's father is aloof, Lahiri offers the viewer insight on the mind of the father. The first glimpse the reader gets into the mind of Ruma's father is through the statement, "How freeing it was, these days, to travel alone..." (7) Clearly the father is relieved to not have to worry about anyone else, so the reader is given the feeling that the father must have been under a lot of stress when he travelled with his family in the past. Hopefully Lahiri will continue to develop the father's story, so that the reader may be able to figure out why his relationship with his daughter is strained. In sum, Lahiri's writing style gives a complete picture of the characters because we get both the views one character holds of another, and the individual thoughts of the different characters.

 A negative aspect is that there is some disconnect between storylines early on. One moment Ruma is complaining about not being happy because her husband is doing so much for her, and then all of a sudden the dad thinks how nice it is that he can travel to Europe without worrying about anyone else. It seems likely, however, that this problem will be resolved, as the father plans to go spend a week with his daughter's family in Seattle.

Writing Style of Don Quixote

The writing style in Don Quixote by Miguel de Cervantes is unlike anything I have ever read before. The book begins with a prologue by Cervantes in which he speaks directly to the reader; the first sentence of the book is, "Idle reader: I don't have to swear any oaths to persuade you that I should like this book." (1) This informal dialogue between the reader and Cervantes continues throughout the prologue, in which he describes the relationship between him and his book through the metaphor of a father and his 'defective' son. What Cervantes is essentially telling the reader is that the following book is not perfect, but he isn't writing to please you. Phrases like "I'd have liked to give it to you plain and naked..." and "Because I can tell you that, although it was quite and effort to write this book..." (12) give the feeling that the author is speaking with you as a friend would. The informal writing style does not end with the prologue, however. Cervantes continues to address the reader directly, and even makes a cameo in the first part of the novel. Cervantes's cameo comes during a scene where a priest and members of Don Quixote's family are deciding which of our protagonist's novels deserved to be burned for corrupting his mind. One of the novels that the priest looks at happens to be "Galatea by Miguel de Cervantes." (58)

The reason for this informal style is part of the book is about the work the authors of the History of Don Quixote de la Mancha did in order to write the novel. Part I ends abruptly in the middle of a battle between Don Quixote and the Basque. Cervantes then begins to address the reader directly, in order to tell him/her that the author had unfortunately left the battle unfinished, but not to worry, because "...the second author of this work refused to believe that such a fascinating history had been abandoned to the laws of oblivion." (70) The second part of the novel thus begins with Cervantes telling the reader how he found the rest of The History of Don Quixote de la Mancha.

I have never before read such an informal book. Don Quixote is written in a manner that makes it seem as if he was a real person, and Cervantes was tasked with finding and creating a complete history of the amazing knight. Cervantes speaks directly to the reader about his task at several points, making it feel as if the author is writing the very book as you read it.