Final Reading Response: The Catcher in the Rye

Should Holden Caulfield be considered a hero? If not him, who is the books hero?

            J.D Salinger, the author of The Catcher in the Rye, portrays Holden (his main character) as a very immature 16 year-old with a whiny attitude. Holden's personality and thought process make him the opposite of a hero, mainly because he doesn't save anyone, when he himself needs saving. On the other hand, if I had to choose one person from the book to be a hero it would be Holden's 10 year-old sister Phoebe. Phoebe encourages Holden to return to his normal lifestyle and restores life in the Caulfield home.
            One example of how Phoebe is the book's hero is when she gives Holden her Christmas money. "You can take it all, and pay me back. Bring it to the play," is a line that shows her belief in Holden to do the right thing. Holden is thinking of again running away, but Phoebe is giving him this money because she trusts that he'll make the right decision in the end, not only because he would be leaving her, but a good life behind as well.
            An example of why many readers wouldn't classify Holden as a hero is the fact that he runs away from his problems and depends of others for assistance. For example, when Phoebe (his YOUNGER sister) gave him her Christmas money it was all so he could spend a little more time preparing for telling his parents the bad news. Or when he ran away to New York City in the first place. "I didn't want to go home or anything until they got it and thoroughly digested it and all." This quote shows that Holden is a coward, and I don't think anyone who is a coward should be classified as a hero. It also shows that he is weak, and doesn't like to face up to problems that he creates; which is another thing that leads me to believe that he isn't a hero.
            In conclusion, Holden shouldn't be considered the hero of The Catcher in the Rye, because he simply doesn't fit the definition of a hero; a person who is admired or idealized for courage. And from the quotes and examples used, it quite obviously that he isn't very courageous.

Minimum Crime Sentencing *To be or not to be?*

I’m sure in kindergarten, everyone had that incident where they stole a marker from their classroom, and faced consequences like time out or something similar. Well what if (as a kindergartener) for a small “crime” like that, you were forced to stay in your room for one month straight. That scenario is the basics of minimum jail sentencing (minus the crime of course and a little more extreme). Mandatory minimum jail sentencing? Being forced to a sentence that maybe you don’t deserve, is more like it. Placing a mandatory minimum sentence is too much of an injustice to continue using as threat, and the government needs to change this.

Senator Patrick Leahy thinks that this policy of mandatory minimum jail sentencing should be ended. There are many consequences to this that certainly aren’t benefiting the U.S.. For one, due to this policy there has been a dramatic growth in the federal prison populations. What if the population grows so large that there is no longer space for the real criminals, the murderers are running free while the small time robbers are locked up. Another consequence that we are facing because of this is loss of capital. As of now, we spend about $6.4 million on federal prisons- if the populations weren’t so high, the prisons wouldn’t need to use so much of the Justice Department’s budget. A semi-recent case of this is of Weldon Angelos, a 23-year-old man with no criminal history. He received a minimum sentencing of 55 years for selling a total of $350 worth of marijuana on three separate occasions while in possession of a gun. While this is a serious crime, 55 years seems like a bit of a long sentence to accompany it. When he’s released, this case will have cost the American taxpayers $1.5 million. In my opinion, judges should be deciding sentences on a case-by-case basis, not by a standard.

Henry Garza believes that this policy should be kept in our nation’s court system. One reason he believes this is because it serves as a threat to “prospective” inmates. Meaning people who may be thinking of committing a crime will see that they are definitely going to jail for x amount of time and possibly change their minds. While this may serve as a threat, is it really strong enough to make a difference? I don’t think so. Most people who are committing crimes aren’t thinking straight in the first place, let alone listening and thinking about possible punishments. Henry Garza also thinks that mandatory minimum sentencing makes the justice system more fair and consistent. But is what we really want  consistency? Allowing minor crimes to be treated the same as bigger felonies doesn’t seem fair.  Henry Garza believes that “mandatory minimum sentencing helps ensure that if you do the crime, you do the time.” While I do agree that criminals should be punished, I don’t think a standard is fair.

After reading this article, I realized how unfair the federal justice system is. This policy of mandatory minimum sentencing, it was an attempt to make things more fair and consistent. But I don’t think it makes sense and doesn’t seem right. Criminals should be punished based on their crime, not on what the federal standard says.

Poetry Reading Response

When reading poetry many people over analyze what they’re reading.  It's simply a habit that the human race has adopted. Instead of over analyzing poems, readers should read from the surface and pay attention to the semi-obvious themes. They should enjoy the poem and understand the meaning almost automatically. The poet, Billy Collins, uses his poem "Introduction to Poetry" to show the audience his opinion on over analyzing. He believes that poems should be read effortlessly, letting the reader easily interpret a theme instead of digging deep for one. Billy Collins expresses his opinion through the personification of a poem.

          Billy Collins’ poem, “Introduction to Poetry”, relays this message throughout the whole poem using personification. The lines "I want them to waterski/ across the surface of a poem" shows the speaker’s opinion very clearly (9-10). By using personification, the poet managed to show how, like a water-ski skims across the surface of the water, the reader's mind should do the same when figuring out the theme/ message of a poem. The speaker believes that the meaning is usually right in front of your face, not deep in the depths of the ocean.

           When someone is reading a poem they may want to over analyze the meaning out of it, but the goal of the speaker is to show the reader to look at the poem simply. This is shown in the lines "But all they want to do/ is tie the poem to a chair with rope/ and torture a confession out of it" (13-15). This quote expresses the speaker's opinion that poems should be read to be enjoyed. By using personification the poet shows that all he wants is for his poem to be read and enjoyed, not for every line to be ripped apart and deciphered like a code.

Poetry is written to be enjoyed, it’s not written to be analyzed like criminal evidence. If people were to over analyze everything, everyone ever said to them, we would end up interpreting different and wrong ideas. And that is exactly what would happen if you were to over analyze poetry. The poet's original meaning would get lost in new meaning that may not really make sense. Over analyzation creates an unnecessary illusion within the readers mind.

Works Cited

Collins, Billy. Introduction to Poetry. N.p.: n.p., n.d. Print.

Poetry Reading Response *DRAFT*

            In this world, anything and everything is over analyzed, whether it's something someone says, or the way someone looks at you. It's simply a habit that the human race has adopted. The poet Billy Collins uses his poem "Introduction to Poetry" to show the audience his opinion on over analyzing. He expresses his opinion through the personification of a poem.
            Poets often write poems with obvious meanings, trying not to leave room for the over analyzers in the world that want to change the poem's meaning. The lines "I want them to waterski/ across the surface of a poem" shows the speakers opinion very clearly (9-10). By using personification, the poet managed to show how, like a waterski skims across the surface of the water, the reader's mind should do the same. The speaker believes that the meaning is usually right in front of your face, not deep in the depths of the ocean.
            Over analyzing is so easy to do that it has almost become a habit to us as humans, and now, it's all everyone wants to do. This is shown in the lines "But all they want to do/ is tie the poem to a chair with rope/ and torture a confession out of it" (13-15). This quote expresses the speaker's opinion very well. By using personification the poet shows that all he wants is for his poem to be read and enjoyed, not for every line to be ripped apart and deciphered like a code. The speaker wants his poem to be enjoyed and for the meaning to be understood almost automatically.
            If people were to over analyze everything, everyone ever said to them, we would end up interpreting different and wrong ideas. And that is exactly what would happen if you were to over analyze poetry. The poet's original meaning would get lost in new meaning that may not really make sense. Over analyzation creates an unnecessary illusion within the readers mind.

Creative Writing

Tomorrow

Yesterday

She screamed for help

Asked for someone to come and save her from falling
deep deep into oblivion

Today 

She waits

For someone to come and rescue her

From the monster developing inside her body

Tomorrow

Won't happen 

Because she yearned for a rescuer

But no one came

Letting the monster overcome her body

Divergent by Veronica Roth: An Independent Reading Reponse

            The author of Divergent, Veronica Roth, develops her characters in such a way that you can automatically connect with them. Divergent tells the story of Tris (her real name is Beatrice), a 16 year-old girl, who lives in a dystopian society where as a teenager, you choose your own fate. There are five factions, Amity; housing those who honor peacefulness, Dauntless; housing those who honor bravery, Candor; housing those who honor honesty, Abegnation; housing those who honor selflessness and Erutide; housing those who honor intelligence. And choosing your fate can make or break your character.
            Tris, the main character, starts off the book as Abegnation. In her house, she can't speak unless her parents address her and she can't show any interest in herself before others. Because of these rules she lives by, Beatrice is a very reserved, quiet person, who doesn't stand up for herself. "We aren't supposed to speak at the dinner table unless our parents ask us a direct question, and they usually don't" (Roth 36). Although this rule does reflect the selflessness quality, it seems a little extreme. But Beatrice (nor her brother, Caleb) doesn't do anything about it, she sits there and accepts the little freedom she has.
            A few chapter into the book, comes the initiation ceremony. Where all of the 16 year-olds in every faction have to choose their fate and decide which faction they will stand by for the rest of their lives. "I shift forward and my blood sizzles on the coals," (Roth 47). Tris, an Abegnation born, takes a bold move and sends her self to Dauntless. A faction that honors the brave, but Tris's choice already proves that she is brave enough to transfer to Dauntless. It takes a huge amount of guts to transfer from the faction you grew up in, where your parents will continue to live, to another unknown faction
            By the very end of the book, Tris has proved to the reader that she has become a full blown Dauntless. Four, one of her initiation teachers, held a gun to a boy named Peter's head, hoping to push him into place. Reflecting back on that moment, Tris thought "I wish he had pulled that trigger" (Roth 297). Wishing death upon someone may not be brave, but it is certainly not selfless. Proving that Tris has become a whole new personality. A Dauntless personality.
          Everyone changes internally to some degree when they make a huge external change. For example, if one were to go to a new school, they may begin to act differently to try and fit in. Another example would be Tris. She transferred factions, causing her entire personality to change. Some may not see Tris' change as a positive one, but in my perspective, she changed for the better. In her new faction, she needs to know how to stand up for herself, which she learned how to do. Tris' changes caused her to be able to protect herself from the dangers being Dauntless and Divergent bring along.

Non-Fiction Reading Response: Roadkill For Dinner

            After reading the article "Roadkill for Dinner" in the October 2013 issue of Upfront Magazine,  I was intrigued by the actions PETA is taking. The article states that "every year, 2 million years are struck by cars and trucks in the U.S" (Roadkill For Diner). And new laws in Montana are making the best of the situation by allowing citizens to haul away and cook up the dead animals that they find on the roadside. "If there is some good stuff there, why not use it, rather than throw it away?" said the Montana state representative behind the law (Roadkill for Dinner). More than a dozen states including Illinois and New Jersey, require a permit to remove roadkill from the road. The odd thing is that animal rights organizations like PETA, endorse the practice of eating roadkill. These organizations don't find it wrong, because they say "it doesn't involve intentionally slaughtering animals." (Roadkill for Dinner).
            First of all, I feel that this text makes the reader feel that our huge amounts of roadkill aren't an issue. But after reading this article, I realized it was a HUGE issue. And the fact that people are now allowed to take dead animals off the road and eat them, seems to be making it easier to believe that accidentally hitting a deer (for example) is alright. One example that proves this is when the author includes a fact about an animal rights organization called People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. "PETA half-heartedly endorses the practice... since it doesn't involve intentionally slaughtering" (Roadkill for Dinner). After reading this quote, I felt that PETA was going against everything they seemed to believe in. These animals are being killed, yes it's unintentional, but it isn't unavoidable, and that humans are taking advantage of this. It just doesn't seem right to me.
            I also feel that this article makes roadkill seem like a better alternative to store-bought meat. While some people may need to depend on roadkill, because they simply can't afford store-bought meat. Others are cooking up roadkill just because it's there. According to the article "Sonny Lawson of South Carolina [says] ... you wouldn't know the difference," when talking about the taste (Roadkill for Dinner). While it may taste the same, how healthy do you think it is for you? This meat has been on the road for at least a few hours and then you go ahead and eat it, most likely not cleaning it properly. It probably isn't the best option. While roadkill may be a free alternative to store bought meat, is it really the better option in the end?
         This article has forced me to acknowledge the story about roadkill that I didn't know before. I think before I settle that roadkill is OK to eat, I would have to do some more research on the actual health bits. But after reading the article, and hearing what PETA had to say, I still think eating roadkill is unethical and wrong, but some people need to do it to survive. What do I think about them? I still don't know.