response to The Handmaid's Tale

I have read the part I of the novel, unfortunately I can't understand the detailed plot. But in the opening depiction, I noticed the author created an imaginary totalitarian society.

 This novel is set in the future of the United States. Religious forces victory in the struggle; the country was ruled by the Archbishop, they set all kinds of privileges in themselves. The most important thing is to enjoy many women, but he could not have any "romantic relationship" with these women, which is illegal; these women are only his birth tools. While more men had no chance to get the woman. In addition to the marital relationship, any relationship is illegal, which should be punished ...... there are people dying every day (to be hanged, hanging, exhibited); there are regular confession and people are denounced frequently...... there are the surveillance cameras and the "eyes" around every corner......

  How absurd things took place in Gillette Republic are! All follow the instructions of the Bible; women completely reduced men’s accessories, were driven out of all jobs and are not allowed to own property; legal status of women in accordance with the experience of marriage and fertility is divided into several levels. But in my mind, Gillette country's most frightening thing is not its rank and torture, but by depriving thought to control people: All words which the rulers do not like, do not meet the dogma are removed from everyday contexts. Example is that every woman think they should remember the biblical teachings and interpret the theme of "A woman’s meaning of life is to serve man, this is the mission God has given you" in everyday life.

Response to Boy Marries Hill

This is a very interesting drama with many mutations on plot. Sometimes I think it should be as I expected, but the plot surprisingly performed a big turning point.

Tapesh is the character who I’d like to review. In the early part of the story, I have always regarded Tapesh as a submissive, irresponsible, superstitious softhead. I think he was a rubber stamp because he only listen to your mother and couldn't make any decision by himself; Considering him superstitious because he even believe the nonsense which he must marry hill to remove the curse; And considering him irresponsible, of course, because he stubbornly break up with pregnant girlfriend. Compared to the immorality of abandoning pregnant girlfriend, his only advantages of filial piety isn't worth mentioning.

In the middle part of the drama, the pizza boy tell him that stayed beside mom is not happy, Tapesh is still hesitating. Ok, I can understand, after all, his mother is such a great mother who rescues the whole family. However, the main reason I belittle him is that subjectively, I hate those who cannot simply deal with emotional conflict, especially hesitating because of the ridiculous ideas which will destroys the normal life. As for his cursed mother, I think it is inclined to her fear and anxiety of killing her husband so that mother wants to her son came back, to guard and support the family. A real man should use other right ways to soothe my mother, ignoring the absurd decision to marry hill, and then responsibly marry Darshini.

What amazed me is during the final part of the plot, an abrupt change on plot appeared. He likes mountain in deed. Darshini’s cheat makes him understand his real love. Such plot change made me have nothing to say, it turns out to becomes an ending that Tapesh overcomes difficulties and finds true love at last. How strange the end is! I cannot understand it anymore!

Response of the Bible， Genesis

The Bible is the western classical religious book. I often heard that it can serve as childhood primers to learn. In fact, it is, because it is not difficult to understand; there are many god genesis events and the story of the human face in the narrative. I can't say what it contains enlightening truth, but as myths and legends, which shows the magical world, fascinating story.

About the story that the snake tempted Eve to eat the fruits of the tree of life, I really feel that God is a bit heartless. Humanity itself has nature of exploring the unknown. Although their act is not obeying the voice of god, I think at that time Adam and Eve are ignorant, they do not know which is right or wrong. The fruit of the tree of life not only bring them wisdom, but also brings a desire, which make them understand good and evil. Maybe God created the human without wisdom; in his view it is happy enough for human to carefreely live in the Garden of Eden, so God do not need to give human desire to annoy people. But it is because the human desires make humans’ progress. In other words, as described in the bible: the snake is a so evil creature that unexpectedly tempted Eve to eat the fruit, such a bad desire has certain reason in the religion itself: Religion pay attention to control desire.

And I felt god's ruthless side more performance on his punishment for people. In the article the Lord is like a perfectionist. He always give human a perfect living conditions, such as the Garden of Eden, firmly believe that the arrangement of it has made human satisfied. Then, no spiritual teachings to guide human mature. Therefore, when Eve to eat fruit on the sly, he gave humans harsh punishment, deprive the good life. Different treatments was too obvious, which makes me have to think that God always disregard for human mistakes and not to correct mistakes right away, but afterwards giving excessive punishment.

After all such things happened to the same time, which is the event of Noah's ark. “God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.” He should want to get rid of the entire poor creature. If it is a perfectionist who created the work, immediately destroyed because of not perfection, I can't blame him too much. Here is different, he created life who are able to think, he can't give up teaching human because of loathe. Flood is too ruthless punishment; I think it is irresponsible of god as creator.

Analysis Paper Schedule

Step	Deadline
1: Determine text	March  16
2: literary review	March  25
3: determine element	March  25
4: Meeting with Dr. Marquardt	April    9
4: determine sources	March  30
5: determine quotes from primary sources	March  30
6: determine quotes from secondary sources	March  30
7: Outline	April    4
8: Draft 1	April   13
9: Peer Review	April   20
10: Draft 2	April   26
11: Final Draft	June   5

Moments of light in the story

   “Light” appears for several times in the story. And in author’s view, “light” is a symbol of goodliness and peace salvation. Thus, its position often opposites of the war scene normally supposed to be.

    At the first time, there are two sentences using ‘light” to describe sombre environment, one is “Up in the canopy there were tiny white blossoms, but no sunlight at all” and the other is “quadruple canopy, no sunlight at all”. And such a gloomy environment is contrasted with teenager’s lively atmosphere. When “Lemon step from the shade into bright sunlight. His face was suddenly brown and shining”, here “light” appears again and sunlight shines Lemon extremely beautiful. Likewise, in the sentence “when he died it was almost beautiful, the way the sunlight came around him and lifted him up and sucked him high into a tree full of moss and vines and white blossoms”, set off by sunlight, death scene is very sacred, Lemon was shrouded by pure white light, quietly lying on the white flower, dying without pain. It is like going into the heaven. The good atmosphere serves as a foil to uncertain cruel war. In the end, the protagonist thought the light kill Lemon; the more beautiful death scene is, the more sad people feel.

Response to “How to Tell a True War Story”

         I have ever learned about war from a lot of stories, movies, novels, dramas. And people are willing to tell the war story by literature from both perspectives, cruel and evil, equally sacred and magnificent. War is so complex that the glory and evil of the human nature flash on the battlefield. As a spectator, I am unable to have in-depth impression but the author Tim O’Brien writes down "This is true." which has been emphasized for several times in text to describe a black humorous war story. And it gave me a different feeling.   
       The story is mainly about the death of Curt Lemon, a larky guy who didn't put the war seriously. He cheerfully played games all the way. This scene is so beautiful and sunshine that people are absorbed in the happy atmosphere of outing until Lemon accidentally stepped on a booby trap and dead in the blast. However, “when he died it was almost beautiful, the way the sunlight came around him and lifted him up and sucked him high into a tree full of moss and vines and white blossoms.” Such a dreamlike description and abrupt transition bring comrade more regret and sorrow. Thus when Rat slaughter baby buffalo without mercy, comrades can unhesitatingly criticize Rat merciless because he was giving vent to grief of comrades-in-arms’ gratuitous death. But “A true war story is never moral”; on other hands, he still committed evil. 
       Just like the story told by Mitchell Sanders, “For the common soldier, at least, war has the feel—the spiritual texture—of a great ghostly fog, thick and permanent. There is no clarity. Everything swirls. The old rules are no longer binding, the old truths no longer true. Right spills over into wrong. Order blends into chaos, love into hate, ugliness into beauty, law into anarchy, civility into savagery."  In war people lose their sense of the definite and the sense of truth itself, numbness is their normal status.  
        So this is true war story that people’s emotion is unnecessary at the result of war’s cruel nature.

Reading Response of "1001 Arabian Nights"

     In deed,I think i am very familiar with "1001 Arabian Nights", for it is my bedtime story at young age. Till the three sections of book i read today quite open my understanding of it, because there are still much details about story that i don't know. The three contain entirely the beginning of how 1001 story arose and the happy ending of King and his wife,and two small story in between which are narrated by Wazir to persuade his daughter not marry King.

    The first section "STORY OF KING SHAHRYAR AND HIS BROTHER" talked that King Shahryar missed his brother Shah Zaman and wanted to his brother to visit him. And at the day of departure Shah Zaman found  his wife's treason so that  he got excessive grief and weak. Thereupon when he rested at the palace he found King Shahryar was also cuckolded that recover him but frenzy the King.The despondent twain started to tramp and accidentally met Jinni Ifrit's imprisoned bride who threat them to stroke her.Finally the lady's exerperience inspire them that King Shahryar

"decided never to intermarry with womankind"    and

"He also sware himself by a binding oath that whatever wife he married he would abate her maidenhead at night and slay her next morning, to make sure of his honor."

      I used to believe King Shahryar is a brutal and tyrannical king  to slay women without a warrant.Now it is reasonable that he became brutal king because he had such a pitiful experience.However there are some logical problem that i cannot understand.

 So they fared forth saying either to other, "Allah! Allah!" and: "There be no Majesty and there be no Might save in Allah, the Glorious, the Great, and with Him we seek refuge from women's malice and sleight, for of a truth it hath no mate in might. Consider, O my brother, the ways of this marvelous lady with an Ifrit, who is so much more powerful than we are. Now since there hath happened to him a greater mishap than that which befell us and which should bear us abundant consolation, so return we to our countries and capitals, and let us decide never to intermarry with womankind, and presently we will show them what will be our action."

I found they were inspired by lady's experience,but they did the same odious deed to Ifrit's wife as what blackman did to Queen.Maybe they felt it was all the fault of Queen because she may threat to blackman;maybe they felt Ifrit is much more miserable than themself because even Ifrit has strong power, his wife still betray him;maybe they know "there never was nor is there one chaste woman upon the face of earth"; except they agree the lady's way.Because i think the lady is also disloyal.

    And there are the same logical problems about merchant and his wife's small story in "THE TALE OF THE BULL AND THE ASS" . Why wife will repent when merchant use mulberry twigs to hit his wife very hard until she beg for pardon? Can it easily make wife obedient?

    Thus I learned a lot but i still puzzled a lot.