Humanities
MELIAN DIALOGUE ESSAY
Abigail Ridgeway
October 29th, 2015
Thucydides wrote a story about when the Melians and the Athenians went to battle in Melos, Greece. This was called the battle of Melos because the Athenians came to Melos to seek money from the Melians and they refused to give away their money which caused them to have their city destroyed, their men killed, and their women and children sold into slavery. The Athenians gave them two options, they could give their money to them and they would leave right away and do no harm, or they would destroy their city if no money was given to them. The Athenians were justified in their treatment of the Melians.
The Athenians were justified in their treatment of the Melians because they could have gone to Melos not wanting to negotiate about what the Melians should have done. The Athenians say to the Melians, “You would gain by not being destroyed. We would gain by not destroying you.” (34-35) The Athenians didn’t go to Melos for the satisfaction of destroying their city, they went there for one thing and one thing only. Money. The Melians didn’t want to agree even after the Athenians persuaded them with their own safety.
The Athenians were also justified in their treatment of the Melians because they told the Melians many times that they were much weaker than them and that they would ultimately not win the battle if they didn’t pay. The Athenians weren’t the cause of Melos getting destroyed because the Melians believed that they could use the help of the gods even though they knew that they weren’t as strong. The Athenians were also in need of money, does that make them horrible people? The Athenians tell the Melians, “To our subjects, there are only two kinds of people. There are those we rule and those we don’t rule. And our subjects believe if we don’t rule a people, it is because they’re strong. If we don’t attack them it is because we are afraid. You’re weaker than many of our subjects. We can’t let you escape the masters of the sea.” (42-47) This is a perfect example as to how the Athenians warned the Melians about getting destroyed and how the Melians were obviously more weak.
Another reason why the Athenians were justified in their treatment of the Melians is because they weren’t mean towards the Melians and they seemed worried about the Melians having their city destroyed. The Athenians say, “Hope is very dangerous. Only those who have something extra, can afford to hope. Hope can tempt us to absurd actions. We only recognize how flimsy our hope is when we are ruined. You are weak, Your survival hangs on a single throw of the dice. You can’t risk hope. That’s the way to destruction.” (68-71) The Athenians aren’t just worried for the Melians, but they are also giving the Melians very helpful advice which the Melians ended up not taking into consideration.
In conclusion, the Athenians were justified in their treatment of the Melians and the fate of the Melians just happened to lie in their own hands which led them to their city’s destruction, not the Athenians. This whole event was greatly significant because a city believed that trying to show that they could be strong was more important than their own city’s safety. It’s difficult to choose between the two sides and agree with without thinking about the other. Overall, the Athenians were justified because even though they asked for money from the Melians which seemed like a bad thing, the Melians were the ones at fault and essentially destroyed their own city with their decision.
October 29th, 2015
Thucydides wrote a story about when the Melians and the Athenians went to battle in Melos, Greece. This was called the battle of Melos because the Athenians came to Melos to seek money from the Melians and they refused to give away their money which caused them to have their city destroyed, their men killed, and their women and children sold into slavery. The Athenians gave them two options, they could give their money to them and they would leave right away and do no harm, or they would destroy their city if no money was given to them. The Athenians were justified in their treatment of the Melians.
The Athenians were justified in their treatment of the Melians because they could have gone to Melos not wanting to negotiate about what the Melians should have done. The Athenians say to the Melians, “You would gain by not being destroyed. We would gain by not destroying you.” (34-35) The Athenians didn’t go to Melos for the satisfaction of destroying their city, they went there for one thing and one thing only. Money. The Melians didn’t want to agree even after the Athenians persuaded them with their own safety.
The Athenians were also justified in their treatment of the Melians because they told the Melians many times that they were much weaker than them and that they would ultimately not win the battle if they didn’t pay. The Athenians weren’t the cause of Melos getting destroyed because the Melians believed that they could use the help of the gods even though they knew that they weren’t as strong. The Athenians were also in need of money, does that make them horrible people? The Athenians tell the Melians, “To our subjects, there are only two kinds of people. There are those we rule and those we don’t rule. And our subjects believe if we don’t rule a people, it is because they’re strong. If we don’t attack them it is because we are afraid. You’re weaker than many of our subjects. We can’t let you escape the masters of the sea.” (42-47) This is a perfect example as to how the Athenians warned the Melians about getting destroyed and how the Melians were obviously more weak.
Another reason why the Athenians were justified in their treatment of the Melians is because they weren’t mean towards the Melians and they seemed worried about the Melians having their city destroyed. The Athenians say, “Hope is very dangerous. Only those who have something extra, can afford to hope. Hope can tempt us to absurd actions. We only recognize how flimsy our hope is when we are ruined. You are weak, Your survival hangs on a single throw of the dice. You can’t risk hope. That’s the way to destruction.” (68-71) The Athenians aren’t just worried for the Melians, but they are also giving the Melians very helpful advice which the Melians ended up not taking into consideration.
In conclusion, the Athenians were justified in their treatment of the Melians and the fate of the Melians just happened to lie in their own hands which led them to their city’s destruction, not the Athenians. This whole event was greatly significant because a city believed that trying to show that they could be strong was more important than their own city’s safety. It’s difficult to choose between the two sides and agree with without thinking about the other. Overall, the Athenians were justified because even though they asked for money from the Melians which seemed like a bad thing, the Melians were the ones at fault and essentially destroyed their own city with their decision.
This was my second essay I had to complete by the end of the semester and it was about the Melian Dialogue. For the first paragraph we needed to write an introduction that included our thesis statement. For the second paragraph we needed to have three pieces of evidence from the text to support our argument and it was called to body. For the final paragraph we needed to have a conclusion and relate the topic to issues happening right now.
While writing the essay, I learned that both sides to the argument (Melians and Athenians) both had great reasons to be at fault and that it was neither one of their faults even though I thoroughly explained that the Athenians were justified. This was a huge event that occurred and it brings many different opinions into the topic.
While writing the essay, I learned that both sides to the argument (Melians and Athenians) both had great reasons to be at fault and that it was neither one of their faults even though I thoroughly explained that the Athenians were justified. This was a huge event that occurred and it brings many different opinions into the topic.
GREEK LECTURE NOTES
October 5th, 2015
The Trojan War marked; 1100 BCE
800 BCE
October 6th, 2015
750-500 BCE
499
The burning of Sardis and the attention of Darius I
Battle of Marathon 490
2nd invasion- battles of Thermopylae, Salamis and Plataea- Xerxes’ revenge 480-79
October 12th, 2015
Alcibiades and the disaster at Syracuse 415
Return of Alcibiades 407
Surrender of Athens to Sparta 404
The Trojan War marked; 1100 BCE
- the end of the Mycenaeans and the end of the Age of Heroes-
- the beginning of the Dark Age-
- the Dark Age meant no progress in the fields of art, culture, ideas, politics.
- This was the beginning of modern thought for the Greeks
- It’s becoming rational and logical thought
- The Greeks started thinking and wondering about the world we live in today
- During the Dark Ages nothing happens, there is no progress and they are just worrying about surviving
800 BCE
- Because of a population growth, the Greeks begin to colonize the Mediterranean region. Some Greeks moved east across the Aegean Sea, into Ionia, on the western edge of the Persian Empire. Examples of Ionian colonies are Ephesus, Mytilene, Halicarnassus, Rhodes, Chios, Samos and Lesbos. In Athens, this was the age of the Oligarchs.
- A group of people started to migrate and they were called Dorians
- Ionians were Greeks
- As the Dorians came, the mixed with the Ionians
- The people that were living in Ionia were the Persians
- There is no nation called Greece, Italy, etc
- Greece is a bunch of independent city states
- If there were no government, it would be San Diego and its government, L.A. and it's government, etc.
- The city states were the center of everything
- They are fiercely independent
- They all speak the same language and they all worship the same God(s)
- The Parthenon is in Athens
- Astronomy and math were given to the Ionians from the Persians
- The Persians had advanced mathematics and didn't do anything with them
- The Greeks decided to use the math and astronomy that was given to them
- Athens is a big open city with about 150,000 population
- Sparta was small and closed off and they were suspicious of strangers
- Sparta had a standing army (they were always ready)
- The reason is because they had a very large slave population
October 6th, 2015
750-500 BCE
- In Ionia, the Greek culture met the Persian culture and these two societies exchanged knowledge. Because of their exposure to Persian sciences like math and astronomy, the Greeks (Ionians) began to develop a new philosophy called Natural Law. Some of the first Ionian philosophers were men like Thales, Anaxamander, Heraclitus, Democritus, Zeno, and Archimedes. They believed that one underlying element constituted “everything”. These Ionian philosophers suggested that this unifying element could be air or water or fire or atoms. And then there was:
- Herodotus and the Persian Wars:
- Ionians are really just Greeks
- Modern science and thought is born right at this time
- Greeks are experiencing mathematics, Gods can’t change math, it’s constant
- The Greeks start to perceive a new world
- The Ionians start to believe in reason
- This was the beginning of rational thought
- Gods law vs. Man's law
- The Ionian philosophers start to believe that everything is made up of the same thing/one substance, air, water, Earth, etc.
- Democritus believes that everything is made up of little bits that are all the same and he calls them atoms
- Thales believed that the Earth was round when he saw a ship sail away into a curve
- Athens becomes a democracy in 525 BCE
- Athens went through a series of governments
- Demos-Kratia means people power/power of the people
- Athens decided that they were going to make their own decisions
- The assembly was in charge of making the decisions
- The four requirements to be a citizen in Athens were:
- 1-You had to be a man
- 2-You had to own property (land)
- 3-Both of your parents had to be born in Athens or around Athens
- 4-You could not be a slave (slaves weren’t allowed)
- Tyrants are chosen unlike kings
499
The burning of Sardis and the attention of Darius I
- Around 499, one of the city states, Sardis, didn’t want to pay taxes
- Sardis got burned down by another city state
- Herald means messenger
- Athens sends a fleet over to help the Ionians
- Darius was a Persian king
- The Athenians burned down their ships
- Every morning his personal slave had to say, “Oh great shaw, remember the Athenians.”
- When the Athenians needed help no one would help them
- The Athenians go to a small town called Marathon
- The start of a battle that changes the war starts
Battle of Marathon 490
- Marathon is about 26.4 miles
- The persians are on the beach and they wore thick quilts for protection from arrows
- The Athenians’ armor was all metal
- The Athenians mass occurred the Persians
- This was victory for the Athenians
- Nike means victory in Greek
- A herald went to Athens to tell them that they won the war
- The persian herald would go to the Greeks and ask for Earth and water
- One of the first times when the Greek city states would help
- They send 300 Spartans
- The Spartans butchered the Persians
- They started to fight over a carpet of all the dead Persian bodies because they kept getting killed by the Spartans
- The Persians burnt Athens to the Ground
- The persian army was unopposed
- We know about the 300 because of Herodotus
- Herodotus was the first person to write about history
2nd invasion- battles of Thermopylae, Salamis and Plataea- Xerxes’ revenge 480-79
- The Athenians fleet to an island during the battles of Thermopylae
October 12th, 2015
- Beginning of the Delian League - an attempt for protection from the Persian Empire 478-403
- Delian League = Athens + Ionian Cities
- Peloponnesian League = Sparta, Thebes, Corinth
- Argos = Ally of Athens
- A trireme is a war boat
- The front of a trireme is made of copper to ram ships
- Athenians were the first to build triremes
- They create an alliance called the Delian League
- The Athenian League is another word for the Delian League
- To get protection from the Persians, they donated ships or money
- Persians are also pirates
- All of the donated money would go to a temple
- A lot of the city states didn't want to send ships so they started to donate money
- Pericles leads Athens into greatness
- The Delian League goes into full blast when Pericles becomes a leader of Athens
- There was no king of Athens, Emperor of Athens, etc.
- Pericles is, "The Man"
- He gets this idea that pirates were seen around Delos so they send all of the money to Athens
- They spend the money on triremes
- Pericles has a huge army and Athens is surrounded by a wall
- Building of the Parthenon (447-435) and the Age of Pericles (495-429)
- Pericles gets an idea to build a temple with all of the money
- There is a 40ft statue of Athena in the Parthenon
- The columns had strings of gold in them
- The Parthenon was considered a temple unlike any other
- The Parthenon was in pretty good shape until a war that occurred in 1453
- The city states start to get mad about their donated money
- They think that Athens is becoming more powerful... even Sparta
- Spartans arrive and the Athenians run into the walls and the Spartans burn everything
- This happens three times and then a plague breaks out
- About 40% of the Athenian population died from the plague
- Pericles catches the plague and dies
- Thucydides and the Peloponnesian War- fear of growing Athenian power 431-01
Alcibiades and the disaster at Syracuse 415
Return of Alcibiades 407
Surrender of Athens to Sparta 404
- The Athenians have lost their great leader
- The Athenians are getting ready to invade sicily because it's a bread basket and very rich
- The Athenians tell the Melians that they need to pay and the Melians refused
- The Athenians have just done a mass occur
- Trojan women is about Troy getting destroyed and about what happens after
- It was also about the Destruction of the city
- No one was afraid of ideas
- Six months later, the Athenians send more men to Syracuse
- The Army was killed by the people in Syracuse
- The war continues for another ten years and after Syracuse, they were never the same
- The Spartans put in government Socrates was Alcibiades teacher
- The death of Socrates was in 399
- Hemlock was a poison that would slowly kill you
- Argos is not part of the Delian League because they didn't feel like they were in danger
October 14th, 2015
- Physis-Nomos
- Sophists and rhetoric
- Teachers began to appear and they were called Sophis
- More wealthy people paid teachers to teach about the odyssey, etc.
- Sophis taught rhetoric
- Rhetoric is the art of persuasive speech
- Rhetoric is an important SAT word
- Art of making the weak argument strong/stronger (this was the way the Sophis taught)
- Athens was where most Sophis' were hired
- Athenians were very interested in rhetoric because Pericles always had the best arguments
- Rhetoric is used in ads and lawyers and politicians also used it
- Rhetoric is not lying but it can bend the truth
- Socrates was not a Sophis, he taught the truth
- Socrates taught the truth by asking questions and he used something called the Socratic method
- Socratic seminar is an example of a Socratic method
- Socrates made people uncomfortable by making people think about the questions he asked
- Socrates wrote nothing and we don't have anything written by him
- "I know best because I know nothing." - Socrates
- Socrates was the teacher of Plato
- Plato wrote a lot of books and started an academy in Athens
- Plato was the teacher of Aristotle
- Aristotle was the teacher of Alexander
- Everything we know about Socrates comes from the dialogue
- Nomos = Justice
- Physis = Natural Law
- Philosophical Debate
- You want a god who is fair
- 90% of the people in Greece believed in justice (nomos)
- Natural law is a way to explain the universe without Zeus and natural law explains everything
- The lion eats the lamb - natural law
- Natural law applies to men and the way that they act
- This was the golden age of Athens
For this assignment we needed to take notes everyday for about a week during the Greek lectures we were given from Mr. Aguirre. When we were finished taking notes in our notebooks, we needed to type and print them. In total I was able to type six full pages full of notes.
Throughout the note taking process I learned many things about the Greeks. I learned about Physis-Nomos, Rhetoric, The Parthenon, and many more. I learned that Physis means natural law and that nomos means justice. I also learned that Rhetoric is a way to persuade people by bending the truth and that many people use this to get people to buy things.
Throughout the note taking process I learned many things about the Greeks. I learned about Physis-Nomos, Rhetoric, The Parthenon, and many more. I learned that Physis means natural law and that nomos means justice. I also learned that Rhetoric is a way to persuade people by bending the truth and that many people use this to get people to buy things.
TRAVELING AAA
Thesis Statement:
“Some scientists say that living in another country can also make you more creative.”(3-4)
Points of Argument:
“‘The key, critical process is multicultural engagement, immersion, and adaptation. Someone who lives abroad and doesn’t engage with the local culture will likely get less of a creative boost than someone who travels abroad and really engages in the local environment.’”(25-29) Here, the author is stating what Galinsky said about becoming more creative while living abroad. Instead of saying that going on a vacation may not make you become more creative, he is saying that if you don’t explore or interact with the local environment, you won’t be able to adapt with the location.
“The researchers also found that the more countries that executives had lived in, the more creative the lines tended to be - but only up to a point. Those who had lived and worked in more than three countries, the study found, still tended to show higher levels of creativity than those who hadn’t worked abroad at all, but less creativity than their peers who had in a smaller number of foreign countries.(46-51) The author is saying that researchers found that even if you travel to a smaller amount of foreign countries, you will still be able to become more creative than people who don’t travel or study abroad at all.
“Cross-cultural experiences have the potential to pull people out of their cultural bubbles, and in doing so, can increase their sense of connection with people from backgrounds different than their owns.”(73-74) This is saying that when you get out of your comfort zone and don’t always limit yourself, you interact with different cultures and people which also makes you more creative.
Is it a solid argument? Do you agree? Why or why not?
I believe that this is a solid argument because it uses facts that came from multiple sources and had a wide variety of examples to support the argument. In the text, it not only tells us why we can become more creative by getting out of our comfort zones, but it shows us proof of significant authors and thinkers who have traveled, that traveling is “‘helping you to build a and acculturated sense of your own self’”(69-70), and many more. I agree not only because it is a great argument, but because I believe that it’s true. I believe that not exploring, getting out of your comfort zone, or interacting with other cultures, won’t make you become creative because even if you go on a trip somewhere for just a week, you can still interact with the different cultures and get out of your comfort zone, you don’t always have to act like a tourist.
Vocab Words:
-Cognitive ~ of or relating to cognition; concerned with the act or process of knowing, perceiving, etc.
-Disparate ~ distinct in kind; essentially different; dissimilar
-Immersion/Immerse ~ to involve deeply; absorb
-Correlation ~ mutual relation of two or more things, parts, etc
-Arbitrary ~ subject to individual will or judgment without restriction; contingent solely upon one's discretion
Reflection:
This piece of text was easier than the last piece of text but it was also more challenging when it came to the discussion. The piece text was very large but the author did a great job at explaining the argument because we were given many points of argument and it was very well written. This was also, in a way, challenging because there were so many things we could relate to but we wouldn’t have anything to refer back to in the text.
“Some scientists say that living in another country can also make you more creative.”(3-4)
Points of Argument:
“‘The key, critical process is multicultural engagement, immersion, and adaptation. Someone who lives abroad and doesn’t engage with the local culture will likely get less of a creative boost than someone who travels abroad and really engages in the local environment.’”(25-29) Here, the author is stating what Galinsky said about becoming more creative while living abroad. Instead of saying that going on a vacation may not make you become more creative, he is saying that if you don’t explore or interact with the local environment, you won’t be able to adapt with the location.
“The researchers also found that the more countries that executives had lived in, the more creative the lines tended to be - but only up to a point. Those who had lived and worked in more than three countries, the study found, still tended to show higher levels of creativity than those who hadn’t worked abroad at all, but less creativity than their peers who had in a smaller number of foreign countries.(46-51) The author is saying that researchers found that even if you travel to a smaller amount of foreign countries, you will still be able to become more creative than people who don’t travel or study abroad at all.
“Cross-cultural experiences have the potential to pull people out of their cultural bubbles, and in doing so, can increase their sense of connection with people from backgrounds different than their owns.”(73-74) This is saying that when you get out of your comfort zone and don’t always limit yourself, you interact with different cultures and people which also makes you more creative.
Is it a solid argument? Do you agree? Why or why not?
I believe that this is a solid argument because it uses facts that came from multiple sources and had a wide variety of examples to support the argument. In the text, it not only tells us why we can become more creative by getting out of our comfort zones, but it shows us proof of significant authors and thinkers who have traveled, that traveling is “‘helping you to build a and acculturated sense of your own self’”(69-70), and many more. I agree not only because it is a great argument, but because I believe that it’s true. I believe that not exploring, getting out of your comfort zone, or interacting with other cultures, won’t make you become creative because even if you go on a trip somewhere for just a week, you can still interact with the different cultures and get out of your comfort zone, you don’t always have to act like a tourist.
Vocab Words:
-Cognitive ~ of or relating to cognition; concerned with the act or process of knowing, perceiving, etc.
-Disparate ~ distinct in kind; essentially different; dissimilar
-Immersion/Immerse ~ to involve deeply; absorb
-Correlation ~ mutual relation of two or more things, parts, etc
-Arbitrary ~ subject to individual will or judgment without restriction; contingent solely upon one's discretion
Reflection:
This piece of text was easier than the last piece of text but it was also more challenging when it came to the discussion. The piece text was very large but the author did a great job at explaining the argument because we were given many points of argument and it was very well written. This was also, in a way, challenging because there were so many things we could relate to but we wouldn’t have anything to refer back to in the text.
This assignment was given to us whenever we had a socratic seminar and we also needed to write the triple a's relating to the seminar topic. This was my second one and it was about how traveling can change you and how it can make you become a creative person. For triple a's we needed to include the thesis statement, three points of argument, a response to the question, "Is it a solid argument? Do you agree? Why or why not?", five words we didn't understand with their definitions, and lastly, a reflection about the text.
I learned that traveling really can make you a creative person because when you're in an unfamiliar environment, you are able to step out of your "shell" and not limit yourself. I also learned that many historic writers wrote their best pieces while traveling which I had no idea about.
I learned that traveling really can make you a creative person because when you're in an unfamiliar environment, you are able to step out of your "shell" and not limit yourself. I also learned that many historic writers wrote their best pieces while traveling which I had no idea about.
BOOK CRITIQUE #1
The book that I read was Looking for Alaska by John Green. I would recommend this book to mature teenage girls because it has somewhat of a romantic vibe but at the same time it’s a mystery. I know from going to book stores and reading books myself that most teenage girls are responsive when it comes to romance. I have also noticed that books that include a mysterious mood, appeal to younger audiences and this book is a blend of both.
In the book on page forty four, Alaska says, “ ‘Y’all smoke to enjoy it. I smoke to die,’ ” and this made me feel confused because it was the last sentence of that chapter and she said this in response to, “ ‘Why do you smoke so damn fast?’ ” which is odd because she never talked about dying and she never thought of killing herself throughout the book until the end. On page nineteen, Alaska says to Miles what Simon Bolivar’s last words were, “ ‘Damn it,” he sighed. “How will I ever get out of this labyrinth!” ’ ” and then she replies later with, “ ‘That’s the mystery, isn’t it? Is the labyrinth living or dying? Which is he trying to escape - the world or the end of it?’ ” When she said this, it got me thinking because there is no real answer to this. Throughout my time reading this book I kept thinking about the labyrinth because I never fully understood what it meant or what it was and I slowly started to realize, just like how Alaska responded to Miles, “ ‘That’s the mystery, isn’t it?’ ”
A passage that I found meaningful was on page 221 when Miles says to himself, “So I know she forgives me, just as I forgive her. Thomas Edison’s last words were: ‘It’s very beautiful over there.’ I don’t know where there is, but I believe it’s somewhere, and I hope it’s beautiful.” I find this very meaningful because it’s the last paragraph in the book and it wraps everything up with Alaska’s death and you can now see how relieved and how caring he felt towards her.
The title relates to the story because throughout the book, even before she dies, Miles, a.k.a. Pudge, thinks that he knows who she is but in reality no one can fully understand who she is or what her story is. It’s called Looking for Alaska which I think means that he is trying to get to know who Alaska really is and become close with her but he realizes later on in the book that no one fully knew her. On page 218 he says, “I would never know her well enough to know her thoughts in those last minutes, would never know if she left us on purpose. But the not-knowing would not keep me from caring, and I would always love Alaska Young, my crooked neighbor, with all my crooked heart.”
In the book on page forty four, Alaska says, “ ‘Y’all smoke to enjoy it. I smoke to die,’ ” and this made me feel confused because it was the last sentence of that chapter and she said this in response to, “ ‘Why do you smoke so damn fast?’ ” which is odd because she never talked about dying and she never thought of killing herself throughout the book until the end. On page nineteen, Alaska says to Miles what Simon Bolivar’s last words were, “ ‘Damn it,” he sighed. “How will I ever get out of this labyrinth!” ’ ” and then she replies later with, “ ‘That’s the mystery, isn’t it? Is the labyrinth living or dying? Which is he trying to escape - the world or the end of it?’ ” When she said this, it got me thinking because there is no real answer to this. Throughout my time reading this book I kept thinking about the labyrinth because I never fully understood what it meant or what it was and I slowly started to realize, just like how Alaska responded to Miles, “ ‘That’s the mystery, isn’t it?’ ”
A passage that I found meaningful was on page 221 when Miles says to himself, “So I know she forgives me, just as I forgive her. Thomas Edison’s last words were: ‘It’s very beautiful over there.’ I don’t know where there is, but I believe it’s somewhere, and I hope it’s beautiful.” I find this very meaningful because it’s the last paragraph in the book and it wraps everything up with Alaska’s death and you can now see how relieved and how caring he felt towards her.
The title relates to the story because throughout the book, even before she dies, Miles, a.k.a. Pudge, thinks that he knows who she is but in reality no one can fully understand who she is or what her story is. It’s called Looking for Alaska which I think means that he is trying to get to know who Alaska really is and become close with her but he realizes later on in the book that no one fully knew her. On page 218 he says, “I would never know her well enough to know her thoughts in those last minutes, would never know if she left us on purpose. But the not-knowing would not keep me from caring, and I would always love Alaska Young, my crooked neighbor, with all my crooked heart.”
This was my very first book critique and after I read the book Looking for Alaska by John Green, I needed to type up four paragraphs that each answered one question. The ones I chose were, who would you recommend this book to, discuss some points that the author is making about family, friends, feelings, nature, life experiences, or a historical period. The last two were, select a passage you found meaningful, and how does the title relate to the story.
Throughout reading this book I learned that you should never judge a book by its cover. I know this is a commonly used phrase but they introduced Alaska as a normal girl but in the end she turned out to be the opposite. She was a crazy, immature teenager who only cared about smoking and drinking. She was a very suspicious person and no one knew her "really well".
Throughout reading this book I learned that you should never judge a book by its cover. I know this is a commonly used phrase but they introduced Alaska as a normal girl but in the end she turned out to be the opposite. She was a crazy, immature teenager who only cared about smoking and drinking. She was a very suspicious person and no one knew her "really well".