5th Blog- Quote Analysis

In the book The Scarlet Letter, by Nathaniel Hawthorne, a particular quote caught my eye. On page 160 of the book, this quote was found: "The stigma gone, hester heaved a long, deep sigh, in which the burden of shame and anguish departed from her spirit." This quote is so significant to everything she's going through. It is referring to her Scarlet Letter leaving her dress. As it falls, everything she has felt in the last few years (shame, guilt, angusih) also lie there with it. She hopes to leave it there, never to see it again (although her daugter Pearl won't have any of it). It represents a moment of peace and freedom for the woman that just wanted to be accepted. It seems unfair that she was put int he position she was put in, so this moment where she sighs of relief makes the audience react in sucha way that they almost sigh with her. The stigma from the quote is obviously referring to the Scarlet Letter that was stitched onto her dress. The uniqueness of this quote is partially the emphasis on the sigh. She did not just let otu any sigh, but it was a "long, deep sigh." There is a quite a difference between the two. The other significant part of this quote is where the shame and anguish depart from. The soul is an extremely "powerful" part fo the body for most believers (of anything to do with soul). Using the word soul, to have the bad depart from, means that she is altogether better for eternity because of what she has done. The moment she left that letter on the ground, she was cleared and free from the sinful nature society has to see in her. The soul is arguably the strongest (and most effective when writing) part of the body. This quote really has an impact on the reader's vision of the scene.

Blog Post Response to a Quote #2

A quote on page 83 of The Scarlet Letter, by Nathaniel Hawthorne, reads, "The discipline of the family, in those days, was of a far more rigid kind than now." This quote alludes to harshness of punishment within the family, and it also compares the norm of that time period to the norm of the author's.

Hester Prynne's daughter, pearl, is described as being somewhat disobedient, so this quote appropriately ties in to the story. However, a layer of complexity is added when one considers that Hester herself is being disciplined by a higher authority at the same time she might be trying to discipline her child. This may not bode well with regards to controlling the child's behavior.

This quote helps describe how beatings were common back in the day, though not severe ones. It is almost contradictory, however, that hester may have sufferred beatings herself as a grown woman and an adulter, while her somewhat disobedient child may have to suffer the same from a "criminal."

In time, it is almost certain that Pearl would lose all respect for her mother based on her crime and what other people say about her. She will want to disobey her orders and separate herself from even being associated with Hester. She is probably ashamed of her heritage, and for this reason she will likely defy her mother with hopes that one day she can be considered socially normal. In this case, the want to be accepted by society may very well outweight the bond between a mother and her child.

Blog Quote Response #1

A quote from page 74 of The Scarlet Letter, by Nathaniel Hawthorne, says," She could no longer borrow from the future, to help her through the present grief. This quote tells so much about the main character, Hester's, situation. It is describing the fact that there is no hope for a better tomorrow than there is of today. Things were only getting worse for her, and in turn, she may even lose her child.

Even though Hester had the chance to leave the city, she didn't. She stayed there to face the agony of being taunted by the public for her scarlet letter everyday. This quote shows that she is never going to have a better future, but in fact, a seemingly worse one. Everyday, Hester passes a new group of people in the streets who will see her and potentially make fun of her. So, in turn, everyday more and more people recognize Hester and resent her for her actions. More and more people hate and taunt her everyday, and some wish she just wouldn't exist at all. Before everyone recognized her, I'm sure life was easier. However, not that more and more people know who she is and what she has done, thanks to the letter on her clothing, she can no longer look to the future to help her through her grief. The future is most likely more scary than it is helpful with regards to her situation. In conclusion, this quote recognizes the grief that Hester faces at the present time, but it also makes the reader aware that her situation/condition in society will most likely never improve, but will likely deteriorate.

Response to "Pre-reading" #2

After reading this section about men and women's equality (or lack thereof), it is evident that some of the authors had very different ideas on the matter of equal rights.

In some of the segments from articles, the way women are described is almost demeaning. If I were to be referenced to as only being property belonging to my spouse, I would surely be offended. Women are also referred to as having no place in society, in terms of social or economical involvement once married. This sounds like it prevents them from being recognized except through their husband, and that they wouldn't be able to get a job in most cases. If i were a woman at the time when these articles/laws were published, the way these sentences are worded would have made me reconsider ever marrying. However, I also that marrying was the complete norm for any woman at the time, and they would likely have been frowned upon if they never married. So, it was a lose lose situation either way.

I'm sure that the world today is quite different in understanding equal rights. One prime example of this is that I am one of only two guys in my English class, which is comprised of about 20 people. We are all attending the same class and learning from the same teacher. I'm sure if any school like this had ever existed, especially with such a low ratio of men to women, it would not have been highly regarded back then. However, today, I feel blessed to have the chance to have an education, and that everyone is protected equally under the law. I cannot imagine my school, let alone my life, being remotely the same if the world was as it were hundreds of years ago.

The article also mentioned something very interesting with regards to the custody of children. Custody, back then, was normally given preference to the father. I can onyl guess this is because he made the money and could care "financially" for the child. This is extremely different than today's world. Primary custodial consideration is almost always given to the mother of a child, today. This is because she gave birth to the child, and I also think it has something to do with the bond between a mother and a child. Also, the circumstance that juries may favor women over men in a case gives them the advantage in a custodial battle. Once again, I cannot express how interesting it is that things happen to change so quickly in society.

I'm sure that most of the bloggers in my class will be offended by the first part of this reading (referring to women not having "equal rights") , and they have every right to be. I am glad that the laws today protect each American and ensure that justice be brought into the situation if the rights of equality are not upheld.

Response to "Pre-Reading" # 1

I have read the section from 241-245 in The Scarlet Letter and it intrigues me. The laws pertaining to adultery seem so harsh in relation to today's world. Since there are no longer any laws punishing those who commit adultery here in America (that I know of), it seems almost surreal that there were ever such laws to begin with. One can hear about adultery, sometimes quite frquently, in the news today. Most people would probably even know someone who's marriage ended because of it. This is sometimes more commonly referred to as "cheating" on one's spouse.

The laws referred to from the passage suggesting brutal whippings under some circumstances, but most suggested death. Capital punishment was not uncommon according to these laws. It looks like the laws suggested in the passage are so brutal because they follow God's word so closely. In its most literal state, I am almost positive that the Bible has a passage referring to adulteres. It most likely mentioned that they are surely to be sentenced to death. It seems as though in the setting where these laws were active, the governments closely followed the word of God.

The change in there being no law against adultery today is most likely a factor because the government doesn't follow the teachings of the Bible as closely as they once did. The separation of church and state occurred some time ago. Since then, purely biblical laws like adultery are laws no more (almost certainly before then, though). However, it is still frowned upon in society even though some celebrities are known to have cheated, or have even acquired fame by doing so.

It was interesting to read this passage to see how much the laws of the world can transform in just a matter of a few generations.

Response to "Employers Have a Lot to Lose," by Barry Newman

The article "Employers Have a Lot to Lose," by Barry Newman, is about fields of major employment that employ substantial amounts of illegal immigrants. New laws against employers make it hard for them to keep all of their workers, because of raids, and fines make it hard to stay financially stable. This article argues that employers shouldn't be the ones who have to decide whether someone is really an American or not. They don't want to face jail time for something they can't tell for sure. Also, how is an employer supposed to know if a document is forged or not? it just doesn't seem fair to hold the honest ones accountable. However, there is a side of unhonesty to this equation.

Some employers take advantage of the lower wages they can offer to illegal citizens. They don't always turn them away for economic reasons, even when thy know something is fishy. However, in times like these where racism is such an issue, even a simple speculation of a legal Mexican-American could lead to some kind of lawsuit. It's ridiculous, even in its purest form. Now that laws have been proposed (at the time of this article) regarding amnesty, or making these workers legal, this gives a sense of security to the workers. However, the employers would face harsher sanctions for the future employment of illegal immigrants (including long periods of jail time).

Although I believe so strongly against illegal immigration, I pity the employers from this article because of their situations. I think this situation is much like that of homeowners versus roofing/private construction workers. There are so few laws protecting the homeowner, however there are plenty of laws that help the contractor get paid in full, even if he/she does his/her job wrong or fails to finish a project. The homeowner is at a disadvantage, while the worker (immigrant) has laws protecting them, even if they are violating a law in the first place. I don't like what is being done to protect the employers, because they are legal citizens unlike the illegal immigrants. In no instance should an illegal alien have more of a right to be protected than an American citizen.

Response to "Death and Justice," by Edward Koch

This is an article written by a liberal who supports the death penalty. It starts out by quoting what convicted murderer said in their final words before they were executed. They all stated that "Killing was wrong, no matter who does it," including the government. This seems like a last stitch effort on the criminal's part to save their life. Murder is wrong, but words weren't going to separate these murderers from their heinous past. They were all put to death.

Mr. Koch argues seven main points, all of which I can relate to, and most of with which I agree entirely. Not only does he "debunkify" the myths associated with capital punishment, but he makes claims as well. He objects to statements like "no other democracy allows the death penalty." He claims that if other countries had the amount of crime (in comparison) and support from the general public on the topic, then they would. I agree, that in some of our largets cities the rates can be large in comparison (at least to smaller ones). Also, he raised the point that not many people are found innocent after death. In fact, those who make it off death row sometimes kill again, multiple times.

Mr. Koch is an extremely courageous man for backing his support of the death penalty as a liberal. (He supports most liberal causes, but it does not describe his stances on other things but as liberal) . It shows that party lines need to be drawn more vaguely, because no person in one party should take criticism for a believe they hold themselves. I do support the death penalty because I think of it as a deterrent, but Mr. Koch provided some other excellent examples, and he argued against some of the adjacent points.

The death penalty is a deterrent because it reinforces the morals of Americans. Most Americans wouldnt be able to commit murder, or don't endorse it because it goes against their religion, or for other reasons. When you add the fact that the government could have the right to execute someone for doing so, the average American would likely never attempt such a dangerous, immoral to their own morals) crime.

Mr. Koch supports the death penalty, much like I do. I am glad that he is not a political figures who holds his value according to basic party lines.