Concluding Thoughts on *The Scarlet Letter* (IR)

     

        I recently finished reading The Scarlet Letter. I have to say, I enjoyed the book a whole lot more than I initially thought I would. The plot was really pretty interesting and I was always wondering what would happen next. Also, the text was, for the most part, straight forward. There were, of course, times when I had to reread a few sentences to make sense of what had happened, but that's reasonable for a pre-1900s novel. Compared to other older books, The Scarlet Letter was written wonderfully. I have enjoyed reading this book much more than The Sound and the Fury and Heart of Darkness. The plot is captivating and the character development adds another element to the story.
       However, that doesn't mean I liked all of the characters. I mainly liked Hester and her great willpower to stay strong when everyone was against her. Arthur Dimmesdale was okay, and I obviously disliked Roger Chillingsworth, seeing as he was the antagonist of the novel and always caused trouble for Hester. And then there's Pearl. Those of us in The Scarlet Letter reading group refer to her as "the devil child". She comes into the story as this strange little girl who grew up alone in exile with her mother and seems to find joy in her mother's anguish. Pearl has a sense of pride in the fact that she is the child of the woman with the embroidered scarlet letter on her gown, and she is therefore convinced that she is special compared to the other children in her community. She also acts very wild and appears as more of a rebellious little girl. When around other children, she acts tough and harshly, never having the opportunity to make friends or establish bonds with others. This is most likely due to the fact that she has lived in isolation with only her mother, but I still dislike her attitude and actions throughout the book. She knows that the scarlet letter is emotionally painful to her mother, yet she does whatever she can to remind Hester that it is there. The one time in the book that Hester actually takes the letter off, Pearl freaks out and throws a temper tantrum. She simply won't accept the fact that her mother took it off. Her stubbornness forces Hester to cave in and put it back on and Pearl becomes agreeable again. Okay that was a long rant about Pearl. I just never really grew fond of her character. Let's just say, she annoyed me deeply.
         Anyways, The Scarlet Letter is a really good book. It shows a true struggle for redemption and the ability to stay strong. I may not have enjoyed every moment of it, but overall, the story was great. The words were full of meaning and flowed smoothly along. I'm glad to have had the chance to read The Scarlet Letter. It's a story I shall never forget.

Taking a Look at Some Older Music (CC)

      So, as soon as we started talking about the Heart of Darkness unit in class, I remembered a song that I have grown to love. I would hear and read words like "Congo", "civilization", and "native population", and phrases from the song would keep on replaying in my head. Now, every time I open Heart of Darkness I hear "Bongo bongo bongo, I don't want to leave the Congo, oh no no no no no!". Not many of you probably know of this song, as it's an older one from 1947. It's called "Civilization" and is sung by The Andrews Sisters and Danny Kaye.
        The song itself is a humorous satire about a group of "civilized" people who are settling into a native village, trying to convince them that "civilization is a thing for [them] to see". The song is portrayed in the view of the native "savages" and shows that they don't really want to join the "civilized" people. They are happy in the Congo and would rather not change the way they live. Here, take a moment and listen to it if you have the time:

         I love this piece, as it's catchy and full of life. The humor embedded within the song makes it even greater. Normally I don't listen to this type of music, but I have to admit, oldies hold a special place in my heart. I love songs like "Dear Laughing Doubters", "Everybody Wants to Rule the World", "Don't Stop Believin'", "Imagine", and so many more. They have a certain feel to them that differs from a lot of the music from the present.
        Take, for instance, "The Sound of Music". This movie musical was huge. Produced in 1965, Julie Andrews and the other actors and actresses just made the movie thrive. The music was so warm, so real, that families all over the world fell in love with it. In 2013, "The Sound of Music Live" was performed, with Carrie Underwood as the lead. Although many people enjoyed the production itself, there was a different feel to it than that original movie. There is something sentimental about these old musicals - "The Sound of Music", "Fiddler on the Roof", "Willie Wonka and the Chocolate Factory", "Annie", etc. - that it would be impossible to replace them. Sure, some remakes can be pretty popular. "Charlie and the Chocolate Family" and many "Annie" remakes were very successful. However, the old versions can never be replaced. Both versions can be amazing, but they don't often completely cover up the original. Imagine if someone decided to film a new "Wizard of Oz". It would be extremely difficult for people to forget the heart-felt voice of Judy Garland in this well-known classic. We can try to recreate works of art in a different light, but we can't replace them, nor can we replicate them in all of their beauty.
        Okay, so this conversation may have drifted away from the Congo on a long chain of thoughts, but the overall point is, the music of the past should never be forgotten. It is part of what has allowed music to evolve as far as it has now. Music is always changing, rearranging, becoming something more than it was before. That's what makes every song a piece of art - expressive and unique in its own distinct way.

Our Hobbies Define Us (FW)

        Today I found out that I got into this thing called the MSVMA All-State Honors choir for the second time. It's the third stage of a yearly high school choir competition that takes a really long time to explain, so I'll skip the explanation and just say that the All-State level is a choir of around 120 of the most talented singers in the state. This is something that I honestly freak out about. I love having the challenge to memorize five new songs in like a month, including those tiny (yet not so tiny) details like exact timing, pronunciation (for the foreign pieces), and interpretation. The notes are the easy part. It's challenging, yes, but I love every minute of it. The point is, I am super thrilled about this (more than you can even imagine) while whoever is reading this is probably thinking something along the lines of  "Who in the world takes on extra work like that and finds things like memorizing music fun and entertaining?". And we come to the point of my blog post: Our hobbies define us.
        This is something I've always found intriguing. How is it that one person can excel at one thing and then totally fail at another. I guess it's because we hone our skills in one main area or a few, and then the rest of our abilities in life kind of waver. Some people enjoy sports and invest all of their time into them, others cannot even understand how they work. Some people are brilliant at playing piano, others have issues distinguishing the names of the keys. It all depends what your talents are and how much you enjoy doing those things. I find that a lot of times, what you are talented at becomes what you love to do.
        Of course, capability is another thing. I love to perform in musicals. I've got the acting and singing down, but the dancing part - that's another story (Ha! I am truly terrible at dancing). It's not that I don't want to dance - in fact I wish I could dance with the gracefulness of an actual dancer. No, the fact is that I might just not be capable of dancing in the first place. Sure, I can block out a few simple moves like the grapevine or the box step, but I don't think I will ever be able to dance easily like a dancer could. It's just not one of my strong points. Still, that doesn't stop me from trying. We all try at certain points in our lives to do things that we may not be at all good at. Sometimes we do so as a simple joke, other times because we actually want to get better at that specific task. And, as long as we have the potential for growth and are willing to work hard enough, we can, indeed, improve our abilities for that particular skill. If we don't have the capability to grow in that skill, however, improving can be nearly impossible.
        So, in the long run, we tend to stick with what we are good at, or with what we love to do. I love the fact that everyone is unique. We all come from different backgrounds and love to do different things. Sometimes that individuality brings us together, showing that people who like to do completely different things can still find joy in hanging out with each other. This works the other way too, of course. People with the same hobbies can be brought together in a special way as well - a bonding between individuals who all share the same or a similar hobby.
        Either way, having a hobby is good for us. It defines us for who we are. If I didn't sing all the time, I would be a very different person. In fact, it scares me as to how different my entire life would be. Seriously, imagine your own life without one of your greatest talents. How strange would your life have been? One simple difference can change the entire make-up of your very being. Quite terrifying, right? Well, I'm glad that we are who we are. Everyone has their own strengths, their own weaknesses, and their own lifestyles. It's part of what makes us human. A hobby is something we find joy in - something we can honestly say has changed our life for the better - something that gives us true meaning.