"Since 9/11, U.S. policy enforces Islamophobia" by Nathan Lean, CNN

Since 9/11, U.S. policy enforces Islamophobia is an opinion article written by Nathan Lean on CNN's religion blog that centers on the government enforced Islamophobia in the United States after the 9/11 attacks and its negative effects on Muslim-American relations. Lean is very straightforward about his opinions and gives little background information about the issue before inserting his view on it. After four short paragraphs about the 9/11 attacks and its effect on the US, he makes his assertion by claiming that after these incidents the US authorities have enforced unjust treatment of "law abiding citizens". By reading this sentence only, the reader can already assume the author's viewpoint on the issue. The author also supports his claim about the negative effects of these prejudices by showing operations with Islamophobic intentions done by government agencies and law enforcers. For instance, an incident involving the FBI where  the agency paid an informant to initiate young Muslims in Southern California into talking about terrorism was personally the most shocking and persuading evidence provided by the author. I simply could not believe that such unlawful and unjust activities can be acted on by government officials. The worst part of the story was that the young Muslims who were being targeted were the ones that actually reported the informant to the authorities. This broke my heart showed how wrong it is for someone to turn their backs on loyal and patriotic citizens when blinded with prejudice.

The key reason why this piece is so convincing is because there's just so much bias flowing out of Lean's writing that it can, in my opinion, persuade someone who has the beliefs exact the opposite of Lean's. Not only does he bombard the reader with so many examples of Islamophobic actions taken by US officials, such as the FBI incident or the NYPD's "Operation Flex" involving observations of Muslim prayer-goers for signs of terrorist tendencies, he also ends his piece with a simple yet powerful message: "[abandoning national values] doesn't make us stronger; it makes us weaker, and more vulnerable." This is a powerful tactic used by persuasive writers to lead the reader into the direction they want to implicate.

My opinion on the growth of Islamophobic tendencies of US officials after the events of 9/11 was the same as Lean's even before reading this powerful article, but now it has given me a clearer picture of the rather messy situation that is not too hard for me to understand nor the opposite. Now that I'm informed about the specific cases in which the US officials are showing Islamophobic tendencies I could relate to the sensitivity and the stigma surrounding the issue. Reading this piece has also brought forward some new questions I have about this problem. How are these unjust "operations" legal? If supposedly trusted government authorities like the FBI and the NYPD act on unreliable, biased opinions and prejudices, are they to be trusted? I guess I'll find out by doing some more research on the topic.

Is Justice Served in "A Girl With a Pearl Earring"?

There are many "injustices" in the novel A Girl With a Pearl Earring by Tracy Chevalier. Some are small and seem trivial, like Griet having to deal with Cornelia's ruthless plans to cause her harm, and big ones that are a part of the conflict of the novel, such as Griet becoming a maid to provide for her family at the age of sixteen. All of these injustices, however, form the main conflict of the novel. In this story, the biggest injustice is perhaps Griet's limitation of freedom caused by the social class differences in the 1600s Europe. During that time period, a maid could not have been in a relationship with a famous painter, and teenage girls couldn't refuse working as a servant to provide for their families. Though Griet and Vermeer are attracted to each other, they cannot be in a real relationship, even if Vermeer didn't have a family. This is because of their socioeconomic differences.

*S P O I L E R* In the end of the novel, Griet finally leaves the Vermeer household, quitting her job as a maid, and later on we learn that Vermeer passes away. Griet visits the house after ten years, having heard his death, and Catharina unwillingly hands her her pearl earrings that Griet had worn during the painting of the now famous portrait. She glumly states that Vermeer had expressed this desire, for Catharina to give the earrings to Griet, in a letter days before his death. Griet takes the earrings, unsure of what to do with them, and unexpectedly decides to sell them, though not simply for the money. She pays for her family's debts with the money given in exchange of the earrings, but keeps the change, claiming that she would never spend it. This is to keep it as a reminder of him.

The ending is a form of justice because Griet finally breaks away from Vermeer's "world" she had been living in, even after his death, and becomes free. Towards the end she wonders whether she had stayed herself after all that has happened, referring back to the time van Leeuwenhoek had told her to do. Judging from the unexpected ending of the novel, I've decided that she has.

Societal Issues in "A Girl With a Pearl Earring"

The book that I'm currently reading (I still didn't finish it!) is A Girl With a Pearl Earring by Tracy Chevalier. As I'm getting further to the end of the book, I'm starting to notice the big and small conflicts in the novel and the things that cause these dilemmas. I've noticed that a lot of the big problems in the plot are caused by the societal pressures of the 1660s Holland, the setting. For instance, the love triangle between Vermeer, Griet and Pieter the Son/Catharina would've not even evolved enough to become a problem if it happened during modern times. If a modern-day young woman became a maid for a famous painter's family and fell in love with him, she would either quit the job, have an affair with the painter without his family knowing, or confess her attraction towards the man. In the novel, however, Griet could and would not be able to do any of those because of the strict values and prejudices of the society during that time period.

 Griet mentions multiple times throughout the novel about interpersonal and inner conflicts in her life that can be rooted back to societal pressures of the time period. For example, the only reason Griet becomes a maid for the Vermeer household is because her father was no longer able to work as a tile maker and thus she had to work to support her family. In the modern times, if her father was injured during his job, he would've gotten financial assistance from the government. Even if they needed another source of income, she couldn't be legally able to work in a major laboring job, like housekeeping. Griet also has major shame relating to becoming a maid. It is mentioned several times throughout the book that becoming a housekeeper is not an honorable job and usually means that her family is poor (also another thing that is considered shameful). Today, people aren't as judgmental as they were in the 1600s.

Griet also feels shame about her attraction towards Vermeer. She is so scared of people finding out the truth about it that she even fears talking about his paintings at home. Today, it might still be a source of guilt and shame to be attracted for a married man you're working for but it wouldn't be so feared if someone found out about it.

These are only the social pressures that people nowadays can relate to. There are more pressures mentioned in the book that are much more traditional and conservative in nature. Griet, for example, thinks that showing hair or opening her mouth is dishonorable. Now this might be only what she thinks, but generally since the whole story is narrated from her point of view, the readers have no choice but to interpret that as what the society thought back then. These apparent "scandalous actions" were so new to me that it took me a while to realize that they were actually real prejudices (if that even makes sense).

Overall, if the plot of the book took place in the modern days, the "big" conflicts in the novel would not be so dramatic and important to even be worthy of being the book's subject. Noticing this has made me realize how much a book can rely on its setting and how important it can be for a novel.

No Book Should Ever Be Banned!

When I first heard of countless spectacular books being banned from libraries and schools all across the United States I couldn't help but be angry and confused. Sure it  didn't seem like a country so democratic and liberal would limit one's access to such enlightening things like books. I was also shocked that the reason for their banning was because the books were considered "explicit" in some way. That is ridiculous, because compared to what teens see on TV or on the Internet or the songs they listen to on the radio, books are nowhere close to "explicit". If a book seems inappropriate for your son or daughter, you have the right to forbid them from reading it, but you cannot take that opportunity from the hands of hundreds of students. 

First of all, if songs about sex or drugs are not restricted from radio stations accessible during the daytime, books about the same topics should most definitely not be banned just because they contain these elements. I mean, have you seen the music videos on YouTube lately? YouTube is a very accessible site that many teenagers go on daily. Like the author of The Absolute True Diary of a Part-Time Indian states "There's nothing in my book that even compares to what kids can find on the Internet". YA books might contain some profanity too, but at least they educate adolescents! Instead of spending so much energy trying to ban books, maybe you should direct that energy to restricting explicit songs from popular radio stations.

I do not think that in any way someone has the right to limit so many young adults' access to books. No matter what you think or feel about a book, you should not forbid others from reading them. I believe that while a book's topic might seem inappropriate to you, that does not state the views of other parents and students. As Mary Elizabeth Williams states in her argumental article opposing pro-book ban critic Megan Cox Gurdon, "Is there a problem here, besides, perhaps, the offense to Gurdon's sensibilities?"

I understand that sometimes YA fiction can seem disturbing and grim for teenagers to read. But when do we expect the youth of this generation to learn about the hardships of life? Do we except them to eternally be the little children that believe in our tales of princesses and happy endings? Sorry to break it to you, but your children need to grow up sometime in life, and adolescence is the time for that. Like William's daughter claims, "...they're called 'Young Adult'. Adult!" (Williams 2)

In conclusion, I strongly believe that no book, including YA fiction, should be banned from the use of anyone, anytime, and anywhere. Banning books is limiting the basic freedoms of citizens and it is both morally and logically wrong to forbid people from accessing them, especially great ones like "The Absolute True Diary of a Part-Time Indian" and "The Hunger Games". 

Girl With a Pearl Earring

I am a little over half-way finished with a magnificent historical fiction novel called "Girl With a Pearl Earring" by Tracy Chevalier. The book is inspired by a very famous painting by Johannes Vermeer that features a girl wearing a pearl earring and a head covering, facing sideways to the painter. The story gives a background to the production of the painting and a fictional character that supposedly inspires the painter to illustrate her. I am a big fan of historical fiction, but I like this book particularly more because there is oddly very little information about the real painting and its muse.

The story is narrated by the supposed muse, Griet, who is a maid at the Vermeer household. Because of this, the readers don't get to look through different viewpoints of the story line and are forced to stay on her side throughout the book. She is seen as a very intelligent and perceptive character, and it is frequently mentioned throughout the book that she has a remarkable interest in colors and fine art. Though she works as a maid assisting house cleaning around house, she also secretly works as Vermeer's assistant, helping him do jobs such as making paint and posing for missing muses. The real tension in the novel is the protagonist's rapidly growing attraction to Vermeer and his wife's corresponding dislike towards her. Readers notice this conflict after only a couple of pages into the book, as it is introduced when Griet first meets Vermeer. I am a bit confused about him and Griet's relationship in the novel though, as it is not very clear yet whether her attractions are of romantic nature or simply curious, or whether Vermeer possesses the same kind of attraction towards her as well.

Another rising action in the novel is the increasing stress towards the possibility of Vermeer painting Griet. Mentions of his past muses and Griet's increasing thoughts about posing for one of his paintings are brought up frequently. As if the author is trying to rub it in the reader's eyes, one of Vermeer's colleagues suggests him to consider Griet as a muse. The reason this is treated as a negative thing in the novel is because she is afraid that Vermeer's wife will be enraged with jealousy (as she already shows clear signs of it) and will fire her, breaking her relationship with Vermeer and preventing her from supporting her poor family. This is the protagonist's main inner conflict and her biggest fear.

Though I try to read it as much as I can, I haven't finished the book yet and thus can come up with only these conclusions. I hope to gather more theories and information about the book as I read more, and plan to finish it in a couple of days as I only have a little less then half of it left.

Has young adult fiction become too dark? by Mary Elizabeth Williams

Has young adult fiction become too dark? by Mary Elizabeth Williams is a powerful and opinionated article opposing Meghan Cox Gurdon's editorial regarding the negative effects dark YA fiction has on teenagers. In this article, Williams supports contemporary YA fiction and claims that the dark content featured in the books are already in teenagers' lives. She also adds that literature is never going to be perfect and that badly written books are always going to appear on bookshelves. "Remind me again when there was a time when there was nothing but great literature from which to choose?" Another speculation she has is that her own generation, too, took into reading dark fiction when they were adolescents and turned out fine. She claims that "[teens] read...just to be moved, to fall in love with characters, to learn, and to sometimes just explore the things that scared and fascinated us". She supports her opinions by giving examples of her own experiences with her teenage daughter, who she says is frustrated as well with critics claiming contemporary YA fiction is too dark for teenagers. "They're called young adult [fiction]. Adult," she proclaims.

Williams has a very strong-willed voice of opinion and does not refrain from degrading Gurdon's judgement and opinions. She describes Gurdon's statements in a negative way, such as describing her statements as "clumsy" and her contrast of  Lauren Myracle to Judy Blume  as "unfavorable". This is a simple yet clever tactic to make the readers think Gurdon is wrong and ignorant. She also makes Gurdon sound foolish by contrasting her claims to contradicting examples. For example, when Gurdon insists that contemporary YA fiction normalizes extreme measures and validates teen experiences, Williams inputs a direct quote about the "downright lifesaving" effects of YA literature from a teen blogger: "Good literature rips open all the private parts of us-- the parts people like [Gurdon] have deemed too dark, inappropriate, grotesque, or abnormal for teens to be feeling-- and then they stitch it all back together again before we even realize they're not talking about us." This quote opposes Gurdon's statement and states that YA literature makes teens feel better about themselves rather than giving a distorted image of life to them. Also, the style of Williams' writing is fast-paced, self-assured and even a little bored, as if she's arguing against something that's so obviously wrong that it's not even worth debating over. This has a huge impact on the readers as it makes them feel like they should instantly agree with what she's saying because it sounds right. Williams ends her argument claiming that ignorance is the enemy, not darkness itself.

Reading this article have made me believe in Williams' opinion even more. Before reading this editorial, I believed that YA fiction made teens feel better about themselves but still couldn't decide whether it effected them in a negative way. Now that I have read it over and over I am convinced that contemporary YA fiction is positively life changing and not dark at all compared to the lives of teenagers today. I think my suddenly strong belief in this opinion is the result of Williams' ultra-persuasive writing style and the little details in the article that makes the readers feel drawn to her conclusion. I don't think that my opinion about YA fiction would've changed much after reading this editorial if Williams hadn't used such a strong voice. In conclusion, I think that this article is very well-written and expresses the author's ideas strongly while persuading the readers as well.

Faithful Elephants Analysis

          Faithful Elephants is a heartbreaking, gut-wrenching story about three elephants who used to live in a Japanese zoo during World War 2. The story begins with a beautiful day at the zoo in modern times. There are cherry blossoms everywhere and the sun is shining. The reader is expecting a pleasant and light narrative (at least I did). Then a zoo employee begins to tell a tale of the three elephants. Suddenly, we are plunged into a melancholic flashback. The transition between the exposition and rising action is short and abrupt, but is well written and does not confuse the reader.

          "Not far from the cheerful square, there stands a tombstone." This is the beginning of the rising action. It signals the readers that the story is not about what we think it might be. I also think the sentence itself is kind of a metaphor, as it states that the tombstone, a symbol of grief and death, is close to the cheerful square filled with happy visitors, which is a sign of rebirth and euphoria. The author might have tried to tell the readers that even after something horrible, things can still get better.

          We then meet the zookeeper, who tells the story of the three elephants that were buried under the tombstone- John, Tonky, and Wanly. He states that when the war began, the army ordered the zoo to kill all large and dangerous animals, including the elephants. One thing I noticed about the way he talked about the elephants was the fact that he described them like humans, especially Tonky and Wanly. "These two had always gazed at people with loving eyes. They were sweet and gentle-headed." The zookeepers try many ways to kill the elephants painlessly, but none of the options work and they have no choice but to starve them to death. This is the most depressing part of the story and made me cringe just reading about the agonizing way the sweet elephants die. I personally thought that starving the elephants to death was unnecessary and that the zookeepers should have found another way to kill the elephants even though most of the options didn't work. I just couldn't bring myself to accept the fact that something so horrible like that could happen. The most heartbreaking thing that happened in the story is when the two elephants, in the midst of starving to death, perform a trick with the little strength they had left, hoping that their trainer would bring them food and water. This tells the readers that the elephants believed that the zookeepers starved them because they thought they did something wrong, while in reality the zookeepers were dying to let the gentle elephants live.

          The two elephants finally die after two excruciating weeks. In their last days, their eyes appear "clearer and more beautiful than ever". This is a metaphor that tells the readers that while the elephants suffered a lot, they died peacefully. I think the author might have even tried to tell us readers that the elephants have gone to "heaven". The elephants' death was personally a huge relieve for me because it meant that the poor elephants no longer felt pain and went to a better place. After realizing that the animals have passed away, the zookeepers gather around Tonky and Wanly's cage. They desperately shake their limp bodies in an attempt to wake them up. Meanwhile, enemy planes fly over the zoo and continue dropping bombs on Tokyo. The zookeepers then scream at the planes, urging them to stop all wars. The author inserts a very anti-war message in this part of the story and clearly accuses wars of impacting so many lives negatively.

          We are abruptly pulled back from the flashback to real life. There is a great change of tone; the feel of the story is once again peaceful and solemn. The zookeeper pats the tombstone "tenderly" as cherry blossoms fall onto the grave. This is another reminder that even after a great tragedy like the death of the elephants or the war, things do get better, and that calamities that were once harrowing memories become symbols of redemption.
         

Carmilla

Carmilla is a classic gothic novella written by Joseph Sheridan Le Fanu. The story takes place in the late 1800s. The main character is an 18 year old girl named Laura who lives in a soliitary castle with her wealthy and widowed father in Styria. She leads a pretty lonely life until a carriage accident brings a mysterious and charming girl named Carmilla into their house.The two become inseparable friends, though Laura becomes increasingly ill. Once happy and joyful, she begins thinking about death often, sees multiple nightmares involving a cat-like beast, and is drawn to Carmilla more than ever. When her concerned father has no other choice but seek a friends's help, dark family pasts reveal and devilish qualities in Laura's beautiful companion slowly unmask, leaving a big scar on the small and solitary town of Styria. I enjoyed this book very much and it is one of my favorite books. Though classics are hard to read and quite boring, Carmilla proved me wrong! I know this is a book I'll read again and again throughout my life.