The Dangers of Overanalysis

     We all know about Edwards' "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God," and (am I assuming?) we all have a decent understanding of the Bible and God, or is my 8 years of a private Presbyterian school coming out? Either way, without being too much of a zealot, the Bible is about God loves you, Eternal forgiveness, love your neighbor, don't kill people or things of the like. Basically, the Bible is full of common sense and common sense examples (parables) that most people have figured out by seventh grade. The religion steps in when you learn the whole, Jesus loves you, Adam and Eve created the original sin, repent and all is forgiven. Edwards missed all of that.
    Often times, when you close read a piece too closely, the lines blur and then you can't even make out the whole shape of the piece. Take a microscope and cells for example. Too far away: what are they? Too close: what are they? You have to get the just right balance. Edwards did not get that just right balance. You can select any section of the Bible to support your cause, whatever it may be, but that's too narrow of a scope. The trouble arises when you forget to not just listen to the parts you want to hear. The Bible says God is a jealous god. There are instances where he does things out of wrath; he is what hold you up from Hell (All of this according to the Bible), but it does not say he wants nothing more than your ultimate destruction, but rather your salvation, hence Jesus.
    Edwards read this. And then he probably read it again, and again and had this idea of repentance and almighty power so lodged in his mind he forgot about the actual message. He scared his congregation close to suicide in his descriptions of God's wrath, but that clearly isn't what the Bible is or says. In fact, Edwards may not have even noticed his fixation, but once you're in too deep, you can't back out. He analyzed the passages so vehemently that he added in his own meaning and subtracted the actual substance.


***Keep in mind, I'm just doing this from the point of the Bible to disprove Edwards and do not intend to disrespect or invalidate any other religions, beliefs, etc***

Living on the Curve (The Importance of Grades)

   So, you're telling me, if I spend an extra ten hours of my life working on a project that in no way relates to what we are currently studying, I can get an extra ten points? Sign me up!
   Earlier last week, Ms. Valentino told us that if we focus on mastering the skills required, then our grades will also follow. Amen. I cannot even begin to convey how relieving that was to hear. These days it feels like so much of our life is determined by our grades. If I work extremely hard, but just can't seem to understand one concept, well tough. If I run out of time to finish a test, ouch, well that's unfortunate. Now, grades decide just about everything in a student's decision: what classes are easiest, what will get me the best grade, how fully must I answer this question to receive full credit, is it half off for late homework, does this teacher offer extra credit, etc. In fact, often times we can become so focused on getting a good grade, that we never absorb the material, but forget it a few days after the exam.
     That's just how the student is affected in their decisions, not including how they are accepted in life: what colleges they can be accepted into, what clubs they can join, classes they can take and in a bigger picture, what jobs they can have, (for parents) if they can use their phones, or go out on the weekend. Our society is run on grades, it's instilled in us. Even if we want to ignore their importance, be radical, not stand for the pledge, not conform, not stick to the status quo, we can't. Why? Because society doesn't. Even when a person becomes an adult, they're graded more or less when supervisors write evaluations, which is probably more accurate then a generic letter. As long as a 4.0 is more important than a good night's rest, we--as a society--will never escape our reliance on grades. Perhaps, on a deeper level, we grade people because humans have an overwhelming desire to categorize things, and grades make that exceedingly possible. If so and so received an "A," then so and so is smart. If this person received a "B," then this person is kind of smart. "C's," are average and so on.
    To connect this to literature, let's take Huck Finn as example. If Huck were real, and he went to school, my guess is he'd be a "C" student. I'm probably stereotyping, and judging, but that's what I think he'd be, because he doesn't seem like the "school type." However, if I were to be put in any of Huck's situations, I would miserably fail at them. He may not do well in school, but in this example, I wouldn't do well in life. Basically, you can be a "smart" person without having to be a genius in school. We place too much value on an arbitrary idea of intelligence and not enough on understanding. I don't want to participate in our society's rat race for good grades, but my opportunity cost is too high (economics reference, anyone?).
     Everybody learns differently, which we all know, so someone that can memorize may not be as technically abled for a job as someone that takes their time to fully understand a concept. Anyone can regurgitate facts, not everyone can understand them, so why do we use grades--letters and numbers--to determine our knowledge? How can someone even begin to quantify something so abstract? I Will Not Let an Exam Result Decide My Fate --check this out for more examples.

The Big Idea: Does Heritage Determine Who We Are as People?

     Well, does it? It can certainly give you a stigma, serve as your stereotype; elevate you past your peers or trap you in their shadows, but does it tell you who you are? I suppose you have the choice to submit to your stigma--your stereotype, or you cannot. Jeannette Walls, author of The Glass Castle, certainly didn't. She was considered white trash. She specifically wrote that people referred to her and her siblings as urchin children. She was looked down on, treated differently and she died as a product of her misfortune: old, scarred and uneducated, just like the pattern of her heritage predicted. Oh wait, that didn't happen. She worked hard in school to educate herself, she worked hard in school to get away from her stigma, she worked hard in school to prove to herself she could escape her heritage and become something more. She started from the bottom, now she's here. Her heritage didn't dictate who she was, just gave her a place to start. In fact, her heritage gave her the first stepping stone she needed to escape--that being, it gave her the motivation to leave.
     Okay, let's backtrack a second. Does anyone else remember reading Lord of the Flies? Do we all remember those wonderfully educated, darling, civilized schoolboys that quickly formed a democracy and operated under order and reason until they were rescued? Again, no, we don't, because that didn't happen past the first five seconds. I understand LotF is written with more analysis on human will and human tendency toward evil and things as such, but we'll use this as an example for heritage. The heritage of these prep boys turned savages was just that--preppy. They went to school, they learned, they were civilized; had manners. Again, how long before they turned into savages that killed two of their own and burned down an island? Maybe everyone would've acted the same, maybe not, but that's besides the point. If heritage said who you were, those boys would've been singing in their choir 'til rescued arrive. They shed their heritage, on purpose or not, they threw it away about as fast they decided started fires was the next best thing to civilization.
     I don't think your heritage defines you. It's where you come from, and it may be your yellow brick road to where you're going, but you don't have to follow it. Sometimes you do when you shouldn't and should when you don't and end up killing a poor boy trying to hold onto his heritage of civilization. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqrREfjDS-c