Paragraph Evaluation

Essay

Sibling rivalry is present in almost every family where there is more than one child. This type of rivalry is definitely present in the book Montana 1948; the rivalry is between David, the main character’s, father Wesley and David’s uncle Frank. Wesley, the town sheriff was really a typical person with nothing really special about him, at this point in his life he is an ex-law school grad who is currently working in the same profession as his father, the sheriff of Mercer County, Montana. This had been a position that Wes’s father had owned for many years before he turned the job over to Wes after he retired, this caused Wes to forgo a promising career in law to take this job. Frank, Wes’s brother has definitely had a more decorated life than Wes. Frank was a star athlete throughout high school and college, and then he would go on to be a war hero during the pacific battles in WWII as a battlefield doctor. He is currently a doctor living in the same area of Montana as Wes and his family. Both brothers never seem to exhibit any real feelings of a bitter rivalry for the most part, and for the most part seem to get along well; however the rivalry is definitely there as it is in most families, even though both men are adults. One tactic to stop sibling rivalries is to have both of them realize that both people have had different lives and both have accomplished much, but both have turned out okay, at a certain point two siblings they need to realize that not everything is a competition.


Research

Sibling rivalries are often present in families, they can sometimes play a major role in how the siblings live and deal with issues between one another. In the book Montana 1948 there is a big rivalry between the protagonist’s father Wes and uncle Frank. In a study published by Denise Henry of Scholastic Choices she says that, “family members will eventually grow out of a rivalry as they mature,” however, these two grown men have been rivals all their lives. Also, the same source goes on to say that, “As long as the two rivals remember that they are family they will be fine,” this is definitely displayed because even though Wes and Frank are rivals, they get along with each other very well. The reader can tell that Wes and Frank have a good relationship despite the rivalry because when on page 35 during a telephone conversation between the two about Wes’s families sick Native American Housekeeper both managed to take each other seriously during the call and have a professional conversation without any extra comments. It seems that even though they haven’t matured out of the rivalry completely yet, because there are still some instances where Wes is jealous of the recognition that Frank gets, like when Wes read some newspaper clippings about Franks heroism in WWII as a doctor he made a sarcastic remark which was, “I wonder if he was supposed to stay at the hospital.” (pg 36) However despite all of that they still manage to use tactics such as using the fact that they are family and should help each other rather than always compete to maintain at least a friendly relationship. This is definitely an example of how sibling rivalries can be controlled even though they are present.


Above are two paragraphs about sibling rivalry in the book Montana 1948 one is essay style and one is research. The difference is mostly that an essay style paragraph is usually a bunch of themes and quotes directly from a story. However a research essay contains research from something other than the book, usually a newspaper or online database of some kind, and contains more citations than an essay paragraph would. For me at least, I find writing a regular essay easier because it doesn't take as long to write since there is no extra research involved. However, research papers are more detailed and give more opinions and information about a topic, and that depth can make the point the writer is attempting to make clearer and easier to understand. So although I definitely like essays better due to their simplicity, a research paper is definitely the more professional of the two. For some more examples check out these two blogs of my friends Jamal, and Smith.

Montana 1948 (annotation practice)

Johnson, Kirk. "Vine Deloria Jr., Champion of Indian Rights, Dies At 72." The New York Times 15 Nov. 2005, Late ed., sec. A: 25. ProQuest. ProQuest. Pascack Hills High School Library, Montvale. 28 Apr. 2008.


Native Americans have always have had a profound affect on the "white man's" society. From the times of Lewis and Clark's western expeditions through today Natives have always influenced how white people lived. Vine Deloria Jr. of the Pine Ridge Oglala Siou reservation in Montana made it his life's work to make this known. Even while the Indians were being kept on the reservations they still had a large affect on surrounding life. Deloria Jr. published many books that explained how Natives affected lives, like how they showed the original settlers how to survive off the land, and about the spiritual aspects of both the Native and Christian religions. He showed how the Natives were not all that different or in some ways better; themes like this earned him national spotlight and made his message known. When he died he had influenced many about his native culture and how it should be respected like any other

Macbeth Extra

For the past month or so we have been reading the Shakespearean play Macbeth. During this time we have been reviewing many themes about this play, such as females who have power, greed, and corruption. All these themes definitely play a large role in the play Macbeth and all of them help add thought and depth to the play. One theme that is recurring throughout the play that we didn't really go into in class was betrayal. Betrayal is sort of linked to the other things that we talked about because power, greed, and corruption usually lead to betrayal of some sort, but since betrayal played such a huge role in the play it should be talked about separately.
In the beginning of the story Macbeth appeared to be a very normal person. He was the Thane of Glamis, which was a high ranking title, but not all that high. He was very loyal to King Duncan, his country, and Banquo, one of his friends. He was a typical guy that wasn't particularly special in any way. Then the Thane of Cawdor, who was the second most powerful man to the royal family, was accused of treason and sentenced to death (it is very ironic that both Thanes of Cawdor, that other guy and Macbeth both became disloyal to the king). Then King Duncan decided that he should appoint Macbeth, ironically at the time one of his most loyal followers, to the position of the Thane of Cawdor. Then before the news got to Macbeth he ran into three witches who told him that he would become the Thane of Cawdor and later the king of Scotland. Soon afterwards, after a conversation with his wife about this his personality goes under a great amount of change.
His first act of betrayal was obviously when he murdered Duncan, who had appointed Macbeth to his current ToC position due to his loyalty. Next, when Banquo began to get suspicious of Duncan's murder Macbeth hired three murderers to kill Banquo and his son, which they eventually did; now Macbeth had betrayed two of the people who had previously trusted him the most. Then Macbeth went on a killing spree, betraying and murdering anyone who he felt threatened his reign. Most significantly he murdered Macduff's family. He had betrayed all of his fellow thanes as well as all the people he ruled over by becoming a tyrant. All of this betrayal is eventually what lead to his demise when he was later murdered by Macduff, who was fighting for revenge over his murdered family. Then, his very short corrupt reign over his country was over. Which just shows how betraying an entire country could lead to everyone turn against him and eventually lead to his death.


While looking through the internet I found a "rational list" that showed Macbeth's betrayal and corruption, the link to it is here:
Macbeth "rational list"

GUILT

Guilt can play a major role in someone's life; it can cause them to act differently than they normally would in certain situations. Guilt can make us regret decisions that we make even if we were sure that we wouldn't have feelings of remorse when we committed these actions. A real life example of this was when back in 1960 a young Dartmouth student stole a WWI cannon outside of a war veterans retirement home. The cannon would continue to be hidden up until 40 years later when an old man who claimed to be an old Dartmouth student decided that the prank had gotten old and told the location of the hidden cannon to the authorities. As it turned out the cannon was hidden under the Dartmouth football field's stands, and marked with a limber, or wheeled ammunition carriage, which had been in plain sight for forty years (many people had known it was there, but naturally since it wasn't bothering anyone nobody bothered to say anything about it. Now all these years after the cannon was stolen, its location was revealed because of an old man who felt too guilty to take the secret of the cannon's location to his grave.
For myself personally guilt hasn't really affected me much. I'm not saying that I have never apologized when I have done something wrong, but usually that's only when I get caught doing something. Honestly, other than that I don't feel guilt that often. I try to live without regret, and if I ever begin to feel any I ignore it and move on.
Anyway, in Macbeth guilt affects one character in particular and leads to her apparent suicide. Lady Macbeth spends most of her time at the end of the play talking to herself about her regret of killing King Duncan. She continually remarks on how she felt regret for his murder because she apparently felt that she had pushed her husband into murdering the king. Eventually, right before the final battle between Macbeth and Macduff, she dies, most likely a case of suicide. This shows how powerful guilt can be and how it can lead people "over the edge." This is another example of how human emotion really can play a huge role in the way that people live out their lives.


Sources cited:
Abel, David. "Guilt May Have Cracked Cold Case; Man's Confession Could Bring Return of Cannon to Vt." The Boston Globe 10 Apr. 2008, Final ed., sec. B: 1. ProQuest. 16 Apr. 2008.

Feminism and Macbeth

Personally, I have a very one sided opinion when it comes to feminism, I think that it is a joke, at least in its modern form. 30-40 years ago when Rosa Parks was refusing to move from her seat on the bus, and all those women marching in Washington, really showed how women wanted to advance themselves; that was a very respectful form of women protesting for their rights and what they wanted. Today you get people like Paris Hilton and people like that who claim to be feminists, but all they really do is degrade women everywhere. Their version of acting out is to expose themselves in public, and to sexually exploit everyone that they come in contact with. Honestly, whoever idolizes that type of feminist deserves to be hit over the head and taken to the nearest therapist, because aside from the head trauma from getting hit in the head, they need to find a way to get over their obsession with bad role models. This image of a "strong" women nowadays is apparently a women who is willing to do stupid, regrettable actions that get them attention. The true idols for women should be strong humanitarians of both the present and the past, such as Rosa Parks, Susan B. Anthony (one of the only women on current US currency) , Abigail Adams, Melinda Gates (wife of Bill Gates, who like Paris Hilton is also a billionaire, but she is truly as strong, positive influence for women). I think that are who young girls today should be looking up to, not; as to quote South Park, "Stupid, spoiled, *people*." (everyone who knows what I'm talking about knows what this quote really is, I just can't write it because this is a school blog) These women, such as Paris, Brittany, and whoever else girls stupidly idolize today, just make women seem to be a joke to the rest of the world, and they give the idea of women having equal rights a bad name. As politically incorrect as this seems, if the Paris Hilton idea of feminism became nationally recognized then all women should be locked up in cages in order to prevent them from doing things that will shame themselves and their families. If women want to be treated equal to men then they have to be able to learn that they must be able to be considered as responsible as the more respectful men in the world are; otherwise they should just admit that they (as said by Carlos Mencia, who I hate to be quoting but he is actually right this time), "don't want to be treated like men, they just want to be paid like men." All in all, I think that feminism has the potential to be a good thing, but only if the right views of feminism are followed.
Feminism plays a large role in the Shakespearean play Macbeth. Lady Macbeth, the wife of Macbeth, is a huge example of a women having power. She is one of the most influential people in the entire play, and she was the reason that Macbeth was convinced to murder King Duncan, who had been an ally of Macbeth's. Lady Macbeth definitely shows the strong qualities that are exhibited in all real feminist leaders today.

Good People Doing Bad Things

The play Macbeth is a great example of people who are good doing things that are really bad. Macbeth was a goodhearted, trustworthy person until his wanting for the title of king and his wife's ambition took him over. A real life example of good people going bad was with Bill Clinton during his second presidential term.
President Clinton had previously been considered as one of the best presidents in American history; he created a national surplus out of a massive national debt, effectively minimized ethnic conflict in Africa, and created one of America's greatest economic situations in nearly 30 years. Then one day in 1998 towards the end of his second term the country would find out that Clinton had been involved in scandal. It was revealed to the country that Clinton had been having a private affair with an intern in his office named Monica Lewinsky, and then Clinton was charged with sexual misconduct by many people inside his administration (the most notable being Paula Jones) and brought to court.
In court he continually stated how he "never slept with that women," over and over again. Then as the case went on it was discovered that he had been lying the entire time; as a result of that he was charged with purgery, or lying under oath. This dramatically lower his public image with the American people and made some people begin to question him. This legal conflict nearly caused Clinton to lose his presidential status nearly 3 years before he was supposed to (which would have made him the first president to be actually impeached). However, he managed to get out of it because congress couldn't get enough votes to impeach him (this was probably because congress was heavily represented by democrats who wanted Clinton to remain in office). Clinton now had a scarred reputation and a loss of credibility in many ways, one such example was that he became the butt of many jokes on Saturday Night Live, and many other comedy shows. The rest of his term went by without much other conflict and he would leave office as scheduled in 2001, where he would be succeeded by George W. Bush, the son of Clinton's predecessor George H.W. Bush.
This type of thing was similar to Macbeth in the sense that both Clinton and Macbeth were both honest, hard working, trustworthy men who became victims to doing things that were morally wrong. Both made some bad decisions, tried to cover them up, and both got caught doing things wrong. Unfortunately for Macbeth, I don't think that he will get a congressional hearing and a fair trial for his actions, he will probably have to "learn" from his mistakes in a more severe, less humane way.

The Socratic Seminar

Today in class we had a socratic seminar; a socratic seminar for all of you who don't know is when a lot of people put their desks in a circle and talk about a topic. In this one the topic was the first 6 scenes in the Shakespearian play Macbeth. These seminars are a way for students in our class to boost their grades because all you have to do is talk and you get points that wind up shooting ones grade up by two or three points (trust me that is a lot). I wasn't in this one, but I had the very important job of observing while half the class talked, and talked, and talked more. My job as on observer was to take notes on what other people said while trying as hard as I could not to dose off, cause trust me when you have a class at 8:00 in the morning it is hard to be fully awake and attentive cause most people are still tired. Anyway, as I listened to the seminar I learned others opinions about the book, some I agreed with, and some I didn't. One of the main ideas and thoughts that I agreed with was said by a classmate, Steve. Steve said that Macbeth, like most Shakespearean plays are difficult to understand unless you really know a lot about the way Shakespeare writes. Another student in class, Jen, agreed and said how Shakespeare's plays were all written similarly in terms of grammar and language. Both of these things are things that I agree with because I have the same feelings about Shakespeare, his plays all seem similar and I can't understand any of them the first time I read them.
Macbeth is the type of Shakespearean play known as a tragedy (as pointed out by a very opinionated classmate Sean), this means that it has a darker mood and the protagonist usually dies. Many others agreed with this statement and went on to say how there were many symbols that indicated this mood. One of these as pointed out by nearly half the class that was in the seminar was how betrayal played a major role. For an example of this, Macbeth, the protagonist, winds up murdering his friend King Duncan, in an effort to become king.
All in all, most comments said were very generic comments that I generally agreed on, I didn't really disagree on much, the only thing that I didn't like was how someone (I forgot to write down who) said that fate didn't play a huge role in the character's lives. Contrary to that, if fate didn't play a huge role, than Macbeth wouldn't have listened to the three witches when they said that he would be king. However, he did listen and now the previous king is dead.
One of the most important comments I heard in the seminar was about Macbeth's very controlling wife, known as Lady Macbeth. Lady Macbeth is a very powerful women, who likes to be in control at all times of Macbeth. She is the one who really persuaded Macbeth to murder King Duncan. Their marriage is a typical example of a relationship where the women is in control. I think that this is a major theme in the book, it would appear that the women have all the power, for example the most powerful and significant characters in this part of the book are the witches, who are of course women. Also, the person who persuades Macbeth to do evil things, such as murder, is his wife. A very hillarious comment made by one of my classmates Jen was how Lady Macbeth fit the boy code, or the code that men typically follow during their everyday lives.
The only thing that I want to know is who is the most powerful and influencial person in the book; I couldn't make this determination because the people in the seminar were split between the witches or "weird sisters" and Lady Macbeth (with one person saying the the most influential person was Macbeth because if he wasn't born than none of this would have happened; I found that comment funny).
The play Macbeth is definitely more interesting than I thought it would be and as we as a class get closer to the climax I feel that it will continue to get better still.
Finally a Shakespearean play that hasn't made me wanted to kill myself while I was reading it.