Wednesday, September 21, 2016

Victoria Sheridan Friendswood Class Readings 11-14 Reading Log Questions (pg. 167-228)

How does Hal use blame to protect Cully and himself?  What is Hal trying to protect himself from?

Hal has habitually externalized all blame throughout the course of the novel.  In order to maintain the perfect image he has for his family and his son, Hal discharges such pain and discomfort of Cully’s setbacks on outside forces.  Hal uses such blame to protect the image that he has so carefully crafted in his head over the years.  Cully is the star football player, strong and handsome and resilient.  He bonds with his father, and they have the stereotypical American dream connection.  Having to accept the wrongs would shatter what holds them together.  For instance, Hal is quick to rid his son’s sexual assault as a small mistake.  He makes the mistake seem like a trivial human error that was bound to happen to one who couldn’t control lust because “there always were and always would be girls like that” (Stienke 149).  Hal finds every reason available to try to believe that his son was still wholesome and good.  Accepting anything less would mark his failure as a parent.  By constantly placing blame on a force outside of himself, Hal is trying to protect himself from reality.  The present offers little for Hal, so it is no surprise that he is preoccupied with the better times in the past.  Hal distorts the truth in his mind because he needs to safeguard the one thing in his life that goes right, and that is his son.  Cully becomes a beacon of hope and life for Hal.  Cully becomes the manifestation of all the happiness and joys that Hal has ever found in the world.  Hal goes on to believe that “his son still had all of that glory, the bright, athletic blue, unfaded” (Steinke 148).  Cully breathes life into a dream that has long passed for Hal.  Hal feels boxed in and subconsciously blames everyone because to do otherwise would mean to accept the truth.  It would mean to accept that his son is no longer the burning light that brought him hope.  It would mean that his life is barren of hope, and that even his one joy has dissipated by the evils of the world. 



Dex begins to befriend Willa.  Is his friendship genuine?  Why does he befriend Willa?  Does he blame himself for what happens to her?

The friendship that Dex is trying to cement does have authenticity behind it, but his active efforts to physically reach out to Willa were no doubt prompted by the rape rumors.  It was evident since the beginning of the novel that Dex always invested a large interest in Willa.  Even when his friend Weeks went off about Willa being weird with all her cat-like make-up and introverted hobbies, Dex defended her saying, “She seems nice enough to me” (Steinke 42).  He refused to let outside opinions influence what he thought of Willa, Dex liked being her partner in English, and he had a crush on her.  Before the conflict began to make the whole situation messy, Dex did have genuine care and concern for Willa; however, such care would not have been expressed had the rape not occurred.  Because Dex had such care for Willa, he has placed upon himself a deep blame for what happened.  Dex was at the scene of the event and was a mere floor away from the violence inflicted on Willa, and he did nothing to stop it.  He left the Lawbournes house, leaving Willa prey to the lust and violence with no protection.  Dex absorbs the guilt and blame for the event and tries to give solace to his tortured conscience by befriending Willa.  The blame that Dex takes on is enhanced by his mother’s avid stance on the issue.  His mother ardently scolds the collapse of integrity when she preaches, “There were all these boys there just sitting drinking downstairs or swimming.  Why didn’t they do anything to stop it?  It just kills me that boys here would do that, boys I’ve had in my own house (Steinke 181).  It has already been established in the beginning of the novel that Dex has a strong connection with his mother, so it can therefore be implied that he holds his mother’s opinions with the highest respects.  When his mother vocalizes her outrage at such incompetent boys who allow such violence to take place, Dex further internalizes the blame.  He falls shorts of his mother’s expectations and feels the grimy dirt of a guilt that lingers in his heart.  Somehow befriending Willa compensates for his failure to help her, so he does his best to help her now. 


Choose an institution (marriage, government, academic, church, family, mass media) to discuss why “they” are speaking and why “they” are blaming. 

The institution of the Church, though taking a low-key stance up to now in the novel, has subtly inflicted an intense blame onto Willa.  When Willa goes to meet with Pastor Sparks, he surprisingly did not offer any words of warmth or comfort.  Everything he said seemed cold and demoralizing that made Willa feel unfit in the hands of God.  Pastor Sparks went on to ask her, “Because you know you had free will to go to that house, didn’t you?” (Steinke 187).  This was the pastor’s elusive way of making Willa see that her course of actions are to blame for the mess, as if it was her free will that caused Cully to violate and rape her.  Pastor Sparks makes the Church seem to be a very cold, unforgiving place that fails to provide the nurturing needed for someone who has been afflicted by the cruelest of sins.  The question seems to hang in the air as to why the Church would speak on this topic. It seems that the Church sees the situation differently than how Willa interprets it.  The Church fails to see the vulnerable girl who was drugged, sexually violated by multiple boys, and left alone to forget everything.  Rather, the Church sees a sexually loose woman who indulges in promiscuity and lures other men into temptation and forces them to act on their lust.  In terms of the Church, Willa becomes a whore, and according to Scripture, the Church and “the beast will hate the whore; they will devour her flesh and burn her up with fire” (Steinke 220).  Willa becomes a walking symbol of lust that leads others into sin, so the Church must speak and proclaim the evils of promiscuous behavior.  Additionally, the Church wants to keep its hands clean of sin, so what better way to do that than to place the blame on Willa?  It gives the Church a bad reputation that one of its regular parishioners fell victim to the Devil.  To try to cover the whole thing up and displace themselves far away from the nasty fallout, the Church finds it easier to blame Willa and look the other way.  Getting involved would create an intricate web of negative attention that would leave the Church in a gridlock.  It’s simpler to remove themselves from the conflict rather than cross the blurry line that questions the Church belief system.   






Works Cited

Steinke, Rene. Friendswood. New York: Riverhead Books, a member of Penguin Group (USA, 2014.          Print.

Friday, September 9, 2016

Victoria Sheridan Friendswood Pages 63-94 Reading Log Questions

     It is in the midst of the most grueling situations that the most desperate cries for change become audible.  The tortured grief that plagues Lee’s heart took root in the wood-paneled room of City Hall and bloomed into a hot-blooded passion.  Complacent men who believed they had the authority to pass the final judgment couldn’t dampen the fire in Lee’s soul.  Because of Lee’s persistent tenacity to make her voice heard, it was no surprise that the smug officials perceived Lee to be an annoying gnat that caused a rift between them and their beloved plans.  Lee clearly stood as a threat, but to treat her as such would give her the momentum to surge forward with even greater vivacity than she did before.  Showing their intimidation would loosen the very foundations in which they built their authority on, so they try to write Lee off as an insane nutcase who has lost all the reason needed to be considered a valid source of information.  The officials attempted to create an impenetrable wall that would not let Lee’s ideas seep through the cracks.  Only by belittling Lee and ignoring her very daunting case could they hope to succeed.  Lee was lucky if she could scrape away the wall brick by brick, for “it was rare that she managed to get her concerns on the agenda anymore…she could usually say a few things about her research before adjournment, and maybe two or three out of thirty people would listen” (Steinke 87).  The officials absorbed a persona of nonchalance and acted as if the sweat didn’t drip down their brow.  The councilman with a “blunt face like a bull’s” stood “with that thin smile” (Steinke 87-88).  The officials created an illusion of being untouchable and treated Lee as if she held very little importance, as if she was a feeble human being who was incapable of any real contributions to society.   By doing such, they failed to fulfill their responsibility to protect.  They failed to protect the rights of the citizens to dissent, they failed to acknowledge the potential health hazards to the community, and they failed to safeguard the rights of the citizens handed down by the Constitution. 




     The EPA took a similar response to Lee by painting themselves as the epitome of reason and practicality and marking Lee as a bundle of irrational antics.  When Lee counters Ms. Dawson’s testament of viable land, Dawson retorted, “Cancer rates, as you know, can be deceptive.  There are many factors…other health stressors such as nutrition, smoking habits, an older population” (Steinke 89).  Dawson’s response exhibited how the EPA attempted to strip Lee’s carefully calculated argument into a jumble of nonsense, which invalidated the legitimacy of Lee’s claims.  To further make Lee’s argument vulnerable, Dawson was quick to ask “May I ask how you got those?” when Lee flashed the pictures she took at Banes Field (Steinke 89).  The EPA drew the audience’s attention towards Lee’s illegal trespassing to further reflect her as being mentally unstable and confused.  It was hard to concentrate on Lee’s very alarming evidence when the opposition worked to show Lee’s pitfalls, such as failing to act in accordance with the law.  In doing this, the EPA failed to fulfill their responsibility to protect.  They are fully aware of the danger that surrounds building on the chemical dump site.  They are gambling with the lives of many people.  They should take more intensive investigations to ensure guaranteed safety.  



Works Cited


Steinke, Rene. Friendswood. New York: Riverhead Books, a member of Penguin Group          (USA, 2014. Print.

Thursday, September 1, 2016

Victoria Sheridan Friendswood Pages 31-62: When Is It Okay to Dissent?

When is it okay to dissent?  This question has answers varying far and wide.  There’s really no concrete guidelines that will mark what dictates when it’s okay to go against the grain and when it’s okay to just go with the flow.  With this in mind, the answer to this question is open to fluctuation as attempts are made to make some tangibility out of such an abstract topic. 


Based on the readings, there is one glaringly obvious reason that stands at the forefront when it comes to pinpointing when it is acceptable to dissent.  Dissent is warranted in any situation in which a person or group does unjustifiable harm that hurts a collective group or individual.  In fact, not only is it warranted, but the dissent should be inflamed to the point where a back seat is not taken and a vocal stance parades its ideas until the people have no choice but to listen.  Ignorant fools who are too cowardly to admit their wrongs should not walk away from the mess they made unscathed.  They sit in denial, as if somehow the toxic fall-out of their slimy course of actions was some surprise twist in fate.  The consequences of their actions are not accidents, they should not come as shocks.  Dissent must be exercised loud when vile people paint themselves as victims when they know they are the culprits who knowingly committed unforgivable harm to others. 

The ongoing environmental issues in Friendswood that keep being labeled as “safe” is indeed a very culpable cause for dissent.  Take Rue Banes, a culprit of chemical waste disposal in Rosemont, for example.  In what appeared to be an interrogation, Rue Banes said, “I had my man dig a pit, and we poured the waste in there.  Every year, the agencies came out and tested the soil, and except for one or two times, the levels came out clean…Once or twice the smell got bad, and when I told Garbit, they sent out a small plane that sprayed a perfuming agent to cover it…I had no idea” (Steinke 33).  It’s incredibly hard to believe that companies had no idea what their actions were doing to the environment.  Red flags could be mounted almost everywhere.  The few tests that didn’t come out clean and the odd smell should have been huge warning bells that demanded immediate investigation.  And how could all these companies continue to validate the safety of their clearly toxic actions when people all around were being fatally harmed?  Was Michelle Small’s stillborn baby some strange fluke of events?  Was the permanent brain damage inflicted on the teenager who dumped the chemical waste for Rue Banes in no way related to the exposure to deadly toxins?  How many times did oil have to seep through the cracks in residential driveways before people stopped thinking about their pockets?  Were the deaths of vibrant souls like Jess really dismissed to have absolutely no correlation to the alarming levels of chemicals?  Lee and other activists should be dissenting, and not only is it okay to in this situation, but it is necessary.  It is necessary to dissent because if there is no one to testify against the officials who are comfy on their high thrones, there will never be a change in the way society is run. 

Likewise, the many citizens in East Chicago experience a similar situation that deems dissent to be okay.  When “hundreds of children suffer from excessive levels of lead in their blood,” there is clearly a jarring problem in the governing system that will dictate much dissent to solve the problem (Goodnough 4).  If no one were ever to dissent and voice out, there would be no restraints that force organizations like the EPA and businesses to perform their jobs in a way that guarantees the safety of others. 

A slightly differing situation arises in the form of the Stanford rape case.  Although this deviates from the environmental themes, a similar structure occurs that shows when it’s okay to dissent.  In the former two scenarios, dissent was deemed okay because without it, the culprits receive no repercussions and could continue to harm others.  In a similar way, if the poor victim of sexual assault never voiced her justifiable disgust with the results of the Brock Turner case, a precedent would be established that made sexual assault excusable if intoxication was involved during the time of the crime.  With that kind of precedent in place, people like Brock Turner could get away with serious felonies that should never have occurred in the first place.  The victim executed perfectly justifiable dissent when she spoke out and said, “Alcohol was not the one who stripped me, fingered me, had my head dragging against the ground, with me almost naked” (Baker 9).  Such dissent could escalate to the creation of a better legal system that does not tolerate sexual assault under any circumstances. 

So when is dissent okay?  There really is no one clear answer that can cover all the bases.  But if there is anything that can be determined, when you feel a passion that stirs in your heart and you know deep down that there must be a change, dissent will most certainly be okay. 

The following video clearly captures how speaking your mind is never a crime, and that it can be a powerful tool that incites momentous change.  





Work Cited:

Baker, Katie. "Here's The Powerful Letter The Stanford Victim Read To Her Attacker News."BuzzFeed. N.p., n.d. Web. 1 Sept. 2016.

Goodnough, Abby. "Their Soil Toxic, 1,100 Indiana Residents Scramble to Find New Homes - The New York Times." The New York Times - Breaking News, World News & Multimedia. N.p., n.d. Web. 1 Sept. 2016.


Steinke, Rene. Friendswood. New York: Riverhead Books, a member of Penguin Group (USA, 2014. Print.