Final Essay - Honors

Victoria Anderson - Honors English Final Essay
My City: Paris
My Decade: 1789-1799 (The French Revolution)

Although it is easy to assume that the French Revolution was simply a bloody battle that lead to the violent “Reign of Terror” (which killed many many innocent people) and also enabled the controlling, militaristic rule of Napoleon, in reality it was much more than that. While the French Revolution did have some horrific and violent results and consequences, the unification and change that the Revolution started in France were essential to save the citizens of France.

Prior to 1789, France (and Paris) was divided into three classes: The Bourgeoisie, the peasants, and the aristocracy. The bourgeoisie were the rich, the royalty and the powerful and they ruled France in every way. From controlling who had food and shelter, to what people could say and do. The Bourgeoisie were the middle class citizens whose wealth was growing, but who were still condemned to live with no political power or voice in the nation. The peasants were the everyday citizens of Paris who had no control over their lives and were barely getting by. They were beggars, farmers, laborers and everything in between. They were also the majority in Paris, but were too scattered and weak and weighed down by their efforts to stay alive to do anything. Until the French Revolution. It was the Haves against the Have-Nots and the Have-Nots greatly outnumbered the Haves and were ready to fight for themselves.

At the time, the peasants lives were truly awful. Many were forced to live on the streets and, if they were lucky enough to be landowners, they were still made to pay increasingly, and ridiculously, high taxes on their land and grain that they grew. The main source of food for peasants in Paris was bread because it was the cheapest, but even the price of bread increased a great deal. Food became so expensive that peasants in Paris literally began starving to death. “A Tale of Two Cities” portrayed the lives of the starving peasants in a really powerful way, at one point even graphically. It told a story of a wine bottle falling off a cart in the streets of Paris, and the peasants around fighting to lick the wine off the cobblestone streets of Paris. The book also wrote about the peasants having to steal food or eat garbage to stay alive and keep their families alive.

At the same time, the middle class citizens of Paris (also know as the bourgeoisie), saw their wealth growing tremendously. The bourgeoisie were the landowners and they benefited from the high taxes on the peasants. They reaped all the benefits of farming and didn't have to do any of the work. As their economic status grew, though, their political power didn't and they began to want a say in their government. They were tired of not winning any of the votes against the nobility/aristocracy and they started to complain and became more vocal of their lack of voice in their lives.

The aristocracy, on the other hand, controlled everyone and every one's lives. They took what they wanted and left nothing and gave nothing to the poor. They controlled the vote and therefore maintained the power in France, and also Paris, the main city in France at the time. With control over the vote and therefore the city and the country, the aristocracy made and passed laws that benefited them at the expense of the poor, who could do nothing about it. In “The Golden Hour”, there were a couple of scenes that illustrated the rich, nobility of Paris. The book showed them regularly throwing extravagant parties, dinners, and dances, eating and wearing beautiful clothes. All within sight of the starving poor. All in earshot of the crying, freezing children on the streets. They thought they were better than the poor, more worthy of the luxury they lived in. They looked down on the starving citizens of Paris and hated them, treated them like dirt. They were never going to give up the power they had, so it was time for the middle class and the poor to come together and fight for their freedoms and their voice in their lives.

And that's what they did. In all the books I read, it started out as a beautiful thing. The citizens of Paris unified themselves against the nobility. They marched to Versailles and demanded rights, demanded a voice. They stormed the Bastille, which represented the oppression of the nobility. They stole the arms from the Bastille and tore it down, forming their own army and signifying their strength at the same time. Through my research, I discovered that for a while things went really well. The citizens began receiving some of the rights they wanted, like a constitution and the right to vote on laws (with fair representation). Also, The Declaration of the Rights of Man was adopted in the country, which abolished “the privileges of the nobility and” suppressed “the wealth of the clergy”, which was great for the middle class as well as the poor. And until 1792, the  revolution was relatively peaceful and progressing well for the citizens of Paris and France.

In 1792, other European leaders saw how successful the revolution in Paris had been so far at overthrowing the power of the nobility, that they began to become nervous that the revolution would spread to their own countries. They sent armies in to Paris to try and defeat the revolutionaries, as they were called, with the French army. In September, such an attack took place and the revolutionaries won and also took control of France in Paris. They abolished the monarchy completely and began putting all previous political leaders on trial and killing them by the guillotine, including King Louis XVI. These revolutionaries that took over also began making their own laws and rules in Paris, and execution by guillotine rose to its highest.

This was the time known as “the Reign of Terror”. It was very much like a dictatorship or authoritarian rule. The motto of the revolutionaries in charge (robbespierre and others, who were called Jacobins) was, as “Ninety-three” quoted, “Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité, ou la Mort”, meaning liberty, equality, brotherhood, or die. And they truly meant it. The Jacobins killed thousands of people for being the slightest bit modest in their views of the Revolution. “The Reign” wasn’t any better for the Parisians or French than the French monarchy before was. It is also what made the French Revolution so bloody and made many people view it as a complete failure. And it was a terrible part in the history of the France. It caused the unification of the citizens to split into ‘Jacobins’ and more modest revolutionaries. They fought each other and they also fought European armies. The organization and unification to fight for a common goal that was there at the beginning of the Revolution was gone. The regular people of France, neither Jacobins nor revolutionaries, lived in fear of saying the wrong thing to everybody they talked to. “Ninety-three” tells the story of a poor peasant women who tries to escape the bloody violence in Paris with her children, and is discovered by a group of revolutionaries. They ask her questions about who she is for and who she is against. She has no idea who they are and is scared to say anything for fear of dying or getting her children killed for saying the wrong thing. The Reign of terror lasted a short 2 years, but cost the lives of many people.

None of the books I read or any of my research produced any results on why the Jacobins became so violent, but after studying the French Revolution in such a large context, I believe that they had been oppressed for so long that they couldn't stop once they started. They thought they were promoting good things - liberty, equality, and brotherhood - and they were, but only too hard, too much, No variation from their beliefs were accepted at all, because they had gone far too long without being heard, and now that thy were being heard, they wanted to make sure they kept being heard and got what they want, at any cost. They started with good ideas and good intentions, but they executed poorly and killed many Innocent people and they payed for it with their own lives two years after their rise to power.

In 1794, the jacobins were overthrown and its leaders executed. A new system of government was put into place, but because of the fear of giving too much power to the government at the time, the government was unable to control France, and chaos continued for 4 more years. The money system also collapsed and poverty increased in Paris again. the mobs started once more and an army had to use force to keep control. The army became more occupied in Paris with the mobs of starving, poor citizens than with the other European countries around that when Napoleon came with his army in 1799, it was easy for him to take control of Paris and then France. When Napoleon took control, the revolution ended, as did my decade in Paris.

From 1789-1799, Paris was a whirlwind of political activism, inspiration, unification, violence, and chaos. The citizens went from starving and angry, to empowered and unified, and back to starving and fighting for their rights. There were horrific and terrible events, like the guillotine and the reign of terror, during this time, but also beautiful moments in the history of government, like the Rights of Man, which the U.S. constitution and the British Parliament's Habeas Corpus are based on. Paris, during the French Revolution was a scary and dangerous place to be living, but it was also a great movement to be a part of, at times.

Bibliography

Dickens, Charles. A Tale of Two Cities. Ware: Wordsworth, 1993. Print.

France, Anatole, and Alex Brown. The Gods Are Athirst. [S.l.]: [s.n.], 1913. Print.

Hugo, Victor. Ninety-three. New York: Crowell, 1888. Print.

Williams, Maiya. The Golden Hour. New York: Amulet, 2006. Print.

Laura K. Egendorf.  "Introduction." Opposing Viewpoints in World History: French Revolution,    The. Ed. Laura K. Egendorf. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2003. August 2004. 16 December 2011. <http://www.enotes.com/french-revolution-article/44882>.

"Napoleon Bonaparte | Emperor of the French." Lucidcafé Interactive Café and Information Resource. Robin Chew. Web. 15 Sept. 2011. <http://lucidcafe.com/library/95aug/napoleon.html>.

"French Revolution: Effects of the Revolution — Infoplease.com." Infoplease: Encyclopedia, Almanac, Atlas, Biographies, Dictionary, Thesaurus. Free Online Reference, Research & Homework Help. — Infoplease.com. 2007. Web. 15 Sept. 2011. <http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/history/A0858289.html>.

http://flatrock.org.nz/static/frontpage/assets/history/french_revolution.gif

http://www.thecorner.org/forum/messages/14/210.gif

"French Revolution." THEOTHERSIDE - Nord/Pas-de-Calais. Web. 15 Sept. 2011. <http://www.theotherside.co.uk/tm-heritage/background/revolution.htm>.

"THE FRENCH REVOLUTION." Web. 15 Sept. 2011. <http://www.parisrama.com/english%20version/pages_history/revolution.htm>.

SparkNotes Editors. “SparkNote on The French Revolution (1789–1799).” SparkNotes.com. SparkNotes LLC. 2005. Web. 3 Dec. 2011.

"FRENCH REVOLUTION." World History International: World History Essays From Prehistory To The Present. Web. 15 Sept. 2011. <http://history-world.org/french_revolution.htm>.

Draft of Visual Component

This is an image of the Bastille in Paris and the day the citizens of Paris "stormed the bastille" and took control  of the prison, really starting the French Revolution. I chose to create an image of the stroming of the bastille because it was really the beginning of the revolution and showed the strength that the citizens of a city and country can have if they work together, which is what the French Revolution is all about because they started off working together but then split into all the different political parties and power hungry people divided the citizens. My image shows the strength of the citizens of Paris through them pulling down the bastille with a rope and the unity of the citizens as well through the fact that there are so many of them there, working together to bring down the prison that signifies the authority of the king that refuses to acknowledge them. 

Thoughts on Book 4 - The Golden Hour

"The Golden Hour" by Maiya Williams is about a brother and sister, Rowan and Nina, who go to live with their aunts because their mother has just died and their father is a drunk. Rowan and Nina are both distraught about their mothers death and they both become really withdrawn until they meet Xanthe and Xavier: twins who live nearby. They find a time machine and Nina wants to travel back to the Enlightenment, but gets the wrong century, and ends up in Paris 2 days before the Bastille is stormed to start off the French Revolution. Rowan, Xanthe, and Xavier travel back to the Revolution to find her, and are forced to face all the events leading up to July 14, 1789, the day the Bastille is stormed, and even a little after the revolution begins.

Although the book was much more childish than the other 3 books I read, it was still interesting to see the French Revolution from a more modern perspective. Whereas the first three books were all about the people (peasants) of Paris and how horrific Paris was for them at the time, this books also showed Paris from the perspective of the nobility and the King and Queen. The first three authors wrote their books shortly after the French Revolution and were clearly on the side of the revolutionaries because they knew what the people of Paris had just been through, but Williams gave both perspectives and made it clear that she didn't take any sides by making each of her characters have a different opinion on who was to blame for the misfortunes of the Parisians.

Another thing I liked about this book was that it was sort of like reading from a history books at times. Since it was written for younger readers and the main characters were younger, the reader learned as the character did. So before Xanthe, Xavier, and Rowan traveled back to find his sister, they went to a library to learn about the French Revolution and as they were reading about it, the book narrated what they were reading, so the reader got to learn too. I thought it was kind of cool to get some research from reading a novel like this about France and Paris during and before the French Revolution.

One other thing I really liked about this book, that none of the other books showed was what Paris was like right before the Revolution began (at least for the nobility). This book really showed the beauty of Paris and how amazing it would have been to live there at the time if you weren't a peasant. The book also showed a little bit of what it was like for the peasants, but not too much. That was okay though, because I already knew from reading the other books. It was refreshing to learn that Paris was an amazing place before the Revolution and restored itself back to an amazing place after.

Collage

Novel three Ninety Three by Victor Hugo

"Ninety-Three" by Victor Hugo really painted a picture for me of what Paris was like for peasants and soldiers (Republican Soldiers) in 1793 Paris. The other two books that I read were more about the people and said only some things about what Paris was like at the time. Ninety-Three, while it was still about the characters, it had more more detail about what it was like to live in Paris at the time of the French Revolution.

One of the really cool things about the book was that it showed what it was like in Paris for the peasants or citizens and also what it was like for the Republican soilders (revolutionary soilders). What I learned about the peasants was how scary and violent everything was for them. The revolutionaries didn't care about the peasants and neither did the French Army. Neither valued their lives and so they lived in fear unless they joined the army. Not only were they constantly scared for their lives, they were living off of the scarps of food they could find on the floor and living on the ground. We see all this throughout the novel, but especially through the one peasent womens conversation with some of the soilders that found her and her children.

"'Where do you sleep?' -soldier
'on the ground.' -peasant
'what do you eat?' -soldier
'Nothing.' -peasant
'Nothng?' -soldier
'that is to say aloes and dried berries left from last year, Myrtle seeds and fern shoots'".-peasants

The republic's army (revolutionaries) on the Other hand was brutish and violent and gave the peasants reason to be afraid. Their slogan was "no mercy, no quarter". And they showed no mercy most of the time. One scene there was a battalion on a ship and it was truly on of the most chilling scenes in the book. Everyone was talking at once, yelling about ple who had been killed and who they wanted to kill. They were fierce ans scary and single minded. They seemed like they wanted a better Paris, but they ended up making it worse for everyone involved. This book took place during the Terror and the republic army was the one that caused it with that brutality and no care for human life and the common peasants.

Map - Important Dates and Authors

MAP KEY - IMPORTANT DATES (with authors)


1789 - The French Revolution starts
       July 14 - Bastille is stormed by French peasants
       October 5 - Women protest in Versailles and demand bread from the King
Thomas de Mahy executed (famous Parisian author - anti revolution


1790
       June 19 - Abolition of Nobility and titles (what the revolutionaries wanted)
       August 18 - First counter revolutionaries form assembly in Halles


1791
       July 17 - National Guard fights and kills many revolutionaries
       January-March - Food riots across Paris
Marquis de Sade; after being released from prison, he wrote many novels in Paris
Thomas Paine - The Rights of Man
Honoré Gabriel Riqueti, comte de Mirabeau - French Revolutionary author dies


1792 
       August 10 - Jacobin masses storm the palace and grow in popularity 
Pierre Beaumarchais - Famous revolutionary known for his drama play writes


1793
       January 21 - King Louis XVI executed by guillotine
       September 5 - Reign of Terror begins with Jacobin Constitution accepted
Jean-Louis Laya - French dramatist in Paris, very active at this time


1794
       July 27 - Robespierre executed and Reign of Terror ends


1797
François-René de Chateaubriand - founder of Romanticism in French Literature


1799
       November 9 - Napoleon Bonaparte elected First Consul (becomes dictator)  

Book 2 Thoughts - The Gods Are Athirst

"The Gods Are Athirst", by Anatole France, really shows how single-mindedness can create such horrific and terrible things in a whole city. And while it is good to have an opinion, it is way better to understand not only your opinion, but all the others around you, and decide for yourself.

Evariste Gamelin was of the opinion that if you were, in any way, not supporting the revolutionaries, whether you were actually, physically against the revolutionaries or you just ran away from Paris to protect yourself, you were a traitor and deserved to die. He became a member of the Jacobin party, led by Robespierre, who used the slogan, "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity or Death." They believed that if you were not actively involved in the revolution, you didn't support Liberty or Equality or Brotherhood, and therefore would be killed.

The Jacobins truly wanted a better Paris and a better France. The Paris they lived in was terrible and people starved and had to rights, and the Jacobins, along with Gamelin, really started out fighting a revolution that would make France a better country. The were honestly were fighting for Liberty, equality and fraternity.  I think the revolutionaries got too obsessed and too passionate that they forgot the reason they were fighting was to make a better France and create peace and rest in the nation and give everyone rights. The revolutionaries were got their rights, but they also took away everyone else's rights. And not only the horrible people who had oppressed the Parisians for so long, they even took away the rights of those who didn't believe in fighting or ran away to escape the violence. Gamelin became a juror on the Grand Tribunal and basically sentenced thousands of people to death, without a real trial. He started out fair, as did most of the other jurors, but as the revolution went on, they all became worse. Gamelin thought he was doing what was best for Paris still by sentencing everyone who came in...he thought that he was showing equality by sentencing the rich and the poor, but he was only spreading the hatred and murder. Even though all the revolutionaries started out with good intentions and wanted a better place for everyone to live, they became blinded by their obsession and passion and made Paris and France worse off than before. 

What this book made me realize about the French Revolution that I hadn't before was that the revolutionaries were actually the Reign of Terror and were the reason that France fell so low. The revolutionaries could have stopped fighting and killing everyone because the government of France was pretty week at the time and as soon as they started giving in a little at the beginning, there was really no reason to keep up the fighting, but they were just so filled with passion, they became irrational and thought they had to keep going. The Jacobins were the ones that inflicted the reign of Terror on France, not the government, like I had always thought, because they sentenced all those people to the guillotine and didn't let anyone have a say, unless they had the same opinion as them. No one had rights unless they were a Jacobin. The revolutionaries also caused all the wars that France was in at the time, because they killed all the French armies and then didn't create an army that could fight outside of France for 10 years and didn't have a functioning government for that long as well. France was in so much debt and all these countries were trying to fight them, and there was no real organized army to fight back because the revolutionaries were killing everyone in France. A good cause is only as good as the plan to enact that cause, and the revolutionaries of Paris were not organized or rational enough to plan fight for there cause and change Paris for the better.

One other thing I really liked about this book was that, while a lot of the characters were like Gamelin, and were really crazy about the revolution and unfair, there was also someone who stood firm to their beliefs and wouldn't compromise them for anyone or anything. Maurice Brotteaux didn't believe that all the fighting and killing and what the Jacobins were doing to Paris was right and he didn't want to be a part of it. Even though Gamelin was his friend and very powerful, he wouldn't do what he didn't believe in and fight with the Jacobins. Gamelin ended up sentencing him as a traitor, but I liked that the book showed that while most everyone in Paris at the time was blinded by their passion and became irrational, they all still had a choice and could have chosen a different path, like Maurice. 

Response Paper

What I thought was really interesting about the chapters at first was that they were about Asians (Chinese and Japanese) the most, and I had never really studied or read about Chinese racism before. Initially that was what struck me as I was reading, but then I thought about it and racism is racism, no matter what the racial group that is being discriminated against is. It is always a terrible and unjust thing and it shouldn’t matter what color you are, everyone should be outraged by it. Racism is totally irrational, as shown in the chapter 1, when the city of Los Angeles was portraying the Chinese as dirty and unsanitary, even though the city was responsible because it wouldn’t extend the sewage system out of the middle of their area. I cannot understand where racism comes from or why people would feel such a strong hatred for people because of their color. I don’t think anyone can completely understand it, even those who are racist, because they couldn’t rationally explain it to any non-racist. It doesn’t make sense, but what it does (as well as what these chapters did for me) is it made me wonder about what the people of the future will think about out time. I know there are still racist in America today, but it isn’t as prominent an issue anymore, I don’t think, so I wonder if there is anything that is going on today that the our children and grandchildren will look back on in history class and say how incredibly stupid what we were doing was, like how incredibly stupid racism is and was. It really made me think that I really need to think about what I believe in and do, in order to not be looked back on as spurring on an unjust system or living in an unjust word. It made me think about our need to make sure that when we are done living our lives, we are proud of our actions and have not made anyone feel less than they are, and have made as many people as we can happy but not at the expense of others.

One more thing I wanted to mention about the chapters is how it differed from Richard Wrights piece in allowing the reader to make their own conclusions.  Molina’s chapters said this was racist, this was bad, they thought this, and you should feel that and didn’t allow the reader to think anything other than that. It felt more forced and pressured and made me want to resist it a little. Where as Richard Wright’s style made the reader fell smart. Obviously any rational and sensible person would make the same conclusions about Wrights stories as Molina told us to make about hers, but the reader (or at least I did) feels more accomplished and opinioned when making conclusions about Wrights stories. Its kind of like in movies and shows when the older sister doesn’t tell the little brother what to do, but in a round about way makes him think he should do it, but he thinks the idea was all his own. When he is told to do something, he resists and won’t do it, but if he thinks he thought of it himself, well then he’s convinced it’s the right thing to do and he’s a genius. 

Book 1 Thoughts - A Tale of Two Cities

In "A tale of Two Cities", by Charles  Dickens, one of the main themes (and most interesting to me) was that of 'restoration' or, as Book the First is titled, "Recalled to Life." Another thing this book did a lot was compare things; Cities, people, groups, characteristics. The most interesting 'restoration' in the book to me was that of Sydney Carton. In true fashion of Charles Dickens and "A Tale of Two Cities", I will compare the restoration of Carton and the city of Paris.

Sydney Carton started off as a "Jackal". He was a loner, practically dead inside. He hated everyone and everyone hated him. There was nothing left for him in life, he had no purpose in life and so had given up. All Carton did was drink all day. When he looked in the mirror, he was disappointed with how his life had turned out. Through Charles Darnay (a character who looks exactly like him) he sees the man he could have been and hates himself and Darnay for showing him that he is essentially a failure. Carton believes himself empty of anything worth of love and sees no way for him to change.

But Carton meets Lucie and falls in love with her. I think because of her compassion and willingness to see through to him and believe that he can change, even though no one else, including himself believes in him. His love for Lucie really struck me because he completely opens up to her and tells her his every emotion and thought and personal struggle of his. He allows himself to be open, honest, and vulnerable in front of her. He tells her he loves her and what that love is. But what really makes his love for her so touching is that he gave his love for her husband, basically his competition, to make her happy. His love wasn't dependent upon her love in return. he knew that she loved her husband but he didn't stop loving her. He loved her and loved for her to be happy, even if her happiness didn't depend on his. The fact that someone could love someone that much was really awesome for me to see. It was also really powerful to see how love can transform/restore people, just like Cartons love for Lucie transformed him and allowed him to be happy with his life and feel like he had something worth living for, or even dying for. This love was able to resurrect his wasted life even though physically, he died.But spiritually and emotionally he was recalled to life through his sacrifice to make Lucie and her family happy. His love and death was able to turn his whole life around and  make him see beauty. He even saw the beauty in his death. He was able to see past the mayhem and violence around him (in Paris) to the bright future which would eventually come from it, just like Lucie was able to see through his wasted life.

Which brings me to Paris' go a restoration. In the beginning of "Two Cities" Paris started out at its all time lowest. There were people starving and dying, with no houses and not enough clothes, with no beds or blankets, living on the streets. These peasant made up the majority of of Paris, and the rich, the minority, made up the group of oppressors. The peasants are tired of the injustice that surrounds them and a lot of them are planning to revolt. They are full of hatred for the rich and vengeance for anyone who is not with them. They want a change and will do anything to get it. As they prepare to get there justice, their anger and hatred and vengeance overwhelms them and they become worse than the rich oppressors. They kill people violently and with angry hearts. They kill people who used to be rich or who they think are traitors. They kill everyone who is not fighting with them and even some people who are with them. It because a bloody, violent mess that is worse than before they started the revolution. Because the try at restoration was spurred by hatred and vengeance instead of love and happiness they were not able to recall Paris to Life. The problem only got worse. Instead of feeling liberated and worth something, like Carton did, they just felt even angrier.

This shows me that being born anew requires a selflessness and humility in order to resurrect a person or city or country. Carton was sacrificed his life for Lucie's happiness in the place of her husband, showing both selflessness and humility, while the peasants of Paris acted out of anger and used violence to try and sort out there problems. And while they were right to be angry, they were rash and in the midst of their fight acted out of selfish desires, like Madame Defarge and many other revolutionaries. Martin Luther King Jr's warning that violence will never solve the problem is exemplified here in "A Tale of Two Cities". Perhaps a calmer and less violent revolution would have prevailed and the oppressed would have gained their justice instead of falling deeper into the injustice and taking part in it themselves.

Honors Proposal

Paris during the French Revolution - 1789-1799

       I chose Paris during 1789 to 1799 mainly because my teacher last year, Sarah recommended to me that I read "A Tale of Two Cities", which is about lower class citizens in Paris revolting against the French aristocracy, but I never got around to it. I wanted to read it because Sarah told me it was a really well written and good book and I trust her opinion. She recommended it to me because she wanted me to start reading more challenging and more thought provoking books than the ones I was reading. She couldn't say enough good things about it and she just convinced me to read it, but I never had time last year. I also don't know too much about the French Revolution or what it was like in Paris during that time so I thought it would be a perfect fit for me so that I could learn about a piece of history that I was never taught and at the same time read a book that I have been wanting to read.
       So, I already picked "A Tale of Two Cities", which left me with only three more novels to pick that depicted Pairs between the years of 1789 and 1799.  The first one I chose after "Two Cities" was "Ninety-Three" by Victor Hugo. This book is about the revolutionaries who are trying to change the government of France and the counter revolutionaries, who are trying to put France back the way it was before the revolution. My third book is "The Golden Hour" which is a modern book that will show an outsiders perspective on the French Revolution, as a young boy time travels to that time period and is thrown into the middle of the Revolution. My fourth and final novel is "The Gods are Athirst" by Anatole France, which depicts the Rain of Terror portion of the French Revolution. The novel follows a young Parisian painter who becomes a juror on the Revolutionary Tribunal.
      The other resources I will be using to learn more about my city and decade are these two webs: http://flatrock.org.nz/topics/history/assets/french_revolution.gif and http://www.thecorner.org/forum/messages/14/210.gif, these online resources: http://www.theotherside.co.uk/tm-heritage/background/revolution.htm, http://www.parisrama.com/english%20version/pages_history/revolution.htm, and http://www.sparknotes.com/history/european/frenchrev.

List of authors and such: http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Fcollection=66&Itemid=27, http://history-world.org/french_revolution.htm

Socratic Seminar Response

In our Socratic Seminar the other day, the part I found the most thought provoking was our talk about guilt and who is guilty when it comes to oppression. We talked about how Martin Luther King Jr. says that if you stand idly by and don’t defend yourself (if you are the oppressed) you are just as guilty as your oppressor. Discussing this brought us to think about what ethical responsibility, if any, people have when they disagree with a law or paradigm. This really made me think about two important questions; Does standing idly by make you just as guilty as the person that is enforcing the unjust laws? And, was MLK right in sending judgment upon oppressed people who don’t resist against their oppressors?

I think that Martin Luther King, Jr. a very inspiring figure and someone worth emulating. His ideas are so powerful and strong, but at the same time they are guided by such a morally straight standard that they are hard to live by. He condemns you if you live in injustice committed against you and he condemns you if you fight against that injustice with violence. The only correct option in his opinion is that you use non-violent resistance to try to make your oppressor understand you. Now, I agree with him that violence will never solve anything in the long-term. Violent resistors will never gain the support of uninvolved bystanders or their oppressors because violence creates a defensive and usually equally violent reaction instead of garnering support for a cause. Adversely, the outside public will respect non-violent resistance and will advocate with and for the oppressed. But, I do think that MLK is a little harsh when he condemns the oppressed to the same level as the oppressor if they accept their unjust system. Every second the oppressed speak out, they put their lives in more danger. They are already living in fear, and when they resist, their fear only increases 10 fold and their lives become even more endangered. I don’t think that it is fair to judge people for accepting their situation passively, if by resisting they risk their life. 

On the other hand, if you are an outsider, a third party observer, I believe you do have an ethical responsibility to stand up for the oppressed or against a certain law that you find immoral. If you are sitting back living a great life, not being oppressed, and you see a person or group being overpowered or oppressed and you know it is wrong, you have a duty to stand up for those people. I really liked what we talked about in the Socratic Seminar about even if it doesn’t have an impact on you and you think its not your fight, if you don’t resist with them or advocate for them, you are doing a greater injustice to those oppressed people than the oppressors. Unlike the oppressors, you know that it is wrong, but you choose to let it keep happening instead of stopping it. This really had an impact on me because of the whole gay marriage thing. I, personally think it is wrong to keep gay people from marrying and living like everyone else, but that law personally doesn’t impact me in any way, so I never really took an interest in it or talked about it. But after the Socratic Seminar and our readings, I do believe that I need to be an advocate and stop standing by and letting the injustice continue. Not only is it the moral thing to do and will spread justice further and to more people, but also, if I ever become the oppressed, how can I expect anyone to advocate or fight for me, if I never did the same for them? If I don’t take up my ethical responsibility to defend an unjust or immoral law for someone else, I wont have to right to be offended or claim injustice if no one helps me regain my rights, if I never help anyone gain theirs.

          

Wrap Up Talk with Jaleh

To Jaleh the book was mostly about Tereza and she thought Tereza felt like she had to be faithful and she had to try and be strong and she had to do all theses things to be happy. Jaleh thought that all she had to do was live her life the way she wanted and she would be happy, or light. I, on the other hand didn't think the book was about any of the four main characters more than the others. I thought they were all equally important and they were all to show how lightness vs. heaviness affected different people. Jaleh didn't see there being any "unbearable lightness", only a good lightness, where as I saw there was a middle ground to the lightness that would take the "unbearable" part out of it. What stood out to me was that worry or overthinkining caused the lightness to be unbearable. I thought you had to not take things so seriously to feel light, which is one thing Jaleh and I agreed on.

I really like parts of this book, but found some parts weird and some unnecessary. I like the philosophical parts a lot, where the author talked about lightness vs. weight, and I realize that it wouldn't be as enjoyable a book without the characters, but I just wished their stories were different. So I wouldn't recommend the book to people on a regular basis or just go tell everyone to read it (I would only recommend to those who maybe were stressed about life or something) but I wouldn't caution anyone against reading it, if they asked my opinion about it,

Wrap Up Talk with Claire Anne

What stood out to Claire Anne the most about the book was that the Bishop who was so kind, granted to acts of kindness upon Kean Valjean and it turned his life around and Valjean changed the lives of so many people. She thought it was amazing that just two simple acts could effect so many people for so long. For me, I don't think if Clarie Anne mentioned that I would have picked up on it so much. What stood out to me the most, was what I read in the unabridged version about the Bishop. He was so kind and generous, with no reason to be at all. He extended his hand to everyone, even those who weren't his biggest fans and asked nothing in return. The other thing that stood out to me was the Jean Valjean was able to keep up his goal of being a good person, just like the Bishop throughout his life. He did it because of the Bishop's kindness, but there was no other motivation and the Bishop died shortly after his kind acts. Jean Valjean continued in the Bishops footsteps, purely through self motivation and his will to become virtuous and make up for his past. I thought his determination was amazing and his ability to follow through with the promise he made something to strive for in my life.

I would recommend this book to people who like to read, because it is a tough book to get through because the wording and time period is different and hard to understand sometimes. If you don't like reading, you would probably give up on it, but it is worth it because it is a great story about virtue and perseverance, justice and morality.

The Unbearable Lightness of Being Update 2

Quick overview of the rest of the book:

(Note: the book goes back in forth in time to when Tomas and Tereza are alive, and when they are dead)

Sabina moves to America and lives with an old couple who become like the parents she always wanted and doted on her. But she was unhappy because she kept thinking about what would happen after they died and she would be all alone with nothing once again.

Franz loves the girl he is with, but he still thinks about Sabina and wants to honor her memory by going to her home country. There he realizes he misunderstood Sabina and they never really belonged together. He realizes how much he loves the girl back at home and that he is happy without Sabina. But he is killed in Cambodia and never returns to he girl he loves.

Tomas had decided to give up his mistresses for Tereza, but he lost his job as a surgeon and became a window washer, which drove him to encompass the lightness of no job and he began "womanizing", as the book calls it, again to fully bear a total lightness of being. Tereza convinces him to move to the country with her and he gives up all his affairs and gives into his love for her completely. Tereza feels terrible for not being strong enough to put up with Tomas' mistresses and thinks he is unhappy or not as happy as he could be as a surgeon with all the other women. Tereza feels this imagined unhappiness is her fault, but Tomas explains to her that he is happy and loves her. Terza stops worrying and Tomas and her are finally happy together.

 For the second update, I am going to pick a quote from the book that I think sort of shows what the book was trying to get at.

"So Beethoven turned a frivolous inspiration into a serious quartet, a joke into metaphysical truth. It is an interesting tale of light going to heavy, or as Parmenides would have said it, positive going to negative. Yet oddly enough, the transformation fails to surprise us. We would have been shocked, on the other hand, if Beethoven had transformed the seriousness of his quartet into the trifling of a four-voice canon about Dembscher's purse. Had he done so, however, he would have been in the spirit of Parmenides and made heavy go to light, that is, negative to positive! First (as an unfinished sketch) would have come to the great metaphysical truth and last (as a finished masterpiece) - the most frivolous of jokes! But we no longer know how to think as Parmenides thought."

 I think that what made everyone in the book happy eventually was taking the negative (the weight) and making it positive (light). I think the characters needed to not take everything so seriously. So Franz finally took his love for Sabina, and realized it wasn't right. He stopped taking their affair so seriously; he took a step back and then looked at it and he saw that it wasn't so serious. And Sabina, she could have been happy if instead of dreading what was to come, she had just enjoyed what was. If she had just enjoyed the fact that the old couple she was living with doted on her a loved her, she would have found the lightness she needed to be happy, the positive side of things. And Tomas and Tereza forgot about all the other things (weights) in their lives and just loved each other. They had aways loved each other, but they kept all the negative things with the, in their way; Tomas' mistresses, Tereza's guilt, etc.

So I think that there is an unbearable lightness of being, where you hold nothing dear to you and nothing really matters to you, so life is pointless, but there is also a lightness where you only look or hold onto the positives of your life and you just live, forgetting about and letting go of the negatives (aka, weights). I think that is what the book was trying to say and that quote from the book really portrays it well I think.

Les Miserables Update 2

In my Opinion the second half of the book was nowhere near as good as the first half. The second half was all about Marius and Cosette and the fight of the French Revolution. The second half wasn't as meaningful with all the kindness of Jean Valjean or as suspenseful, with the constant fear of Jean being found out. I will give you a short (as short as I can) summary of the last half of the book: Cosette and Marius are in love but done know they love each other but Jean Valjean knows and tries to stop Marius from going near Cosette or even looking at her so he moves. Marius finds Cosette and sneaks in the back to see her for two months. Then the French Revolution comes closer and Jean wants to leave and move to England. Marius is distraught over the move and decides that since he wont be able to be with Cosette he will fight in the battle and die there. He goes in to fight, but when he is wounded so badly that he thinks he will die, Jean Valjean goes to the battle and saves him. He sneaks Marius out, who is unconscious and leaves him at his house. Then the book gets good again for a minute when the policeman, Javert recognized him, but saw his goodness and let him go home. Then Cosette and Marius marry, but Jean Valjean is unhappy because he lost Cosette to Marius who forbade Jean to see her all the time because he found out about his criminal past. Jean becomes sickly and is about to die, when Marius discovers that Valjean was actually the one who saved him and was really a good person, so he takes Cosette with him to see Jean. Jean is overjoyed to see that Marius has forgiven him and dies happily after seeing Cosette one last time as Marius and Cosette sit at his sides.

I was happy that the book had a pretty happy ending, considering all the miserable events that surrounded these people's lives. In the beginning of the second half, I was sort of disappointed with Jean Valjean because of his attempt to keep Cosette from Marius. I also got annoyed at Cosette for never once mentioning Marius or that she wanted to see him. If she had just asked, I don't think Jean could have said no. Valjean not only kept Marius and Cosette apart, he actually began to hate Marius, which was kind of disappointing to me because he had been so good and kind before, but it seemed that he was reverted back to the way he was after prison. When Jean went to save Marius from the battle for Cosette, I was excited that the book was becoming better again and that Jean was doing the right thing again. My favorite part though was when Javert discovered who Jean Valjean was, but didn't turn him in. Throughout the book, Javert was very consistent and lawful. He did his job well and according to the rules exactly. He thought that was what was right and just and so that fact that he didn't turn Valjean in was really hard for him. Javert realized that Jean Valjean was a good, true man and didn't deserve to be in jail, but it was a conflict inside himself whether he should do his duty as a law enforcement or d his duty as a human. When he chose to do the humane thing, he realized everything he had believed about the law was wrong and he couldn't live the way he had always thought was right, so he killed himself.

At first, I wasn't happy with the ending where Jean Valjean died because I wanted him to get better on and live and see Cosette and Marius happy. But I realize that Jean was happy with himself and his life. The way he lived his life was the way he promised to live it and he had redeemed himself in his own eyes. He also knew that he had made Cosette happy and knowing that she loved him and that he had done what was right for her he had nothing else he needed to see or do alive. He died peacefully and happily and it was not a sad ending with his death. It was just an ending to the book and his life which was complete.

The Unbearable Lightness of Being Update 1

Quick overview of the book so far:

This book looks at the lives of 4 people and how they live their lives with either a lightness of being or a weight holding them down. It also talks about how sometimes the people who are living weightlessly, are not happy with the lightness; hence "the unbearable lightness of being."

So for the first update, I am going to introduce you to the four main characters and tell you how they live (with a lightness or with a weight) and how that has affected their life so far.

Tomas - Tomas is from the Czech Republic and he is definitely living with a lightness of being, but his lightness, at first, is not unbearable. He enjoys his life as the ultimate bachelor and never wants to get married. He meets girls and he sleeps with them and then he never sees them again or they become one of his mistresses that he sees every once in a while, but he never falls in love with any of them. But when Tomas meets Tereza he falls in love wither her and eventually marries her, but he still sees the other women. Tereza finds out and he tries to tell her that it doesn't matter that he has all these mistresses because she is the only one he loves, he just likes to feel the lightness that goes with not carrying about who he sleeps with. But his love for Tereza is so much that the lightness he feels starts weighing down from because of Tereza's unhappiness with his lifestyle. Tomas cant give up his mistresses, but he also cant give Tereza, and the lightness he felt so good in before, becomes unbearable and guilt ridden.

Tereza - Tereza is also Czech, and falls in love with Tomas because he was kind to her and she saw a way out of her small town life with her unbearable mother in him. Tereza does not have a light life, she carries weight with her. She knows the lightness because her mother lived with that lightness and she hated it. She found that lifestyle uncomfortable and crude and she thought it made no one special and made everyone the same and just a body. She wanted to have a soul and be herself; she wanted to be special to someone and that's what she thought she cold be to Tomas. The weight she carried was trying to force her soul and her specialness passed all the sameness of everyone. Tereza hates that Tomas cant give up hi mistresses for just her but she doesn't think it would be fair of her to make him stop. She tries to understand his lifestyle and even has a one time affair to try the light lifestyle, but she hates it because it takes all the love and passion and kindness out, and makes the sameness more real and obvious.

Sabina - Sabina is Tomas' favorite mistress who also lives in the same way as Tomas; carefree and light, with many different men. She lives happily with the lightness for a while, but eventually, when her 'main man', Franz leaves his wife for her, she feels like that being with him for real would threaten her light lifestyle and picks up and leaves. She realizes she has nothing of her past left after hearing of Tomas and Tereza's deaths and she cant stand the lightness, the nothing she feels. She has nothing to live for and is not sure what to do and sometimes wonders what her life would be like if she had stayed with Franz.

Franz - Franz has been married for 20 years and never cheated on his wife. He never wanted to betray her because she had said she would kill herself if he ever left her. He also has an 18 year old daughter that is just like his wife. Franz has lived with the weight his life and finally he meets Sabina and he loves her. He is afraid to hurt his wife so he keeps his affair very secret, but when he is with Sabina her lightness rubs off on him and he feels better. Eventually the weight of his wife his too much and he tells her about the affair and leaves her for Sabina, but when he tells Sabina, she leaves and Franz is by himself. At first he becomes depressed, but then he feels the lightness of his life without his wife or daughter and he enjoys his life of new found lightness. He even meets a girl who loves him and he takes care of her, but in a light, carefree way.

I think that the people in the book who had a lightness find it unbearable when they realize they have nothing important in their lives or that they could have something important. I think Tomas is just not sure yet whether he wants to give up his lightness because he doesn't know if he will enjoy the weight of being faithful husband. Franz is happy with the lightness he fells because he has been living his whole life with a weight and it felt good to not have to carry it around. When he found the girl who loved him, he also found a middle ground between the lightness he just loved and also a small weight that gave him meaning a something to do, like he was used to his whole life.

Les Miserables Update 1

So I started off reading the unabridged version, but it was 1400 pages and it just seemed like too much so I switched to the 400 page abridged version. Basically the first 200 pages of the full Les Mis are an account of the Bishop of Digne, Monseigneur Myriel. The narrator talks about how M. Myriel is kind and charitable and generous and nothing like all the other Bishops of that time. The narrator also states, by the way that everything we read about the Bishop we really don't need to know because it has nothing to do with the story. All that happened in the first 5 pages of the book and the subsequent 195 pages, I read grudgingly knowing that there was no point to them. Already this book had taught me about literature and any future writing I do. I will never ever, not in a million years, tell my readers that what they are going to read is pointless and has nothing to do with anything, but should be read none the less. Because, although I enjoyed reading about the Bishop and I thought he was a great character, I couldn't get passed the fact that what I was reading was completely and utterly pointless, even by the authors standards.

But anyway, after we hear about the Bishop of Digne, we are introduced to Jean Valjean, a convict who spent 19 years in prison just for stealing a loaf of bread because his family was literally starving to death. Jean goes to Digne and the Bishop is the only person who will allow him a place to stay. After prison Valjean had become a cold and hard man, but after a series of events in which the Bishop shows nothing but kindness to Jean, the Bishop sort of forces a promise onto Jean to be a kind and 'upright' man. Jean Valjean becomes this man, but under the name of Madeleine and in a different town (because he is still a wanted man).

I don't want to give a full summary of everything I've read because I think this blog post is supposed to be more of what I take from the book so far, but I just thought you should know about Jean Valjean and also about Cosette and Marius, who seem to be the characters in the book that are becoming more, shall we say, prominent. Cosette is the illegitimate child of  Fantine, who leaver Cosette with the Thenardiers while she tries to make money for herself and her daughter. Fantine dies and Madeleine (Valjean) rescues Cosette and becomes a father to her. The police recognize him as Valjean and together Cosette and Jean run to Paris. There, when Cosette is 15 years old, a man named Marius see them and falls in love with Cosette after just seeing her. He lives next door to the Jondrettes and one day Cosette and Valjean go to donate food and money to them, but they turn out to be the Thenerdiers and try to rob them. Marius doesn't know what to do since he loves Cosette but owes his fathers life to the Thenerdiers. I stopped reading just a Valjean escapes from the Thenerdiers...We shall see what happens...


So far, at halfway through the book, I can really only think about two things. One, how much I like the book and want to see what happens to everyone,ant two, how much I hate it at the same time because of what keeps happening to everyone. It really is Les Miserables (The Wretched Poor or The Miserable Ones).  Every main character in the book fully encapsulates 'The Wretched Poor'. They are all starving, just scraping by, poor, prostitutes, running from the law, or seeking some sort of revenge or all of the above. Already two people have died just when yout thought they were going to get better or right before something good happens to them. Jean was in prison for 19 years for stealing a loaf of bread!! The kind and generous Bishop died. Seriously, no matter how many good things someone does in this book, the misery just follows them around. Justice is never done, even when you think it should be or will be.It just seems so unfair everything that happens to the people in the book but i love it all the same because I just cant help but want to see it all turn out with a happy ending. But I wouldn't at all be surprised if it turned out rotten, really. The injustice in the world is so much and you would think it would be a simple thing to solve, but as this book is showing me, injustice is one of the trickiest problems to solve of all. Every decision you make lends a hand to what someones life will become, to how justice will be played out. Thats really what this book portrays; that one litle thing that yu do can change the way someone will act throughout the erest of his life. You can make someone a better person or give them a better life through one small act of kindness or you can make them a terrible person becasue of something you said or did. But, on the other hand the book has so far showed that even if you are kind and make hundreds of people's lives better, you may not be rewarded. Even after everything Jean Valjean had done he still had to flee the town he made rich and live in fear of being sent to prison and leaving Cosette behind with no one.

Summer Reading Interview with Claire Anne

Thursday July 21, 2011 - Claire Anne Brand

Fo my second interview I talked to my friend Claire Anne. She gave me a few titles to choose form, including Pride and Prejudice, Blue Like Jazz, the Cask of Amontillado,  and Les Miserables. Claire Anne recommended theses books because they all taught her something important that she will carry with her for the rest of her life, whether that was about human nature and human interactions, or love or even literature in general.

Even before interviewing her, Claire Anne had already recommend that I read Les Miserables because of how much it taught her about everyday interactions with people, and how important it is to make sure you always treat people right because "one small action by one person can effect a multitude of people in ways that no one can predict."  So, I had already decided to read this book, but it was still very enlightening to hear what other books had impacted her life.

When Claire Anne mentioned Pride and Prejudice it caught my attention because I was going to recommend it to her as well. We talked about how the book impacted both of by showing us that everything happens for a reason and true love will find a way if its meant to be. The book also rang true to both of because of its focus on not judging people on your first impression of them. As Claire Anne said, "its important to examine  your own mistakes and character faults and learn how to fix them before even thinking about judging others.'" Claire Anne told me that when she read Pride and Prejudice she was really disappointed with her best friend, and really connected with Elizabeth's disappointment in Charlotte when she married Mr. Collins. She also saw Elizabeth as a very strong and outspoken woman protagonist and really like that about the book.

I had never heard of the other book that Claire Anne said had influenced her, Blue Like Jazz. She told me it was about one man's thoughts about God and Jesus. She told me the book taught her a lot about human nature and how people interact. She said the book has influenced her to be a better person. Finally Claire Anne told me The Cask of Amontillado, which is a short story story about a man taking revenge on his friend for insulting him. While this is a short story, Claire Anne realized after reading it that her view of symbolism and literature had changed. She saw how an author can add so much symbolism to even the shortest piece of writing in the subtlest of ways. The book really influenced her own writings and she tries to make every word she writes important. She said she learned from The Cask of Amontillado that "you can get so much out of literature if you just spend the time to delve into it and really try to understand it."

Summer Reading Interview with Jaleh Browder

Sunday July 10, 2011 - Jaleh Browder

I recently sat down for a talk with my Aunt Jaleh about books that impacted her life. All the books that she mentioned having a meaningful impression on her life had something to do with either truth, conviction, beliefs, or spirituality (or all of them).

When my aunt was about 16 or 17 years old she read Othello, Iliad, and Odyssey. Othello taught her about deception and lies. She told me this was the book that taught her the implications of lies and to never hide behind them. In this way, Othello helped her discover her own identity and philosophy. The Iliad and the Odyssey both forced her to question her theology. At the time she read it, her father was trying to convert her to Islam, and reading the mythological books made her realize that there were other religions out there very different from the Muslim religion.

The Rise and Fall of the Shah was another book that she told me had impacted her life and her perspective on truth. When my aunt was growing up she had always heard only her family's perspective on the Shah of Iran, but this book was written from the the American Media point of view and was very different from her family's stories. Reading a completely different version of the same story made her realize that there were two sides to every story and that you need to do your own research before you believe either side of a story.

Two other books impacted my aunts spirituality. One, The Prophet, she read when she was 23 and the other, Christ out of Egypt, she read when she was 40. The Prophet was a bout a man who was born and raised Catholic, but one day he questions his entire existence and religion. This book broadened her prospective on religion and spirituality by showing her many different views on religion and death and everything in between. Christ out of Egypt re solidified her own beliefs as a Christian, and also reinforced her belief that it doesn't matter how you believe as long as you do believe with passion and conviction.

The final book that influenced my aunt (and also the book that I chose to read) was The Unbearable Lightness of Being. This book is about a woman who felt tied and compelled to be a mother, daughter, employee, etc. and she was becoming consumed with being all of these different things, until she realized that just being was good enough. My aunt realized that you shouldn't have to try to be anything at all, just be, and everything else will fall into place. I chose to read this book because my aunt said that of all the books she has read, this one has helped her throughout her life the most, by allowing her to become more free and be herself.