2 Cities #1

Rachel Simmons

12/27/14

A Tale of Two Cities

Chapters 1-5

My Dearest Abigail,

A Tale of Two Cities is a book I have been anxious to read for quite some time. However, now that I have started it, I realise that I do not know much about the language types that Charles Dickens employs. During the first three Chapters I was more confused than I have ever been while reading any book. The author starts the book off very generally. He does not introduce any characters and I did not even know who the main character was until chapter four. That being said, his writing is poetic. The extremely popular first sentence, “it was the best of times, it was the worst of times...”,  was beautiful and showed the contrasting mindsets of society at that time period (7).

The man who appears to be the protagonist is Mr. Jarvis Lorry. He was described as having “a healthy colour in his cheeks, and his fave, though lined, bore few traces of anxiety” (21). Despite living an apparently stressful life and working at the bank “digging” people out of financial messes, he has not yet developed many wrinkles or gray hairs (except for his wig). Thus far, through indirect characterization, the mail trip, and his interactions with Miss Manette, we can assume that Mr. Lorry is educated, middle aged, well respected, and high enough in social position to be one of the chosen ones to escort the mail. What is your impression of this business man?

Miss Manette, on the other hand, seems less mysterious. She, being an orphan, is trying to collect any money or property left to her by her deceased mother and father. However, her father is not dead. If this revelation was supposed to be some huge surprise, it did not incur the amount of hype I think it was intended to from Miss Manette, or me. Also, why did this seventeen year old come by herself? She then conveniently is allowed to be with Mr. Lorry as her protector. I did not think her decisions wise. The fact that Lorry is an old friend is very advantageous for our young girl. Would you upon first meeting your banker trust him to watch over you? Times have changed quite a bit.

Another very interesting point that Dickens repeats is the year and the relations one country has with another. The year he repeats is 1775. Dickens mentions the revolution in the new world and how it has made a greater splash in the pool of politics than expected. It sparks disturbances in France as the lower class starts debating following the colonies example. England is in a bit of a frenzy and both sets of nobility has a lot to deal with, but chooses to ignore it. I think that the political going-ons will become a huge factor in the future of this book, especially uprising. Do you think politics will play a large factor in the progress of the story or not? Why?

Good Luck!

CANDIDE 5

Simmons, Rachel; entry #5

Hey-o! Sydney, you queen of the earth.

Your question about why Voltaire has Candide switch from pessimism to optimism was interesting. I see your point in that Voltaire could have been trying to show how neither one is absolute. I agree with you. However, I also see that it could just be showing the simplicity of Candide. He is always fully supporting one or fully supporting the other until something comes up that changes his mind. Candide is not grounded or intelligent enough to support either one or to come up with his own philosophies.

The man who lives in essentially a perfect world proves that perfection does not bring happiness. One can have everything and still not be content. Human nature pushes us to always strive for bigger and better. We are never satisfied with what we do have. If the best of all possible world existed we still would not be content. In El Dorado things that astonished Candide were worthless there because they were abundant. If pure happiness was abundant and sorrow was rare, we would see life and happiness as ordinary rather than a treasured rarity.

Also, I had no idea the significance of the kings. I think it just showed how rich Candide was and how much even royalty suffers. Those with power and wealth know evil as much as the rest of us.

Throughout Candide different characters produce their own ideas about life. “Everyone has a worldview” (props to Mr. Dyck on this one) and in Candide everyone feels like they need to share it. James the anabaptist believed that “men...have corrupted nature...with which to destroy each other” (25), but he still did his best to make it the world better. His willingness to help others leads to his demise. After being flogged, Candide meets someone who is a complete hypocrite, the Grand Inquisitor. He condemns people for ridiculous things that are unholy, but he himself has many mistresses and is very sinful. He lives for himself and preys on the weak. The old woman thinks everyone is terrible and goes along with everything that happens. Martin hates everyone and believes that “the Devil has his hand in everything” (77). I assume that these were popular beliefs of the time. Are there any others you noticed? Which one did you connect with most? Personally, James was my hero even though he only lived for 3 chapters.

Candide!

Simmons, Rachel: Entry #4

Oh my Sydney!

            When it comes to philosophies I think that neither Martin nor Candide have a realistic grasp on life and its meaning. Martin gives far too much credit to the works o evil and the devil, while I think that man is just inherently corrupt. Candide I do not agree with because not everything is for the best and being too optimistic blinds people. The philosophy of optimism leads Candide to be taken advantage of because he cannot see other’s selfishness and greed. So if I must pick one, I will chose Martin for it is better to be doubtful and suspicious of everyone then to be naïve and treated horribly. The happy medium between optimism and pessimism is realism. My idea of realism is seeing what evils people are capable, but not letting that keep you away from society. A realist takes precautions and waits for someone to prove that they are trustworthy. Realism to me is the idea that it’s only true if someone proves it to you. You have the option to prove to me that you are mostly good or bad.

            Finding Cunegonde made me quite happy. The entire time I was waiting for doppy Candide to find his woman. Cunegonde became a servant that washed dishes and had become “horribly ugly” (103). This was the perfect test to see if Candide would stay true to his lady and let love overcome outward appearances. Candide even declared that it is his “duty to love her forever” (103) despite her newfound ugliness. However, upon seeing her, he recoils in disgust. Later, he marries her merely to spite her brother, the Barron, and because she kept pestering him to do so. Do you think he still has love for her or did he just want to complete his lifelong goal? Personally, I think Candide has been shallow from the beginning and was just being a man of his word. However, I am not keen on love and love stories so perhaps I see it all in a negative light because I am biased.

            The ending to Candide was quite convenient. Pangloss and the Barron show up out of nowhere. None of the main characters are actually dead, and they end up going straight back to their old philosophy. It basically undoes all of Candide’s experiences and discredits them. On the final page Pangloss says “all events are interconnected in this best of all possible worlds, for if you hadn’t been driven from a beautiful castle with hard kicks in the behind because of you love for Lady Cunegonde, if you hadn’t wandered over America on foot, if you hadn’t thrust your sword through the baron, and if you hadn’t lost all your sheep form the land of El Dorado, you wouldn’t be here eating candied citrons and pistachio nuts” (113). After all of Voltaire’s work creating horrible situations and disproving the philosophy he has Candide fall right back into it, only with more of a sense of fate. The quote puts so much faith into cause and affect that it feels like one of those Direct TV commercials (“when your cable company keeps you on hold, you get angry; when you get angry, you go blow off steam…you wake up in a roadside ditch”). Candide just accepts that everything happened for the best because the universe or fate wanted them to be together. Were you satisfied with the ending? I thought it was ironic and frustrating, but necessary since Pangloss came back. After all they had been through tending a garden until death seems rather anti-climatic.

Sydney! Candide #3

Sydney, you beautiful, intelligent partner you! How art thou faring?

            Candide and his misfortunes continue to amount as the story continues on. However, by chapter 19 he has “to give up on optimism at last” (69). After journeying to the New World and finding that it was indeed not the best of all possible worlds, losing Cunegonde to yet another man, killing her brother, almost being eaten by Jesuit-haters, getting cheated by greedy people, leaving El Dorado, and meeting the slave that was tortured Candide realizes that his philosophy is unrealistic. One cannot turn a blind eye to the world after seeing such horror. I was surprised that the story of the slave with his “left and right hand missing” (68) was the one that made him change his mind. After all he had been through that was the tipping point to forsake Pangloss’ philosophy. Although he said that he would turn away from the notion of “insisting that everything is all right when everything is going wrong” (69). I thought that the realization that life had actually been going wrong instead of just as it should is proof that his newfound belief will stick. What are your thoughts? Do you think Candide’s revaluation that things do happen that are evil is legitimate or only temporary? Also, why do you think Voltaire chose that moment to have him recant?

            El Dorado clearly was the best of all possible worlds. It has been described a number of different ways in the past by other authors. Voltaire creates a world where gold is called “yellow mud” (65) and the sheep run faster than horses. His version of El Dorado is perfect and unique to other versions. I thought it comical that Candide was still more concerned with the philosophy and reasoning of the people of El Dorado instead of being concerned with the great wealth and customs of an undiscovered civilization. I thought this showed the simplicity of his brain. When Candide asks them about religion and all other government, punishment for wrong and other “civilized” things they reply that they do not exist. All of them are content and in perfect harmony. After all of the terrible things to happen I was very suspicious of the people of El Dorado and presumed that some horrible thing would come from Candide and Cacambo staying there. Where you trusting of those in El Dorado or were you waiting for another huge misfortune?

            The character added in chapter 21, Martin, is the exact opposite of Pangloss. He believes that the world is horrible and the Devil wreaks havoc on everyone. The man is a philosopher and Candide questions if he is “possessed by a devil” (74) to which the man replies that perhaps he is because the devil has his hand in everything. What do you think of this man’s philosophy and will he get along with Candide?

Good Luck!

Sydney, Candide Awaits

To my highly revered conspirator Sydney,

This is quite a lot of events in such few pages. I shall try my best to be thorough, but not boring.

On the subject of James the Anabaptist, I found him to be the most normal and ethical person in the story. He was not Catholic and therefore somewhat of an outsider, but his actions show his dedication to God and other people. I saw him as the only person who was not hypocritical. I think that Voltaire used James to show how even those who help and love everyone still are subject to terrible fates. James died trying to save people while a terrible man. Life is unfair. Because he was such a minor character and died so quickly, I think we do not need to look to far into Voltaire’s reasons for adding him to the story.

Also, it is ironic that Voltaire hates on philosophers so much when he is considered to be a great philosopher himself.

In the more recent portions of the book, the misfortunes of the people in this story, particularly the old woman, I think are extremely exaggerated by Voltaire. He tries to make everyones horrors as worse as possible, but says them so candidly they are hard to believe. I find it very hard to believe that this many misfortunes have happened to this many people, even in the past when life was rougher. It is even more ridiculous that they have somehow managed to survive all of the terrible things they have described to have gone through. Although, since the entire book only serves the purpose to question various philosophies, the exaggerations are appropriate.

Voltaire also throws a lot of satire into the description of Cunegonde’s relations with both the Jew and the Grand Inquisitor. He shows how corrupt and hypocritical everyone is. The account reveals the immense displeasure Voltaire has with the catholic church and basically every religion in the world. For example, later on the old woman comments that in between a war, pillage, and ravaging in Africa “no one missed the five daily prayers prescribed by Mohammed” (41). Voltaire does not take kindly to religious folks. Were you surprised at the return of Cunegonde and her situations?

Once Candide killed for the first time and then killed for the second he seemed to show no remorse. He had been brought up to know murder is wrong and fights about it in his head before coming to the conclusion that to kill the jew and later the grand inquisitor would be the most logical. I thought it funny that immediately after killing the jew he yells out “if Pangloss hadn’t been hanged… he’d give us good advice in this extremity, because he was a great philosopher” (34). Candide is always wishing he had Pangloss with him to explain why everything happens. It portrays Candide as having a weak mind and being reliant on Pangloss and everyone else. Do you think he is unwise or merely wants assurance that he is doing the right thing?

After all of the horrible things the old woman talks about she ends by saying that her biggest flaw was that she still loved life. She says that to love life is “perhaps one of our most pernicious inclinations” (45). Considering all the things she has been through suicide would be fairly heavy on my mind. Why do you think she and all the others have been able to cling to life and hope for better? Do you see this as weakness, hope, or merely the thought never occurred to the others because this is the best of all possible worlds so why should they leave it?

Voltaire has a very disgusting obsession with rape. Literally every single female character mentioned is raped repeatedly. What is his problem?

Candide the Musical

Sydney, I found the musical youtube. It is a comedy and has a lot of inuendoes, but helps get the point across and with pronouncing the names.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FaeYUouI6x4

Candide: Journal #1, Chapters 1-5

Dearest Sydney,

Candide by Voltaire has been interesting, disgusting, horrifying, but ultimately quite entertaining. The main character’s misfortunes and those experienced by those around him are told so matter-of-fact that they could almost be the punch lines to a dark anti-joke. The style that Voltaire uses pushes the story along and leaves no room for detail or expansion about the events that take place. He states things as they happen and does not write with much pitty for Candide.

The teachings of Pangloss had me skeptical from the beginning. The idea that everything that "is for the best purpose" (16) because we live in the best of all possible worlds at the best of all possible moments, fell onto deaf ears. I am too much of a realist to even begin to accept this idea as the world is clearly not at its best and will never be until Christ comes again. I have seen to much pain to say that everything is for the best. I am anxious to see how Candide overcomes or finds reality and puts off the ideals that have been instilled in him. What are your thoughts on the philosophies taught and the way the characters react to them?

After reading about Pangloss and the chambermaid's "lesson in experimental physics" (17), I immediately marked him as a hypocrite even though he had not once mentioned right and wrong. I assumed that as a teacher he should remain above reproach and be a quality example. He failed utterly. Because of his bad example Candide and Cunegonde were sepparated and Candide exiled. Did you think Candide was exiled fairly?

Latter after being exiled Candide is forced into war and tries to desert. It potrayed him as cowardly and unwilling to be in a fight. Perhaps Pangloss taught him that fighting was bad? We also hear of his home town being destroyed and Cunegonde being mistreated. Out of all of his recent circumstances which has been the most unfortunate misfortune yet?

A Lesson Before Dying Journal #5

Rachel Simmons

Mrs. Myers

AP E Period 4

10/31/14

Chapters 30-End

      I think one theme that I recognized is that justice is not always guaranteed. We can try to enforce it to the best of our abilities, but there will always be injustice in the world. Try as we might, we cannot fix everything and it is horrible and sad that we do not have the power to do so. Another theme that I took away was to be human is a choice and a process. For Jefferson he had to be taught what it was to be a man. In the end it was his choice to declare that he was indeed an important human rather than what society told him he was. Society tries to shape our identity, but ultimately it is our choice to accept it or not.

     As the book has gone on I never felt a lot of emotion toward Jefferson. However, in chapters 29 and 30 I had a lot of compassion for Jefferson. He has his breakthrough. Jefferson experiences what it is like to see yourself as a human being and a man. In the journal Jefferson asks Grant to “tell them that [he is] strong and [he is] a man” (234). The quote really got to me because it proved that all of Grant’s work and love had paid off. Jefferson saw that he had potential and that someone cared about him despite what he originally was told. It was sorrowful and uplifting at the same time.

      Later, I was grieved again with the account of the ladies watching the electric chair be unloaded. It made the event to come more tangible and real. Ernest J. Gaines puts so much detail into describing the leather straps and the grain of the wood. He brings the horror of the chair’s purpose to life. And the observers described the scene as “gruesome” (241).

      The ending was a real tear jerker. As Grant is heading to Miss Emma’s house he keeps seeing the beauty in everything. The contrast between the beauty of life and the grief of death makes for a sad image. When Paul told Grant that Jefferson “was the strongest man in that crowded room” (253) I almost lost it. I was angry that they wrongly killed him, sad that he died, but still glad that through all of the horror in the story Jefferson and everyone else saw a man. Jefferson had proven to everyone that he was human.

A Lesson Before Dying Journal #4

Rachel Simmons

Mrs. Myers

Period 4 AP E

11/2/14

Journal #4 (chapters 25-27)

      To answer your question about the radio, I think that it was a comfort to Jefferson. He most likely had never had his own radio. It was a description of how music can take people away from their current situations and touch their lives. After getting the radio Jefferson was much more receptive to what Grant had to say to him. If you treat someone like they matter they will begin to believe it, and I think that is what Grant is doing for Jefferson.

      As to the ending of the novel, I only have one idea. I think that Jefferson will be killed as planned, so far there has not been any indication that his conviction will be altered. However, before his death he will truly believe that he is a man. Grant will learn a lesson about what humanity really is and perhaps when he and Vivian move away he will study law and help others like Jefferson. I would love to see Grant help people see themselves as humans who have been told otherwise. I think that Grant would also make a great lawyer for African Americans who face injustice.

      What do you think of the tension between the minister and Grant? Do you see it as education vs. religion? The first time that Grant actually acknowledges the tension is when he debates to tell Vivian about it. He thinks to himself “the minister, thought that since Jefferson had only a short time left to live, it should be he in control and not I”(pg 196). They are both trying to help Jefferson, but they do not like each other. Do you think that the minister should be the only one to help Jefferson, should only Grant help him, or should they work together? Could they even work together?

      In addition, I thought that the fight in chapter 25 was a huge turning point for Grant. It showed how much he was willing to stick up for Jefferson. I think that he was in the right for standing up to those racist jerks. Vivian said that Grant did not have to fight and he “could have stopped it” (pg 205). Do you think that Grant was justified in fighting the bricklayer or should he have merely ignored them?

A Lesson Before Dying Journal #3

Rachel Simmons

Mrs. Myers

AP E Period 4

10/27/14

Chapters 19-21

      Before I begin talking about chapters 19-21, I want to address a point in chapter 17 that set me off. When Jefferson said the disrespectful things he did about Vivian, I was so angry! She is the only reason that Grant even talks to Jefferson and he insults. I was so ready to see Grant beat that boy hard. Anyway that was my vent for the chapters.

      In chapter 19, I thought that the point where Grant describes all of the people at the Christmas program shows his connection to the community. It is the first point that he really demonstrates his role amongst these people as the teacher. He knows everyone and what they are known for. He does care about them, whether he admits it or not. How do you think the thorough description of the Christmas program adds to the plotline and development of Grant? And I think I missed something, who is the gift under the tree for? Jefferson?

      I think that the majority of the attitudes in this play can be summed up in the quote from chapter 20. “Twelve white men say a black man must die, and another white man sets the date and time without consulting one black person. Justice?” (157). Alot of tension between the races is evident throughout the book. Grant does not seem to be as affected by it as much as characters like Miss Emma, Jefferson, and the school kids. The book is sent around the 50’s/60’s where everyone was by law equal but not socially.

      Did you find the part in chapter 21 where Grant is talking with Vivian about how everyone loves

him annoying or funny? I was feeling some of both, but it did show his pride in himself despite his

rather humble life.

A Lesson Before Dying Journal #2

Rachel Simmons

Mrs. Myers

AP E, Period 4

10/25/14

A Lesson Before Dying Chapters 11-13

      Because your question is more of a prediction then the actual answer I will make a gander at what I think will happen. When Grant and Jefferson first speak alone they will no doubt be very awkward. Grant will probably not have much to say and when he does speak, I do not think Jefferson will listen without a very evident bias or attitude.

      Now that I have read the chapters the first thing that I want to point out, somewhat comically, is the look of the sheriff in chapter 11. He was the perfect opener for the chapter. Everything about him screamed old time cowboy sheriff. From his cowboy hat to “his cowboy boots propped up on the desk” (80). I just got a kick out of his character. This was random, but I thought it was great imagery.

      When Grant meets Jefferson it is clearly an awkward situation. I was extremely alarmed that Jefferson had already accepted and declared that he was a hog. At almost every possible moment he would make a comment about being a hog. Even when Grant tells him that he is a man and not a hog, Jefferson “grunt[s] deep in his throat and grinn[s]” (83). Because he was convicted and repeatedly called a hog he believes that he is. He has accepted society’s view of him without even putting up a fight and trying to defend himself. Why do you think he chooses to accept so easily what everyone has labelled him as?

      Jefferson continually calling himself a hog and rejecting everything Grant is trying to do for him was beginning to get on my nerves toward the end of the chapter. He refuses to listen and tries “playing with” Grant. Poor Grant trying to help him does not even have the chance to talk to Jefferson normally because of his rants and interruptions. Jefferson seems to be losing it and acting out to frustrate Grant. Would you be able to handle dealing with a person who reacts like this? why/why not? Do you think that Grant will put up with it again?

A Lesson Before Dying Journal #1

Rachel Simmons

Mrs. Myers

APE, Per 4

10/19/14

Chapters 4-7

       To answer your final question, Ashley, I think that Grant’s aunt and Miss Emma used to work for Mr. Henri. As maids or workers they would most likely have to use the back door of the house in order to keep it from looking like they were a part of that lifestyle. The rich, white family most likely did not want poor African-Americans coming in and out of their front door where everyone could see them. It was a sign of being lower in class and society. Therefore, now that none of them work for the family any more they want to always use the front door to show that they are equal and are not ashamed to enter in the front door. I hope that this somewhat answers your question.

       Also, to address your second question, in chapter 4 Grant when talking to his girlfriend, Vivian, mentions that his parents live in California just as he did before. I assume that in California he had more opportunities to be educated and as a teacher he must have a solid education.

       The last few chapters have been quite interesting. The writer describes in detail Grant’s life. First, we are introduced to Vivian, Grant’s lover who is in the process of a divorce so she can remarry him. Their relationship is very beautiful and the reader can tell that they truly love one another. Later on, Grant’s job is given more light. He has no passions for teaching. The writer says, “each day I listened for a moment, then turned if off and planned the rest on the day” (34). His lack of interest in teaching appalls me. The book said that he had been teaching for 6 years. To be stuck in a place or job that you hate for that long would disgust me and I would never stay. What do you think is keeping him in this place of complacency and doing something he does not enjoy? What impact is this having on the kids?

         In addition, religion plays a huge role in his teaching at the time. For example, all of the students had to recite a bible verse and his school is in a church. Religion is all around him, but what role does it play personally in Grant’s life? To me he seems indifferent to it. What do you think?

Literary Archetype

For the fun of it my brother and I took a literary archetype quiz. I thought you might find it interesting that I scored 93% anti-hero/outlaw. This is accurate.

My Favorite Affirmation (out of the ones I got back by Sunday)

My friend from my small group and assistant youth leader, Dominic wrote:
1) People Person
2) Speaks her mind
3) Ambitious/Motivated
4) Musically talented
5) Helpful

     I believe that what Rachel has going for her in relation to her character and personal qualities is great [large]. She will and has home far. Her people skills and ability to speak her mind eloquently will help her when she speaks not only to people one on one, but to masses. Her voice will capture many, even if it is not in their language. When Rachel sees something and feels led to to chase it, she conquers the task at hand. Her ambition and helpfulness are inspiring. Each of these things will take her far in life. Farther than I can fathom.

I was Labeled ENTP. What does that mean?

     Interesting (accurate) facts about people who are categorized as entp

- clever
- verbal and quick with sarcasm
- do not always follow the rules
- not usually patient
- good at acquiring friends

     Inaccurate labels for me (but are in the entp category)
- enjoy intellectual toys and are good at them
- "oblivious to the rest of humanity except as an audience"
I did not see myself fitting into these specific generalizations because I do not enjoy mind games, riddles or rubix cubes. In addition, I do not think that I am oblivious to the world. Every day I make a conscious effort to help others and try to look out for other kids.

     My personality type matches that of people like:
- Alexander the Great
- Weird Al Yankovich
- Alfred Hitchcock
- David Spade
- Mercutio (fictional character from Romeo and Juliet)
(and others)

     Conclusion
I found this test to be fairly accurate in many aspects. It portrayed what I already had a faint idea of. However, like any personality test it made generalizations that I did not necessarily fit into. Based off of the famous people who share my personality type, I am clearly destined for greatness or insanity. I predict the latter.


info from: http://www.humanmetrics.com/personality/entp

My Myers-Briggs results

Extravert(78%)  Sensing(12%)  Thinking(25%)  Perceiving(33%)

• You have strong preference of Extraversion over Introversion (78%)
• You have slight preference of Sensing over Intuition (12%)
• You have moderate preference of Thinking over Feeling (25%)
• You have moderate preference of Perceiving over Judging (33%)

This blog is for my AP english class. This is a test run.