Hamlet and Nixon?!

Shakespeare. The name itself strikes fear into students' hearts, but his plays still contain enough relevance to  apply to each student and her life to this day. His multitude of works have become common allusions and the basis for a myriad of modern books, plays, and movies. His themes are well-developed, yet simple; his characters confusing, yet clearly defined. Trust me, it's not just the fancy diction and inverted sentences that attract such a large audience to his plays.

As one of his many tragedies, Hamlet has gained a wonderful reputation as a phenomenal play, carrying many profound themes. As stated in Hamlet, "something is rotten in the state of Denmark" is one of the most important running themes  (I. iv. 67). Shakespeare connects the morally indecent behavior of Gertrude and Claudius to the slow rotting of the entire kingdom under their rule. Repeatedly, the characters incorporate "state", "decay", and other synonyms into their speech, highlighting Shakespeare's purpose: exposing the destruction that can lead from corruption of leaders.

Though we, the United States of America, are not run by a monarchy anymore, this theme of "high authority wields great power" is still evident. When President Nixon broke a moral law and violated the sanctity of the American people's trust, he took with him a little piece of America's respectability. The Watergate scandal was an embarrassing and shameful event in American history, much like the distasteful incest in Hamlet. Rulers must remain respectable in order for countries to run smoothly.

Analyzing "A Modest Proposal" by Jonathan Swift this week has reminded me that reading older texts can actually be fun. For as long as I can remember, I've held a ridiculous belief that older authors, such as Shakespeare, and even more modern ones, like F. Scott Fitzgerald, only wrote on musty, stale topics, things that interested their audience at the time and only at that time. However, my high school English classes have busted that myth for me as I eagerly devoured all the assigned literature.
Shakespeare's "punny" humor and subtle jokes made me laugh-out-loud in class; Fitzgerald's symbolism and deep thematic elements in The Great Gatsby made me fall in love with the atmosphere of the Roaring Twenties, the emotion Gatsby had for his fragile Daisy, and, most importantly, the tormented author himself; Jonathan Swift's dark satire and ironic language not only amused me, but exposed me to a time in Ireland where there was no hope, no food, and no help coming from anywhere. (Also, I especially love the sentence where Swift discusses the mothers of England could compete by seeing who could "bring the fattest child to the market". The mere idea of raising and selling children like animals frightened yet entertained me enormously.)
These authors are all long gone, but have left behind a legacy and a stack of essays, novels, and/or plays that are still well-loved and read today. They're still read because they each touch on still relevant human truths, whether on friendships, love, politics, or just life in general.



 (<-- How I feel about reading)

The human mind is irrational. However, the subconscious is split up into three parts-the id, the superego, and the ego- to ensure society does not become full of crazy, impulsive beasts.. The id, defined by Freud, is the pleasure-seeking part of a mind that drives people to action; the ego and the superego, though, tell a person what they are legitimately capable of and whether the action is morally "right" or not, respectively. Because of this basic makeup of the human mind, Chet Raymo's essay "A Measure Of Restraint" falls on deaf years.

He claims that a "measure of restraint" needs to be shown because scientific discoveries and creations are potentially too dangerous. With references to cesium-137, to radium, and to a luminescent plant with animal genes, Raymo conveys his point clearly: without proper caution for scientific discoveries and experiments, the "instrument of healing" will become the "instrument of death". However, the same "fast buck" that motivated someone to sell radioactive cesium-137 will drive the scientists of today to continue to perform dangerous experiments. Even though these new tests and trials might be harmful and breach the given laws of nature, the superego of a scientist says "you're doing good for the community- for the world!" and the id of a scientist just laughs- because it has motivated a person to fulfill his selfish desires for fame, fortune, and domination of nature.

Money

"Money, money, money/ Must be funny/ In the rich man's world/ Money, money, money/ Always sunny/In the rich man's world." The chorus of ABBA's hit single "Money, Money, Money" may sound, literally, pleasing to the ear, but the message isn't accurate. It's not "always sunny" with money, and if only money and material possessions can bring happiness, then there's a bigger problem than just attaining pleasure.

Sure, financial stability is a wonderful platform to stand on, but dipping below and nearing that poverty line often leads to a better life-experienced person. Without suffering through a valley in one's life, how can someone truly appreciate the top of a peak? Any incremental difference of having nothing and having something will be intensified, leading to a greater sense of appreciation and happier attitudes. The trick is to not allow your fear of  lacking money drive you to surround yourself with cash or any other financial cushion. A rich man's world might be a dark place, filled with dread, fear, and loneliness. (What happens if my stocks crash? Do people really like me, or do they like my money? Forget this. I'm just going to push everyone away.) Therefore, the best life is lived without a thought to the correlation of money and happiness. 

Be happy and you will be rich. 

(Also, in the music video for "Money, Money, Money" when they sing about money, they show a bunch of quarters, dines, and nickels falling- not the piles of actual cash rappers today use in their videos.

Also-also,

Taylor Mali's "What Do Teachers Make". This is a beautiful spoken-word responding to the stereotype that "those who can't, teach" and the jokes made towards a teacher's salary.)

Asian Girl and Public Space

Five feet, seven inches. Asian. Female. Average build. No noticeable abnormalities; nothing out of the ordinary. Although a bit taller than many peers, I don't stand out. I am another face in a crowd. I am completely unlike Brent Staples in "Black Men and Public Space" who claims by simply existing he "(alters) public spaces in ugly ways". He catalogues some of the reactions of many women he encounters: those who "(run) in earnest" from him, those who "(cross) to the other side of the street rather than pass (him)", and some who just "avoid making eye contact".
However, I cannot, even if I tried, create the same reactions. As a fellow minority- albeit a different one- I am not associated with any outstanding stereotypes. I cannot fathom how annoying- no, how offensive it would be to walk somewhere and instantly be shunned, actively ignored, despised.
This piece evoked sympathy from me for every person who has ever been judged on his skin tone, weight, height, overall appearance. Yet, it's something that can't be avoided. Everyone has been exposed to a different combination of impressions, everyone absorbs a different amount of bias from his surroundings, and everyone allows that bias to manifest in actions in varying degrees. Though I understand the inconvenience and pain, racism is a part of life that simply cannot be removed- but maybe it can be mollified. It is time for everyone, like Staples, to accept his draw of the lot and help out his fellow man by acting respectfully to everyone.

Awesome Author

Beautiful pieces of work become famous for a reason. "The Death of the Moth", an essay by Virginia Woolf, has stayed in my mind for long after I have read it. With astounding description and creative syntax, she truly does deserve to be called "one of the greatest twentieth-century writers".

She creates a whimsical tone (without any winking!) of delight when she describes the moth as "a tiny bead of pure life", "(decked) with down and feathers", and "dancing... zigzagging". Her word choice in that sentence- and, yes, all of those examples came from one sentence- can make any literary fanatic swoon. With plenty of figurative language, her description of  nearly everything is pleasing to imagine, too. The "rooks", or crows, are compared to a large net with "thousands of black knots" that "sank slowly down upon the trees" in an intricate simile, evoking a sense of peace. She compares the struggling moth to a "machine, that has stopped momentarily" to convey her sense of indifference at the onset of his death, too. She, also, draws wonderful parallels from the moth's life to her own. Though it might be morbid, her claims of "Nothing I knew had any chance against death" and "O yes... death is stronger than I am" are relatable and relevant statements even for today, seventy years after publication.

Right up there with Vladimir Nabokov, author of Lolita, and Jodi Picoult, author of My Sister's Keeper, Nineteen Minutes, and more, Virginia Woolf has found herself a place among my favorite authors.

Crafts: Eggs

The world is not a large Sims game. It is not designed nor suitable for one person to dictate the choices of another- much less his whole life. Crafting a child in hopes of him to acquire certain genes is not just superficial; it is a sin against nature.

Amy Chua, author of Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mom,  has received harsh criticism from reviewers and mothers around the world. They have argued that her repression of a her children's spontaneity and free will is cruel. If asked, these critics would also be against engineering specific traits into offspring. It is the same concept that Chua uses, but only at its earliest stage. Both actions lead to complete control over the child, and, who knows, maybe the child will be extremely successful or stunningly gorgeous. But, these accomplishments then cannot be attributed to the child. The all-controlling parents would take pride in setting up their children, in using them as pawns in a game of "look how much better I am than you because my child is better than yours". Like a primitive land being invaded by a great world power, the poor child is then given a strict mold to fit, losing any unique benefits it could have given the world. Maybe, had the parents not tried to play God, their children could still be successful- emotionally, financially, spiritually- and the child might be less likely to hate them for tampering with the natural course of life.

Daughters of Amy Tan

From a stranger's perspective, I'm a wonderful hybrid of two cultures: Chinese and American. However, I can't identify completely with that label. I am a rather light-skinned Asian. I speak fluent English, but choppy Chinese and even worse Korean. I'm part of the rather large Asian minority at my high school, but I can't eat with chopsticks- or, to be fair, I really dislike to. I am Amy Tan during her high school years.

In "Fish Cheeks", Amy is embarrassed by her Chinese heritage and is given a lesson by her mother: (simply) be proud of who you are. Whereas there is nothing wrong with assimilating into a new culture, the way Amy tries to do it is shameful. She rejects her favorite dishes and despises her loud family, turning red at every reminder. She needed to do so, though. In passing through this immature phase, she, finally, understands the importance of her history. She knows that staying "Chinese on the inside" helps her find her identity.

However, if she progressed through high school with only absorbing half the knowledge her mother imparted on her, she'd turn out similarly to me. She'd admit that it's hard to hold onto traditions of the old land when contemporary, Americanized behaviors are thrown at her. She'd know that when elderly Chinese Aunties tell her (in Chinese, of course), "Oh! You look so beautiful! Almost like a white girl!" that it's okay to cringe at the racial stereotype. She'd understand that being split in two cultures is too hard to do and that she can't succeed in fully maintaining both halves of the whole.

Angelou, February, and the Jewish

In an excerpt from Maya Angelou's I Know Why The Caged Bird Sings about her memories of Joe Louis' boxing match, Angelou frequently references back to her "people", her "[race's]" history. With pity-invoking diction, she details how Louis losing the match would equivocate getting thrown back into slavery. Most importantly, however, she ironically points out that even though he's won and she feels as if they "are the strongest people in the world", they are still afraid.

As she writes about an age where segregation and open racism runs rampant, I became entertained with our modern response to slavery and inequalities: Black History Month. As the instigator of Black History Month's forerunner Negro History Week, Dr. Carter G. Woodson started the event to bring attention to the contributions of African Americans as they were commonly unmentioned. But, why do we still celebrate it today? Why do we,  the world's "melting pot" of culture, still partake in the remembrance of only one culture for four weeks (and an additional day- every four years)? I believe this special month is completely unnecessary. It is fear that keeps it going. Fear that removing the holiday would raise question's on one's integrity: Are YOU racist? But, my answer is a strong and convicted "NO!". As a minority myself, I find it pointless to exclude or offend another person based on what he's born as. Then, why would I want to get rid of such a supposedly significant part of contemporary life?

Contradicting Angelou's viewpoint, I believe the past should not stay with you. It should empower you, drive you to your fullest potential, maybe even caution you sometimes, but your history should never chain you down. If African American's want to be fully "equal", their special month should be removed. The same goes for Jewish American History Month. And no, I'm not anti-semitic either. Yes, slavery was crude, cruel, and stupid and the Holocaust was disgustingly unjust, barbaric, and horrendous. But, giving two months for special remembrance isn't going to erase the terrible things that have happened. These are the dirty secrets of the human race that we all must carry inside, knowing that our ancestors have caused, endured, or ignored these acts. We do not need "special months" to remember these facts. We need only to look around us, see the still standing damage of our past,  and recognize that rebuilding still needs to occur.