Literary Essay

        Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire is about a teen-age boy wizard who has many adventures with his friends Ron Weasley and Hermione Granger. In this world, there is magic, mythical creatures, and evil dark wizards like Harry's arch-enemy lord Voldemort. One kind of mythical creature is a house elf. House elves are elves that are the servants of wizards, they could also be considered slaves. And some wizards like Hermione believe that the enslavement of these creatures, while other wizards such as the Malfoys, an unfriendly wizard family that works for lord Voldemort, believe that house elves want to be enslaved and it is their purpose in life. But as these wizards argue over whether or not the elves should be free, we never get to hear what the elves actually think about their enslavement. J.K. Rowling often had someone's perspective missing in order to prove a point either about the characters or about issues in the real world. I believe that J.K. Rowling has the perspective of the house elves on this matter on purpose.

         One reason that I think the author did this is in order to represent how slaves were in real life. For example, in the 13 colonies, slaves were unallowed to speak when they were not given permission. Also when slavery was debated in the United States, liberals and conservatives argued about whether slavery should be abolished but the actual people who were enslaved had no political voice and so they could not give their own opinion, so their perspectives were missing much like that of the house elves.

         Another reason why I think the author did this is because, now that the perspective of the house elves is missing, this makes it so the perspectives and opinions of all of the other characters more important. In most situations that involve inhumane behavior, the perspective of the victim is obviously the most important. But now that the perspective of the victim is not available, readers will be forced to pick sides and have their own opinion about the subject. This makes reading this more interactive and interesting.

         Another reason why I think that the author did this is because she wanted to show how when people argue, they are so stubborn that they don't even care about what the person whose actual problem it is has to say. For example, when someone is getting bullied (like the house elves) by a bully (the Malfoys) and someone comes to stand up for them (Hermione), the people who are standing up for the victim can get so into the argument that the issue now seems like it is between the bully and them. This is how many fights can go and this is portrayed in the issue of the house elves' silence.

        Having the perspective of the house elves missing is in Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire for many reasons, and most likely for more than just representing how slavery was dealt with in the real world, giving the other characters more say and giving the readers a chance to have their own opinion about the subject, or demonstrating how many arguments evolve in real life. But finding how this issue can lead to deeper meanings and themes is just one more reason why reading Harry Potter is an enjoyable experience. 

Link to original post: www.hereabookthereabook.blogspot.com post name: Whose Perspective is missing in Harry Potter and The Goblet of Fire. 

 

 

My Response to an author's belief that homosexuality is wrong.

         "10 Reasons Why Homosexual "Marriage" is Wrong and Must be Opposed" by TFP Student Action talks about how they think that homosexual activity and marriage is wrong and gives 10 reasons why they believe so. First of all, I'm just going to let any reader know that I entirely oppose this article and I disagree with everything that the author says about homosexuality, but I chose it so that I could show the author's clear opinion and argue my own point.
         As you could most likely tell from the title, the main idea of the entire article is that gay marriage is wrong and the author comes up with 10 reasons why they think this. The first reason is very straight forward and it is " gay marriage is not marriage ". They explain that the "traditional" definition of marriage is the holy joining of a man and a woman and that "just calling something marriage, doesn't make it marriage". The next example the author gave of how homosexual marriage is wrong is that "it violates natural law". The author explains that it is only natural to have a man and a woman together, and no other way is natural. The third example that the author gave about why they believed that gay marriage is wrong is that "it denies a child either a father or a mother". The author explains that because the marriage would be between two people of the same sex, there couldn't be a father, and a mother. The next reason was that "it validates and promotes the homosexual lifestyle". The author explains that if homosexuality is legalized, then more people will be openly gay. The fifth reason was that "It turns moral wrong into a civil right", the author explains that activists are considering same-sex marriage to be a civil right when they shouldn't be. The sixth reason was that "it does not create a family but a natural sterile union" and the author also says that when two homosexual spouses want a child and adopt one, this does not create a family but a "living hell for the child". The seventh reason was that "it defeats the states purpose of benefitting marriage". The author continues to state that "homosexual marriage's primary purpose is the personal gratification of two individuals whose union is sterile by nature. The eighth reason was "it imposes it's acceptance on all society". The author explains that if same-sex marriage is legalized, then everyone would be forced to accept it. The ninth reason was "it is the cutting edge of the sexual revolution". The author explains that this is giving the sexual revolution (which the author believes is also immoral) more push and it is the biggest thing that they've asked for. The tenth and final reason that the author gave for why they believe homosexual marriage is wrong is that "it offends God". The author states that this is the "most important reason" and that God demonstrated this when he destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah.
       The author shows the clear prospective of a very religious individual. He/she obviously had strong feelings about this topic. He wants us to feel as passionate about this topic as he does, and this could work in both ways, we could either passionately agree with him/her or passionately disagree with him/her. He/she is very straight forward whenever he states his reasons, and he includes no opposing argument. All he does is state his opinion on the matter and move on. Perhaps this works to trick people into believing that since this is the only argument presented, it is the right one. He also keeps saying over and over that anything about homosexuality is a sin so you shouldn't listen to those who believe that it is ok are sinners so you shouldn't believe anything they say either. This might actually work on people that are really religious, or people who are just semi-religious.
       Finally I get to respond to this article! And I have a lot to say. But unfortunately the critical analysis rubric only asks for 1-2 sentences of response, so I will make it brief. But overall I am in complete disagreement with this author. They say they oppose arguments with arguments, but in the arguments they present their arguments, there is no real case based on fact and it is all just opinion. And the thing that bothers me the most is that all of the "arguments" are based on the fact that God was against gay rights but many people do not believe in the same god that is in question, and sometimes no god at all, and because of this, this argument would be completely invalid to any of these people. Instead of basing the arguments on religion, the author should explain why homosexuality is wrong ethically. Reading this article has only strengthened my belief that people should have the right to be homosexual and get married, and it also gives me many more things to add to my argument.
     

How Does Balance of Interest Affect Reading "Under The Black Flag'?

        Have you ever read a book that at one point was so boring that you wished you had never picked it up, but suddenly in the very next chapter you take everything back and you swear that it is the most exciting and thrilling piece of literature that has ever existed on this earth? This is the sort of feeling that you get from reading "Under The Black Flag" by David Cordingly. This book is about the actual history of pirates and then how our society envisioned pirates over time. The book talks about the average pirate, what they wear, how they commit piracy, their crew, and their vessel. And also talks about famous pirates such as Bartholomew Roberts, Captain Kidd, and of course Blackbeard. The thing that is so unique about this book is that Cordingly goes into extreme detail about every single topic that he discusses making it sometimes all the more interesting and sometimes all the more boring. Cordingly often uses diagrams of actual ships, live accounts, and quotes from journals to provide more useful facts. An example of one of these quotes is when he quotes the journal of one of Sir Francais Drake's crewmember's journal. The quote is we have been travelling for days without any sign of land, God save our souls". These quotes can sometimes be boring or exciting. But they offer a first person look at what the life of a pirate was like. Throughout the entire book, the author continues a pattern of something that the reader may find interesting and then something that the reader may find less interesting but is still important information. For example, chapter 9 titled "Sloops, Schooners, and Pirate Ships" This chapter may be interesting for some but in my experience it was quite boring although i did learn some interesting facts about pirate ships. I was quite ready to put the book down for a bit when suddenly I realized that the next chapter was titled "Hunting Down Pirates". This chapter was extremely interesting to me because it was about the falls of Bartholomew Roberts and Blackbeard after they were hunted down. Suddenly the previous boring chapter didn't matter as I was so immersed in this new one.
        Throughout the entire book, Cordingly tries to convince the readers that piracy was one of the key essential practices that helped to establish our world and societies today. You can tell that he is very fond and passionate about the topic. The author makes every pirate that he discusses seem like a genius in their own respect. He also makes every pirate seize or battle seem like a jedi battle from Star Wars with all of the epic music in the back ground. He does this by describing these battles in great detail. And throughout the entire book, it is this level of detail that makes this book awesome..

Blog Review

       I read Lillian's blog post about The Fault in Our Stars and I was really impressed. The book was about a girl named Hazel who has cancer and is  trying to live with her disease while she also has a strong connection to a girl in her own book that is in the same situation that she is in. Her post was very informative about the book and brought us deep into Lillian's thinking about the complicated characters in the book. She focused mostly on the unseen and hidden messages in the book instead of any obvious themes or messages that might have been easier to find. These things really show how good she is at interpreting and recognizing what the author was trying to do.

       One way that she does this is that she talks about how, even though a certain kind of carelessness would be expected in a girl like Hazel who has cancer, she thought that "secretly, Hazel really cares". She says that she can tell this by her strong connection to Anna ( the girl in Hazel's book ) because she also has cancer just like Hazel "although she never mentions feeling close to Anna, you can tell by the way she talks about the book and it's characters that she does feel close to her". This is just one way that she uses Hazel's behavior to show how she actually feels.

       Another way that Lillian interprets hidden content in this post is she discusses how Hazel really cares about her family. She again uses the way that Hazel cares about the book to show how she cares in real life. According to Lillian, this is because "she is obsessed with figuring out  what happens to Anna's parents after she dies". By interpreting this, Lillian shows that Hazel wants to know what happens to Anna's family so that she can a slight idea about what will happen to her family. This further shows the connection that Lillian found between Hazel and Anna and it helps us further understand the character. Lillian eventually comes to the conclusion that Hazel really does care but she doesn't show it because she doesn't want to hurt anyone that she cares about Lillian thinks that "When you pass, people are glad to have known you and yes, they will be sad, but it is part of human nature to miss people or things, without that we would be much more heartless and careless". I think that this was a deep and beautiful ending to this awesome post.

       As I'm sure I have expressed, I am extremely impressed with Lillian's writing and thinking in her most recent post. Her interpretation of the characters feelings, and of how she disagreed with the character and how she drew her conclusion on the issue was very professional and interesting, and it especially makes me want to read this book myself so I can draw my own conclusions about Hazel.

Her awesome post can be found at http://eternitylilli.blogspot.com/

      

Who is the Narrator in The Hobbit by J.R.R. Tolkien?

          The Hobbit by J.R.R. Tolkien is about a fantasy world in which elves, dwarves and dragons roam. The main character is named Bilbo Baggins and he is a creature called a hobbit. And along with the help of Gandalf a wizard, he decides to go on an adventure with 13 dwarves so that he can help them get back their gold. The reason this is an issue is that, Bilbo Baggins and the vast majority of hobbits are very peaceful and not fond of adventures, but as the adventure progresses, Bilbo realizes that he is not part of that majority any longer. We, the readers, are brought through this adventure by a narrator that always knows what is going and knows what is going to happen next. But we actually never know who this narrator is. We get a partly clear personality that has led me to believe that this mystery narrator is either Bilbo Baggins after all of his adventures or J.R.R. Tolkien himself.

          One reason that I think it might be Bilbo Baggins after he is retired and settled down is that this is the way that the movie "The Hobbit" ( part 1 ) depicted the narrator. In the beginning and end of the Movie, it shows old Bilbo Baggins writing a book called, "There and Back Again" which is another name for the book in discussion, The Hobbit!!! Also, the narrator talks as if they were actually there, which of course being the main character, Bilbo was. And finally, the narrator talks as if they were an old person telling a story, like possibly Bilbo telling Frodo ( the main character from The Lord of The Rings) a story. And when Tolkien wrote this book, he was only 45 years old, which is not particularly old.

         One reason that the narrator might be J.R.R. Tolkien is that when the narrator explains what a hobbit is , he says " they rather shy of Big People, as they call us" on page 4. The word us gives away that the narrator is infact a "Big Person" or human and not a Hobbit. And J.R.R. Tolkien was a human, although it is confusing because the narrator spoke as if hobbits existed within the world that he lives in, and there are no hobbits in the 20th century that Tolkien lived in. But this also brings up the question of how does Tolkien know what was going to happened? Well, it is possible that Tolkien (if he was living in Middle Earth) heard the story from someone else and then wrote this book, because it is supposed to seem like everything that occurred within it's pages were true and aactually happened.

      But overall, whether the narrator is Tolkien or Bilbo, it will not effect the story much because whoever the narrator is, does a good job at drawing the reader in, making them want to read more, and helping the reader understand what is happening. So in a way, the narrator could be anyone and it wouldn't matter.

Why Is There Perspective of Children in "What Does Marriage Mean?"?

                In the article "What Does Marriage Mean?" by Erika Lewis is about how many kids are
confused about gay marriage because their families taught them that it was wrong. She begins with a
scenario: there is a boy named Zane who has two moms and when everyone is talking about their
familes, he tells people. The other kid then begin a discussion of how "two moms can't get married"
because "my dad told me that's illegal". This causes Zane to feel confused and sad. Then the author
asks the question "Has something like this ever happened to you" and then says how it's alright to feel
confused because society has some backwards beliefs. She assures the readers that gay marriage is not illegal and should not be illegal. She then says that in order to understand what to do if you are in that situation, you have to understand why people are confused about gay marriage in the first place. She says people are confused because their family has passed down beliefs from the ages when everyone believed that gay marriage was wrong and the issue didn't really exist. But now that it is an issue and many people believe that gay people should the right to love one another and should be able to get married. It is because of these beliefs that many people are confused about whether gay marriage should be legal or not. "Many of these beliefs also come from religions that are against homosexuality" she explains. Her descriptions use less big vocabulary and the article seems to be targeting children as readers.

               The most interesting and compelling thing about Erika Lewis' writing was that it was meant for children. She might have done this because she believes that it is not a child's fault what they think because much of the topic, they don't understand. Also, a lot of these "beliefs" come from falsified information from their parents and their religion. It may also prove the point that if the kid didn't have his parents opinion to go off of, then they would make their own decisions based on their logic and judgment of right and wrong. In the article, the author obviously believes that gay people should have the same rights as everyone else. From this article, my belief that gays should have equal rights is now stronger and more supported.

Whose Perspective is Missing in Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire?

             This book in the Harry Potter series is about how Voldemort is returning to power and an unknown person put Harry's name in the goblet of fire, which entered him into the Triwizard Cup which is known as the most dangerous contest played by Hogwarts. People have even been known to die. But there are also smaller issues in the book.  As I discussed in my previous blog post, the issue of elf slavery and racism in Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire is clear As I said before, the argument used by those who were in favor of this slavery was that the elves liked being put to work, and  the argument used by the people that were against the slavery was that it was cruel and unjust and they didn't like it. But there is one perspective that is not given a very clear voice and that is the perspective of the elves themselves.

              For example, when Hermione argues with Ron about the slavery in the kitchen, the elves just serve them and say nothing. J.K. Rowling may have left out this perspective in order to let the reader  make their own choice in the and allow them to have their own opinion. Or maybe she left this out because it further represents exactly how the slavery issue was handled in the United States. For example, because they were enslaved, slaves were unable to speak their mind to the government, or to their masters. Instead we were left with those who were not slaves, arguing over other people's freedom.
           
            Now what happens to the other characters is that their arguments are more important. Because if the perspective of the elves was given, then the other opinions are not as important because the elves are the ones who are being enslaved. And in that kind of situation, the victims' perspectives are the most important. But without those details, the reader is forced to pick a side based on the arguments given by those who aren't slaves. And it makes it a tougher choice because characters that we know and love will have separate opinions and we are torn between siding with Hagrid or Hermione. Because of this, readers will not make their choice based on which characters think what, it is based on the arguments that they bring to the table in order to support their idea.

         In conclusion, the perspective of the elves is very unclear and overall missing. This may have been done in order to have the reader make their own opinion or to further represent how slavery was dealt with in the United States. But without this point of view, it beefs up the perspectives of the other characters and forces readers to pick a side. As can be seen, there is much more to the book than what is in the blurb.