Outside Reading #3

As Fred Astaire continues to describe his life in Vaudeville and on Broadway he doesn’t seem to have faced many ethical decisions. He still seems young on his path to fame even though he has accomplished a lot. Fred grew up in Omaha and early on in his life his mother takes him and his sister Adele to live in New York. They were going to become stars. This was not decision made by Fred, but his parents had to decide whether or not to separate the family and give the children a better shot, or stay together is little Omaha. “My father was to stay in Omaha and send money to keep us going…As I learned years later, this trip was really a stab in the dark. We were going to New York without so much as a letter of introduction…” (14). The Astaires had to make the choice of doing the more sensible thing and staying together, safely in Omaha, or going on a wire and hope for good results. Mr. and Mrs. Astaire decided to go against what most people would have advised them to do and they moved the children to New York in hope to give the children more opportunity.

Also early on his Fred’s life he describes the first time he danced. He made a decision, whether he realized it or did it thoughtlessly, that would affect the rest of his life. “…I put on a pair of ballet slippers…I had seen other children walk on their toes, so I put on the slippers and walked on my toes. It was as simple as that” (10). Fred doesn’t get too excited over the experience and it doesn’t seem to be a big deal but at the same time it kind of defines his future. Instead of doing what other boys his age did or aspiring to be the same thing as them he went to New York and pursued his life in theater. I think that, even at a young age, Fred went against society and began going after what he believed in.

Later on in his story, once him and Adele and become somewhat big, they begin to get offers from different people to work with them. Decisions have to be made. They sign with a man they call C.B. and their show runs surprisingly short. Then they get another very good offer with Alfred E. Aarons but they are committed to C.B. for the next show. “We called on C.B. when we got back to town and asked him if we could do a show somewhere else and postpone our obligation…”(88). They decided to go against an obligation which would cause some people to call them a type of “traitor” and work with another company because it would be good for them. Eventually they would come back to C.B. after the new engagement was done so following conscience worked out.

Astaire, Fred. Steps In Time. New York: HarperCollins, 1959.

On the Waterfront

In the film “On the Waterfront” the main character, Terry, seems stuck in the middle of the definition of a traitor and a whistle blower. The reverend and Doogan both had the view that if you know the truth you should tell it. If you know what is wrong with a situation and have the knowledge to fix it, it is your moral duty to do what you can. On the other hand all the men at the dock feel that if they stand up against Johnny Friendly they will be considered a traitor. They have all been in on what going on from the beginning and many of them will lose a valuable place on the dock or even their lives if they stand up. The same situation: is your life worth risking in order to help improve the lives of many others?

The majority of the characters in the film believe that standing up is not worth it. They are willing to put up with it all to keep their jobs and money coming they. They all hold the same general view with the exception of few. I agree with the reverend, where if you know how to help a large group of people you should do what you can. What’s the point in just sitting around when everyone is suffering? Of course nothing in life is guaranteed so I can see how it’s safer to just go along with it all, but I think if you have the opportunity and the resources you should stand up. I also think that no matter what you will be seen as a traitor by some group of people for some period of time. I think it’s important to do what Terry did and follow through all the way with whatever it is you’re fighting for.

Question #2

In Arthur Miller’s play All My Sons many characters face situations where their response will either benefit their family or it will benefit society. These are very real and difficult circumstances and often there is no in between, a decision must be made. The most important decision made by a character in the play was Joe’s decision to ship out faulty parts. He had to either accuse an innocent man or risk the ruin of his entire company. It was either the lives the men in the planes or the life he had planned for Chris. His son eventually finds out and demands to know what happened screaming, “I want to know what you did, now what did you do? You had a hundred and twenty cracked engine-heads, now what did you do?” (69). Joe decided to save his company and blame Steve for what happened. He killed 21 pilots and those 21 families had to mourn the loss of their sons. He wanted a good life for Chris, he did it all for his son. Not only that but he ruined the life of another man stuck in jail and affected that entire family. Kate also faces a decision to make either for society or for her family. She refuses to believe that Larry is dead so she spends the majority of the play fighting for his life. At the end of another argument about his death she insists, “He’s not dead, so there’s no argument!” (32). She goes against the sane believe of society that he his dead and causes much commotion with her different view. She desperately tries to convince them that Larry is not gone and the family will be whole one day and it masks the possibility of Joe being responsible for Larry’s death. Annie returns home for the first time in three and half years after being invited by Chris. It becomes apparent that they intend on being married. Ann is not necessarily welcomed by the neighborhood and Sue remarks when meeting Ann,
“…it’s very unusual to me, marrying the brother of your sweetheart” (43). Ann is faced the decision of being with the one she loves or go with what society wants her to do. The neighborhood does not relish the idea of having her back and many arguments could have been avoided and awkwardness spared if she left. Either she could come back to a neighborhood that does not necessarily want her, or, even if it does not relate to her own family, she can stay and create a new family with the person she loves. Throughout the play these decisions and made and the results are seen but the argument on who is right is still out there.

I believe that there is a point where one must stick up for their family because they are the closest and most important thing you will ever have. At the same time I think there is a thin line on some situations as to what is right and saveing the lives of many seems the right thing to do. In Keller’s case I think what he did was wrong. He put another family through very hard situations that they shouldn’t have had to deal with and Steve himself got falsely put in prison and withers away. He also lies to his son, which is who he claims he did it all for. On top of all that he put many other pilots in danger, knowingly, which seems surprising after going through losing his own son to the same war. I think there are so many variables in a circumstance like that, for example, Chris could have died in war, or maybe the company would not have completely died if they had just told the truth, that his decision was not rational.In Kate’s case I think she did what came naturally to her as a mother, protect her son from knowing the truth, and refusing that a member of the family was gone. I think she had the right to her beliefs but after 3 years she should have started to see where the rest of the world was coming from. As for Ann she did the right thing by being where with who she loved. She wasn’t harming anyone else, just because people didn’t like her it shouldn’t have affected her decision, and she didn’t know better than to believe Chris over George. Nothing is ever guaranteed, anything can go wrong because of the variables in an given situation and I think that’s what makes these decisions so difficult. Many people have said that they would decide society if it saved more people. I totally understand where they are coming from and won't understand a parent's love until I am one. At the same time if I ever had to decide between say my brother and the lives of people I don't know I dont think I could live with myself if I let my brother die. It scary to even think about being faced with something like that.




Miller, Arthur. All My Sons. New York: Penguin Group, 1947.

Steps in Time

As Fred's autobiography continues he tells more about life in Vaudeville and Broadway. When Fred and his sister Adele were young, about nine and six, they went on a very successful tour. They were seen as a very promising act with a bright future. Gradually their popularity decreased and they were unable to get bookings. Astaire believed that it was because they were growing up and said, “Maybe they thought we were cute kids, or something like that” (29). One of the theatre managers said, “The girl seems to have talent but the boy can do nothing” (29). This comment affected Astaire, but he continued to pursue the life they were searching for. He continually comments on how he was dragging his sister down, yet she never seemed to notice. During their run on smaller circuits Astaire explained, “She practically had to ‘carry me on her back’ all through that period” (41). They spent the next two years at a private school, taking a break from performing. They eventually started back up, but not well. They really struggled and ended up only doing small shows because they were the only thing they could book. Astaire explained, “The outlook was pretty grim. We were ambitious enough, but overcoming discouragement was the real problem” (40).

It think it’s really interesting to see the struggle that the two faced. They both pulled through with determination, seeing as they became famous and very well known, but I’m excited to find out how. I also thought of how this is a journey to their dream, just like how All the Pretty Horses is John Grady’s journey to his dream of horses. Each of us longs to fulfill something very different from others and our paths in getting there will also be very different. We may run across some similar problems, like being hindered by outsiders (theatre managers, arrestors) and giving up speed and other things for those we love (Adele for Fred, John for Rawlins). I think it’s cool how even a real story of someone’s life can follow the Hero Quest Pattern. So far the Astaire’s have had various different helpers along the way, choreographers and show bookers. Fred also has a friend to enter his new world with. Adele and him enter and try to conquer New York City together. I’m excited to see where their journey to fulfilling their dream will take them.


Astaire, Fred. Steps In Time. New York: HarperCollins, 1959.

autobiography

My book is called "Steps in Time". It is an autobiography of Fred Astaire. I really really like it so far. I love dancing so the fact that he is one of the best tap dancers known to Hollywood really helps. The beginning of the book is just some back round on his life. The language is really casual so it actually feels like he's talking to you. He describes some ups and downs on Hollywood and the life of fame. He also spends quite a bit of time on complaining about how so many people called him old, when he really wasn't that old.
In one passage he describes how he loves empty theaters, "...except when there's a show going on."
He also spends some time explaining how he choreographs. He doesn't like to listen to other peoples suggestioins. A dance is yours and you have to make it what you imagined it to be.
I feel like i really understand him.

See It While You Still Can

This article is about a photo exhibit thats now in St. Paul's Water and Oil Gallery.The exhibit is all picture of animals that are in danger because of global warming. Some of them are even local animals. I think this is really cool because who knows, it may be the only oppurtunity you have to see these animals. It's a cool idea behind the exhibit, owner James Davidson said, "We're all about trying to crate an image of a slower life, one that's more connected to nature." This is something they feel strongly about and they are portraying it throught pictures. This connects to class because we have been working on connecting images to human emotions and descovering what different aspects of pictures create. This article was really cool at if you're at all interested in endangered wild life or global warming I would encourage reading it. Also I think the exhibit sounds really cool.

Ward, Bill. See them while you still can. StarTribune.. October 31, 2008. .

Photo Analysis

Funny Pictures: How to Capture Humor in Photos

I read an article about how the take funny pictures. This article give you many good ideas on how the take a funny picture. It advises to play with camera angle, even try and take some centered shots because they can be funny. Also it explains how to change the sizes of objects in the shot to make it more humorous.
It did bring up one thing I thought was surprising, "The truth is that most great photos first come as an interesting idea and then the photographer sets up the shot." I thought that was very interesting.
It also mentions bringing your camera everywhere and taking pictures of kids because they seem to be the funniest :). I think this article is really cool because it shows a different side of picture taking. When learning how to take good photos we tend to think of the beautiful scenery or emotionaly moving frames, but comedy is just as important. It is difficult to take a good humerous shot and I thought it was really cool to get some tips. I would advise reading this, especially if you are looking at expanding your picture taking.

Miotke, Jim. “Funny Pictures: How to Capture Humor in Photos.” BetterPhoto.com. 22 October 2008 .

Where the Sidewalk Ends

I used to love reading silly poetry. Every other year, at my old school, we had to pick and poem, memorize it, and then perform it. I would spend a lot of time picking out that "perfect" poem, so over the years I have acquired quite a few children’s poetry books. Today I was reading through one of my favorites by Shel Silverstein. I found a poem I particularly like called “Where the Sidewalk Ends”, in her book Where the Sidewalk Ends. Ironic I know! This poem caught my eye because it reminded me of the turning point in Siddhartha’s life so far. The poem describes the “end of the sidewalk” as being a bright, pleasant place. It is where you want to end up after being on the dark, smoky sidewalk. This aspect kind of reminded me of Siddhartha because just as the poem says, “Let us leave this place where the smoke blows black…” (8), he left his old way of life which now seemed to have less meaning and moved on to a new life. The “end of the sidewalk” also reminds me of Nirvana. The end of the sidewalk is the ultimate destination; you can go no further, just like enlightenment is the end all for shramanas and Brahmins.
I really liked the poem because it makes you stop and think. There are so many different areas of life you can apply it to. Even though the sidewalk ends, the poem doesn’t really allude to that being the end of everything. It’s a pleasant poem, but still makes you think about the downer sides of life. I would definitely suggest reading this poem if you like poetry and poems with meaning, still said in ways children can understand. I think the childish side of the poem almost adds depth to it. It makes you see it from the eyes of an innocent child, or makes you think about how you were when you were younger.

“Silverstein, Shel.” “Where the Sidewalk Ends.” Where the Sidewalk Ends. New York HarperCollins Children’s Books, 1974.

news article blog

Palin vs. Biden: A cordial but scrappy face-off

This article is about the political debate between vice presidential candidates. It gives a bit of insight onto what they talked about and describes it as an overall friendly debate. This article to me really shows and describes journies in modern day. Both of them are fighting for the White House and are trying to win their "battle". Also both of them have come very far to be where they are. They had to go through a lot in order to get chosen as a VP candidate. I think it's really cool how you can look at how far they have come, but also how far they have to go, especialy if they get elected. Once elected it seems like they have reached their destination but really, at that point, and journey of Vice Presidancy is just beginning. I think this is an article worth reading if you're at all interested in politics or what could happen in our country after the next election.



"Bumiller, Elisabeth." "Cooper, Michael" "Palin vw. Biden: A cordial but Scrappy Face-off." Star Tribune. 1 October 2008. .

answer to question 2

2. Is Odysseus a hero for modern times? His lies, pride and murderous ways can be considered metaphors for larger, universal truths. Or perhaps in these modern times we need to redefine what we want in our heroes.

Human nature: the psychological and social qualities that characterize humankind ("human nature"). These qualities can be found in any human no matter who they are or what era they come from. In Homer's The Odyssey it becomes apparent that Odysseus is considered a great hero. After the great Trojan War, it took him 20 years to return home. He is distracted by many trials, some more honorable then others. When Odysseus arrives back home, disguised, he asks a cowherd and a swineherd what they would say if he were to tell them their great king is back. They rejoice at even the idea and it becomes apparent that Odysseus would be greeted by some as a hero. He knows all the things that happened on his journey home, but is not about to reveal them, longing to be thought of as a hero. Later Odysseus goes on a rampage and kills all his wifes suitors. He does this out of anger and spite because he is home and his household is filled with men courting his wife. Penelope finally discovers that it is her dear husband home again and rejoices. She equally as overjoyed that her suitors have been murdered. This great slaughter is seen as heroic in the eyes of the household. Odysseus can get away with murder and deciet but still be seen as a great hero.
In our day things are a little different. A massive random murder is not as likely to be looked on favorable, let alone heroicly. Our image of a hero has many of the same characteristics as past heros, but it eliminates the grusome and lieing sides. Our heros are still strong, couragious, and detemined, all traits also found in Odysseus. His journey home took him 20 years. It was a long hard journey with many trials. He went to the underworld, and also spent time with many women other then his wife. When Odysseus arrived home he was looked on as a hero by his family. He had done great things in their eyes and overall returned home. All would agree that it is heroic that he even got home after a war like that. When looking at the big picture his hero traits are the same we would see today. Although he did massacre a large amount of men at one time, it did it out of love. His household was being corrupted by these suitors and he was brave and stood up to them. After the battle his son, wife, and servants were all overjoyed that the suitors were gone forever. In our society, not exactly in the same context as a massacre, we would look at someone with that amount of love and courage to be a hero. He stood up for his cause and took care the situation. In modern day a hero would have handled it differently, but with the same essential motives.
Its true that Odysseus had a somewhat dirty and corrupted journey home, but at least he got there. He did have traits such as pride and deception but also possessed courage and love and bravery. The things he did would seem a bit rash to people now, but the reasons behind them remain heroic.




"human nature." Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Random House, Inc. 02 Oct. 2008. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/human nature>.

Brain Scans in India

The government of India is now the first to convict a person based on brain scan. This new technology supposidly reveals what a suspect remembers and allows them to know if the suspect is lieing or not. This is a contraversial topic because this technology has not been proven accurate yet. I think it is really advanced technology that we should be trying to improve, but I don't think you can convict someone when it hasn't been proven yet.
“The fact that an advanced and sophisticated democratic society such as India would actually convict persons based on an unproven technology is even more incredible,” said Dr. Rosenfeld.
I think this article proves the advancements in the world now. People on earth have always been trying to improve anything that can possibly use improving. It truly is amazing to think of where we have come from and where we will be in 100 years. Just look at the way things were during the Trojan War and how things are now. We are trying to brain scan people for the truth! That's incredible. But I do agree with Henry T. Greely when he commented, “I find this both interesting and disturbing.”
The journey of man is a very interestings one and is not even near reaching its end.
I thought this article was very interesting. I kind of makes you think about what's right and wrong and how the world is growing all the time. I think it's a good one to read if you're interested in this kind of subject.


Anand, Giridharadas. "India’s Novel Use of Brain Scans in Courts Is Debated." New York Times.
14 Sept. 2008.15 Sept. 2008

Christina's first blog

Hello and welcome to my blog. My name is Christina and I hope you enjoy this page. I will be updating weekly for english discussing my outside reading. I will be analyzing many different pieces of literature. Please comment on anything you want and tell me what you think. Let me know if you have any other oppinions on what I post, I would love to hear it.
Thanks and welcome!