Legally Blonde, the book by Amanda Brown, has been masterfully adapted as both a major motion picture and a Broadway play. Both adaptations of this story have a similar plot breakdown and many of the same settings. The dramatic production, by necessity, had fewer characters; however all of the main characters essential to the story remained the same in both works. The dramatic work is a musical which allowed it to trade complex settings and scenery with deep emotions. Although the two works were almost identical in length, the musical was more entertaining, while the motion picture allowed for a more complex storyline and more characters.

The plot of Legally Blonde is in classic form. It starts with a short exposition explaining the background of the story and informing us that Elle is about to be engaged. Then during the crisis we find out that she actually gets dumped for a more serious girl. The story climaxes with Elle winning the murder trial and saving the day. It resolves with Callahan getting fired, Warner getting rejected and Elle getting together with Emmett. There are many static, flat characters in this film such as Professor Callahan, the UPS Guy, and Warner Huntington, III. However, there are also several dynamic, flat characters as well including Paulette Bonafonte, who gains self confidence with the help of Elle. There is also Vivian Kensington, who at first is Elle’s foil, but later becomes her friend. Elle, of course, is a round character. She is a static character because she remains true to herself and does not let others force her into their mold. She refuses to trade her morals for a successful job at Callahan’s Firm and keeps the trust of her client against the advice of her legal mentors. Elle was an admired character because she was herself and didn’t change.

The dramatic adaptation of Legally Blonde is a work that interacts with the audience much more profoundly than the film version was able to. This is due mainly to the fact that the Broadway production is a musical with rhyming dialogue between characters and music that sets the emotional stage. The settings of the musical were also critical to the work. For instance, in one scene the sorority sisters are all excited about Elle getting engaged. During this scene each sister sings her line after popping out of a life size window in the two story stage prop. This simple stage setting was critical to portraying the unity and peppiness of the sorority. The stage production did not have the resources or ability to show all of the physical settings of the story, a fact which seemed to be one of the reasons that the plot was different in the play. They did, however, effectively use techniques such as spotlighting and audience redirection to keep the story and settings flowing. The play also uniquely used a purple lighting effect to indicate to the audience that the sorority trio later in the play was in Elle’s imagination rather than physically in the scene.

I believe the greatest connection between Legally Blonde and another work is its relationship to Trifles by Susan Glaspell. Both works have a relatively simplistic plot with a fairly predictable conclusion. More importantly, both seem to be written from a feminist perspective. Legally Blonde has the cliché dumb blonde who turns out to be smarter than the lawyers around her. Trifles is about two unassuming housewives simply at the crime scene because of their husbands. However, it is they, not their husbands, who figure out the crime and save the day while at the same time saving their likeminded counterpart who is in legal trouble (another parallel with Legally Blonde). Both works have the same basic plot: an unlikely girl overcomes the preconceived assumptions about her and figures out the crime before those men around her whose job it is to do so. She then gains the trust and saves the reputation of her counterpart. It is this common theme which leads me to believe that both of these works are from the same feminist perspective. Even though my mindset starting both works was less than optimistic, they both turned out to be entertaining and surprisingly well written.

In conclusion, both the dramatic and film adaptations of Legally Blonde were unexpectedly engaging. The plot, especially of the play, effectively immersed the audience in the story and by the end of the production the audience too was happy for Elle’s victory. Viewing both the Broadway play and the film version of this story allowed for a much deeper understanding of the differences, as well as the strengths and weaknesses, of each venue. This was a very effective way to learn an appreciation for the many forms that a single story may take and see the interpretation that each director seeks to convey to the audience.

On the 20^th of April 1999, Eric Harris and his friend Dylan Klebold killed 13 students at Columbine High School and then killed themselves. According to both of their mothers, the two boys were big fans of the first-person shooter video game “Doom”. Is it too large of a leap in logic to infer that this violent video game led the duo to commit this horrific act of brutality?

The argument that violent video games provoke violent crime is not unique to video games. From the dawn of distributed media, critics have insisted that social decadence is incited by the popular phenomenon of the day. For instance, if you were a youth during the 1950’s you would have been subject to the anti-comic book crusades of Fredric Wertham. Similarly, in the 1960’s, Elvis Presley and the Beatles were detested by some as moral deviants causing a teenage rebellion, promiscuity and drug use. There have been many others through history.

Enter the era of the video game. This relatively new form of entertainment has not gained the level of public acceptance that its popular predecessors attained. The generation that has grown up with comic books is now the legislative and parental authority who may have forgotten the controversy of their own youth. It is that generation that is now perpetuating the age old struggle of parent versus child, contending that video games have a negative effect on the adolescent mind.

There have been more than 200 scientific studies dealing specifically with the effect of violent video games on the human psyche. While the American Psychological Association has concluded that violent video games can increase aggression (Dill 1), several more recent studies have discovered that violent video games only influence the behavior of children who already show aggressive or violent tendencies. (Arendt 1).

A joint study by the U.S. Secret Service and U.S. Department of Education found that only 12 percent of those involved in school shootings were attracted to violent video games, while 24 percent read violent books and 27 percent were attracted to violent films (Vossekuil 15). In fact, the generation of children who have grown up with video games (from approximately 1993 to present) have the smallest violent crime rates ever recorded (Ferris 1).

Although it is clear that video games do have an effect on the psyche, it is not necessarily a negative one. A New Zealand study by Paul Kearney concluded that first-person shooter video games actually improve the players cognitive abilities and went so far as to suggest that the future of learning revolves around three dimensional worlds that inherently promote learning (7). Since video games are primarily designed as fictitious entertainment, their intent is to immerse the audience in a fictitious world. This immersion is no different than other good works of fiction, from the novels popular in the 19^th century to the films of the 20^th century.

In addition to the scientific evidence that suggests video games have a positive effect on the mind, the legal system, including the Supreme Court of the United States, has ruled that video games are also protected under the first amendment. The implication is that the courts have found no conclusive evidence that video games incite violent acts. Otherwise they would not be protected under the first amendment. Any words that exhibit a clear and present danger to the security of the public are punishable by law. Therefore the first amendment would not protect video games if the judicial system felt that they truly caused violent brutality.

In a unanimous decision by a panel of three judges, the Honorable Richard A. Posner, of the Seventh Circuit, declared the Indianapolis Arcade Ordinance (a city ordinance which sought to restrict children’s access to violent arcade video games) to be unconstitutional, reaffirming that children have First Amendment rights. In his ruling, Judge Posner stated that:

"To shield children right up to the age of 18 from exposure to violent descriptions and images would not only be quixotic, but deforming; it would leave them unequipped to cope with the world as we know it. Maybe video games are different. They are, after all, interactive. But this point is superficial, in fact erroneous. All literature (here broadly defined to include movies, television, and the other photographic media, and popular as well as highbrow literature) is interactive; the better it is, the more interactive. Literature when it is successful draws the reader into the story, makes him identify with the characters, invites him to judge them and quarrel with them, to experience their joys and sufferings as the reader’s own. Protests from readers caused Dickens to revise Great Expectations to give it a happy ending, and tourists visit sites in Dublin and its environs in which the fictitious events of Ulysses are imagined to have occurred. The cult of Sherlock Holmes is well known. When Dirty Harry or some other avenging hero kills off a string of villains, the audience is expected to identify with him, to revel in his success, to feel their own finger on the trigger. It is conceivable that pushing a button or manipulating a toggle stick engenders an even deeper surge of aggressive joy, but of that there is no evidence at all." (1)

In conclusion it is, in fact, too large of a leap in logic to infer that violent video games can incite individuals to commit brutal crimes in reality. Those individuals who have difficulty differentiating the fantasy world of video games and the real world we live in would have the same trouble if video games never existed.

This conclusion has been shown to be true for a number of reasons. First, the criticisms railed against the video games of today are no different that the criticism leveled against any other popular youth media in its prime. Second, although there has been a considerable amount of scientific study researching the specific affect that violent video games have on children, there is no conclusive evidence to show that these games affect the behavior of the majority of the population. Third, even the legal system has concluded in numerous cases that there is no evidence to support the argument that violent video games incite violent acts. It simply is not true.

Modern society can now confidently move violent video games into the same category as their literary and visual counterparts of the last few centuries and continue on to the next morally outrageous popular media of the future. YouTube.com here we come.

Works Cited

Anderson, Craig. "Effects of violent video games on aggressive behavior, aggressive cognition, aggressive affect, physiological arousal and prosocial behavior: a meta-analytical review of the scientific literature" iastate.edu. Vol.12 No. 5, Sep. 2001. iastate.edu. 6 Apr. 2008 <http://www.psychology.iastate.edu/faculty/caa/abstracts/2000-2004/01AB.pdf>

Arendt, Susan. "Study: kids unaffected by violent games" wired.com. 2 Apr. 2007. Wired.com 6 Apr. 2008 <http://blog.wired.com/games/2007/04/study_kids_unaf.html>

Dill, Karen. "Violent video games can increase aggression" apa.org. 23 Apr. 2000. American Psychological Association. 6 Apr. 2008 <http://www.apa.org/releases/videogames.html>

Endestad, Tor. "Computer games and violence: Is there really a connection?" Digra.org. 2 Jun. 2005. Digra.org. 5 Apr. 2008 <http://digra.org:8080/Plone/dl/db/05163.54594.pdf>

Ferris, Duke. "The truth about violent youth and video games" gamerevolution.com. 19 Oct. 2005. gamerevolution.com. 6 Apr. 2008 <http://www.gamerevolution.com/features/violence_and_videogames>

Gentile, Douglas. "Violent Video Games: The Newest Media Violence Hazard" iastate.edu. 16 Oct. 2003. Iastate.edu. 6 Apr. 2008 <http://www.psychology.iastate.edu/~dgentile/106027_07.pdf>

Kalning, Kristin. "Does game violence make teens aggressive?" MSNBC. 8 Dec. 2006. Microsoft. 5 Apr. 2008 <http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16099971/>

Kearney, Paul. "Cognitive Callisthenics: Do FPS computer games enhance the player’s cognitive abilities?" Digra.org. 23 Sep. 2006. Digra.org. 5 Apr. 2008 <http://www.digra.org:8080/Plone/dl/db/06276.14516.pdf>

Posner, Judge Richard. "American Amusement Machine Association, et al. v. Kendrick, et al., 244 F.3d 572" FindLaw.com. 23 March 2001. FindLaw. 6 April 2008 <http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=7th&navby=docket&no=003643>

Vossekuil, Bryan. "Safe School Initiative Final Report" ed.gov. May 2002. U.S. Secret Service and U.S. Department of Education. 6 Apr. 2008 <http://www.ed.gov/admins/lead/safety/preventingattacksreport.pdf>

• Alpha
• Bravo
• Charlie
• Delta
• Echo
• Foxtrot
• Golf
• Hotel
• India
• Juliet
• Kilo
• Lima
• Mike
• November
• Oscar
• Papa
• Quebec
• Romeo
• Sierra
• Tango
• Uniform
• Victor
• Whiskey
• Xray
• Yankee
• Zulu

In 1892 Charlotte Perkins Gilman wrote The Yellow Wallpaper. It is the story about an unidentified woman, who I presume is named Jane, and her husband John. This fictional story, in classic form, has a plot, a setting, a cast of characters, and a point of view in which the story is told. However, it is the way in which the story is told and the unexpected conclusion of the story that have made it an important piece of 19^th century fiction.

The Yellow Wallpaper portrays a very common view of 19^th century medicine and culture. The conflict of this story is the struggle of Jane against her husband and then later her struggle against the wallpaper itself. As the protagonist of the story, Jane faces the opposition of the first antagonist, her husband. This story is an insight into a time in which mental disease was poorly understood and it was common for those who were sick to just be locked away. This is specifically what has happened to our main character. She has been taken to a house in the woods and virtually locked in a second floor room, which even had bars on the windows. She is looked after by her husband John’s sister, Jennie. The story has a gradual progression toward a climax, as we first hear only a mere mention of the wallpaper in the narrator’s first writing but toward the end of the story we hear only about the wallpaper. The climax of the story is when we discover that the narrator has now completely gone crazy and tears off all the wallpaper so that she can never be put back in her prison. This story begins in medias res, with the story picking up when the narrator has just arrived for a summer stay at a rented home. The plot, however, is dependent upon the setting of the story, without which the story would not be believable.

The setting of this story takes place during the summer in a rented home that John has acquired so that the narrator may rest and get well again. The story takes place about the time in which it was written, in the late 19^th century. The house is a colonial mansion, which our narrator quickly tells us she thinks is haunted. It is in a rural setting surrounded by gardens and woods with “a lovely shaded winding road” leading up to the mansion. The main setting, which the narrator describes, is the room in which she stays. She goes into explicit detail as she carefully describes the yellow wallpaper which consumes more and more of her attention. The wallpaper becomes a moving prison to our main character, while other characters, like John, barely seem to notice its presence.

There are not many characters in this story, but each one plays a vital role in giving the reader insight into the mind of the writer and allowing the reader to come to a deeper understanding of the meaning of the story. Jennie, a flat character and foil of the main character, is the main character’s sister-in-law and is the caretaker of the home. She is the “perfect and enthusiastic housekeeper and hopes for no better profession” who serves as a substitute wife for John’s traditional family view. She is the imprisoned woman who is perfectly fine with her prison, even blaming the narrator’s sickness on her untraditional thinking and writing. John, who is also a flat character, is the main character’s husband and is the archetype of the 19^th century white male. He is a successful “practical physician” who treats his wife more like a patient than he does an equal partner. John is a representative image of the dominant sunlight, which in the story keeps the woman behind strict bars and prevents her from being free or creative. Though the narrator never explicitly tells us her name, the very end of the story says, “’I’ve got out at last,’ said I, ‘in spite of you and Jane. And I’ve pulled off most of the paper, so you can’t put me back!’” This is a clear indication to me that the narrator’s name is Jane, as revealed by the crazy woman (Jane) who now thinks she was the one in the wallpaper. The narrator of the story, Jane, is the main character and is a round character that is fully developed. She is representative of the woman imprisoned, unsatisfied with being merely the submissive housekeeper. Jane is like the less dominant moon, which in the story allows the bars of the wallpaper to move and free the woman in the wallpaper from her daytime prison. We are given an insight into Jane’s mind and opinions through her writings in her journal.

This story is told in first-person narration. However, it is not in traditional story form, but it is constructed as if we are reading the hidden journal of the Jane who is telling, us alone, all her intimate thoughts. This also allows for the time-lapse in which the story skips over weeks at a time allowing the reader to gain an understanding of what is going on without having to read mundane and unimportant details. The chronological order of the journal also lends to it appearing as if it could be an actual journal the audience is reading.

Although The Yellow Wallpaper has all the components of the average fictional story such as plot, a setting, characters, and is even told in a fairly common point of view, the brilliant writing of the story combined with the unique way in which it is presented, make for an exciting story that keeps the reader’s attention. The story is also a deep insight into the author’s world and time revealing her own personal point of view. It is this creative writing, coupled with deep meaning and veiled in captivating writing, which assures this literary work will continue to remain a hallmark of fiction.

Two of America’s greatest writers are considered to be Ralph Waldo Emerson and Edgar Allan Poe. This is because they were able to express different emotions into their writings. Each writer, born and raised in different backgrounds, lived lives that would not mirror each other.

Emerson lived the more religious life, whether it was as a preacher, or leading the movement of transcendentalism; while Poe lived a life of depression haunted by the deaths of his loved ones. Poe lived a very wealthy life, inheriting money from the death of his wife. To understand their views in each other writings, "The Poet" and "The Fall of the House of Usher," it helps to see the perspectives from which each viewed life. Emerson’s idealized Poet and Poe’s Roderick Usher are on opposite sides of the spectrum, but do share some similarities. Emerson’s "The Poet" is a very optimistic view of life and poetry, while Poe’s "The Fall of the House of Usher" is more pessimistic and gloomy. The Poet and Roderick Usher share an appreciation of the arts and their thoughts of whom they represent, yet differ in the Poet’s optimistic views that feed his ego and Usher’s pessimistic look on life.

Roderick Usher suffers from an illness that leaves him extremely weak, yet when his friend visits him, still has enough time to paint and play the guitar. Even with all that surrounds him such as his illness, his sister’s body, and his dilapidated mansion, Usher was still able to enjoy an artistic side. The Poet, as Emerson writes, discusses that creativity needs to be an essential part of a poet’s life. Emerson writes, "Those who are esteemed umpires of taste, are often persons who have acquired some knowledge of admired pictures or sculptures, and have an inclination for whatever is elegant; but if you inquire whether they are beautiful souls, and whether their own acts are like fair pictures, you learn that they are selfish and sensual". In this quote Emerson is pointing out that although these people may have taste, they have no substance. This creativity helps boost the already optimistic Poet that Emerson describes, and seems to be the only light that shines through Roderick Usher’s dark and gloomy life. Poe writes, "We painted and read together –or I listened, as if in a dream, to the wild improvisations of his speaking guitar".

The house of Usher becomes a character of its own as its shabby look takes on the appearance of its master, Roderick Usher. Poe describes Usher as having large, luminous eyes, a molded chin, thin lips and a delicate nose. Usher is weak from his illness, and lives in the mansion that his family has lived in for generations. Since Usher hasn’t left the house in sometime, the mansion begins to rot. Usher’s state of mind makes him think that he is a representative of the house, as it slowly begins to crumble and die. Usher says in describing the house, ". . . an influence which some peculiarities in the mere form and substance of his family mansion, had, by dint of long sufferance, he said, obtained over his spirit – an effect which physique of the gray walls and turrets, and of the dim tarn into which they all looked down, had, at length, brought about upon the morale of his existence". The Poet, as well as Usher, believes that he is representing something – this time, man. Emerson writes, "The breadth of the problem is great, for the poet is representative. He stands among partial men for the complete man, and apprises us not of his wealth, but of the commonwealth". The Poet believes he represents man, and he feels he is what man should be. While the Poet and Usher represent two completely different ideas, they are bonded by that feeling of representing something.

Ralph Waldo Emerson’s "The Poet" expresses a great deal of optimistic behavior to everything life hands him. The Poet believes that the love for truth, good, and beauty are equal and essential to live his life. This optimistic view of life by the Poet is only feeding his ever growing ego. The Poet thinks of himself as a teacher, or in Emerson’s words, a doctor. The Poet may not be a doctor or teacher, and deep down, he has to know that, but to refer to himself as that, is only inflating his self-image. Another ego booster for the Poet is that he says he is able to connect with nature and every artificial thing and bring them together, something that God cannot do. While the Poet is extremely optimistic and has quite the ego, Roderick Usher is very different. Poe writes, "And thus, as a closer and still closer intimacy admitted me more unreservedly into the recesses of his spirit, the more bitterly did I perceive the futility of all attempt at cheering a mind from which darkness, as if an inherent positive quality, poured forth upon all objects of the moral and physical universe, in one unceasing radiation of gloom".

The Poet and Roderick Usher share some similarities and differences but there is no doubt that these two are heading in two directions. The Poet is about the true poet and not about men of poetic talents or of industry and skill meter. Roderick Usher was a defeated man, but he was able to still enjoy a few artistic things. While they could be considered poets on the rise, Emerson’s "The Poet" and Poe’s "The Fall of the House of Usher" showcase some similarities and differences.

Anne Bradstreet accepted the tenets of Puritanism and was a very religious person. Anti-Puritan themes are, however, to be found in her poetry in terms of her religious doubts, and her expression of personal emotions and thoughts. She did not write to preach or teach, as Puritan writers were instructed to, but to express herself. It is this personal expression that forms the basis of the heretical elements in her poetry.

To understand why personal expression may be considered heretical, the society in which Bradstreet lived and wrote must be examined in order to comprehend what kinds of human activities and behaviors were acceptable and how Bradstreet deviated from these behaviors.

Bradstreet was not truly unorthodox in that she did not dissent from accepted beliefs and doctrine. She was a woman of the 17th Century and lived in a male dominated, intensely religious society. She lived within the limitations not only of the beliefs and standards of her society, but of her sex. A woman’s place was definitely in the home in Colonial America. The experiences of women were considered narrow and trivial in comparison with men’s.

Puritanism was more than a religious belief; it was a way of life. Aside from a literal belief in the Bible, Puritans wholly accepted the doctrines of
John Calvin and his stern legalistic theology. The Puritans held that religion should permeate every phase of living. The purpose of life was to do God’s will; everything else was subordinate to this basic doctrine. New England was founded at a time when almost everyone who could read at all, read poetry, and many attempted to write it. Poetry in the Massachusetts Bay Colony, like other manifestations of intellectual life in the 17^th Century, was dominated by religion.

Unlike most young women, Anne Bradstreet was well educated. At age 16 she married Simon Bradstreet, a graduate of Emmanuel College. Two years later, the Bradstreets and Dudleys came to Massachusetts with John Winthrop and other prominent settlers of the Massachusetts Bay Colony. Anne’s husband became a magistrate, and later a Governor as did her father.

Soon after arriving in Massachusetts, Anne wrote: "I changed my condition ad was married, and came into this Country, where I found a new world and new manners, at which my heart rose. But after I was convinced it was the way of God".

The Bradstreets had eight children, and Anne was a devoted wife and mother as well as a busy one. From the start, however, she made the time to write poetry. Typically, Anne Bradstreet did not seek to have her poetry published as a male poet would have. Her early poems were published, however, when her brother-in-law, John Woordbridge, took a manuscript of her poems to London and had them printed in 1650. The edition contained many errors, and was the inspiration for a poem on the subject by Bradstreet.

Bradstreet’s poems reveal that she valued herself as a woman, as a wife and mother. She wrote of daily experiences, her love for her children and husband, the beautiful New England landscape, the small pleasures of life and domesticity. Religion was a dominant theme in her work, including her religious doubts. A feminine consciousness can also be found in her work. As she wrote in The Prologue:

I am obnoxious to each carping tongue
Who says my hand a needle better fits,
A poet’s pen all scorn I should thus wrong,
For such despite they cast on female wits:
If what I do prove well, it won’t advance,
They’ll say it’s stol’n, or else it was by chance.

The heretical themes in Bradstreet’s poetry, however, spring from her domestic poems which reveal passionate love for her husband, Simon, maternal devotion and pleasure in worldly goods, and from her religious poems, which reveal her conflicts and doubts.

Many of Bradstreet’s poems reveal that she could not accept in entire submissiveness the sterner aspects of New England Puritanism. The last stanza of her poem on the death of Elizabeth Bradstreet, her grandchild, illustrates this:

By nature trees do rot when they are grown,
And plums and apples thoroughly ripe do fall,
And corn and grass are in their season mown,
And time brings down what is both strong and tall.
But plants new set to be eradicate,
And buds new blown, to have so short a date,
Is by His hand alone that guides nature and fate.

Bradstreet writes with apparent emotion using imagery as an explanation of the situation at hand until it seems that suddenly she realizes that she is perilously close to writing rebelliously against God’s decrees and then pulls herself up at the very end. This seems to not be her true feeling but rather deference to the orthodox doctrine of the day.

For the pioneer Colonists, home was a refuge from the often harsh, new environment. For Anne Bradstreet, the burning of her home (in "Verses upon the Burning of Our House") and belongings in July, 1666 was a great loss for someone so devoted to her family and domestic pleasures. The poem, however, contains no self-pitying elements. Instead, Bradstreet uses the personal loss to reconcile it with her belief in the wisdom of God’s will.

There are two homes referred to in this poem, "my dwelling place," and the "house on high erect, Framed by that mighty Architect." In the poem, Bradstreet states that both homes are God’s.

The first five stanzas of the poem relate the pleasant things – a trunk, a chest, and a table – that the poet enjoyed in her home. The pleasure is evident. In the sixth stanza, the tone changes as the poet accepts the fire as the will of God, acknowledging that earthly objects are vanity, that her wealth on earth had no real meaning, and that real wealth lies with God. The poem ends:

Farewell, my pelf, farewell my store.
The world no longer let me love,
My hope and treasure lies above.

The poem can easily be read in two lights, what the poet should feel, she does feel. Yet, upon re-reading the poem there is a sense of conflict; the expression of domestic pleasures are rooted in genuine feeling. It is these private feelings, and enjoyment of domestic details that give the poem its heretical tone. The doctrine seems to be accepted more intellectually than emotionally.

Anne Bradstreet felt that her love of the pleasant things of life was unchristian. This conflict is clearly presented in "The Flesh and The Spirit". The Spirit is the victor, but the Flesh even though vanquished, reasserted again and again its claims.

Flesh is the unsettled, questioning heart, while Spirit is the settled heart. Flesh and Spirit are personified by two sisters:

One Flesh was called, who had her eye
On worldly wealth and vanity;
The other Spirit, who did rear
Her thoughts unto a higher sphere:

Although Bradstreet presents the correct dogma in her poem, its purpose is not to instruct but, again, to express her personal feelings. It is the personal feelings that provides the heretical aspects.

"To My Dear and Loving Husband" is a passionate love poem that is lovely, human, and simple. It is also free of any religious dogma. For this reason, it may be considered to have the most heretical elements of any of her poems. The poem is universal as it can be read as a modern one, as well as one from early America. It is openly passionate:

If ever two were one, then surely we.
If ever man were loved by wife, then thee;
If ever wife was happy in a man,
Compare with me, ye women, if you can.
I prize thy love more than whole mines of gold,
Or all the riches that the East doth hold.
… My love is such that Rivers cannot quench.

The only reference to religion is to pray the heavens reward her husband, hardly a Puritan prayer.

Anne Bradstreet loved her husband and her children and God with a troubled realization that she fell short of God’s, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart". Anne Bradstreet’s poetry shows a merging of the private life with the religious life, but also a rebellious, inquiring spirit. The heretical themes in her poetry stem from this spirit and her need for self-expression.

One of the reasons the Scarlet Letters has become such a timeless story is because of its use of symbolism and the important role that it plays in the story. Symbolism is the applied use of any iconic representations, which carry particular conventional meanings. Within The Scarlet Letter, Nathaniel Hawthorne incorporates symbolism to expose a deeper meaning in the story. The first and most obvious symbol that Hawthorne displays is the embroidery of the letter "A" given to Hester to wear as a reminder to the town of her adultery. Another symbol is revealed in Chapter XII, when a meteor in the form of a letter "A" lights up the night sky. Also, Hawthorne reveals symbolism in the scaffold, where many of the important plot points take place.

The Letter "A" is the most obvious form of symbolism within The Scarlet Letter. Hawthorne establishes that Hester receives an embroidered letter "A" to mark her as an adulterer. The letter’s meaning shifts as time passes. At first, the "A" is a symbol of shame, but as the story progresses, the shameful "A" becomes her powerful identity. The community started to form a different meaning for the scarlet letter, like ability. In the thirteenth chapter, Hawthorne comes out in the third person and states, "The letter was the symbol of her calling. Such helpfulness was found in her, so much power to do, and power to sympathize, that many people refused to interpret the scarlet A by its original signification. They said that it meant Able; so strong was Hester Prynne, with a woman’s strength." The letter’s meaning clearly changes when the Native Americans come to watch the Election Day pageant, and think the "A"e; marks Hester as a person of importance. The scarlet letter, in conclusion, was ineffective and "had not done its office."

While Dimmesdale stands on the scaffold with Hester and Pearl in Chapter XII, a meteor outlines the letter "A" in the night sky. In response to the meteor sighting, "There stands the minister, with his hand over his heart; and Hester Prynne, with the embroidered letter glimmering on her bosom; and little Pearl, herself as a symbol, and the connecting link between those two." Dimmesdale believes that the "A" in the sky is a message from God telling him to wear a mark of shame just as Hester does. This revelation causes Dimmesdale to place his hand firmly over his heart. The meteor is interpreted differently by the townspeople of the Salem community. The community feels that the "A" in the sky stands for "Angel," and marks Governor Winthrop’s entry into heaven.

The scaffold is a platform where criminals are punished before all the townspeople. In this case, the criminal is Hester Prynne and the crowd has gathered to witness her shame. The first scene at the ominous platform is Hester’s first public appearance with the child and the scarlet letter. Hawthorne implies to the reader that the scaffold symbolizes punishment and public humiliation. The scaffold and scarlet letter’s meanings coincide. The scaffold also outlines Hester’s strength. In the first scaffold scene, Hester lifts her eyes towards the balcony and grows pale and trembles. When Hester is at the third scaffold scene, she is much more comfortable and less ashamed of the "A" on her chest. Finally, the scaffold proves ineffective in its purpose to punish and publicly humiliate Hester.

Hawthorne’s use of symbolism within the Scarlet Letter adds abstract ideas or concepts to seemingly meaningless objects that are found within the story. It is because of its abundant use of symbolism that this story can relate to every reader and why it has become the timeless work that it has.

Benjamin Franklin recounts in his Autobiography that he started an apprenticeship with his brother James in his brother’s printing business. When James gets in trouble with the authorities, James ends Benjamin’s apprenticeship officially (so that Benjamin may take over the newspaper legally) while drawing up secret paper which would continue his apprenticeship as it was before. Later a disagreement arises and Benjamin decides to leave his brother knowing full well that James will not bring up the secret papers for fear of incriminating himself. As Benjamin Franklin tells us, "It was not fair in me to take this Advantage, and this I therefore reckon one of the first Errata of my life". This is the first of many "errata" he recalls in this story of his life.

The word errata is the plural of erratum, a Latin word used primarily in the printing business, with which Benjamin is very familiar. Its definition is an error in printing or writing, especially such an error noted in a list of corrections and bound into a book. This is an excellent use of the word especially when considering it is within the autobiography of such a great writer and publisher. Benjamin is reflecting on his life, with and attempting to help his son learn some of the lessons that took a lifetime for Benjamin Franklin to learn. The term errata especially applies here since the errors of his life are "noted in a list of corrections at the end" in his recollection of it. This exemplifies the main purpose of his beginning his Autobiography in the first place – that he may teach others the many lessons that he has learned over the course of his eventful life by noting his errata.

The subject of weapons owned by the general population of a nation as always been a point of hotly debated contention. For hundreds of years, governments, even though many have the best intentions for doing so, often seek to disarm the common people. Some try to preserve general order by so doing and others seek to quell their opposition and ensure their own permanence. The common man, in contrast, has always sought to arm himself. Either to hunt for food, defend his family and property or, at times, to defend himself from unjust rule, whether that be from his own government or that of another.

The Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America reads, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." It is from this section of the Bill of Rights that we as American citizens are guaranteed the right to "keep and bear" personal arms, or guns. Interpretation of this Amendment, like the subject of personal weapons as a whole, is not without controversy. However, most scholars are convinced that the Second Amendment refers not to a National Guard (which is actually described in Article 1, section 8 of the Constitution and furthermore did not exist until 1903) but specifically refers to the individual citizenry.

The original intent of the authors of the Constitution can clearly be seen in the variations between the first few drafts. The original version was an unnumbered list, penned by James Madison, that was intended to be inserted into the main body of the Constitution rather than attached to the end as it is now. It was presented to Congress on June 8, 1789 and read, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."[i] It should be noted that this statement was to be inserted in the First Article, Section Nine, between clauses 3 and 4, following the prohibition on suspension of habeas corpus and ex post facto laws, all individual civil rights. It follows then, that this statement too was understood to be an individual right of each citizen.

It is interesting that the authors chose, after weeks of debate and voting, the words "keep and bear arms". Implying not only the ownership of weapons but also the ability to bear, or carry, those arms. For the first ten to twelve decades no one really even questioned the intent of the Second Amendment. In Dred Scott v. Sandford (the 1856 Dred Scott Decision), the Supreme Court stated in an objection, "It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognized as citizens in any one State of the Union . . .the full liberty . . .to keep and carry arms wherever they went." The Court indicated here that is was considered a universal right of all citizens to carry arms wherever they went. It is evident from this wording, that "to keep arms" was considered distinctly different than to "carry arms".

It was common practice for many members of Congress to carry pistols, and "guns and knives were abundantly evident on the floors of the House and Senate". In one heated House debate, 30 members showed their weapons. In at least three cases (1826, 1851, and 1856), a member of Congress challenged a colleague to a duel from the floor and then did duel outside.[ii]

In addition to the Constitutional guarantees, common law, derived from the British provided for personal ownership of arms. Even before the Revolutionary War, the Protestant colonists, being British subjects, had a conditional right to possess arms according to the English Declaration of Rights of 1689.[iii] When the British government attempted to disarm the colonist’s militias in the early phases of the Revolutionary War, the colonists cited the aforementioned English Declaration of Rights, their own local militia laws, Blackstone’s (who was the first to put English common law into writing) summary of the Declaration of Rights and the common law rights to self-defense. Clearly, the early Americans of our country saw the vital role that individual gun ownership played in not only personal defense but more importantly in the defense of the nation as a whole.

Even Aristotle, who lived around 350 B.C., saw the important role arms played in government when he said, "Those who have the command of the arms in a country are masters of the state, and have it in their power to make what revolutions they please. [Thus,] there is no end to observations on the difference between the measures likely to be pursued by a minister backed by a standing army, and those of a court awed by the fear of an armed people."

Indeed, other more infamous leaders also understood the importance of removing arms from their citizens and political opponents. Men like Joseph Stalin (1878-1953) who admonished, "If the opposition disarms, well and good. If it refuses to disarm, we shall disarm it ourselves. "Vladimir Lenin (1870-1924) said, "One man with a gun can control 100 without one … Make mass searches and hold executions for found arms." Likewise, Adolf Hitler during World War II in conversations with his staff stated, "The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing."

It almost goes without saying that our Founding Fathers believed in this fundamental principle and many even gave their lives to ensure that we may have it. Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence wrote in 1824, "The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that … it is their right and duty to be at all times armed." In a letter to James Madison in 1787 he replied, "What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take up arms." Timothy Dwight, who was an Army Chaplain during the American Revolution, summarized the views of many of his peers when he said, "To trust arms in the hands of the people at large has, in Europe, been believed…to be an experiment fraught only with danger. Here by a long trial it has been proved to be perfectly harmless…If the government be equitable; if it be reasonable in its exactions; if proper attention be paid to the education of children in knowledge and religion, few men will be disposed to use arms, unless for their amusement, and for the defense of themselves and their country."

This fundamental principle has been repeated and believed essential from America’s very start by every great American leader. In 1960, John F. Kennedy reiterated rather eloquently, "Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom. By calling attention to ‘a well regulated militia,’ the ’security’ of the nation, and the right of each citizen ‘to keep and bear arms,’ our founding fathers recognized the essentially civilian nature of our economy. Although it is extremely unlikely that the fears of governmental tyranny, which gave rise to the Second Amendment, will ever be a major danger to our nation, the Amendment still remains an important declaration of our basic civilian-military relationships, in which every citizen must be ready to participate in the defense of his country. For that reason I believe the Second Amendment will always be important."

I believe, however, that Thomas Paine, an American Revolution political philosopher, summarized many men’s conclusion to the entire debate best when he answered, "Arms, like laws, discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe and preserve order." [iv]

In 1940, following the Minersville School District v. Gobitis case involving Jehovah’s Witnesses, the West Virginia legislator amended its statues to require all of its schools to conduct courses of instruction in civics, history and in the Constitutions of the United States and of the State "for the purpose of teaching, fostering and perpetuating the ideals, principles and spirit of Americanism, and increasing the knowledge of the organization and machinery of the government." In 1942, largely based on the Court’s Gobitis ruling, the West Virginia Board of Education ordered that all students and teachers must salute the flag as part of the regular program of activities in public schools. This salute was originally defined by the Board as the common salute. However this salute was quickly objected to by several civic groups cited as "being too much like Hitler’s" and the Board of Education redefined the salute as the stiff-arm salute, which is what we commonly use today. Failure to salute was considered insubordination and could result in the student’s expulsion from school causing the parents to be fined up to $50 with up to 30 days in jail.

Jehovah’s Witnesses have a literal belief of the Bible, which forbids them from bowing down to any image, including the image of the flag. Therefore, they refused to salute it and several children where expelled and parents prosecuted for no other reason. It should also be noted that during this time period the United States had entered into World War II and the nation as a whole was in a patriotic fervor. It was in response to this general sentiment, which often turned into physical assaults against Jehovah’s Witnesses, that public opinion turned against the Gobitis ruling and Walter Barnette challenged the state’s law. The lower court ruled in favor of Barnette and the Board of Education appealed sending the case to the Supreme Court. Justice Frankfurter, the Justice who ruled on the Gobitis case, dissented as if it was a personal attack on him.

Justice Robert H. Jackson (whose opinion on the case is considered one of the great statements of freedom in American history) wrote for the majority and delivered the opinion of the Court, "Freedom to differ is not limited to things that do not matter much. That would be a mere shadow of freedom. The test of its substance is the right to differ as to things that touch the heart of the existing order. If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion, or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein. If there are any circumstances which permit an exception, they do not now occur to us. We think the action of the local authorities in compelling the flag salute and pledge transcends constitutional limitations on their power, and invades the sphere of intellect and spirit which it is the purpose of the First Amendment to our Constitution to reserve from all official control." The Court affirmed that the lower courts ruling was correct and overturned the Gobitis ruling.

I fervently agree with the ruling made by the court and think that the compulsory flag-salute for public schoolchildren violates the First Amendment. It is difficult at first to look past the patriotic overtone of this issue and consider the facts. The real issue at hand was does the State have the power to make you conform to majority opinion and punish your dissent, if it poses no threat. The resounding answer is no. The State should not be able to dictate and then make me conform to an ideology that is not my own and silence dissent. That, as history shows, only leads to exterminating dissenters and totalitarianism.

View a Wikipedia article discussing the West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette case.