History

The histories we read in class included two plays: Richard III and Henry V. Both plays were about kings and the rule of England, but were extremely different. We are introduced to two totally opposite characters in each play, both kings searching for two different things. While Richard III seeks revenge, Henry V seeks glory. As we read both plays, differences between the two characters reveal themselves to make a great comparison between works.

Passage/Language Comparison

Richard III and Henry V share so many differences, especially in the way they speak to the people of England and their armies before battle. The following passages, from Act 5 Scene 3 of Richard III and Act 4 Scene 3 of Henry V are both excerpts from both kings speeches to their armies before battle.


KING RICHARD III

Conscience is but a word that cowards use,
Devised at first to keep the strong in awe:
Our strong arms be our conscience, swords our law.
March on, join bravely, let us to't pell-mell
If not to heaven, then hand in hand to hell.
...
What shall I say more than I have inferr'd?
Remember whom you are to cope withal;
A sort of vagabonds, rascals, and runaways,
A scum of Bretons, and base lackey peasants,
Whom their o'er-cloyed country vomits forth
To desperate ventures and assured destruction.

------------------------------------------------

KING HENRY V
What's he that wishes so?
My cousin Westmoreland? No, my fair cousin:
If we are mark'd to die, we are enow
To do our country loss; and if to live,
The fewer men, the greater share of honour.
God's will! I pray thee, wish not one man more.
By Jove, I am not covetous for gold,
Nor care I who doth feed upon my cost;
It yearns me not if men my garments wear;
Such outward things dwell not in my desires:
But if it be a sin to covet honour,
I am the most offending soul alive.
...
This story shall the good man teach his son;
And Crispin Crispian shall ne'er go by,
From this day to the ending of the world,
But we in it shall be remember'd;
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile,
This day shall gentle his condition:
And gentlemen in England now a-bed
Shall think themselves accursed they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day.

The difference between the overall tone and attitude of each character is very apparent just by reading each passage. Richard starts off by speaking about conscience and how it is their enemy and a word that cowards use. Clearly, if a king and his army even need a conscience then they are obviously not in battle for the right reason. Richard is just reflecting his guilt about the innocent people he killed earlier in the play to his soldiers. Also, instead of speaking of the importance of the battle and trying to motivate them, he insults the French by calling them "A sort of vagabonds, rascals, and runaways, A scum of Bretons, and base lackey peasants". You can insult the enemy all that you want, but it won't help to encourage an army or anyone in the end. Richard isn't in battle for the right reasons, therefore he has no way to tell his army what the right reason is.

Henry's speech to his soldiers about Saint Crispin's day, is opposite to what Richard's is. The whole speech is about glory and honor, doing what is right for England, living in that moment, and stating the fact that all of the soldiers are equal, including the king. Henry speaks to his army from the heart and tells them the truth, rather than convince them to fight like Richard did. Instead of fighting for revenge like Richard has, Henry is fighting to prove himself, his country, and his ancestor's name. This is one of the major differences between the two characters. They both display their attitudes entirely different, which effects the language of the play. While both plays contain lengthy speeches and words of battle, Henry speaks of glory and doing what is right while Richard's tactics are based solely on revenge.

Genre/Topic/Theme Comparison
The two most conflicting aspect of the two plays is how each character goes about getting what they want. It is similar to the difference of good and evil. Evil, is of course, Richard. To get to the thrown, he lies, kills, and manipulates others. His trail to the thrown consists of a line of murder. Richard murders his brother the Duke of Clarence, the king, the king's children, his own wife, and many others that have helped him in the past. Richard is completely two faced; he will say anything to get someone on his side and then turn his back and plot to kill them. He uses others and disposes of them when he is done with him, like his wife Lady Anne. All the while, Richard has no conscience and feels no guilt over his actions until the scene where all the ghosts of people he kills revisit him the night before battle. Still, a man that can commit all of these sins and murders without conscience and truly a horrible person. All of these traits describe an evil man, which is exactly what Richard is. He lies to and kills others while concealing his real self to all of England.

Good is Henry. He is the hero of the play and uses truth, devotion, and motivation to prove himself as a King as well as to get what England deserves in France. Throughout the play, Henry is clear on what his intentions are. He tells his enemies exactly what he wants and what he will do if he doesn't get it. His ruthless tactics and focused personality allows him to succeed in the end and win the thrown of France that he deserves. Henry is committed to being King and will do anything it takes to prove himself to the people that don't believe in him. He is also inspirational to his soldiers and provides them with hope and encouragement when they are at their lowest. He does what he does solely for his country along with glory and honor. He is completely open about what he wants rather than hiding it like Richard does.

The characteristics of good and evil are very apparent in each play. Shakespeare uses evil with Richard and good with Henry to show the different types of people there can be. I like the fact that Henry succeeds while Richard fails. It shows that good defeats evil in the end, which is the message Shakespeare portrays with the contrast of each play.

Personal Reflection/Comparison
I enjoyed both of these plays very much. Both were entirely different. Richard III showed the path of an evil villain eventually ending in destruction while Henry V showed the feats a king goes through to prove himself to his people. Although I loved how Henry proves himself and wins the battle in the end, I definitely enjoyed reading Richard more. You can't help but love to read about a villain, it's the truth! Richard is the man you love to hate. All of the crimes and betrayal Richard commits is so crazy and entertaining to think that someone could do such a thing to others. To see the inside of Richard compared to what he showed himself to others was an interesting outlook on what was happening. I also loved the scene where the ghosts of people Richard killed come back to tell him "Despair and die!", because that is what he deserved to hear. He needed to see the damage he had done and finally feel guilty for everything.

Each play dealt with good vs. evil, and both had great endings. While Richard finally met his defeat after all of the crimes he committed, Henry is triumphant and wins his battle as well as the honor he desired. It surprised me that plays about history could be so exciting and contain major themes.

Comedy

Plays we read in the comedy portion of class include A Midsummer Night's Dream, The Taming of the Shrew, and the "tragic-comedy", The Tempest. All of these works by Shakespeare share many similarities as well as differences. Some of the same techniques, language, and themes Shakespeare uses in each are similar in each work as well.

Passage/Language Comparison
Much of the language in each play is very similar, specifically exchanges between the lovers. The conversations between Kate and Petruchio and Lysander and Hermia as well as Demetrius and Helena are almost identical depending on each couple's feelings. Insults between Kate and Petruchio are similar to insults between Lysander and Hermia and Demetrius and Helena when the potion is affecting them to not love one another. For example, the passage below is an exchange between Demetrius and Helena in Act 2 Scene 1 of A Midsummer Night's Dream followed by a passage from Act 2 Scene 1 of The Taming of the Shrew between Pertruchio and Kate.

DEMETRIUS
Do I entice you? do I speak you fair?
Or, rather, do I not in plainest truth
Tell you, I do not, nor I cannot love you?

HELENA
And even for that do I love you the more.
I am your spaniel; and, Demetrius,
The more you beat me, I will fawn on you:
Use me but as your spaniel, spurn me, strike me,
Neglect me, lose me; only give me leave,
Unworthy as I am, to follow you.
What worser place can I beg in your love, --
And yet a place of high respect with me, --
Than to be used as you use your dog?

DEMETRIUS
Tempt not too much the hatred of my spirit;
For I am sick when I do look on thee.

----------------------------------------------

KATHARINA
I chafe you, if I tarry: let me go.

PETRUCHIO
No, not a whit: I find you passing gentle.
'Twas told me you were rough and coy and sullen,
And now I find report a very liar;
For thou are pleasant, gamesome, passing courteous,
But slow in speech, yet sweet as spring-time flowers:
Thou canst not frown, thou canst not look askance,
Nor bite the lip, as angry wenches will,
Nor hast thou pleasure to be cross in talk,
But thou with mildness entertain'st thy wooers,
With gentle conference, soft and affable.
Why does the world report that Kate doth limp?
O slanderous world! Kate like the hazel-twig
Is straight and slender and as brown in hue
As hazel nuts and sweeter than the kernels.
O, let me see thee walk: thou dost not halt.

KATHARINA
Go, fool, and whom thou keep'st command.

These passages are very similar to each other. The attitude both Demetrius and Kate have to Helena and Pertruchio is almost identical. Both view them as nuisances and just want them to go away, constantly throwing insult after insult upon them and resisting them as much as possible. This does not affect Helena or Pertruchio; instead they stay persistent in expressing their love for the other no matter what horrible things they are being told or called. This language is apparent throughout each of the plays -- both filled with extreme insults and complete expressions and love to add onto the elements of contrast and serious yet comical outlook on love.

In addition to insults in A Midsummer Night's Dream and The Taming of the Shrew, Shakespeare uses insults as well in The Tempest. Extreme insults are used upon many others, especially Caliban, and exchanged between the men on the ship and island. These insults serve a slightly different purpose. They still add comedy to the play, but they also show characteristics such as immaturity, hostility, and ignorance. The characters in these three plays are all shown as "stupid", juvenile, or too serious by the way they speak and express themselves.

Genre/Topic/Theme Comparison
A device that I found was extremely apparent in each work was the use of opposites. Each work has at least one pair of opposites: Helena and Hermia and Titania and Bottom in A Midsummer Night's Dream, Pertruchio and Lucentio and Kate and Bianca in The Taming of the Shrew, and Ariel and Caliban in The Tempest.

In A Midsummer Night's Dream, the two most apparent opposites are Helena and Hermia. While Hermia is beautiful, tall, and loved by both Lysander and Demetrius, Helena is barely noticed by others because she is not as lovely and appealing as Hermia. Hermia has two men to choose from, and Helena cannot get the man she loves, Demetrius, to fall in love with her. This gives Helena envy on Hermia. At the end of the story, all is well and each women has their desired lover, but this is only by magic and the opposites between Helena and Hermia are still there. Another more comical opposite is Titania, Queen of the Fairies, and Bottom. Bottom is a craftsmen who acts like he possesses intelligence and poise while really he does not. This is shown quite literally by the transformation of Bottom to an ass. Titania, beautiful and fair, is completely opposite to the grotesque ass headed Bottom, yet she falls in love with him because of the love potion. This is the oddest and most unrealistic couple imaginable, yet the event occurs anyway. The use of opposites in this play adds to it comically and to contrast the characters, showing extraordinary events, especially when it comes to love and romance.

The Taming of the Shrew features two main sets of opposites: Pertruchio and Lucentio and Bianca and Kate. Bianca is loved by many, while Kate is loved by none. Kate is seen as a "shrew", a woman that no man would want to associate himself with in contrast to her beautiul, loving, and gentle younger sister Bianca. Their father has made a rule that Bianca cannot be married until Kate is, which creates a great deal of tension between the two. Lucentio meets Bianca and instantly falls in love with her. He is genuine and true and wants to marry her solely for the motive of true love. On the other hand, Pertruchio falls in love with Kate because he is told no one will marry her. His main motive is not love; it is to improve his wealth and social status. It would seem as though Bianca and Lucentio would have a better marriage compared to Kate and Pertruchio, but it is opposite in the end of the play. When the two men call their wives, Kate comes instantly while Bianca refuses. This shows the audience that Kate and Pertruchio have the better marriage. These opposites in the play show how marriage is sometimes used for social and economic status and lessens the importance of true love, in contrast to A Midsummer Night's Dream in which love the most important thing to the four lovers.

The pair of opposites we meet in The Tempest are Ariel and Caliban. Both are servants to Prospero on the island, but they are treated extremely differently. Ariel is loyal to Prospero, promised freedom for deeds which gives him an overall goal to work toward, assimilates with humans, and interferes in other's business. On the otherhand, Caliban is nasty and rebellious and bitter towards Prospero, has no goal, doesn't want to conform, and keeps to himself. In addition to these differences, Ariel is a fairy, viewed as magical and fun, while Caliban is seen as a hideous monster. This contrast gives an outlook on society during this time. It shows Caliban as the lowest class unworthy of even human treatment and Ariel as someone who has overcome obstacles to get what he wants. It also shows that virtually everyone is enslaved by something in life.

Personal Reflection/Comparison
I enjoyed all three of these plays very much. They all had similar yet different things to bring to the table and entertain the audience. Being comedies, they all had comic relief with several different techniques. The opposites discussed previously were used, physical comedy such as Bottom turning into an ass or Kate hitting people, extreme insults paired with full expressions of love, plays within a play, and one of the biggest sources of comedy: the fools. In all three of the plays, there were fools that were mocked and gave the audience someone to make fun of. In A Midsummer Night's Dream, Bottom was a huge fool. Being turned into an ass, mistaking words for other meanings, messing up his lines in the play, and many other acts of his fed the audience's laughter. He added so much comedy to the play just by saying ridiculous things and being a ridiculous character. Sly was the fool in The Taming of the Shrew. A poor beggar dressed up and told he was a king just to be made fun of was funny enough. Once he actually believed that he was a person of importance it added so much more to his stupidity. He believed all of the things he was told just to feel special, which makes him an instant idiot. Stephano is also a fool in The Tempest. Once he agrees to wrong Prospero, he thinks he owns Caliban and believes he is powerful. In reality, he is just a butler. All of the fools in the plays have a distorted view of themselves while the audience sees the real characters. The fools made each play very comical and an enjoyable read. The magic used also made the plays even more entertaining.

Not only did all of the plays have great comical aspects, but they all had very important themes and life lessons. My favorite message was from The Tempest. The men from the ship are all stuck on the island because of a storm. Prospero and Miranda have been stuck on the island for years. Ferdinand has to undergo tests from Prospero in order to win Miranda's hand in marriage. Ariel has to work for Prospero to gain freedom. All the characters are faced with problems and obstacles that they have to face and overcome. Most of the characters get what they want at the end and things end happily. This gives the message that even though everyone in life is faced with problems and obstacles, you have to work through it and "weather the storm" to get what you want in the end. This to me was a great message that applies to life no matter what time period, whether it be Shakespeare's time or the 21st century.

All of these plays were extremely entertaining and fun to read. They are all filled with mixtures of comedy, seriousness, love, magic, and important life lessons. Judging by the three plays we read, I have to say I really enjoy Shakespearean comedy.

A Tale of Two Cities

A Tale of Two Cities is a novel by Charles Dickens about the French Revolution. The plot constantly switches between the two cities of London and Paris, showing the contrast between the two. While London is very orderly and prosperous, Paris is in turmoil and poverty stricken. Themes reflected within this work are the need for sacrifice and the possibility for growth and rebirth. Both themes are tied together in proving that however difficult and destructive revolutions and sacrifice may be, they result in positive change for society and the individual. A strong example of this theme is Sydney Carton. At the beginning of the novel Carton is seen by others as a lazy, alcoholic attorney with no interest in his activities or life. The only interest he develops is in his love for Lucie, which leads to a dynamic transformation of character. Both Darnay and Carton are in love with Lucie; even though Lucie decides to marry Darnay, Carton still acts towards Darnay to save his life. By dressing as Darnay and essentially sacrificing his life for him proves the change in which Carton undergoes by valuing life another's life. By using Carton as well as the contrast between the two cities of Paris and France, Dickens shows his belief in rebirth being possible for everyone as well as the belief that while revolutions involve death and losses, the result of change is worth the hard times.

"'It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done; it is a far, far better rest I go to than I have ever known'" (293).

This passage, spoken by Carton before dying on the Guillotine, is in a way his revelation and realization of his drastic character change. Living a life of being undetermined, lazy, drunk, and many other unattractive traits, Carton's end is a drastic turnaround. Giving the ultimate sacrifice of death for another and a society is better than he has ever done. He has learned the importance of being a good person, however, unfortunately this realization has taken place at the event of his death. This realization makes it a far better rest than he has ever known. Carton was dying at the Guillotine is for Darnay, Lucie, and the good of society. Carton sees the city of Paris as a "beautiful city and a brilliant people from this abyss" and makes this one of his drives for sacrifice. This final sentence illustrates Cartons final transformation and good intentions in result of his death.

Personally, I found A Tale of Two Cities a very difficult novel to get through. I am unfortunately not accustomed to reading aged literature and find it a very trying process. While I tried very hard to understand this novel, the writing style and detail lost me at times. The many different characters being randomly introduced along with the constant change of cities also added to my confusion. With many key events occurring, the over development and description caused me to lose sight of what was going on at times. For example, the explanation of the mail getting to Mr. Lorry went on and on. Overall, I found the plot a very good one that portrayed a very good message. Had it not been for the writing style and constant detail throughout the novel, I would have most likely enjoyed this novel because of the great plot and lesson in the end.

The Importance of Being Earnest

Oscar Wilde's play, The Importance of Being Earnest is a "trivial comedy for serious people". This play is filled with humor and meaningless fights over unimportant matters, which Wilde uses to mock the characters, or the rich Victorian society. It truly reflects the real importance of being earnest. Earnest is a word that means honest and sincere. One thinks of a person as being earnest when they are selfless, humble, thoughtful, and overall good people. In contrast, the characters in this work are vastly opposite. They are obsessed with appearance and status, fake, dishonest people who care only about trivial matters when there are real problems in life. Arguments over food, objects with nothing other than material value, and many other things shows how immature and ridiculous these people really are. The obsession with appearance and status is constantly seen. Cecily and Gwendolen are only concerned with marrying Ernest because of his name, and Lady Bracknell cannot accept Ernest because he does not have ancestors of prestige. Wilde uses events such as these in the play to show how wrong this kind of behavior is, and how people show be earnest and true rather than life a life full of idiocy and pettiness.

"GWENDOLEN. You have filled my tea with lumps of sugar, and though I asked most distinctly for bread and butter, you have given me cake. I am known for the gentleness of my disposition, and the extraordinary sweetness of my nature, but I warn you, Miss Cardew, you may go too far.
CECILY. To save my poor, innocent, trusting boy from the machinations of any other girl there are no lengths to which I would go" (38).

This is one of the passages that I found completely ridiculous. Two women have just found out that they are engaged to the same man, and are arguing over one giving the other cake rather than bread and butter and sugar in her tea. This just points out how idiotic their manners are. To be fighting over something so meaningless instead of saying what is on their minds shows how obsessed they are with appearance and how materialistic their lives are. Also, Miss Cardew might be going to far by doing that? If she is going too far then, how would a severe offense be viewed as? This passage just baffles me and reflects how immature and superficial these two women are.

I enjoyed this play. It was great to read and laugh at the ridiculous things the characters said and did. I also thought it carried a great message. The importance of being earnest so huge because it is being a better person then the characters in the work are. Wilde mocks these characters to show how wrong it is to be materialistic, dishonest, and to obsess over meaningless things and how people view you. It is wrong and can end in confusion and deception, which is what ultimately happens in end of the play. This can open the eyes of some that live in this way, and I'm sure it was controversial in the era that it was written in. I thought the play was great and a really entertaining read.

Cat's Cradle

Cat's Cradle by Kurt Vonnegut is a satirical novel portraying tension between two main ideas: science and religion. Science and religion have always been to extremely conflicting things today in our world. People have always questioned to what extent which is true or right. Most people have found a happy medium between the two, but there are others that take each idea to the extreme. Vonnegut, however, reflects a totally different idea. On the island of San Lorenzo, both religion and science are important to the people and leaders of the country. Bokonism, "a religion of lies", is the belief of virtually everyone. Everyone believes in these lies even when they know what they are. However, in the town of Illium people take religious concepts and try to justify the meaning with science. For example, the meaning in life being related to protein (???). To me, Bokonism and trying to find meaning of things through science is Kurt Vonnegut's social commentary on his view of religion. Something tells me that he believes that religion is made up of some lies and has no meaning at times. It portrays the main idea of the novel, which is that many things in our life are based upon lies, and it is at times impossible to find meaning in them.

"To whom it may concern: These people around you are almost all of the survivors on San Lorenzo of the winds that followed the freezing of the sea. These people made a captive of the spurious holy man named Bokonon. They brought him here, placed him at their center, and commanded him to tell them exactly what God Almighty was up to and what they should now do. The mountebank told them, possible because He was through with them, and that they should have the good manners to die. This, as you can see, they did" (182).

I found this passage a very powerful one. John and Mona find many survivors frozen, with their fingers to their mouths. They find this note from Bokonon, stating what he told the people and how they immediately obeyed. This shows how so many people view their faith with such importance, and I could not believe that so many would die because they thought that God had meant them to. This obviously serves as social commentary by Vonnegut, showing his views in religion based upon lies.

I had many mixed feelings about this novel. I found it difficult to follow at first, with the switching of events and so many different characters. However, I think it was written brilliantly. Vonnegut adds so much imagination to this novel, creating Bokonon and the Book of Bokonism containing many poems and views of that religion, making so many different words pertaining to Bokonism such as karass, wampeter, sin-wat, etc, and the deadly weapon of ice-nine. To create an entire religion in a novel as well as an item to end the world really added to the book, and I commend Vonnegut for that.

I also enjoyed the end of the book. The end of the world came in an accident; Papa's body falling into the ocean destroyed mankind. Such a significant event such as the end of the world happened so quickly and in a way that is so insignificant. This adds to the idea of how the arms race really is dangerous, and that when something like ice-nine is found we have to be extremely careful. The ending of the book was so disastrous, yet it added to the meaning so well that it made the novel so much better. I would say that Cat's Cradle is a great novel once you finish it and reflect upon the things that I just did. It was so well written and had the perfect ending to prove one of Vonnegut's many points.

The Handmaid's Tale

The Handmaid's Tale by Margaret Atwood is a story that takes place in the society of Gilead. In this society ways of life are strict and there is a strong restriction upon women. The way the society has been constructed reflects its sole concentration: reproduction. This purpose for life restricts virtually every woman to certain roles along with activities, duties, etc. In every household, there is a Commander (the man who controls it), a Wife (the commander's wife), a Handmaid (a woman to have the Commander's child), and Marthas (women to take care of the Handmaid). The "Ceremony" in which the Commander tries to impregnate the Handmaid is a duty for both of them, rather than a connection between the two. No trace of love has been found in sex anymore. Throughout the novel, the idea of sex has been changed to just reproduction rather than a sign of love. This has devalued life for many others, and made women devices for the government. The sexual obsession and treatment of women as objects is a reoccurring theme throughout the novel.

"There is more than one kind of freedom, said Aunt Lydia. Freedom to and freedom from. In the days of anarchy, it was freedom to. Now you are being given freedom from. Don't underrate it" (24).

I chose this passage because it reflects the restriction upon women and even men in the society of Gilead. In the world we know today and the citizens of Gilead knew, we have freedom to do things we please such as freedom of speech, worship, and basically the freedom of living our own lives. These freedoms we have and sometimes take for granted were instantly taken away from them. Now they are given "freedom from", no longer having any freedom to. Aunt Lydia speaks of this as a good freedom to have and advises the girls not to underrate it. I see this freedom as negative; it is freedom from choices, individuality, and living your life however you may choose.

Margaret Atwood did a wonderful job in writing The Handmaid's Tale. She portrayed the perfect tone and point of view through Offred and how she had to live her life. However, it was not a read I enjoyed. I found it boring and hard to follow at times. Offred's life was very dull so it was necessary for Atwood to write it in the way that she did. This writing style added to the message of the book, and it was very well written considering how truly uneventful a Handmaid's life was.

Although I did not like reading the book, I liked the message it sent to its readers. There is a constant religious aspect in the story. The soldiers, or "Angels", "Guardians of the Faith", and "Eyes" ran much of this society. Such religious terms used in powerful positions has a deeper meaning that added to the novel. I believe that it makes readers wonder about how much religion should influence our lives, and the extent to which too much religion is used for power.

Anthem

The theme of Anthem is the importance of individuality and life along with the things you can get out of both. Anthem is another novel that deals with censorship. However, the level of control the government has over people is far more extreme than in Fahrenheit 451. In Anthem, people do not even have names or view themselves as one. They are named in groups, and refer to themselves as "we" and refer to others as "they". Our main character takes the name Equality 7-2521. They do not fit the same mold as all the others in their society, for they have a secret fascination with knowledge and discovery. Groups are given professions at the age of fifteen, and Equality 7-2521 wants nothing more than to be named a Scholar so that they can finally go after their dreams of intelligence. However, when they are given Street Sweeper, they hide their disappointment and carry on the "will of their brothers". As Equality 7-2521 finds a tunnel and discovers light, they realize life is not what it was supposed to be, there was something more. They bring this discovery to the Scholars and are shunned for it; they are forced to run away into the Unchartered Forest. Equality 7-2521 goes on into the forest, followed by their love Liberty 5-3000 or The Golden One. Finding a house from the Unmentionable Times filled with books and knowledge leads Equality 7-2521 to use the word "I" and name himself Prometheus. This is his revelation that has been building up throughout the entire story. He realizes now that life is what he makes it; he is his own individual and lives for himself. Rather then living for their others, men can be their own men. Life has to offer so much to him: love, knowledge, variety, happiness, and whatever he wants for himself. This theme makes us realize how truly grateful we should be to use the word "I" and be an individual. Life is precious and we need to do whatever we can to enjoy every minute of it.


"We do not wonder at this new sin of ours. It is our second Transgression of Preference, for we do not think of all our brothers, as we must, but only of one, and their name is Liberty 5-3000. We do not know why we think of them. We do not know why, when we think of them, we feel of a sudden that the earth is good and that it is not a burden to live" (41).

This quote shows how little Equality 7-2521 knows about themselves and what certain emotions mean. Because men are not allowed to notice women and women are not allowed to notice men, they have never felt the feeling of attraction before. They are intrigued by Liberty 5-3000, yet they don't know why. All they think about is the Golden One, and they cannot figure out what this feeling signifies. It ties into the theme of importance of life and individuality because most people today know exactly how this feels, to be attracted to someone and feel so much for them that they control their every thought. Equality 7-2521 cannot grasp the meaning of such a feeling we are so familiar with.


I loved Anthem. The story gripped me right away as soon as I began reading. I could not begin to imagine living in a world without saying "I" or knowing what that means. There was no individuality, no names, no differences, and no variety. The control the government in this city had on the entire population was mind blowing. The plot kept moving and the things happening in Equality 7-2521's life made us sympathize with him and want him to find knowledge and discovery. I loved the aspect of romance between Equality 7-2521 and Liberty 5-3000, another thing that people did not know of in this world. When our main character finally finds the word "I" and realizes the importance of his life and individuality, it made me realize how important this word really is. I loved Equality's drive to be different than all the rest. This book really opened my eyes to all the things we have today in our world: family, friends, originality, knowledge, love, and so much more. It was also written very well; there was never a dull moment throughout the entire story. I give Anthem two thumbs up.