Broken Frienships, Broken Daughter

I recently read a novel called Handle with Care, by Jodi Picoult.  This book centered around a family who had a daughter with a rare bone disease; this disease would cause her bones to break and splinter at even the slightest touch.  Also highly mentioned throughout this novel is the family's mutual friends: the doctor who delivered the diseased and breakable child... As the years wore on, the daughter became more and more fragile, unable to enjoy any frivolities of childhood because she was in and out of the hospital every week.  Eventually, the doctor bills became too much to handle, and the mother started to question her ability to handle her daughter's horrific breaks.

Then, the money problems became too real; everyone was hungry and tired.  Now the mother must go to a lawyer to figure out what to do. It is suggested that she sue the doctor who delivered her diseased child, the doctor who is her best friend, because this disease should have been apparent on the ultrasound, which would have given the family a choice whether to abort or not... what ends up happening is that she does sue her friend, she wins enough money to pay for unlimited medical treatments, and she destroys her friendship and her marriage.

Now the question is: Did she do the right thing?  Is selling out your best friend, suing your best friend the way to handle a situation like this one?  Could you, hypothetically, claim that you would have aborted your diseased child in a court of law in front of jury members in order to get the money you thought you deserved?  And, how much can a friendship sustain before the hurt is too real and too personal?

Crazy is as crazy does...

I have begun to notice that Shakespeare sure does like to turn a lot of his characters into hysterical members of society who eventually incite their own downfall.  However, I wonder if Shakespeare is trying to prove a point, or merely adding depth to his plays.  Perhaps his characters go crazy to portray an idea that all bad actions are derived from mental madness ( people only do bad things when they are too out of their mind to understand it ).  Or maybe Shakespeare is showing that madness will always consume those individuals embarking on an evil and immoral task as some sort of punishment... in the case of Macbeth, I think the madness was caused by guilt as a punishment, but in Hamlet, I'm not so sure why he is going all crazy all of the sudden.  I presume that his mental state is going awry in preparation to commit the murder of his uncle-father.

What do you think is the hidden meaning behind the madness that consumes so many of Shakespeare's characters?  Is there a meaning? Or is it simply another plot line to amuse the audience?

Friend or Fake?

So to continue on with a previous post about the novel Emma, it has come to my attention that this girl has a major problem!  Not only is she fine with manipulating Harriet's feelings into falling in love with a suitable mate, but Emma is also uncaring enough as to ditch the once praised Mr. Elton.  See, it turns out that Elton actually loves Emma, NOT Harriet... this is bad news.  Apparently, Emma was only conversing and carrying along with this poor guy in order to bait info out of him about the way he feels for Harriet.  Emma had no true reason to enjoy Elton's company, nor did she freely invite him into her conversations without pretense.

Now, however, Emma believes that she is simply above Elton's tastes, and wants nothing to do with him.  She dreads so much as a carriage ride back home for 3/4 of a mile in his sole company!  Thus, I began to wonder how many of us would act in the same manner if we found out that a person we had been baiting for a specific reason was no longer fulfilling their required duties...  Therefore, what is your opinion on the matter of building relationships for a specific purpose beyond simple enjoyment of their company?  Is it okay to create friendships out of selfish desires?  Is it okay to abandon that relationship once the other individual involved has fulfilled their requirement?

Poisonous Preaching

I recently read the novel The Poisonwood Bible by Barbara Kingsolver.  A brief summation of the plot is that a Baptist Missionary family moves to the Congo in order to "save" the people who live there, and bring them the grace of the Christian God.  Well, the people of the Congo are un-accepting of this God... all sorts of bad and deathly events begin to take place; Reverend Price, the father of the family, becomes so caught up in what he believes is his destined mission that he alienates himself from his family, puts their lives in danger, and disproves marriage vows to his wife.  Thus, his children and wife leave him, he goes crazy and lives in the jungle, all because he was so determined to bring his vision of salvation to the Congo of Africa.

With that being said, how far is too far?  When do you give up on any goals or missions you have outlined for yourself once others become victims?  Is this kind of familial destruction and alienation okay if you are fulfilling the path you believe is destined for you?

All's fair in love and vanity?

For our nine week's outside reading assignment I am currently reading the novel Emma by Jane Austen.  One of the major plots throughout the story is Emma's renowned ability to create socially acceptable and advancing romantic matches, that eventually end in a marriage.  The first example of this is seen by Emma's attempt to find a mate for her new, young, simple friend named Harriet.  Harriet, though, is believed to possess inferior ideas of what a proper suitor entails, so Emma takes her under her wing and attempts to teach Harriet the acceptable qualities assigned to a future husband.  However, Harriet has previously met, and fallen in love, with a man whom Emma greatly disapproves because of his rough hewn attire, country ways and simple speak.  Emma would rather see her off with Mr. Elton, whom she approves and constantly pushes upon Harriet.  Therefore, when a certain man named Martin ( Harriet's lover) writes Harriet to ask for her hand in marriage, she approaches Emma for advice.  Upon reading Martin's proposal, Emma is surprised by the clear emotion that is presented, but her predetermined ideas of what is best for Harriet disprove any goodness that could possibly be found by this match.  Thus, Harriet refuses Martin and sulks for days, attempting to forget her love and learn to adapt to marriage for status, and try to gain an admiration for Mr. Elton.

All in all, I personally feel that what Emma has done is wrong... let a friend be happy with the man she loves, not the man who brings home the most money, or owns the nicest carriage.  Also, if you truly are a friend to someone, shouldn't you trust that they understand any repercussions a mate like Martin could cause?  Yet, in the 1800's, when this novel was written, society was different, and marrying for status was common... What is your opinions and commentary on Emma's matchmaking, Harriet's decision to refuse Martin, and the "friendship" between Emma and Harriet?  Can love truly develop between two people pushed together for money and status reasons?

Macbeth vs Lady Macbeth... the lesser of two evils?

As is clearly demonstrated throughout the part of the play that we have read, Lady Macbeth seems to control what her husband thinks and feels.  In other words, Mac doesn't have enough respect for himself, or his own opinions, to act out the emotions that he truly feels.  He lets himself be constantly be swayed by what others believe is best for him: the witches prediction, Lady Mac's urging to murder the King AND the guards.  Concurrently, Lady Macbeth is so determined in what she believes is the enlightened path that she will stop at nothing to convince her husband to commit murder.  Therefore, who is the lesser of two evils? Macbeth, who can be controlled almost as if he has no mind of his own? Or Lady Macbeth, who can easily manipulate her husband, but has violent and dramatic outbursts at closer and closer intervals throughout the play?

Additionally, do you believe that Macbeth's naivety and subordinate quality is his ultimate tragic downfall, or is it some other trait?