blog post social action the silent wife.

In "the silent wife",  The main character, Jodi, goes through alot of injustices as a wife. She is a loving wife who constantly provides for her husband. Even with this,  Her husband Todd takes away their home and money when he has to get married to his latest mistress who he got pregnant and who is also the daughter of his best friend. Jodi has to go through all of this having done nothing wrong. Eventually her friend springs the idea of an assassination on her husband and after saving up they go through with it and Todd dies. After this,  Jodi had gotten her revenge. Even after this, Jodi hasn't resolved her injustices.

Jodi has alot of injustices against her yet she still tries to be a good wife. For example, after leaving her, he cancles her credit cards without telling her and also gives her an eviction notice. These are terrible things to give to your wife that you are currently divoracing.
He doesn't even think of trying to support her for a while. He just pulls all the things that are helping her cope and survive after losing the most stable and important part of her life. Todd doesn't care about this.

Another injustice done against Jodi is his constant cheating. Before getting Natasha pregnant, he had cheated on Jodi alot. She wasn't worried because she thought that her routinely life would always draw Todd back. Todd didn't really care that he was cheating on her. While she was right, her routine was the reason Todd continually cheated on her countless times.

In conclusion, Jodi is a women who is a victim. With her twenty year relationship with Todd, she was cheated on alot and still stood by him. Then, he left her out of nowhere, another injustice. Finally, after leaving her, he took away all of her reasources without warning. Jodi has done nothing wrong yet suffers many injustices. Maybe her doing nothing was the reason she lost everything?

Ya social analysis post

In the book "The Silent Wife",  a very common and complex issue is denial. Throughout the book, A main character (Jodi) knows about her husbands infedelity as there are obvious signs like getting a phone call from a random women. Even when the father of the girl her husband (Todd) is cheating on Jodi with tells her that her husband is cheating on her, Jodi comes to the conclusion that he was mistaken. Another thing she denies is her need to confront. She rarely confronts her husband, but instead likes to do little things to get even with him, then goes about her day. These issues really make the book more complex as a whole.

Denial is a part of jodi's way to cope with her husbands infedelity.  One of the biggest examples of this is when her husband's best friend tells her that her husband is having an affair. She knows him and he is best friends with her husband, so he wouldn't lie. Also, that night her husband asked suspiciously asks if his best friend has called. Even with this, She want's to believe that he is making a mistake. She knows that he has affairs, but she refuses to believe that he will leave her because of how they were in love and how she acts perfectly.

Another thing that she denies is a need to confront. Whenever she finds that Todd is cheating on her, she just does something to feel like she's empowered. When she discovered a girls sleeping pill perscription in todd's coat, she put those pills in his drink, making him wake up extremely late at 11:00. Another time, he left for work early and she stole his key to the office. She rarely confronts todd and when she does, they fight then have makeup sex.

In conclusion,  Denial is a major part of Jodi's character. She uses denial to cope with her husband and the bad things he does. She also denies her needs to confront him by using cheap tactics to annoy him. She really needs denial to have the will to hold her marrige together.

Argument essay YA fiction

Has the world of YA fiction gone into chaos. YA fiction has become a series of books that are argued about alot. Some people think YA books should be labeled. Some think That these books shouldn't change at all. Some even want labels but to use them to filter content based on age. YA Books shouldn't be banned or labeled to filter content, but instead harmlessly labeled (like a movie) to help people easily identify levels of maturity to help people pick out books they would like.

Since the introduction of a movie rating system in the 1930's, barely anyone has contested it's continual existence. Have you ever heard somebody say that they wish movies didn't have a rating system. You would think they were crazy. It's such a small detail that just barely adds to the experience, but helps let parents know what movies are appropriate for their children.  The same principle could apply to books. If barely anyone has objections to the movie rating system, then why should they have any for a book rating system.

Another need for a rating system is for children. A child could effortlessly discover sex and drugs prematurely because a book was put under YA and they thought they were old enough. I was also affected by this lack of supervision in reading. When I was around ten, I took home a YA book from the library expecting an interesting supernatural story, but one day during class, the book took a very dramatic turn when the two main characters started having sex. It shocked and ruined the whole book. I couldn't even read more after that. With a rating system, this might not have happened or at least prepared me for that scene.

While some may might with me, some may not. They may argue that a rating system may ruin the experience and in some respects this is true. A book may not have have the same flare if you know that it's suited for an older audience. It will give you a small insight on the books subject and content. However, this argument is flawed because of its scale. As I said, it gives you a small insight, but not a big enough one that would actually ruin the experience. In movies this isn't an issue because the view is so small. Also others may want a rating system, but they want to use it to filter content that may not be appropriate for children. The founder of a small idea to use age ratings to filter books and a YA author said "I have changed my mind: I think children's literature has got to far". The article also says that YA "bestsellers have twice the rate of cursing as video games...". These are valid points somewhat. Children's literature can be very graphic and mature. The article's point on swearing rates also shows that there is a valid reason for this. Actually, these reasons aren't very good. While a medium may be graphic, it doesn't mean it should be filtered. If this existed then you would be basically banning books for children. The fact that they're mature doesn't mean that some people shouldn't be allowed to read them.

In conclusion, YA fiction should have an rating system. There already is one for TV and movies and they can help children stay age appropriate. The only arguments that don't want a rating system are flawed and aren't strong or supported enough to be taken seriously. What would be so bad about letting readers know how appropriate a book is? Why would you want to let children read anything without letting them know if it's appropriate or not?

Independent reading blog

          If you have ever read the book series Agatha Raisin, then something that will immediately be recognizable is her odd personality. Throughout the book you'll see that she is a likable character. This is the odd part as she shouldn't be. Throughout the book she also shows "bitchy" qualities. She gets obsessed easily, she is longing to get married, constantly gets in the way of police investigations (withholding evidence, confronts suspects by herself, etc). Throughout all the book even with this, she some how becomes a likable character.

          One example of this is her care for appearance. Throughout the book, whenever she goes out with somebody she often will spend an hour(s) on her make up. For example "Charles noticed that Agatha insisted on repairing her make-up before approaching Gareth Craven's house". It the book Agatha notices that Gareth is an attractive man, so focuses on her apperence to impress. Gareth Craven is also her employer, showing how her need value more then her company's. Also the word make-up appears 24 times. This is one time per twelve pages.

          Another example is her obsession with her neighbor James Lacey. Throughout the books, she constantly focuses on him and other women. She had had a crush on him for a while and they got married when he realized he'd rather be stuck with a good friend as a wife then some random bimbo. Even after the wedding gets stopped when her first husband shows up, she still thought up romantic dreams for a long time. It took a very long time to get over him, even though it was obvious to an outside viewer he wasn't a very loving husband.

          To conclude, agatha raisin shouldn't be a very likable character. She is an angry, obsessive, petty, etc. But somehow, she is. It's really strange how the character is written in a way that doesn't make her seem like a bad person, but instead a likable one. I feel if a computer analyzed her, it would say she is unlikable, but there is something about her which counteracts these elements

          

Non fiction critical analysis

          In "Has young adult fiction become too dark?" By MARY ELIZABETH WILLIAMS, the author wants us to know how while Meghan cox gurdan  has some valid points about the darkness of Y.A fiction books, most of her article can be easily and quickly contested by pointing out absences in her argument. For example a lot of Mary's ideas can be related to gurdon. Also all of claims are really just counter claims of gurdon's idea as shown by "you can't compare what's crowding the shelves now with a tiny handful of classics that have endured". This sentence may seem a bit out of context but if you compare it to gurdon's ideas they directly correspond. The author really tries to hammer in the fact that her article is attacking gurdon's.

          The author really tries to convince us that Meghan is incorrect on her opinion about the darkness of books. A main way she does this is through anecdotes. Throughout the book she quotes her two daughters and uses them to make points. For example she quotes her daughter saying "Does she get that they're not called 'children's' books? They're 'young adult'. Adult." Also she uses there experiences together to make points like using the not always great content of books to Transition into her next point. Another strategy is that she really only attacks what Meghan neglects to tell the reader. For example Meghan talks about a sort of golden age for books with authors like Judy Blume. The author contest this by saying "I grew on Judy Blume too. I also loved V.C. Andrews...books, with their themes of brutal family abuse and incestuous rape". She shows that Meghan only focused on the good of early times and the bad of now. It kind of seems like a plan to exploit weaknesses and gain support by using kids.

          I think that Mary makes a lot of good points and has changed my view on Y.A fiction. She shows that there were always dark books and because of that there was never really a golden wholesome period of books.

YA book blog

          The maze runner has an interesting premise, but falls flat on a blaring issue which halts further analysis on it's core story. It starts with thomas, a sixteen year old amneciac, who is brought to the glade. After a strange event involving a girl coming to the glade, Thomas and a runner named Minho stay overnigh in the maze, a giant mechanical structure with monsters that when they sting you; you regain some of your memories. Eventually, the world of the glade starts to fall apart. When thomas finds a code in the glade, half of the people in the glade try to escape. Eventually they do and are saved by myterious people. It's very interesting, but an issue rarely addressed leaves me wondering how different the story would have been if the characters had realized that they could've just stayed in the glade.

          Throughout the story, the author mentions how beautiful the glade is. For example, "...it made him wonder about the weather of the place. Never rained, never snowed, never got to hot or cold... It could be paradise". Also "Thomas had found a tree...one of the nicer ones...with plenty of shade...he'd just felt his eyes droop...". This obviously shows how nice the glade is. It's got perfect weather, it never rains or snows, it's always the right temperature, the're nice trees. It place seems like a beautiful field.

          Also they get everything handed to them. To show this " Once a week, we get supplies, clothing, some food". Another example is " We got all the electricity we need, grow and raise most of our food, get clothes and such". They're self sufficient and have everything they need. They have no barriers. They could just stop trying to escape and just hang out. They have jobs, food, water, electricity, hospitals, etc. Besides everyone who gets their memory back sees terrible things and doesn't talk about it. What's really making their lives difficult.

          To conclude, this story is really good. But if you start to critically analyze it then it starts to fall flat. I feel like the characters are taking their situation for granted. Imagine if the characters had to survive by themselves with no outside assistance. I just wonder why the characters are so determined to leave when they have a grassy paradise with food, water, shelter, clothes, jobs, friends, and perfect weather.

 

          

          

Argument essay

Almost everybody knows about Facebook, one of the most popular social networking websites. But because people are on the Internet, some might believe they are private. They believe that their posts can't be seen by anyone they don't want them to be seen by. I believe that Facebook is a public source that is open to everybody.

          While Facebook feels private, it's can be modified to be somewhat private. First, to show this "many guidance councillors urge students to... Boost privacy settings". Also "Kirsten kelly complained on Facebook about small tips... From customers... One happened to be... A Facebook friend". In this annecdote, Kirsten used privacy settings by making posts friends only. The reason why she was fired was because her friend told her boss about the post. This puts the friend at fault, not Facebook.

          Even with privacy settings, it's not facebook' fault that you are mean to people; just not to their face. An example of this is " An applicant was denied... Because of offensive comments he had posted on facebook about one of his teachers". Also when" Emma Sullivan... Was a senior... A tweet she wrote... Almost got her disciplinary action... Two years later... She worries it might affect her chances at getting a job". These are two examples of people who thought Facebook was private and faced concequences. How is it facebook's fault that people assumed it was private so they made innapropriates comments?

          Some people believe that it is facebook's fault that people like in the examples got into trouble. This can't be 100% valid as it directly contradicts all my previously statements. How can you blame facebook if it has never said it was private? People make assumptions, especially behind a screen. It can't really be facebook's fault if people are using assumptions as evidence.

            To conclude, while there are differing sides to this argument, I highly doubt mine is incorrect. My examples show careless people making mistakes and assumptions. While Facebook is public you can make it somewhat private. You can't forget this, because if something goes wrong; it can only be your own fault