Amontillado!

     Today in class, we read an interesting and completely creepy story by Edgar Allen Poe, in which a man kills a former friend for doing him a "thousand injuries". We speculated as to why the narrator wanted so badly to kill Fortunato. Is it possible that the narrator wanted to kill Fortunato for religious reasons?

The first clue I found as to why this might be true is the organization that Fortunato was a part of. Fortunato mentions a secret club of "masons" that the narrator does not understand. He is referring to a secret society of intellectuals, who, as was mentioned in class, were hated by the church. Maybe the narrator is a member of the church who dislikes the Freemason's beliefs about god and is so angered that the only revenge he sees fit is to kill Fortunato.

Another sign might be that in the ending paragraph when the narrator is leaving Fortunato, Fortunato screams, "FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, MONTRESOR," and the narrator screams back, "Yes, for the love of God!". In the first quote, Fortunato was probably just making an exclamation because he was so exasperated at being shut off behind a wall. By screaming back a confirmation, however, Montresor's words connote a different meaning. He is obviously not in a compromising position and has not need for frantic cries for help, so maybe Montresor's reference to god is a legitimate one, meaning that he was killing Fortunato "for the love of god".

Finally, the very last sentence of the story, Montresor says, "For half of [a] century no mortal has disturbed [the bones]." It seems in the story that Montresor HAS disturbed these same bones, saying that he had dealt with them earlier. The specific use of the word "mortal" also connotes that if not a mortal, a different being has touched them. Maybe Montresor thinks himself an immortal being, sent by god?

The Meta-Post

Hey Mr. Bolos and Doc OC, please review my most recent blog: "Unfair Fighting"

While rereading my first three blogs, all I can think about is how clunky, awkward, and uncomfortable in general they feel. I was striving to put out interesting and intruiging ideas, but I was trying to hard and my blogs fell flat. The real change came when we started our discussion on race. My blog "What Would You Do" is a good example of the turning point in my blog writing when I stopped being concerned about making my ideas more cutting edge and started concerning myself with what was important and interesting in my life. For the first time I did not fight for information, scouring my yahoo homepage and google news for something that related to our discussions. The blog came easily for me, because I had already seen the TV episode I referred to and connected it automatically in class when we were talking about race. After that I made a rule for myself. I am no longer allowing myself to consciously look for blog topics. If I am having trouble finding a topic, I am just going to have to be more observant in real life.


A huge theme in my blogging is equality. Equality is one of the most important concepts of all time, and it is the very base of the United States government. That is why, when talking about inequalities in my blogs, my writing becomes more passionate and even could be described as a little preachy. In my blog "A Discussion on Race," I wrote about how Americans interact with someone of another race differently than the would with someone of their own race. I wrote, "By doing this we are digging a deep hole for ourselves. We are creating an atmosphere where we can't even talk about race. If we don't feel comfortable talking about racial differences how are we ever going to get around to solving them?" I think the blog posts like this one, where I can identify a societal problem and offer a suggestion on a way to improve the situation, are the most meaningful blog posts. The reason why we are doing these blogs is not to simply comment on news stories, blogging is meant to foster ideas and questions and, like in this blog post, eventually come up with some suggestions. 

When discussing the issue of race, I am on what one might call the more well-off side. I am not black nor am I any kind of minority, therefore I can not offer any perspective on what it's like to be in a racial minority in America, and I am stuck listening and making educated guesses on the thoughts of African-Americans in our discussions. On the other hand, there are some topics I am more qualified to give more personal opinions on, for example the discussion on the differences between women and men in America. For this reason, I feel that the disussion on gender differences I started in my post "Unfair Fighting?" is worth revisiting, and I would like to continue it in future weeks. 

Unfair fighting?

I think many of you, whether you will admit it or not, remember an episode of Jersey Shore last season when a man at a bar punched a female character, Snooki, in the face. It was a huge controversy, so huge that MTV was not allowed to show footage of the actual punch on the show because it was far too obscene and violent for their viewers. (although viewers of Jersey shore already see heavy drinking, partial nudity, and extreme swearing on every episode of the show). It's interesting how showing that scene on TV was strictly forbidden seeing as my little sister was watching the episode of the Nickelodeon show iCarly in which a female character slapped a male character, and the audience laughed. So we are allowed to laugh when girls hit guys but we can't even see it when guys hit girls?

Today in class we talked a lot about our our own fight stories, and several people brought up that there are differences in the way people act in fights depending on what genders are involved. As seen in Jersey Shore, it is considered a huge disaster for any guy to hit a girl. Recently I was talking with a guy friend who said he would not hit a girl, no matter what. Even if the girl was the same size and strength as he is, he would think of the situation differently if he was in a fight with a girl. He said this was based on the fact that he didn't want to be seen as an "abuser," something that would undoubtedly happen if he hit her, even if she hit him first or he was acting in self defense. Not saying that I want to get hit, but if his statement was based soley on principle and not the fact that girls, in general, are smaller and can bench less weight than guys, then it seems to be a huge double standard. And even if they were based on the facts, it is not seen as morally wrong when a guy hits a smaller guy, or when a girl hits a smaller girl. What are your thoughts?

Peace Prize Stirring Up Conflict

This week in class we've been talking about a slave's nonexistant right to speak up against his or her master. It might be a stretch to connect these two topics, but in China speaking up against the government is also a reason for punishment. Liu Xiaobo was imprisoned on a ten year sentence in China for attempting to spread democratic ideals. It was also announced last week that he won the Nobel Peace prize for this year. 


To put it lightly, the Chinese government is furious. They have made public statements saying that this may ruin their relationship with Norway (the country where the Nobel Prizes are based). Was it right to reward a prisoner, even though he was imprisoned for something that is not against the law in Norway? Should Chinese laws have been honored in this situation?The country already has firm advocates of reform to their communist system, and the prize will undoubtedly give Xiaobo many more supporters, possibly posing a threat to the Chinese Communist government. Is Norway meddling in China's business, or was it their right to give the Nobel Prize Xiaobo?

Click here to read the full article. 

Less sleep...but better test scores?

Recently, I was reading an article about how some schools have decided to start later this year, because studies show that a teenager's internal clock runs later than an adult's, meaning teenagers fall asleep later and wake up later naturally. Click here to read the article. According to the article, early results show happier, more productive students and a lower dropout rate in schools that have begun to start later in the morning. One school even advised teachers to lighten up on the homework load to give its' students more time to sleep.

This week in class we talked about how lack of sleep is becoming a badge of honor for New Trier students. With all their tests, projects, and quizzes students are often forced to stay up until unreasonably late hours to finish all their assignments. In class we also talked about how New Trier has some of the highest test scores in the state. How do these two statements relate? It seems like the constant pressure and lack of sleep that is typical at New Trier is actually raising our test scores. Do you think New Trier would benifit from a later start and less homework? Or do you think that our method is obviously working and New Trier should not change if it wants to stay on top?