Friday, May 7, 2010
Red
Sunday, May 2, 2010
My Book
Saturday, April 24, 2010
The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian
Monday, March 29, 2010
Betsey Brown Blog 7
Saturday, March 20, 2010
Blog #6 Outline of Paper
I. Parents sometimes want to live vicariously through their children.
A. Each adolescent has the right to try something new and be themselves.
B. It is not fair for adolescents when they are not able to do something that they like.
II. The book Charlotte Temple is a perfect example of how parents tried to make their child perfect and she ends up in a bad situation.
A. In some cases it does not matter how hard you try to keep your kids the way you want them, they will act out and do what they want.
B. Charlotte’s parents raised her to be a prim and proper girl but in the end she ended up pregnant and dies.
C. Even though she was taken against her will she still flirted with Montraville and put herself in a bad place.
D. It does not matter how much you tell adolescents what to do they really need to experience and not be led onto live just like their parents did.
III. In today’s time it is happening more and more, with sports, academics, and even colleges and careers.
A. It is seen all the time when teenagers play football because their dad made them or all of their family was national wrestling champions.
B. Parents push children to go to college where they want them to go because it is their alma mater or they just like the school.
C. Toddlers in Tiaras is a show on TV where girls as young as two years old compete in beauty pageants. There is no way those little girls decided to do that themselves.
IV. Making anyone do what you want them to do makes them less of an individual and can make them unhappy.
A. Children and adolescents want to do what makes them happy not what is going to make everyone else happy.
B. It makes a lot of parents hypocrites when they say that their child has loved it for years when it is all they have know.
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Huckleberry Finn Blog #5
Monday, March 1, 2010
New day Charlotte temple
In my new day version of Charlotte Temple, the new title would be Charlie Temple; it would be set in a small town in Montana where the population is no more than 500 people. The main character Charlie would go to a private school for boys. His headmaster Christine is the one to introduce him to Charlotte, the temptress of the book. Charlotte would constantly try to seduce Charlie but he always ignores her because he has a girlfriend back home. However, as the novel goes on Charlotte writes him poems, letters and love stories about what their life together could be, these paper documents get to him through e-mail and text. After months and months of Christine taking Charlie to see Charlotte, he finally gives into her lust. Charlotte ends up taking him to Las Vegas and they get married at one of the 24-hour chapels. After their marriage, Charlie finds out that his girlfriend back home that he never broke up with his pregnant with his child. After many arguments, he finds out that the child is not his and that she cheated on him, but he no longer cares because he has fallen in love Charlotte. Although, Charlotte appears to be the antagonist, she is a very caring person after she is married to Charlie. Charlotte and Charlie end up moving back to the town in Montana but she is banned because people consider her to be promiscuous and a temptress. Temple and Charlotte move to Las Vegas and open up a casino and live happily ever after.
Monday, February 22, 2010
Charlotte Temple
I am sure that a lot of girls have had the feeling of being betrayed, left or in general being hurt. I believe that is why it is so easy to relate to this book as an adolescent. We all know the feeling of being let down but everyone has the hope that things will turn out well. This is exactly what Rowson did in the book. At one point Montraville realizes that he is wrong and I had hope that he was going to go back and realize his true love but he didn’t. Sadly, most women probably think this is all Montraville’s fault but I think differently. Charlotte is at fault just as much as Montraville. She is naive and is fooled by Montraville’s front of being a worthy gentleman. I think that if she would have had heartache in the past or had been more aware of what some men can be like, that she would not have gone. It also, did not help that she had no voice, she could have avoided going with La Rue if she had spoken out against it.
This book shows a lot of struggles that many teenagers face today, peer pressure, being naïve and heartache. There is no doubt in my mind that this book is going to be very popular for a very long time.
Friday, February 12, 2010
Topic for Essay
I want to know why some books are banned and who decides that they are put on the banned book list. It amazes me that some schools ban books based on "too sexual" of context and witchcraft. The fact that adults in a school setting think that they can choose what children read is ludicrous. Parents should be the ones choosing or if a adolescent is old enough they should be able to choose what they want to read. Books are meant to be read and not banned.
The other topic that I am thinking about is why do adults view adolescents the way that they do? Some adults think that adolescents are dangerous, crazy and wild, even though just a few years back they were the same way. Just because one adolescent does something bad it puts a bad name out there for everyone. I want to know why they are portrayed in such a bad way in some books and why authors think it is okay to portray them as such bad people.
Friday, February 5, 2010
Chapter 9
Granville Stanley Hall's perception of why adolescence acted the way they did was extremely sexist, racist and rude. I do think that the way you act reflects on the way you were brought up, where you were raised and the people you hung out with. Although, assuming that every person that isn’t white is going to cause trouble is wrong.
He also “argued that the contemporary city and its temptations had made the petty crime of young people a matter for broad social concern, rather than a matter an individual family could control.” (pg 161) This is assuming that the family cannot do anything and based on where they live is going to shape how their children act. Hall seemed to favor any person who was white upper class, the only time he seemed to mention the lower class or a person of a different race was when he was degrading them or assuming that they were going to cause trouble.
It really surprised me when I read “…Hall’s work was welcomed, especially by educators and youth workers, is that is provided a theory for many of their own efforts.” (pg 163) I understand the time period that he was writing but they were teaching children all the wrong ideas.
Hall presented valid reasons for that time period; he wanted people who were reading his work to feel good about themselves. I would like to believe that most people would think that type of book would be out of line in today’s time, but sadly I know that some people probably still agree with him.