Should Diaries Be Published or Not?

I understand that diaries are very personal and powerful; they are literally the lives of other people. On one hand, they should not be shared because they can hurt the people that are discussed and mentioned in them.  They can also distort the view of the writer to the audience.  This was stated in one of entries by Virginia Woolf when the author wrote that she only writes in her diaries when she is in certain moods.  This allows a reader to understand just a small part of someone and not be able fully grasp who they are.  On the contrary, sharing a journal or diary shares historical evidence and helps people to learn.  For example, by using Virginia Woolf's diaries, writers could experiment with more styles for their writing.  One compromise between these two sides could be that a certain amount of time like one hundred years after the author's death be required (unless the author specifies otherwise) before the diaries are published.  With this idea, the people who are involved in the diaries are no longer there to be effected by them and people can still learn from them.

Adding On Methods Of Learning by Lewis Carroll

http://www.brainpickings.org/2014/06/13/how-to-learn-lewis-carroll/

I agree with the methods for learning in the link above in general.  Although, starting at the beginning is very helpful, I find understanding why or where in general someone is going to be very helpful.  An example is when someone is learning to build a structure or reading a book. It's important to know what's needed by the end or the end result, so if one were to get extremely lost, they could at least know the general train of thought to stay on.   Another comment is on the last instruction on how to learn: talking through everything.  I believe this method works, but a parallel method is to write thoughts down.  By writing thoughts down, one can visually sort ideas out and not forget them

How does the time period effect the play Antigone?

How does time period effect the play? What would it be like if it was rewritten in today time period?

If the play Antigone was written in America, today,the characters and some of the opinions would be different but the themes would still stay the same.  An example of one of the themes that would probably change is the opinion on women: in today's society there is a general sense of equality between women and men.  In the original play, women are to be submissive to men.  Creon supports this saying when he specifies that women in particular do not have power over him, a man.  He shares this with Antigone saying "No woman will dictate the law to me."  (34)  Although the theme of power versus love could still be prominent by changing Antigone's social class to be poor  and/or having a low education after her father died.  Today's society tends to look down on people with little money or little education.  This is just one example of a difference between the original and if it were written during today's time.

Even Tiresias Takes part of the Blame for Some Of The Deaths

If the Tiresias had not told the king and queen of Thebes that their son Oedipus would kill his father and marry his mother, then they would not have asked a shepherd to put their child on a hill to die.  Tiresias creating this fear in the king and queen lead them to do such actions which started the chain of events.  The end result of this small chain was that King Creon became the king of Thebes.  If King Creon had not become king, he could not have punished Antigone.  Even in the play Antigone, Tiresias takes a part of the blame for the death of the queen's life (Creon's wife).   He explains to King Creon that "All men mistakes./ But mistakes don't have to be forever,/ They can admitted and atoned for." (59)  This explanation made an impact on the chorus who convinced Creon to go try reverse what he had done.  If Creon had stayed where he was, he could have saved his wife from death.

Even though Creon was put to blame in the class discussion for all the deaths, there were other people who were needed to

Justifying Breaking the Law

Is an individual ever justified to break the law?  Why or why not?

One can be justified or considered right or wrong depending on different perspectives. Some examples of priorities that different perspectives have are law, morals, or society.  Therefore, another questions springs up which is what justifies a person and their actions; which perspective is "right."
To relate back to the main question of whether one can be justified to break the law, it depends on what one justifies with.  If one were to justify breaking the law with the government, then the actions would not be justified because breaking the law is prohibited.  Although, when being justified from social perspective, there are times when one is justified.  An example of this is in the movies when someone drinks underage, and then others either follow their lead or the underage drinker gets positive attention from friends. (I've only seen this in movies).  Another way to be justified is morally.  This kind of justification depends on the specific person and what he or she believes is "right."  If I believe that saving a life is the right thing to do, then breaking the law by going into a prohibited zone is justified.

Was Ashoke a Good Father and Husband?

Ashoke acted as a devoted and beneficial father and husband.  Both a husband and father figure are supportive for their family.  In Bengali culture, the husband supports the family by working a job, and providing money for the family.  Ashoke's job as a college professor provides an income that pays for food, a house, and everything else that the Gangulis pay for.  Therefore, Ashoke is considered a beneficial father and husband according to Bengali culture.  When Ashoke allows Gogol the freedom of choice whether to change his own name is an example of a father being beneficial.  By giving Gogol freedom to do something, Ashoke is allowing Gogol to learn to grow up and stand up for what he believes in.  I believe that a devoted father will do something unnecessary for their family like Ashoke picking up the American culture.  An example of Ashoke picking up the culture is when he laid out Christmas presents for Sonia and Gogol.  This wasn't necessary but helped the children feel more like American children like the other children they grew up with.  Overall, I feel that Ashoke supported his family even after his death, but he still gave them the skills to fight their own battles.

Our Own Personal Connections to Gogol

During the English 10a classes with Ms. Maxey, the entire class,  including myself, continued to call Gogol by his "pet name" even when he changed his name to Nikhil.  Even the author continued to call Gogol by his "pet name" after he changed his name.   The only people in the story to call Gogol by this name are his friends who he have known since early childhood and family.  Both of these groups of people could be considered loved ones because they share Gogol's childhood memories.  When a person reads a novel, they learn who the characters in a novel are based on what is directly stated about them, the characters actions, and speech.  This is similar to how people have any kind of relationship in real life.  If only one of the people in a relationship share memories, the one person who receives the memories still has a connection with the person sharing them. Since the readers share memories with Gogol and still call him with his pet name, they have a personal connection with Gogol.