What are the implications of the opening sentence, "The year was 2081, and everyone was finally equal" (7)? What happened? Are capitalism and American democracy dead? Did Soviet-style totalitarianism finally prevail? What does the elimination of advantages, difference, and competition suggest concerning the nature of the changes that have taken place?

This story goes over 70 years into the future and gives a version of what the world will be like. The government enables a way of living that creates complete equality to a very extreme extends. There is no such thing as competition. Capitalism and American democracy do not exist. Soviet style totalitarianism completely dominates. Everyone becomes equal and does whatever the government tells them to do. The way people are forced to live is completely cruel and inhumane. By eliminating any advantages and differences between people it causes people to live as robots. No thought, no real emotion, nothing. As one who lives in society where differences are embraced, these changes seem dreadful, and no one in the right mind would want to live under them. These people, unfortunately, don’t know any better, and are told that competition is bad. Fortunately, we know better.


Are such changes impossible under American capitalism or are they likely results of just such a system? What human tendencies underlie the sort of world described by Vonnegut? Are these the end results of the progressive spread of middle class greed, envy, and pettiness (the character of, for example, the shoppers in Updike's "A&P")?. What does the experience of America in the late twentieth century suggest? What does the popularity of shows like Oprah's and Rosie O'Donnell's hint at? Why are such figures role models? What is given center stage in such shows? What about Barbie dolls redesigned to look more like "real" people? How about certain trends in elementary/secondary and even higher education (e.g. grade inflation)? What of practices in organized sports for youth such as giving equal playing time regardless of ability, of not keeping score (and acting as if one didn't know what the score was); of giving medals to players on teams regardless of how they finished in their league?

I believe that changes like this are impossible under American capitalism. We thrive on competition here in America, and I don’t think anyone would agree on letting everything be equal. Humans all have a competitive side, or a side that thrives to be different from others. Although in this story all people are suppose to be equal, human tendencies would create people to want to be individuals, even though they wouldn’t be aloud to be. In a way though, people wish we were all equal, Vonnegurt just takes this to an extreme. In a way, this way of life, to an extent, could be the result of the spread of the middle class. This extreme, clearly, would not happen, but as middle class people grow more jealous and greedy they yearn to be equal to everyone else, and as it is progressively spreading, this means they will have more power. In the late twentieth century, it is suggested that we embrace differences, not repel them like shown in this story. By noticing the popularity of talk shows like Oprah and Rosie O’Donnell, we become even more aware of our societies accepting of differences. Rosie, being a homosexual woman, and Oprah, being an African American woman, do not fit into the stereotypical mold of the American society. These woman are role models because they do not fit the norm, and they prove its okay to be different, and embraces that and talking about it is given center stage in these shows. It shows that we, as Americans, appreciate diversity, and are not interested in everything being alike. Another example is the fact that Barbie dolls are now being formed to look like real people. We are not all 7 feet tall, Caucasian, blonde, blue-eyed, DDD cup, and gorgeous women. Barbie’s are more realistic when they all look different, and it creates a better image for children playing with them. If we were all the same intelligence, there would never be a cure for any diseases, or new inventions that could be life changing because no one would have the chance to create them. Going through school all at the same intelligence would be pointless, and it wouldn’t push anyone to be successful in life. In a way, it’s important to keep children somewhat equal. Equal playing time in sports can be seen as a good thing, because kids should not be forced to be competitive at such a young age. In a way, equality in sports is only hindering those who are talented. They should be rewarded for being skilled. As proven, equality should exist in some situations, but a happy medium needs to be found. Differences also need to embraced, not shunned
What are the functions of the agents of "the United States Handicapper General" (7)? What threats to society do such agents combat? What political processes could lead to such absurdities? How is radical mediocrity achieved and enforced?

The “Handicapped General” is in charge of making every equal. Some sort of handicap brings down any advantage someone has. Society will become completely boring and strip everyone of who they really are. God gives people gifts for a reason, and for these gifts to be taken away is ridiculous. In communist counties, some governments try to control their people. A process like making everyone wear the same physical attire is an example of this. Radical mediocrity is enforced by government and laws, and furthermore achieved from the threat of consequences.

What actual developments, policies, trends involving government-enforced equalizing, "handicapping," in America might Vonnegut be parodying in "Harrison Bergeron"? What conceptions of equality motivate such policies and trends?

An example of government-enforced handicapped is security in airports. We are all treated equally, as though we are all terrorists and are threats to society, even though a very small number of us are. Harrison is proving that we are all different people so we should all be seen as different. It’s important not to discriminate and that’s why this is present, but it’s also not to falsely accuse someone of something, and when going through security measures, everyone feels like a criminal.

How is the conception of equality related to basic forms of commercial life such as the commodity and money and the social roles of buyer, seller, and wage-laborer? (Consider what Marx observes about equality and simple commodity circulation on p. 291.) Do capitalist social forms inevitably produce tension around equality by spreading an anti-aristocratic ideology of equality, egalitarianism, that can provoke movements for social equality such as the civil rights movement or the feminist movement, while at the same time continually creating inequalities (at least of income and wealth)? Might the reliance in the story on the government to enforce equality point to such an irresolvable tension?

The flow of money throughout our economy is an equal cycle through the buyer, seller, and wage-laborer. No one person has an advantage over another. It differs from the story, though, because there is competition in the market, and the key to this story is in creating equality with no competition among people. Capitalist forms create a more realistic sense of equality. We should all start out equal, just like in the market system, but there should be competition and room to succeed. We should all be able to be individuals, and if some are not allowed to do this, they will revolt. It’s therefore important to start off and make sure it is known that everyone is equal, but to allow for individualism and advancement through successes. Yes, the reliance in the story on the government on enforcing authority points at this irresolvable tension.




Former U.S. Senator from Nebraska Roman Hruska was (in)famous for saying, during the hearing for a poorly regarded (and ultimately unsuccessful) nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court: "Well, mediocrity should be represented in the Court, too." How does that sort of thinking relate to what Vonnegut's getting at with this story?

The idea of mediocrity in the Court means that everyone should be equal. Within the Supreme Court, there are definite figures of authority and anyone in this role would not support the idea of mediocrity. Senator Hruska relates to what Vonnegut is portraying in his story but trying to make everyone equal, but as people did not respond well to him, they would no respond well to the methods used in this story either.

How are George and Hazel Bergeron described? What sort of life do they lead? What is Vonnegut parodying here? What does the story warn against? To what extent do television, radio, and the mass media generally function like George's mental handicap radio? (Consider Neil Postman's observation in his book Amusing Ourselves to Death: "this ensemble of electronic techniques called into being a new world-a peek-a-boo world, where now this event, now that, pops into view for a moment, then vanishes again. It is a world without much coherence or sense; a world that does not permit us to do anything; a world that is, like the child's game of peek-a-boo, entirely self-contained. But like peek-a-boo, it is also endlessly entertaining" (77). "Infotainment" did you say?

George and Hazel are described as equal to everyone else. Each person could not have individuality. Although George is smart, he has been “handicapped” to bring him down to the level of everyone else. They are both average looking people. They lead a very boring life because everyone in society is alike. They can’t think for themselves, or have their own opinions. Vonnegut is parodying the government trying to control us and telling us what to think and how to act. The story warns against dictatorship and government control going to far. Media tells us what they want us to hear. In a way, this is the same as the handicaps that are placed on people in Vonnegut’s story. It regulates what people hear and what people know.


Why is Harrison Bergeron such a threat to society? How old is he? How has he been "handicapped"?

Harrison Bergeron is a threat to society because he does not agree to follow the ways of the government. He realizes that differences are important and in this realization, attempts to overthrow the government. He is only 14 years old, but proves to be smarter and braver than everyone else in the world. His handicaps were placing weight on him because he was athletic, putting a clown nose on him and shaving off his eyebrows to make him look ugly oppose to his normal good looking self and putting earphones on him that send sound waves so his train of thought gets interrupted.


What is the significance of the real Harrison suddenly appearing on the TV set where his escape from prison was being reported? Why does he repeatedly say, "I am the Emperor!" (11)? Is Vonnegut suggesting a return to feudalism and its aristocratic political institutions? Is this similar in some way to the case of Ellison's protagonist on the stage of the Bingo game?

The significance is to show him as being an individual as different, and breaking the mold of everyone else. He says “I am the Emperor” because it falls under his plan of other throwing the government. He is saying that now he is in charge. No, I do not believe that Vonnegut is going to the extent of suggesting a return to feudalism. Yes I believe it is somewhat similar.


What is Harrison trying to accomplish? Can his actions be compared to those of Sammy in Updike's "A&P"? (Harrison says "I shall now select my Empress!" while Sammy chooses his "Queenie"). What different sets of values clash in these cases? How are the young pitted against the old? How does the motif of the rescue of the 'damsel in distress' translate in socioeconomic terms? What is suggested concerning the ownership of the means of (re)production?

Harrison is trying to accomplish an overthrow of the government. He can definitely be paralleled to Sammy in “A&P” because Sammy tries quits his job to prove a point the authority in the story. Both characters are also looking for an ally in their mission and that’s why they both pick a female to stand by their side. In both cases the main characters are trying to be different, but in the case of Sammy he doesn’t try and overpower the authority, he just stands up to it whereas Harrison is violent and tries and takes over. In both stories the young prove to be braver and more like “heroes” than the old people. Both stories have the main character rescuing the female from society, and this is very stereotypically true in society, that there is always a female waiting to be rescued. This suggests that the male, or dominant character, is always aware that he needs a female in his plan, because that’s the only way he can continue the trend of being different/ By reproducing more like himself he can succeed in this.


What is the significance of Harrison telling the musicians, "I'll make you barons and dukes and earls" (12)? What different values underlie such ennoblement? What role do beauty and aesthetics play in Harrison's rebellion?

It means that they will be rewarded for embracing their differences. The value of individualism would be a motive for this ennoblement. Harrison wants those who are beautiful to be able to show it. Harrison convinces people to take off their masks and whatever else is making them physical unattractive and let them be their self. He believes that people should be able to be comfortable with their appearance, and if they are beautiful, that should also be pleasing to others to look at.


What is the meaning of Harrison's and the ballerina's flight-like dance and kissing? What is meant by the statement, "not only were the laws of the land abandoned, but the law of gravity and the laws of motion as well" (12)?

It means that the government was tying them down and for a couple seconds they were given the chance to be free. They were, for a moment, living in a world with no boundaries. They were not restricted by anything, and were able to be free in every aspect. It’s a great symbolism to how much the government was affecting their life and holding them down.


What is the meaning of Harrison and the ballerina being shot down by Diana Moon Glampers, the Handicapper General? What are the suggestions of her name? What ethos is conjured by the mythological associations of the Greek goddess Diana and the moon (e.g. virginity, coldness, sterility). How is the figure of Ms. Glampers similar to that of the manager, Lengel, in A&P?

The meaning goes back to the power of authority. They had a chance to rebel and be free for only a moment, and then, soon enough, they got caught. It means you cannot get away with anything, or cannot try and be greater than the authority figure. Her name suggests that she is in charge, and has all the power. Telling the story of the Greek goddess really connects to the reader’s emotions because it makes us feel for the innocence of all the people living in this horrible society. The two characters in this story and “A&P” are similar because they are the ones in power, and prove to have almost no emotion to the rest of the world.


Why does Hazel Bergeron forget what she is crying about? How is this similar to, for example, the case of Mrs. Gradgrind in Dickens's Hard Times? What is the meaning of the last words of the Bergerons, "that one was a doozy" (13)?

She forgets what she is crying about because society has made her into a robot. She is not allowed to have any intelligence or emotion, so when an ounce of either is shown, it is shot down. The last words “that one was a doozy” are showing how equal everything has become in this society. They cannot even experience real life situations, and do not understand how difficult, and at the same time awesome, the world can really be. She meant that one was tough, but little does she know what real life is like.


What's striking about Vonnegut's story is its hyperbole: equality is enforced in every identifiable respect. What are the appropriate limits to ensuring equality and why?

The extent of enforcing equality in this story is to a ridiculous extreme, but in real life, a happy medium needs to be found in enforcing equality. We should make sure everyone is given an equal opportunity for everything, but once that playing field is level, it’s important to have competition and opportunity to succeed. Darwin’s theory of survival of the fittest should be evident in society. We should not create inequality for things that people cannot control, but for advantages over other people that are gained, it is completely acceptable.

Rare Occasions

Everyone knows that after reading a book, the movie is usually a disappointment. About 95% of the time, the book is better than the movie. Although I believe that this is true, I have found a couple instances where the movies are actually better than the movie. Two specific ones that I distinctly remember are the movie “21” based off of the book “Bringing down the House” by Ben Mezrich and “He’s just not that into you” based on the book by Greg Behrendt and Liz Tuccillo . The book “Bringing Down the House”, is a tale of Mezrich’s life as a card counter. Although the movie is the same story, it makes a more exciting turn of events, and therefore a more action packed movie. The book deals a lot with the specifics of counting cards where the movie focuses more of the thrill of the event. In the case of “He’s just not that into you” the book is letters to the authors, and the authors respond. One reading the book would never expect this to turn into a movie, but the director of the movie did a fabulous job. They used specific stories and examples from the book about relationship issues and made them into characters in the movie. It was a very creative way to display a very mediocre book. It added a storyline to a “How to” type book. These are two books that I have read that just do not compare to the quality of the movies.

Regarding the short story, "Where Are You Going, Where Have You Been?", answer the following questions in paragraph form (one from each group), and in such a way that someone stumbling upon your blog could figure out what you're writing about. Also print your work out and bring it to class on Thursday.

Group 1

3. Who is the story's main character, Connie or Arnold Friend?

Arnold Friend is the main character in "Where Are You Going, Where Have You Been?". Although it may seem like Connie is the main character because she is the protagonist, when it is looked into further, it makes much more sense that Arnold is the main character. After reading about the Charles Schmidt trial it’s very easy to see that this story is based on him, and what he did. Having said this, because the story is based around Charles Schmidt (or “Arnold Friend”) he becomes the main character. Connie is an important part of the story, but she is just a naïve girl. It could be any girl who Arnold chooses to become infatuated with. The specific girl isn’t important; it’s the character of Arnold and his psychopath personality.

Group 2

2. Who is Arnold Friend? Do you think he is appropriately named? What is the significance of his car? His clothing? His language?

Arnold Friend is a convicted murderer and rapist named Charles Schmidt. If you question this fact, read articles about Charles Schmidt and his trial and you will definitely become convinced that the character of Arnold is completely paralleled to Schmidt. He is a creepy stalker who is obsessed with young girls, and is mentally unstable. Naming Charles Schmidt Arnold Friend is very appropriate. Abbreviated his name becomes A. Friend, and that’s what he pretends to be to Connie. He acts normal about the fact that he is basically kidnapping her and tries to convince her that he wants to be her friend. His car signifies him being older than her and having a way out, where, as she is upset because she is stuck. It makes it somewhat appealing for her to go with him. His clothing makes him not a typical stalker or murderer. He tries to dress like everyone else, and therefore Connie doesn’t initially see him as a predator. The way he speaks is the most important. He’s very persuasive, and can make Connie do whatever he wants. He is very smooth when he speaks, and rarely changes his emotion.

Group 3

3. Where does Arnold take Connie, and what happens to her? Write your own continuation of the story.

Arnold takes Connie to a field and rapes her. He tells her that he is taking her here. He thinks that he is making a beautiful setting for them to “make love”, but as his version of the situation is altered by his psycho personality. She subjects to being raped to save her family. When Connie leaves the house Arnold will drive them to a field just like he said. Ellie will stay in the car, and Arnold will tell her to get out of the car, and then start to rape her. She will not fight back because she is worried for her family.

Group 4

2. Describe important images that you see in the story and what they do to create meaning within the story.

The most important image seen in the story is young, naïve girls. The story almost portrays it as Connie’s fault that she is so high on life and doesn’t realize that dressing and acting the way she does makes her a target for predators like Arnold. This meaning is that it’s not always smart to live as high on life, and naïve as Connie was. Another image evident in the story is the act of a man persuading women. Arnold successfully convinces Connie to leave with him, even though she knew it was a horrible idea. The idea of women being submissive to men ties into this idea. It touches on the fact that men prove to have an upper hand in the relationship between a man and a woman.

Just a Game of Telephone

What does the childhood game “telephone” and literature have in common? Surprisingly, more than one would think. The game “telephone” consists of a group of people sitting in a circle. The first person makes up a sentence and whispers it to the person beside them, who then relays the sentence to the next person, and so on. Once the sentence has made its way around the whole circle, the last person says the sentence out loud. More often than not, the sentence is much different than it originally started. It may have the same meaning, but a couple words or details are usually altered. Interestingly enough, literature can be the same way. A single event can be portrayed through articles, stories, movies, or even songs. All forms and specific parts of each can work together, while also being original, in telling a single story. In the case of the murderer Charles Schmidt, several different forms of literature collaborated to tell relatively the same story. Although the basis of the story was the same, all versions of the story had critical differences. After seeing many different points on the story, it’s important to notice the similarities, differences, and to reflect on why people take such different paths of telling a story. Paralleled to the game “telephone”, even though the story starts the same, it can always end different.

Similarities are what connect any group of things to make them alike. In the case of literature, similarities help us tie together different stories to create one “made product”. Regarding Charles Schmidt, different articles, a song, a story, a movie, and a short skit, all tell the same story. Although each one of the mentioned forms of literature is based on the same event, not every one addresses the event, or even follows the true story. Though this is true, the similarities between the stories allow the reader to connect them all to one common topic, Charles Schmidt. The key similarity is the description of the antagonist in all these stories. Charles Schmidt, or “Arnold Friend”, is described in all pieces of literature the exact same. Schmidt is good looking, is muscular, wears lifts in his shoes, puts on makeup, and many other small details that become critical to the conclusion. This non-stereotypical murderer/rapist makes the story more unique and compelling to follow. Also, the fact that he takes advantage of young, naïve girls is pin pointed in all of these forms of literature. Although literature can take many different turns throughout telling a story, key points are always necessary. In finding the similarities between pieces of literature it helps us draw them all to one single event, and in turn, that event is able to preserve its original purpose.

Differences are what make the world what it is today. If everything was alike, nothing would be interesting. Regarding literature, differences are critical. No one wants to hear a story told the exact same way over and over. The glory of literature is that there are different forms of it to portray a story, but also leeway within these forms to completely change characters, plot, setting, and whatever else in a story, and still have it based upon one event. The Schmidt trial inspired many writers and producers to create literature based on the event. Although some forms ended with death, some ended with rape, some left us wondering, and some even left us with Orlando Bloom, each story was based upon the same event. If one of these single pieces of literature was read it might not be obvious as to what inspired the author to create it, but after experiencing the alter versions of the story, it is proven that the pieces of literature worked together to create the same idea. The differences just make the story appeal to different audiences, display a different purpose, or were inspired by the author’s personal view of the situation. Every person is encouraged to be an individual, and literature should be aloud to be the same way.

After analyzing the same story told in several different forms, it becomes evident that literature often collaborates to form a common conclusion. Charles Schmidt was a man who murdered 3 girls, but the story of him also inspired others to put their own personal twist on the event. Though some do not even have the same endings, obvious similarities in all pieces of work make it easy to see that all were based upon the same event. Just like in “telephone”, although the “made product” may end up being different, it can still be based upon the same original event.

Favorite type of Book

Although I enjoy reading a wide variety of books, my favorite books to read are autobiographies. I am a person who loves to hear about real life experiences, and learn about other peoples struggles and triumphs. As I am still very young, I'm so intrigued by life and what it has to offer. Reading other people's experiences help me realize what I want my life to become, and in contrast, what I do not want it to become. I also really appreciate the realness of autobiographies. The fact that it comes directly from the person, after reading the story I feel like I know the author on a personal level. Specifically, I enjoy reading dark, disturbing autobiographies. "A Child Called It", by Dave Pelzer, is one of my favorite books. It is so disturbing, but at the same time, it is extraordinary that he survived through the childhood that he had, and was strong enough to share his story with the rest of the world. I love when stories tug on my emotions, and autobiographies generally find a way of connecting with me on a personal level.

Striving for the Same Goal

It’s funny how somehow, someway; anything in this world can be connected. You can take two things, that seem like they have no relation to each other, and find a way to connect them. In the case of three specific pieces of literature, “The Only Girl at the Boy’s Party” by Sharon Olds, “Rights of Passage” by Sharon Olds, and “A&P” by John Updike, one similar product can be drawn after tearing these stories apart. A common theme, otherwise known as a trope, occurs throughout these stories, even though at first glance they seem nothing alike. Throughout similarities and differences between the three stories, the made product of all the stories is the parallelism of adolescent to adult, or the “growing up process”. After thoroughly analyzing all three pieces of literature, it’s easy to come across the conclusion that all stories portray the same message, just in a different way.

In Sharon Olds’ poem, “The Only Girl at the Boy’s Party, she uses the observing of the growing up process to show the transition from child to adult. Although this girl is still young, there are so many things about the situation that mirror this story to something that adults would experience. Coming from the parent’s perspective, it points out the fact that they are watching their child grow up right before their eyes. Either being surrounded by the opposite sex, or fitting in with a male stereotype at the party, the small girl is out of her normal comfort zone, and although she doesn’t know it, she’s slowly making the transition from girl to young woman. One of the similarities between this poem and the other two pieces of literature is the fact that the main character is “different” or stands out of the crowd. Another similarity between this poem, and especially “A&P” is the fact that it plays with different gender roles. What girls and boys should be viewed as, oppose to what they are viewed as. The extraordinary attention to detail is also similar throughout these three stories. This story is different from the others in the fact that it is only about one character throughout the whole poem, whereas the other literature describes more than one person.

Another great poem by Sharon Olds, “Rights of Passage”, clearly draws the same conclusion as the other pieces of literature. The poem parallels young boys to men. The style switches throughout the poem going from man to child, and vise versa. Olds uses a group of boys at a birthday party, and makes them seem as though they could be a group of men going to war. The descriptions such as Generals and small bankers make the comparison of actions these boys make to those that men make. It shows the growing up process, also from the parent’s point of view. These young boys already have thoughts of those of adults, even though they haven’t even reached their teen years. This poem is similar to “The Only Girl at the Boy’s Party” because it comes from the parent’s perspective. It stands out from the other poems because it doesn’t include both sexes and the indirect comparison of them.

Though this one may not be as obvious, “A&P” takes the product as a boy entering the “real world”. Sammy creates an act of debatable heroism, in a moment of adrenaline and teenage hormones. The result of him quitting his job results in a change in his life, and him realizing what life, as an adult will really be like. The line “…and my stomach kind of fell as I felt how hard the world was going to be to me hereafter”, is the deal breaker in the fact that this poem is about growing up, and comparing and paralleling life as a youth to that of an adult. The most obvious way that this story is different from the others is, well, it’s a story, not a poem. Sounds dumb? Yes, but that changes a lot in terms of amount of content and style of writing. Also, this story is from the mind of the main character, not a third party observer. Overall though, there are many more similarities between “A&P” with the other two stories than differences.

Through looking at the way youth is paralleled with adulthood, and how the growing up process cause be noticeably viewed, it’s clear that the purpose of all three stories is striving for a similar outcome. Though at first glance these three pieces of literature do not seem to have many similarities, when picked apart and analyzed, it is found that they in fact have more similarities than one would expect. As previously mentioned, the world is very strange in many ways. Whether it is known or not, everything is connected, it just takes some picking apart to realize.

Character development creates stories

Recently, I have read a couple Jodi Picoult books and I am extatic at her writing technique. Something about the way she writes stories is absolutely captivating and intrigues me to want to read more of her books. The most predominant thing, and the thing I wish to discuss in this post is her character development. Before reading Jodi picoult I never looked too much into character development. It is extraorinary how Picoult developes her characters throughout her novels, and how it makes so much of a different. In "My Sister's Keeper" Picoult writes each chapter by indivdual characters point of view. By doing this, the reader really feels connected to each character in a different way. They undersatnd what the character is thinking, and this evidently makes the story easy to understand. The smallest details about characters are pointed out, and it helps us realize why the ending that occured did. Another book that is written by Picoult that is very character driven is "Nineteen Minutes". This book is about a school shooting, and the whole book leads up to the trial after the shooting. A surprise ending is a main aspect of this book, but the character development is absolutely cruicial. There are so many different characters, but the reader feels as though the personally know every single one. We feel like we know where the shooter is coming from, and where all the victims are also coming from. Being an impartial third party makes this story very intriging and the characters all become a part of the reader. Overall, Picoult's novel have showed me how important character development is in creating a great story.

In comparison to the story “A&P” the heroism in these two poems is somewhat similar. All three use the adolescent of the story to be the “hero”. Should children, or youth, be portrayed as heroes for acts unintentionally made? Similarly, in all of the stories, the main character, or the “hero” is the odd person out. In “The Only Girl at the Boy’s Party” it is the girl, in “A&P” it is Sammy, and in "Rites of Passage" it is the birthday boy’s. All of these characters intentionally, and unintentionally stand out in different ways. Personally, just as I have stated that I do not believe Sammy committed acts of Heroism, I also do not believe that either of these other characters did. It is another very vague situation in which I believe few people would believe any heroic act occurred. Although there is a lot of symbolism, especially in "Rites of Passage", with class systems, rankings, authority, and power, I still do not see heroism displayed referring to my definition of a hero. In "The Only Girl at the Boys' Party", there is a sense of heroism by it comparing to taking a stand for gender rights, but I still don’t see a true hero coming out of the story. In all, I believe because I do not use the word “hero” loosely, I cannot classify a lot of stories as heroic or obtaining heroes in them.

John Updike vs. Me

I was very enlightened after watching the interview with John Updike online. It was interesting to see the author’s perception of the story “A &P” in comparison to mine. Overall, I feel like I had a lot of the same thoughts about this story as John Updike did. When reading the story, I became very aware of the fact that Sammy was infatuated with the three girls in bathing suits. The way he looked at them and took notice of every detail about them, and put them, especially Queenie, on a pedestal. In Updike’s interview he mentions the fact that Sammy is kind of a blue-collar boy looking for a white-collar girl. He mentions social hierarchy, and the fact that the girls are clearly above Sammy. It was refreshing to see that when reading the story I had the same perception about the relationship between Sammy and the girls as what the author was trying to portray. One of the differences between my perception of the story and Updike’s was that he sees Sammy’s act in the end as a “noble deed”, where I just see it as him looking for attention. In Updike’s interview he never once refers to Sammy as a hero, in fact, he states the exact points that I use to prove Sammy was not a hero. He mentions that Sammy “gives up his job for the girls”, and that “he becomes their champion even though they don’t know it”. The fact that he wanted the girls to see the deed he committed made him un-heroic. I believe that in a way John Updike had the same view about Sammy being a “hero” as I did. Overall, the way I viewed Sammy was much the same as the way Updike viewed Sammy and therefore my thoughts stayed the same after watching the interview.

Hero is in the eye of the beholder

The word hero is a very loaded word. A hero in some people's eyes may not be a hero in an others, and vise versa. In a way, heroes are in the eye of the beholder. A child striving to be a professional hockey player may see Sidney Crosby as a hero, whereas lots of people would not. An African American women may see Rosa Parks as a hero, where some other people may not. We all have different standards, and different opinions of who falls under the category of "hero". By definition, a hero is "a man of distinguished courage or ability, admired for his brave deeds and noble qualities". Immediately this can be criticized for an obvious reason. Why "a man" instead of a person? Can't a woman also be a hero? In my opinion, the word hero cannot be defined. Hero can mean thousands of different things depending on the context. Something inside of us tells us what a hero is, and who we think should be referred to as one. A great example of a well known "hero" is Martin Luther King Jr. He stood up for what he believe in, and fought for man kind. He was not afraid of his opposition, and intended to improve the quality of life of Americans, especially minority groups. As compared to the previous definition, Martin Luther King Jr. fits it to a tee. He is a man who was very courageous, and was admired for his brave deeds and noble qualities. This example proves that, in a way, the definition of hero is a very broad, but useful annotation. But what about a person who doesn't fit this definition? I consider my mother to be a hero. She raised two great children, acts as a wonderful wife, maintains everything around the house, and is always there for me when I need her. Day after day she saves me from mistakes I might make, troubles I'm having, and decisions I have to make. Compared to the definition of hero stated about, does my mother apply to it? No, not really, but in my eyes she is. So although I have given the definition of a hero and an example of a hero who fits the description, I have also portrayed the fact that other, non stereotypical "heroes", can be heroic in the eye of the beholder.
In the story "A&P" by John Updike, the question of whether or not Sammy is a hero becomes evident. As I stated earlier, heroism is an arguable issue. Some people may believe Sammy was a definite hero, and others may not. Comparing Sammy to the definition stated earlier, Sammy somewhat fits it. He did have courage for standing up to his boss, and he did have noble qualities for acting for the good of the three girls who were being discriminated against. It can also be seen that he does not fit the definition of a hero because he did not have distinguished abilities and was not admired for his deeds. Although it's a toss up whether Sammy fits the description of a hero, in my eyes, I don't see him as a hero. In the real world, you can't just quit your job because your boss is trying to enforce a rule. Sammy is not admirable because he does not do it to make the world better, he does it to get positive attention from the girls. This becomes clear when he says "I look around for my girls, but they're gone, of course". The fact that he wanted them to see him be a "hero" takes away the heroic qualities that he may have possessed.
Overall, although some people may believe Sammy was a hero for what he did, I believe that a somewhat heroic act does not make someone a hero. Hero, as previous stated, is a loaded word, but in the story "A&P", no hero stick out for me.

Chapter 1

Page 6
1. The North Wind has a more demanding personality. He is a short term thinker, and when he wants something done, he wants it done immediately. As the story shows, he tries to use force to get the traveler to takeoff his cloak. He also may be narrow minded because the only way he thinks to prove he is stronger is by using force. On the other hand, the sun looks outside of the box. His personality is more persistent and patient. He slowly puts his plan into action, and it ends up working in the end
2. Although the idea of trying to blow the cloak away from the man was smart, it ended up backfiring. The stronger the North Wind blew, the colder the traveler got, and the more he wanted to keep his cloak wrapped around him.
3. The sun was effective because he didn't use force, but instead made the traveler want to remove his cloak. The sun made the temperature very warm, and the traveler was too hot with the cloak on so he decided to remove it. The sun used persuasion instead of force.
4. The human is the guinea pig in the competition between the North Wind and the Sun. He is the controlled variable so that they both have a fair chance of winning the challenge. The human also makes it easier for readers to relate to the story. The reader can easily put themselves in the travelers shoes to see what they would have done in the situation.
5. The moral of this story was "Persuasion is better than force". In this fable, the whole paragraph leads to this conclusion. The North Wind tries to use force to win the challenge and he fails. The sun uses persuasion and convinces the traveler to want to take off the cloak and this tactic allows him to win.

Page 8
1. Exposition is the opening part that introduces characters and sets the scene for the story. This story is very short so doesn't have much exposition except for the first couple sentences. Chuang Tzu uses two sentences to set up the dramatic situation.
2.The protagonist changes the subject to provide a reason why he does not want to be a part of the government. He doesn't answer the question directly and immediately because he wants to provide an "out of the box" reason for his answer. Yes, it serves a purpose that he makes the officials answer a question because after providing this obvious answer, it makes them really look at Tzu's point when he turns the question around.
3. Chuang Tzu proves to be very wise. His personality seems as though he is very upfront and confrontational. He is not afraid to tell the officials his true opinion.

Page 19
1. The details that stand out to me as being particulary true to life were most of the ones that had to do with the three girls. Specifically describing the appearances of the girls and referring to the one as "the queen". This always can seen when a group of people are hanging out together, there is always an evident leader. I found it interesting how he took so much time describing every little detail of these girls. It shows the reader how close Sammy was paying attention to them in the book. The attention to close detail also helps expose the character of Sammy and the reader feels like they know him and are in the store with him when the events of the story take place.
2.Updike does a great job in describing the character of Sammy. He writes as though you know everything going on in Sammy's head. Sammy seems to have low self esteem, which is why he quit his job so that the pretty girls would notice him. He also is very critical, as he points out every little flaw on each of the girls. On the posivtive side, Sammy is somewhat heroic because he stands up for something that he believes is unjust. Sammy is less of a hero for wanting the girls to notice because it proves that he was doing it for attention and not just to make things right. Sammy is more thoroughly portrayed than the doctor in the "Godfather Death" because we are aware of this thought process throughout the whole incident. We know what reasons he is doing it for and witness the decision.
3. The exposition is the very first paragraph because it introduces the characters, sets the scene of the event, and gives the reader some insight as to what the story will be about. The detail of Queenie is important to the story because it shows the pedastol that Sammy puts her and the girls on, which makes it easier to understand why he makes such a rash decision at the end of the book.
4.Yes, as the story develops you can see him take more of an interest in the girls. He watches their every move, and by the end of the story you feel like he knows them. At the beginning he is just very critical of their appearances, but doesn't seem as interested in them as he turns out to be.
5. The dramatic conflict occurs when Sammy in finally in contact with the girls and the manager causes a seen. When the manager gets mad at the girls, the crisis in the story begins. The climax of the story is when Sammy quits his job.
6.Sammy quits his job to show the girls that he is standing up for them. He does this in the spur of the moment. Granted he might be doing it to prove a point to the manager, but the main reason was to create an image for himself that would impress the girls.
7. The fact that Sammy was so intrigued by the girls made me believe that he might end up doing something rash. The forshadowing to Sammy feeling sympathy for the girls is when he says "Now here comes the sad part of the story". It shows that he feels bad that the girls are singled out by the manager when it doesn't seem necessary. Also, as Sammy observes the girls ask for help finding diet peaches and are being checked out by a man Sammy says, "Poor girls, I began to feel sorry for them, they couldn't help it". This was forshadowing the sympathy that Sammy felt towards the girls.
8. The conclusion of the story proves that sometimes acts of heroism go unoticed, and that by doing something to prove a point you will not always be rewarded. When Sammy says "I felt how hard the world was going to be to me hereafter", he means that he now realizes that sometimes you have to play the game, even if you don't agree with the rules. He felt sorry for the girls so he quit his job which will be a huge problem. His personality is going to have to become more passive and he is going to have to learn to sit aside and watch as things happen that he doesn't agree with.
9. Updike makes the comment that even in supermarket society there are rules that need to be followed and a hiearchy that exists. The supermaket society is paralleled with the real world.