The Dumbest Generation? Don't Be Dumb

This article was extremely astounding at first, because it amazed me how some teenagers can be so cut off from the world and society to not know some basic knowledge of our world. But then, after I began to think about it, I began to realize that I wouldn’t know some the answers to some questions about our basic history. We know what we are taught and what we have kept in our brains because we found it to be important. It is amazing if you think about the way we now learn, and what teens now excel in, but it also makes sense.

While reading this article, I immediately flashed back to Ortega y Gasset’s piece, “On Studying,” which criticized the way in which students are now being taught, emphasized the errors in our teaching and the importance of instilling a curiosity in students, and acknowledged that students will find the answer if they need to know it. In this article, it mentions that, “60 percent [of college freshmen who found it important to keep up with political affairs] in 1966 to 36 percent in 2005,” (2). However, it also states that this is a direct result of the fact that these college freshmen were fresh bait to be shipped off to Vietnam to fight in the war, so it was essential that they knew what was going on in the world and politics.

Also, I feel that although we do not know a lot of facts or knowledge of the world around us, despite how necessary this is, we are not dumb. We possess other forms of knowledge, something that may not be as easy to measure as whether someone knows the correct answer or not, but just as vital. I think it could be considered right to call our generation dumb, just because we do not know certain answers, but we are not stupid. There are new extraordinary advancements made everyday thanks to our generation’s minds and way of thinking. If we were stupid, this would not be possible. Also, knowing the capital of a state is not necessary to build a robot or a new cell phone. All that is necessary for that is knowledge on how these things work and a way of thinking how to create what is needed. It may be decent to say that our generation lacks vital knowledge, but we also hold extreme amounts of knowledge. Knowledge comes in different forms, and as Ortega y Gasset said in “On Studying,” we learn and know what we need, and our generation needs to know how to advance our culture and technology and how to improve people’s everyday lifestyles. Although it is important to know our history so we do not go to repeating ourselves, I think that is no longer the most pressing issue.

Despite the fact that some people did not know the answers to some of the questions about history, that does not mean that as a whole, we are dumb to the world. There are still those great number of people who would answer all of the questions in this article with the correct answer. Also, I think it is important to note that most likely the people in power in America are not the teens so the “unknowledgeable” teens will not be having to make decisions that could be a result of not knowing our mistaken pasts.

I will admit that teens are our country’s future, and some are not extremely bright, but the majority of our teens, who are excelling on the SAT, and going to top universities, are the people that will lead our country in the future. It is not quite a threat to our wellbeing for our teens to be unknowledgeable because they will most likely never get to a place of extreme power where they will have to make decisions that affect our whole country. It is the teens that are excelling in rigorous classes, getting perfect scores on the SAT, and creating new technological codes, who control the reins of our future and their way of thinking is a way of thinking that is necessary for our modern world. We no longer need to know about politics, because we are no longer drafted. Although it would be much better if more of the teens in America knew the answer to more of these questions, the knowledge these teens possess may be more substantial to our modern world, thus bringing us to higher ground and rising our country to a better place. And for this reason, I believe it is unfair to call American teens dumb for not knowing certain facts because their knowledge of other areas, perhaps more vital areas, surpasses that of previous generations.

Why Americans Are So Restless Interpretive Questions

2. A society that is devoted to equality, such as that of Americans, weakens each individual to try to reach equality. Equality itself weakens individual in an effort to help other individuals who are "below" the previous individual. Tocqueville says, "The same equality which allows each man to entertain vast hopes makes each man by himself weak. His power is limited on every side, though his longings may wander where they will," (166). If one individual is incredibly strong, this force of equality that is so persistent in America will somehow weaken that individual. If one individual were to be above the others, equality can never be reached. Equality weakens individuals so it can provide a state of everybody being equal to each other in every aspect of life. When equality is involved, one can never be above the others and one can never be below the others. It is the individuals that are below the majority that cause the individual above the majority to be weakened. Some has to be taken away from a successful individual to give to the weaker, so to speak. The weakening of one individual is essential on the search for equality. Certain individuals have to be weakened in order to reach equality for all, according to Tocqueville. If one is a step above the others, America will take that step out from under that individual so that everybody is on the same level once again, where all are equal. According to Tocqueville, "When all prerogatives of birth and fortune are abolished, when all professions are open to all and a man's own energies may bring him to the top of any of them, an ambitious man may think it easy to launch on a great career and feel that he is called to no common destiny," (166). Equality is chased after so much because equality encourages all men to try to burst past the rest. Life becomes a "competition of all," (167), which provides a different barrier for people to fight against to get ahead. Because men have such a rich desire to reach their goals, they will fight strongly to beat all of their competition and reach their goal before the others. Equality, however, can never fully be reached because certain individuals are born with a certain level of intelligence that separates them from the group. However, Americans will still try desperately to reach this level of equality that is so unattainable because it will help those that are behind the others, and because Americans like the competition that equality can cause.

5. Tocqueville thinks Americans are so restless for a mix of both of these reasons. Americans know what they want for a while and they will pursue that thing but then they will find something else they want. They know what they want but what they want changes once they achieve the first thing they wanted. Americans "clutch everything but hold nothing fast, and so lose grip as they hurry after some new delight," says Tocqueville (165). They find something that they desire and then they hurriedly chase after it but by the time that have reached it they will have found something better and worthy of their attraction. So Americans do know what they wan it is just the problem of not sticking to one goal. Tocqueville says, "Men are often less afraid of death than of enduring effort toward one goal," (166). Americans can attain things more effectively than other groups of people because they live in the "circumstances the happiest to be found in the world," said Tocqueville (164). If something is unattainable to them, they will do whatever they can to make it attainable. So in a sense, that unattainability of certain things to Americans encourages them to be restless because it encourages their pursuit of that thing. Americans never see a goal that they can't reach, so they will brush past whatever level of unattainability that there might be to reach their goal, which is their ultimate purpose. Americans will continue to fight to reach their goal even if it is unattainable, they will not accept defeat and will continue to try to reach that goal. This is extremely evident in Americans' desire to reach equality. Equality is never really attainable, but still America is desperately trying to reach it. Americans have that desire to reach their goal whatever it may be because at the moment that is the most important thing to them, that is, until they find another thing that attracts their attention. Also, the strong presence of equality that lingers in our country helps all men to be able to attain what they want. It is not that Americans don't know what they want or that they can't reach what they want, it is that Americans changes their desires so frequently that makes them so restless. The definition of restless is "unable to rest or relax as a result of boredom or anxiety," and that is exactly what Americans are. Not because they don't know what they want or they can't reach what they want just because we have set the stage for Americans to constantly strive and desire for something more and something different than what they have.

Comparison of Peasants to Ruling Class

The behavior of the empowered peasants and the behavior of the previous ruling class is not very different. Both are very unjust and violent. Remembering back to Charles Darnay's trial in London, beheading people was very common. The most trivial of cases sometimes resulted in the beheading of the criminal. The French revolutionaries are likewise very violent and use their violence as a way to oppress the people they don't agree with. The revolutionaries had tried to appeal to the aristocracy several times, but the aristocracy did not answer their questions or fulfill their requests. Because of this, members of the aristocracy were taken prisoner or were killed. One example of this is the death of the Marquis. On page 135, at the body of the dead Marquis, they find "Drive him fast to his tomb. This, from Jacques," attached to the knife that killed him. This shows that he was killed by some revolutionaries due to the name Jacques, which was connected with the revolutionaries. The revolutionaries and aristocracies deal with personal appeals differently, however, in the light that the aristocracies already have a great deal of power. They do not need to rise to the top before they can have any of their goals met. The revolutionaries however have to struggle to get some power and so their struggle to have their appeals met, is more strenuous. They have to secure their power, whereas the aristocracy are kind of given their place in society. Both of the court systems are very similar and are unjust. In both, Charles Darnay was found innocent of his crimes. In the new found court system of the revolutionaries, Charels Darnay gets released because he tells his story to the jury, and reaches them on an emotional level. Both groups of people are very similar in the way that they acknowledge the appeals of others. They both don't really listen to what others ask of them. For instance, the aristocracy doesn't listen to any of the appeals of the people, which is why people grew to be so angry with them. The revolutionaries don't listen to the appeals of the people towards them, which is shown through the way Madame Defarge acts towards Lucie Manette's plea to help her husband. Both sides are very similar in their actions towards the people and their requests, despite their desire to be different.

Book the First

1. For how long has the man in Jarvis Lorry’s thoughts been buried?

18 years

2. What else do we know of this man who has been “buried”?
Lorry Jarvis is supposed to recall him, Dr. Manette, to life. He has been "dead" to all those who knew him because he was in prison, he changed his name, and he has been in the room in the wine-shop for so long.

3. What are the two conditions concerning Dr. Manette? 

He has forgotten everything from his past and has been living alone for a very long time, under a different name, "buried," if you will. He is supposed to be "recalled to life" by Jarvis and brought back into civilization.

4. Who are the proprietors of the wine-shop?

Defarge and his wife are the proprietors of the wine-shop.

5. Why does Defarge show Dr. Manette to the “Jacques”?
They all have the name Jacque, which is his name, and a good name in his opinion, and Defarge thinks showing Dr. Manette to the "Jacques" will do them well.

6. What is Dr. Manette doing when they enter his room?
He is making a pair of lady's shoes. He is hard at work when they enter and doesn't barely notice their entrance.

7. What does Dr. Manette say his name is? What is the significance of what he says?
He says his name is One Hundred and Five, North Tower. This was the prison where he was a prisoner.

The Social Me

            It is difficult not to care what others think about us because others’ opinions mean so much to us. We are so worried about the way others view us that their opinion is very important to us. Our worry about what others care about us fuels how we act and carry ourselves. Everything we do is in reaction to how others act towards us. We don’t control the way that others see and think about us, but we do the best we can do make others see and think about us in a positive way. We often times change ourselves to meet the opinions of other people. It is not possible for us to control the opinions of others, but we do our best to make their opinions be positive. Everyday we get dressed thinking of what others will think about our outfits that day. One may wake up and chose an outfit that he/she knows someone else will like. We are entitled to want to please other people and make them think highly of us. We are so preoccupied worrying about what others think about us that we usually lose ourselves in the process. We base all of our actions on how others will react towards them. We cannot directly control others’ opinions about us but indirectly, we do so by acting or carrying ourselves a certain way to make their opinion about us change. Even when people are trying not to conform or meet the desires of others, we do so unconsciously. The opinion of those around us is as important as breathing. What others think about us determines how we live. Once a feeling has been made towards you, you will accept that feeling and live according to that feeling. It seems that whatever others think about you is what you are because you make yourself what they think you are. It is a continuing process of wanting to make others like/accept you, and one is never truly able to escape it, even after death.

 

 

Freedom and Survival

Freedom and survival are almost equal in reference to their importance. However, survival is one of humans' basic instincts, so therefore it is a little bit more important. We are programmed to do whatever it is necessary to survive. Going back to the aggressive instinct, people will do whatever, even if it means acting violently, if their survival is in danger. In this reference, it is our freedom to protect our survival. For instance, if a person is attacked, it is their right to act violently if they feel their survival is in danger. The two, freedom and survival, work hand in hand, just like the erotic and destructive instincts. Humans will do whatever is necessary to survive. But on the other hand, why would we choose to survive if we know we don't have any freedom. Survival is still more important because even if we didn't have freedom, humans would still do whatever was necessary in order to survive. Freedom is not more important because although it is extremely important in life and is one of our reasons that we want to survive, freedom may not necessarily protect our survival. If a person is completely free, and they are diagnosed with cancer, they may still die, even if they do all that is possible. Their survival is still at risk even if they benefit from complete freedom. Although I am extremely grateful of the freedom I have, and realize that not everybody has the same freedoms as I do, I value my survival a bit more. If I were a person who had more limited freedoms, I think I would feel differently. If I had very little freedoms, I would say that freedom was more important because I didn't have freedom at the time. Because I am privileged enough to have very many freedoms, I am more worried about my survival. Tomorrow I could be diagnosed with a life-threatening illness, which would risk my survival. They are both important because they work so closely together, but survival ranks higher in my books. As humans, we are powered to survive. We have an instinct that tells us to do whatever is necessary to see tomorrow. We do not have a specific instinct that propels us to gain more freedom. It is our survival instinct, which drives us to desire freedom because when we have a lack of freedom, we don't feel like we are surviving, but are instead suffocating. Everyone has a different opinion about this subject based on what they feel is at risk. In my personal life, I am much more worried about my survival than my freedom, so I feel like survival is more important than freedom.

Is War Good?

            War is a very complicated idea and so I think it is hard to answer this question in such a black and white fashion. There are reasons why I think that war is a good idea. For one, when a group decided to go to war, they usually have a lot of information and reasons to back up their intentions so they’re going to war for a cause they feel strongly about. Also, if a group is successful in war then they will get what they were fighting for and hopefully their success will contribute to the success and happiness of the group they’re fighting for. If a group of people is so passionate about an issue then it is a great triumph when they win the war. But on the flip side of that, if they lose and their cause is lost, then most likely countless lives have been lost just to end up in a situation similar to that pre-war or a situation much worse. It is never a good situation when lives are lost, but at times, if a situation is completely intolerable and war is the only option, you have to go to war. Of course other alternative options should be taken to try to alleviate the problem before it gets uncontrollable. War should always be the last option. Period. We have to think about other possible solutions before we decide to go to war. War can be good if it is successful and the outcome weighs out all of the negatives. At times, war seems to be the only way to help the situation.  

            It is human nature for people with different takes on a situation or opinions to want to fight. The fighting between people starts in preschool and continues through old age. Fighting is something that the human race will never be able to get away from. So then it comes to the question, “Is what I believe strong and serious enough to risk the lives of thousands of people?”  When a group is debating on whether or not to go to war, this question must always be asked.

            For a group to go to war, the issues have to be very serious and they have to affect a large number of people. Personally, I would go to war if we had a good chance of winning, we wouldn’t lose too many people in the process, if it was the absolute last option, and if we had a legitimate reason to go. War is a serious issue so there needs to be a lot of deliberation before a decision is made. I would go to war if an issue were so serious and debilitating that a large group of people was suffering because of it. You have to think about how many people could potentially lose their lives fighting the war and compare that to how many people are suffering as a result of the issue at hand. War is not something to take lightly so making the decision to go to war should not be taken lightly either. 

Belonging

I feel like I belong with my family and in Indiana. I feel like my family understands me very well and that we all get along. I could not have picked a better family that knows me, so in that sense, I feel like I belong with them. I feel like I belong in Indiana because I have grown up here my whole life. Although I don’t know anywhere else because I have never lived anywhere else, through my travels I have found that I belong in Indiana the most. However, I could also find myself in a European country, such as England or Italy. From visiting those, I feel like they, along with Indiana, would be a good fit for me. I feel like I am pretty casual and I am not a person who would not feel like they belong somewhere. I feel like even if I was not happy where I was, I would find a way to make me feel a little bit more like I belong. Sometimes I don’t feel like I belong at University. For the most part, I feel like I belong but there are those days where I feel like nobody knows me and that I should be at a different high school. This is one of the things where I try to find something that makes me feel like I belong, and for University, that is my friends. All my friends here understand me and make me feel like I belong. I think the thing that makes a person feel like they belong and what makes them feel like they don’t belong is a sense of home and someone who they can relate to. Wherever you go in life, everybody needs a sense of home. Whether it’s an animal, or a group of friends, whatever makes you feel at home, is essential anyplace you may go. It is also essential to have somebody who you can relate to. Everyone needs somebody to talk to when they’re down and they need to have someone whom they can be their selves around. For this reason, I feel like I could belong anywhere if I really tried, but for me I feel like Indiana is the best fit for me. I have never felt like I did not belong in Indiana. A sense of belonging is one of the most important things in life, and for me, I feel like I have found it.

Favorite Character in Of Mice and Men

My favorite character in this book would have to be George. I love how he takes care of Lennie 24/7. This characteristic is very admirable, in my opinion. There are times when he loses his patience with Lennie, but that is completely understandable and expected. With someone like Lennie it is like being a constant babysitter for someone who will never grow up. The way he never leaves Lennie when in reality he could leave whenever he had had enough of his trouble. He is not related to him through blood and therefore is not obligated to take care of him like he does. This constant companionship is great for the both of them but it is most helpful to Lennie. If Lennie did not have George he would get in even more trouble and most likely he would die sooner because he would have forgotten to eat or something minuscule like that. George goes out of his way to take care of Lennie and that compassion is admirable in any human being. Yes, George does end up killing Lennie in the end, but he did it with love. He could have let some other stranger kill Lennie, but he knew that Lennie did not want to be separated from George. He was with him until the end because George respected Lennie's wish to be together forever. Also, the fact that George would repeat their dream over and over showed how sweet and compassionate he was. George did not have to do that. He could have told Lennie to remember it because he would never tell it again. But he didn't. He knew how much joy the dream brought Lennie and so he told the story over and over just for him. He does so many little things that put himself in a disposition but offer comfort to Lennie. Another example of this is their constant move from workplace to workplace. George didn't have to leave Weed when Lennie got in trouble. He could have stayed at his constant job and earned a good amount of money that he could do whatever he wanted with. But instead, when Lennie got in trouble, George was along for the ride to do whatever it takes to keep Lennie safe and happy. George felt it was his responsibility to take care of Lennie, and in a way it was, but it was a responsibility he could have dropped anytime he chose. He took on a huge extra load that often times put himself at a loss, but he remained true to Lennie and took care of him until the end.

Euthanasia

Euthanasia is the "painless killing of a patient suffering from an incurable and painful disease or in an irreversible coma. The practice is illegal in most countries." This idea causes many debates and controversies. Euthanasia is used very frequently with animals and very little is thought of the matter. However, with people this practice takes on a whole new life. For animals, we don't know what they're thinking of whether they want to live, so we can take it under our hands to put them to sleep and out of their misery if we feel it is necessary. However, the same thing can be said in certain situations with humans. Sometimes, humans are in a coma and remain in one for a while. These people cannot talk and say how they're feeling or if they would rather die than live in misery. I feel like in some cases euthanasia i very beneficial. For instance, with animals I think it is very helpful. In humans, I feel like yes, sometimes people that are in a coma for a long time would in fact rather die than stay in a vegetable-like state, but also we never know. There are some humans who have the will to live, no matter their conditions, and would rather stay in a coma until it was their time, instead of having family members make that choice for them when they are physically unable. I think euthanasia is helpful and means well until it may become overused. I feel like if euthanasia were made legal in more countries, life would not be regarded as high. Whenever doctors felt that they didn't want to devote time and effort to making a patient feel better, they could go to euthanasia to solve their problems. In this light, this practice is bad and I am very against it. However, how do we ever know if doctors are serious and the patient really has no chance of recovering? How do we know whether there is nothing more that can be done? How do we know the patient will not develop a little bit of fight and come back kicking? There are many questions that have to be asked and the truth is we cannot really answer them. I think that patients should state somewhere whether after a certain amount of days of serious bad health, such as coma, and they are for it, the doctor can use euthanasia. There should be a minimum amount of days that the doctor has to work for the patient and do all they can to make them healthy, instead of just falling to euthanasia when there is nothing available at the moment. Also, I think that the family members of the patient have to be fully on board. After all, it is their life the euthanasia would be affecting also. They are losing a loved one so they have to decide when the time comes. I approve this idea but I think there have to be many restrictions so that people don't just use it as an easy way out. Doctors have to take in to account everything in regards to the patient to see if whether there is ANY chance of the patient making it. If there is no ounce of a chance, then euthanasia could/should be used to take the person out of their pain and suffering, as long as the restrictions are met.

Why Dreams Fail

I think dreams almost always fail. I don’t know exactly why but I think it’s a combination of many things. One reason why dreams fail I think is because the dreamers have too high expectations. Sometimes dreamers have dreams that are too far out of their reach. A lot of times, dreamers dream of things that are way beyond them because they want a change and they want some big positive change in their life. For instance, all of the workers on the ranch have had dreams similar to Lennie and George and that is a huge dream and a huge reach. From the ranchers to become landowners is a huge jump so it is very hard for them to make the jump successfully. Most times dreamers create dreams knowing that they’re just dreams and will never come true so therefore they never actually dream seriously because they know the dreams are not supposed to come true. For instance, if Lennie and George dream to have a large chunk of land and they go into it knowing that it will never happen, they would not work hard to try to get money to buy their dream. This is another reason why dreams fail. Dreams also sometimes fail because the dreamers might not have the means to follow their dreams. For instance, before Lennie and George met Candy, they did not have nearly enough money to buy their dream so they thought of their dream more as an unreachable dream. But then when they met Candy, he provided the economic means to make their dream a near possibility. It is sad that dreams fail as much as they do but I think that is why they are called dreams. They are called dreams because they are no more than dreams for the future and they are not realistic or really possible. I think that George and Lennie’s dream is now more of a future plan than a dream because it is really likely to happen in the near future.

A place to belong

Having a place to belong is a major part of what makes for a happy life. If you do not have a place where you belong or where you feel comfortable, you could spend your whole live searching for one. Human beings are not very happy if they live in solitude 24/7. People need at least one person to talk to or at least see or the person would go stir-crazy. Even if you do not live at home and do not have a “home” as in a stationary place of residence, you will most likely have somewhere to feel comfortable. Belonging somewhere makes a person feel like they have a purpose on this earth and makes them feel like someone has got their back. People who do not belong anywhere have no idea how much life has to offer them because having a place where you belong can create so much happiness in a person. One big characteristic of having a place where you belong is the idea that the people there know you and often care about you. Belonging somewhere is a key to feeling like you belong and feeling like you have a purpose. The people that do not feel like they belong anywhere have a feeling of loneliness inside them because they don’t have anyone they can relate to. Every human should have at least one place where they feel relatively comfortable and like they belong.

Friendship

I think that friendship is a huge component of a happy life. A friend is someone who is always there for you. They see you through your worst of your times and they’re riding along with you during your best of times. They’re the people that can cheer you up when you’re upset. And often times, they know you better than you actually know yourself. They understand when you’re upset and when they need to step in to make you feel better and when they need to step back and give you your space. A friend is someone who you can trust with your deepest of secrets. Someone you can trust undoubtedly with any of your thoughts and experiences. A friend is someone you will know won’t go behind your back and talk about you. They’re the people that will help you up when you fall and always have your best interest at heart. A true friend is someone who you get along well with and you enjoy being with, most of all.
We have friends because life is hard. We have friends because nobody can do it alone. And we have friends because we know that laughing and being happy is good for the soul. Life is hard for everyone. Obstacles and roadblocks are thrown in front of us and we are expected to dodge right around them. But the truth is, our friends are what allow us to dodge because they are an extra set of eyes to make sure you safely clear the obstacle. Nobody can live their difficult life alone because it’s just too hard. Every now and then even the most introverted people need someone to help them through. And, last but not least, friends always make you laugh and you have a good time with your friends. Life is stressful enough as it is so having the chance to laugh every once in a while is a great opportunity everyone should take advantage!

"Being rich is more important than having close friends."

I was very unsure of what I thought of this question. I think it is true to a certain extent, but it is also not true. I think that making money is very important in life because almost everything is based off of money. Money fuels life even though some people do not view it as the most important thing. I feel like people sometimes associate making money to being a horrible thing to think about it. But the reality is that you need money if you want to follow your dreams and live a happy life. For some, they do not need a lot of money to follow their dreams but at least somewhere along the way money will be essential to them surviving. So for this reason, money is extremely important. I think that making money and being rich are completely different things. Being rich to me means having more money than necessary. Making money is a different thing. Making money is finding a way to be able to support yourself and your family if necessary while being rich is finding a way to make yourself and your family have a lavish lifestyle. If you're thinking about being rich in that way then it is definitely not more important than having close friends. But money is important to life so that is almost as important as close friends. However, close friends are also vital parts to a happy life. Close friends are there for you when nobody else is there for you. For this reason, close friends are just as important as making money. There are many ways to look at this question and the idea of the importance of money vs. the importance of close friends. I think that to a certain extent money is just as if not more important than close friends but being rich is not as important as close friends.

"

Romeo and Juliet

Do you think that the Tragedy of Romeo and Juliet is really a tragedy? Explain your response.
I think that it is a sad story, but also a happy story. It is sad because there is a lot of death in this story but it is happy because the two lovers are finally able to be together. Throughout the story, the two lovers are not able to be together. From the moment they lay eyes on each other, they are unable to be together publicly. Their families are complete enemies so the two lovers would never be able to be open about their love. Although their deaths are very sad, it makes me kind of happy that they were finally able to be together in the end. I think the overall problem of the story is the two lover’s unreachable love. So I think it is essential that the ending is the lover’s death and final reunion. It seems like the end is like the end of a battle because the lover’s love was a constant battle and something they had to hide. But now, once the two are dead, they have finally won their battle that is their love, which make me happy.
Why does Juliet kill herself when she could be free?
To be honest, I think that the power of love is stronger than rationalization. Being a freshman in high school, I have no idea what love is, but obviously, Romeo and Juliet thought that they found it in each other. That power was so strong that it pained them to be away from each other. If Juliet did not kill herself after Romeo died, she would be in agonizing pain for the rest of her existence. Killing herself was her way of being able to be with Romeo, the one she loved, for the rest of her life. In my opinion, a freshman in high school, there would still be life after Romeo’s death. Sure, it would be hard to find and follow the course of life after the death of her lover, but eventually Juliet would be able to find it. My opinion is skewed, having no knowledge of love, so I can’t really judge Juliet’s actions. I think that it was a little too dramatic for Juliet to kill herself to be with Romeo, but I guess it just shows how strong their love for one another was. Juliet would rather be with the one she loved, the one she had been living for, than find another
What do you think of Capulet’s orders that Juliet marry Paris? Was he correct to do so? Why or why not?
I think his orders are somewhat reasonable and somewhat not. I don’t think marriage arrangements are right for either members of the couple. However, I see why Capulet wanted Juliet to marry Paris. The image of Paris is exactly what every parent wants their child to marry. He is intelligent, successful, good-looking, charismatic, etc. When Paris first starting talking about asking for Juliet’s hand in marriage, the Capulets saw it as the perfect husband laid out right in front of them. They had to jump on him. He was something so good that they didn’t want to let him get away. He would also make the Capulets’ image better because he was the perfect male specimen. The Capulets saw him as a wise choice for marriage and someone who would make Juliet very happy. They, however, did not know that Juliet was already in love with Romeo. They tried to force Paris onto Juliet softly at first, but once she denied him, the parents had to seek stronger reinforcement to make sure this “perfect” man/marriage opportunity did not get away. They agreed for Juliet, that the two would marry on the coming Thursday. If I were Juliet, and I was betrothed to someone I did not have feelings for and I was already in love with another man, I would react just like she did. In that sense, I think the arranged marriage is completely wrong. However, the parents had Juliet, and their own, interest at heart. I am happy that arranged marriages are not very common today because I would not want to be put in the situation that Juliet was put in.

Romeo And Juliet-Act 1

Act I was my first experience with really reading Shakespeare. I had read snippets before but never a whole act. Throughout the Act, I found all of the word usage and the double meanings to be very interesting. At first, it was a bit hard to understand all of the language Shakespeare used, but now I feel like a pro! I love how romantic much of the language sounds and how language is viewed as an art in this play. The way in which people speak throughout this play is very interesting to me and I like how everything has double meanings and the simplest of things have deeper meanings. I think it is good that we, as a class, have the CliffNotes version because I think a lot of people had feelings similar to mine. If I were to be reading this outside of school without the CliffNotes, some important things would not stand out to me and they would be lost throughout my reading. Throughout most of Act I, Romeo professes his very strong love for Rosaline. He speaks of love in a very sincere, passionate and emotional fashion. The way he speaks of love in the beginning seems like it is true, never ending love. However, I also thought that the person he was speaking of loving was Juliet. Before reading this in class, I had never even known that a third person existed. However, I like that Rosaline is in this story because I think it gives more meaning to the love between Romeo and Juliet. If Romeo claims to love Rosaline this much and he forgets about her for Juliet, then the love he feels for Juliet must be monumentally stronger. Some might argue that Romeo doesn't know what love is and only "loves" people based on looks, but I don't think this is true. Yes, it is crazy how he loves Juliet right after first laying eyes on her, but sometimes it can be the smallest things to make one another love each other. The reality that they fell in love at first sight makes their love seem like it is meant to be and neither of any control over it. I like this fact of the story and I don't view Romeo as confused, or a person of "player" like qualities at all. But rather, the momentous switch from loving Rosaline to Juliet gives the love between Romeo and Juliet even more power, romance and passion. I have enjoyed reading Act I and look forward to continue reading this play!