Author: Sophie Schapiro

As I reflect on the last four months of my life, a reoccurring theme prevails: change. Change in my life, my education, my friends, my home, etc. Interestingly enough, a very specific aspect of my life that has changed over these past few months is my perception of what an English class can be.

In Professor Schacht’s English 203 course this semester, we did touch the foundational aspects of an English course, reading books and writing essays; However, even further we explored abstract ideas within these pieces of literature, including: identity, readers, texts, and especially: fluidity. The dictionary defines fluidity as: “the state of being unsettled or unstable; changeability”. Essentially, something or someone’s ability to change. Continue reading “Changeability”

Have you ever wanted so badly to talk to something that just can’t? Maybe a childhood stuffed animal, a favorite pet, or any object you feel a connection to? Maybe even, a flower. In Lewis Carrol’s story, Through the Looking Glass, he explores this fantasy. Carroll brings a garden of flowers to life to speak to the main character, Alice. In this section, we learn a lot about the identity of these flowers. Though some of the things they say to Alice may be taken at face value, I believe they employ a much deeper meaning.

Astonished by the seemingly inanimate Tiger-lily now talking to her, Alice questions their ability. The Tiger-lily responds by saying they can talk “just as well as [Alice] can”, even “a great deal louder”. Like many people, these flowers believe they have important things within their hearts, but do not always have the confidence or platform to speak on them. This is especially prevalent when Tiger-lily says this almost condescendingly to Alice, because as a human Alice has more influence with her words than a tiny flower would. Another flower in the garden, Rose, goes on to tell Alice that it is just “not manners for them to begin”. Already, these phrases begin to shape an identity for the flowers.

Flowers are often seen to be very beautiful pieces of nature, but not necessarily the most functional plants. It is implied that if flowers could talk, as they do in this section, they would be very passive and timid. The flowers also make it very clear that though they want to be more active in asserting themselves, it is hard to do so without being able to move from where their roots reach into the earth.

I believe these factors of the flowers’ identities are very prevalent in our world today as well. People often want to make change happen, and speak on things they believe in, but do not believe they can do this themselves. Especially young people, like the flowers, may not feel like they have the voices to speak upon issues, because they are made out to feel lesser in our society because of age and inexperience. However, in more recent times, especially during our current political climate, people who once were seen to have no voice, have begun to speak up. Women, children, people of color, the LGBTQIA+ community, etc., have become stronger and more apt to speak up for what they believe in, as the Daisies in this passage later do.

The Daisies’ agreeance with Alice about their lack of protection in the garden is highly relative to recent movements such as Me Too and Black Lives Matter, among many others. When people, or flowers in this case, have cause to fear for their well-being, they are likely to speak up. Though some skeptics in today’s world, like the Tiger-Lily, argue that one should “Hold [their] tongue” for fear of repercussion, this attitude of revolution is incredibly important, both to the Daisies in the garden, and to our world today.

When perusing through a “mom and pop” style bookstore in my hometown of Buffalo, New York this past weekend, I stumbled across something that caught my attention. In the Children’s Books section sat a cardboard-clad picture book, titled Baby Feminists. Obviously differing from the typical children’s selections where, “the cow goes moo” and “the duck goes quack”, I had to pick up this book to see what it was all about. The first page went something like this: “Before she rose to the Supreme Court, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg was…”. To the right of this text was a caricature of the Notorious R.B.G. herself, on a slightly raised piece of cardboard, bound to be flipped up. That’s funny, I thought, what child would know who Ruth Bader Ginsberg is? I proceeded to flip over Ginsberg’s portrait to reveal an adorable cartoon baby Ruth depicted with cat-eye glasses and a gavel in hand. Incredibly delighted by this image of one of the most notable women in not only feminist, but American-judicial history, I continued on. Flipping through pages of other remarkable feminists, such as Dr. Mae Jemison, Frida Kahlo, Billie Jean King, Yoko Ono, and Barack and Michelle Obama, as well as many other trailblazers, I realized the true importance of this divine piece of literature. Definitely geared towards an audience of children about three years old and up (not actual babies), this book was intended to educate our youth about the significance of feminism before they are old enough to be corrupted by opposing views. This book was written with the intention that parents would read it to their children and explain what these icons did for the world of feminism. These educated children would grow with this important knowledge and would hopefully influence the way society in their future generation behaves in respect to the equality of men and women. I believe this book, as well as similar works, are incredibly vital to the prosperity of mankind. If children are taught important morals while they learn basics like how to read and write, even use the toilet and walk, these values would take just as much precedent as basic human functions. The book Baby Feminists written by Libby Babbot-Klein and illustrated by Jessica Walker is an incredible method of education for our little ones and I highly recommend checking it out the next time you stumble into the children’s book section!

Besides being one of the most esteemed writers of his time, Henry David Thoreau may have been more of a philosopher than most have come to know him. In his two year stay in basic solitude in a cabin in the middle of the woods, Thoreau wrote “Walden”, an account of his time there. In this narrative, Thoreau describes his experiences, and his theories as to why some of these things may occur.

A specific point in the acclaimed piece where the readers thinking takes a shift from more just reading to theorizing is actually very early on. A section that has stuck with me since the very beginning of reading this long, somewhat grueling piece is when Thoreau describes people’s inherited stations in life as a “misfortune”(Thoreau). Thoreau begins by explaining how inheriting luxuries, such as “farms, houses, barns, cattle, and housing tools” are actually more of a burden than they may appear to be (Thoreau). He explains that being born into this type of apparent wealth can essentially provide someone an identity, before they are old enough to create one for themselves.

This thought takes the reader up one, or several levels of abstraction, now thinking that a person’s ancestry actually dictates who they ought to become. This move made by Thoreau is seemingly necessary to have the reader visualize even further their station in life while embarking on this reading and understanding why he chose to engage in his experiment. Thoughts that run through my own mind as I skim this section are: “If my parents weren’t the way they are would I still be the person I am today?” and “Would I have been able to survive and prosper having been put into a drastically different situation upon being grown into my teenage years?”.

As many of us can agree, we tend to inherit certain traits from our lineage. For example, my mother and I share a similar sense of style and ways of thinking, sometimes even thinking the same things concurrently. Meanwhile, I like to joke that I inherit all of my unwanted traits, like poor eyesight and a bad temper from my father’s side. Whether behavioral or genetic, there is no question that our parents, as well as grandparents and so on, contribute to the people we are. I believe this begs the question even further, up even one more level of abstraction, that if we weren’t born into these circumstances would we still behave the same? A 2013 article in the Smithsonian Magazine written by Abigail Tucker poses the question, “Are babies born good?”. Essentially, this article illustrates the long-standing debate of nature versus nurture. In detailing several “infant mortality” studies done by the Yale Infant Cognition Center, the conclusion is made that children are actually born with a sense of what is good and bad; However, it is the environment they are surrounded in that teaches them how to apply that thinking (Tucker). So, the final level of abstraction loops us back to the question, does our station in life define who we are and who we become? Also, can we ever change that station in life to become someone else?