A Look at Happiness - From the Happiest Person on Earth

This Ted Talk was all about happiness, and why it possibly isn't the best thing for society. If you're ready to accept the fact that happiness may not help people (which is hard... because I was not), then feel free to watch this Ted Talk here:
https://www.ted.com/talks/emily_esfahani_smith_there_s_more_to_life_than_being_happy#t-726454   

Emily Esfahani Smith makes the argument that happiness is something that comes and goes, but meaning and meaningfulness are things that help you through life and give you something to hold on to. She proves this point by saying that overall people who chase happiness are more depressed, and that those who are happy have a sense of meaning in their life. Adding on to this point of meaning, she introduces the four pillars of meaning: belonging, purpose, transcendence, and storytelling. Each one of these pillars helps someone to recognize their meaning in life, therefore making them a happier person. Smith saves storytelling for last, and she argues that this pillar is the most surprising. Storytelling, in Smith's view, is the story someone tells about themselves and their life, and she argues that people can change the meaning of their story, instead of having it listed out as a set of events that may be important to them. Smith also discusses the sense of belonging, which usually comes out of forming bonds with people that are close friends or family.  Smith discusses purpose as an outlet for talents and strengths in someone, and as a way to help people. Finally, Smith also describes transcendence as something that makes someone feel connected to a higher reality, be it God or even art. Throughout all of this, Smith includes personal examples and how they impact not only that person's life, but other lives as well.

Smith proves her point immediately through ethos, and states that she studied positive psychology, along with dedicating 5 years of her life to study the meaning of someone's life. She also name drops several important psychologists such as Dan McAdams, and gives their input into her development of her research, which is a great example of ethos.

Using logos, Smith is able to effectively demonstrate what she means when she is talking about these four pillars of meaning, a term that she came up with. She structures her argument so that it disproves the main topic, and then provides an answer for it.

There is a lot of pathos in this Ted Talk, and this is because Smith adds personal stories into each pillar of meaning. She includes stories about a soccer player who changed his view on his life based on an accident, along with a story about the rejection of a nicety and its impact. Smith was able to make it personal to listeners and get them thinking about how they are meaningful and how they are also victims to some of the stories she shared.

As someone who is known for being almost robotically happy, I was a bit confused when I stumbled upon this Ted Talk. A very big reason for my confusion was because I have always had the goal of making someone's day better, and I strive to do that through being happy and using my happiness to help others. When I saw this Ted Talk, I had a mini panic attack that I had subconsciously been screwing people over for over 13 years of my life. However, I then felt the need to listen to this talk because I thought I could possibly learn something about why I'm so happy. While that didn't happen, I was able to see right away that everyone I know fits into the four pillars, and I thought that that was really cool. This talk also helped me to understand the reason I cry whenever I see fireworks (transcendence, it's the little things), and that me attempting to make others happy is my purpose (I guess). I think that everyone belongs in the four pillars, and while I may not always get why people are not happy, I know that they have a meaning in this world, and one day they will put it to use and be happy from that. I think that my meaning is just to help people by being happy and not letting life get me down, and anyone who goes to Disney in the next few years may see me put that meaning to use!

Everybody's Got a Dark Side

The first description of Mr. Hyde is told by Mr. Enfield, and mainly describes his physical appearance. He uses words such as deformed and detestable, and even makes a subtle reference to the Ape vs God theory that was apparent in the Victorian era. This description of Mr. Hyde is in a very negative light, and this is because of the maniacal situation he was involved in, and also the judgment of first appearances by Mr. Enfield. Along with the negative light Mr. Hyde is placed in, it is also very vague and ambiguous, with only generalizations and a few words to describe him. This perspective of Mr. Hyde demonstrates the thought process of Mr. Enfield. Mr. Enfield has just witnessed Mr. Hyde run over a little girl, so naturally his thoughts and feelings about the matter are going to be negative, and this affects what other characters such as Mr. Utterson think of Mr. Hyde initially. Mr. Enfield's overall theme of his description is that Mr. Hyde looks like someone people do not like, and radiates and aura of disgust. 

Dr. Jekyll is viewed as almost the complete opposite of Mr. Hyde in his secondary description. Dr. Jekyll is described by the narrator of the novella, but is viewed through Mr. Utterson and Dr. Lanyon. During the beginning of the description, Dr. Jekyll is seen as someone who is kind, caring and overall at peace with himself. However, as the description goes on, there is a point where he undergoes a massive change. He hydes (Get it?... I'm so sorry) himself in his room, and is seen to live vicariously through the dying Dr. Lanyon, who looks like he is about to die, with pale skin, a gaunt face, and an older, terrified aura about him.  Dr. Jekyll's description is in a conflicting light with a sudden switch between positive and negative lights. This description of Dr. Jekyll shows the mysterious circumstances surrounding Dr. Jekyll, especially in the latter part of the description, and it shows the actions going on around him, such as Dr. Lanyon's demise. This description is reflects the confusion in Mr. Utterson, and it affects the terror seen in Dr. Lanyon. 

This particular two voice poem is reflecting on Mr. Hyde's first appearance, which is overall vague and detestable. It is also reflecting on Dr. Jekyll's at once calm, but now terrified and confined nature.

Dr. Jekyll I am Dr. Jekyll There is this darkness inside This darkness is unsettling No matter, there will be only one. I fear he is controlling my mind He is strong, but he won’t survive He will not win! I will fight! I will not lose It has already begun I will make this end He will not kill me! London will not know of Mr. Hyde No! He will lose Hyde will not win Goodbye Mr, Hyde! No!

Mr. Hyde I am Mr. Hyde There is this brightness inside This light will be crushed No matter, there will be only one. I am gaining control in the mind He is weak, and he will die He will not win! He will lose I will win It has already begun I will forever live on He will not kill me! London will fear the name Mr. Hyde I am already winning It’s the end for Jekyll Goodbye Dr. Jekyll! Yes!

Macbeth? You mean Macdeath

Surprise! Or not - it's time to be that person who waited until the very last post to do a freebie. 

And now - some articulate Macbeth rhymey thing to make this a little more exciting. 

There was a Rachel Gerney,

Who has made an elaborate journey.

Every Sunday she would post,

A random blog in which she was the host.

But now is the end of that path,

And this writing is just for laughs.

Sorry to end it this way,

But she will be back after the Holidays.

"If Ye had a Chance to Change Yer Fate...Would You?"

3. Do you believe events in your life have been guided by fate or chance? Why or why not? Based on the text, what do you think Shakespeare's attitude was towards fate? Does Macbeth have any choice in his actions or was everything predetermined? Use examples from the text as your support.

 The concept of fate vs free will is an incredibly popular topic among archaic (or ancient, whatever works) literature. Examples of this are Oedipus Rex (sophomore year anyone?) and probably some other books that are super popular that I can't remember right now. Shakespeare's Macbeth is filled with the idea of fate vs free will, with the witches, supernatural elements, Macbeth's slow decent into complete madness, and even his murder of characters such as King Duncan and (SPOILER ALERT!) Banquo.

Fate vs free will has always been a tough subject for me to answer, partly because I constantly doubt myself after I make a definitive answer. Macbeth's case is no different. There are completely valid arguments on both sides, so forgive me if I sound like either a devil's advocate or an incredibly indecisive individual (Assonance and articulation! See what I did there?) .

Macbeth has encountered the supernatural and fate through the Weird Sisters in Act 1, and that has started the spiral into his madness for lack of a better word. Shakespeare was probably going for more of the fate side, and this is proven right away by how much he includes the supernatural in the play. There is so much rhyme that indicates the supernatural, which in this case is fate.

Another piece of evidence for this is in a recent scene (SPOILER ALERT!!) where three murders have a light so that they are able to kill Banquo and Fleeance, and then the light goes out. Neither of the three murders touched the light, and it went out as if by magic (or fate). Even more evidence for this is the event right after the Weird Sister's prophecy - Macbeth becoming Thane of Cawdor. This coincidence is fate coming into play.

Shakespeare, while having fate be the majority of the reason why the events in Macbeth happen the way they do, doesn't completely control all of his actions. There are definitely moments where he controlled himself and he wasn't dictated by fate. One piece of evidence for this is when he is making the decision to murder Banquo to stop his prophecy from happening.

Another piece of evidence for this is when Macbeth actually kills King Duncan. While it was mentioned in the prophecy that Macbeth would become king, it never said how. His decision to murder King Duncan was his to make, despite a dagger possibly appearing out of nowhere.

Now, why on earth would Shakespeare decide to have fate control events, but not completely control Macbeth's actions? Well, to a super paranoid man such as King James, fate dictating life is not only terrifying, but allowing people to have a bit of freedom of how they execute things makes it so much worse. Poor King James! He probably had nightmares for weeks after seeing Macbeth.

So now that I have talked all about Macbeth, I guess I'm supposed to evaluate whether my life is controlled by fate, and also question how fast I'll be able to sleep for the next week, or month.

There have definitely been events in my life where I've said "Okay, what are the chances of THAT ever happening?!", and these events I think may have been driven by  fate. Actually, all of this is ironic for me because I'm a huge believer in karma, yet I don't consider myself to be incredibly spiritual or religious.

Some of the craziest events that I have to believe are driven by fate are the rather unfortunate several deaths that I've had in my family, starting from when I was about 6 years old. This is not to turn this post into a sob story; I've just had a lot of people die over the 17 years I've been alive. The range of evaluations have been used: a heart attack & old age being some of them, but I think they just happened for a reason. However, my aunt's death was so mysterious that I have to believe that it was a result of fate. I actually remember asking if anything would happen to her and her baby, and no one really believed me, so I think that was a bit of fate too in a twisted, horrifying way.

Obviously, having several people & a dog that you know and love die in under a decade is something I don't find to just be a coincidence, and I think that fate has really played a part in most of those deaths. Why? I think it might be to balance out the life I have always had, as it has never been straining, I've never had other family issues, and I'm now incredibly thankful for what I have because of what has happened over the years. I can't say that I would be as thankful (which sounds horrible) if I hadn't experienced these traumas.


Onto a happier part of the blog (I promise I'm done with the sad stuff!), my entire existence is based off of fate. My parents met by complete coincidence on a literal street corner. Long story short, my dad had two options, go out to a bar with his friends or leave and go home. My mom also had two options, take the long, lighted way home, or the shady dark alleyway home. My mom would typically take the dark and shady path, but that particular day she decided to take the lighted way home, and that's when she met my dad. Had she taken a different path, or had my dad decided to go home at any point, they never would have met and I would never have been born. Crazy right?

I think that incredibly important events in my life have been controlled by fate, and I think this is because to either balance out all of the good in my life, or just to say it can. However, the little events, I think I control, because they are my decision to make. So, the answer is... both?

The Death of a Becket

This wonderful piece of artwork is not mine, rather it belongs to a box-maker in 1173-80 Great Britain. It is called the Reliquary Casket with Scenes from the Martyrdom of Saint Thomas Becket, and is made out of gilded silver, niello, and a glass cabochon, all set over a tinted foil. It is 2 & 3/16 inches wide, 2 & 3/4 inches long, and 1 & 7/8 inches tall. 

This abomination on the other hand is most definitely mine. The poor unknown soul who created the first box just had a heart attack in his grave after seeing this horrid replication. It is made out of .7 mm of lead, terrible drawing skills and the lack of a ruler. It was created on a red couch at around 4:37 to 5:27 PM, November 19, 2017, and now belongs to the bark of some torn down tree in the woods. 

Both of these boxes are supposed to represent the death of martyr, Thomas Becket, the English saint and archbishop of Canterbury. This box represents the physical death of Becket, and reflects how much of a martyr Becket was. 

This box has both portrait and landscape styles of art, the portraits being the angel on the left panel (or the horrifying person smiling at you, whichever choice looks more noticeable) and the painting above it (I have no clue as to what that is, but I thought it was some form of an artistic plant).  While both styles were popular, the combination of both could be seen as a way to start a new method of painting. 

The box is outlined in gold, and has a red jewel on top. However, the pictures are black and gray. The color could possibly signify death, because the scenes on the box show Thomas Becket's death. However, the color scheme could also signify power. Gold was a symbol of power at the time, and red is a very dynamic color. The box being gold and red could symbolize the power that Becket had during his lifetime, and while he may be dead, his power will still live on. The combination of colors implies a very morbid approach to the martyrdom of Becket, and could suggest the power beyond death that Becket could have on his followers.



The shape of this box is first and foremost... a box (actually, it's a sphere... ). However, it has a pyramid shape on top with the red jewel. This gives it more of an elegant appearance than an actual box would (because yes, those martyrs always get such nice things). 

The box is in a dark light, and this could be due to the death theme that surrounds the box in the paintings. 

The box (or fancy pyramid thing, whatever works), is composed so that Becket's death is only in a few places. The box itself is dominated by angels who are blessing the death, which brings some religious context into the paintings. Nobody wants to see their beloved religious leader be brutally killed by four ungrateful guards. Therefore, the inclusion of angels could help followers feel at ease about the death because they know that Becket is in a better place.

This art is predominately religious. It is detailing the death/ murder of Thomas Becket, which provides a religious context to the area at the time. This context is religious because it is detailing the death of an English saint and a leader. During the time, religion was important to the people, so the death of a leader was important to them and even started a pilgrimage. 

This art also contains a political context because it shows the murder of an important figure. The fact that people knew it was murder was important to them because they knew how powerful government was and how powerful religion was. It could strike either a sense of fear or a sense of vengeance in followers because they would be upset at the crown for murdering their leader. 

Overall, this box (and my rather terrible replication of it) has a death theme surrounding it due to its dark colors, and it also has a few contexts such as political and religious contexts.

Can't Bury These Tales

“And, ma’am,” he continued, “the laundress tells me some of the girls have two clean tuckers in the week: it is too much; the rules limit them to one.”

“Julia Severn, ma’am! And why has she, or any other, curled hair? Why, in defiance of every precept and principle of this house, does she conform to the world so openly—here in an evangelical, charitable establishment—as to wear her hair one mass of curls?”

“Naturally! Yes, but we are not to conform to nature; I wish these girls to be the children of Grace: and why that abundance? I have again and again intimated that I desire the hair to be arranged closely, modestly, plainly. Miss Temple, that girl’s hair must be cut off entirely; I will send a barber to-morrow.”

“(T)hree other visitors, ladies, now entered the room. They ought to have come a little sooner to have heard his lecture on dress, for they were splendidly attired in velvet, silk, and furs. The two younger of the trio (fine girls of sixteen and seventeen) had grey beaver hats, then in fashion, shaded with ostrich plumes, and from under the brim of this graceful head-dress fell a profusion of light tresses, elaborately curled; the elder lady was enveloped in a costly velvet shawl, trimmed with ermine, and she wore a false front of French curls.”
This passage is describing Mr. Brocklehurst's idea of what a girl should look like, and also describes his family members and the opposite appearance of what a girl should look like.

The passage starts with him saying that the girls should be limited to only one tucker, then continues with him criticizing a girl's naturally curly hair, and end with his family entering the room in expensive clothing.

The author uses irony in this passage to explain that Mr. Brocklehurst is a hypocrite. The irony is shown through the extremities between what Mr. Brocklehurst says and what his family represents. He wants to limit clothing down to one clean pair of clothes, yet his family is dressed so lavishly to the point of them looking like royalty. He says that the girl with curly hair - Julia Severn - should have her hair removed because she is too extravagant, yet his presumed wife has fake French curls in her hair.

These extremities represent the perceptions of social views at the time, and also shows how corrupt religion was during this time period.

Mr. Brocklehurst's lecture is a representation of the extremity that girls were expected to be at during the time. He expects the upmost modesty, which was something that was an expectation for women. As a figure of authority in the Church, Mr. Brocklehurst is expected to be modest as well as spiritual and adamant about being a close figure to God.

However, Mr. Brocklehurst has a family who dresses as if they are nobility, which tarnishes his supposed image inside the Church. As someone who is supposed to be modest, his family is incredibly corrupt in the sense that they do not dress like they are modest people.

These social outlooks contribute to the perception of religion in society at the time. The author shows it as corrupt and almost evil as they describe the situation in the passage. They reflect on Mr. Brocklehurst's character and how he is willing to make sure the rest of the world is modest, good, and faithful to God, but his family must dress as if they are deities.

The concept of irony in this passage shows the perception of religion at this time, which seemed to be a corrupt, almost evil part of society. This passage gave insight to what some people thought of religion in that time period. 

Popped Chips - a "healthy" version of Lays

This Popped Chips ad was published by Lucky Generals in London in January 2016. Any and all rights go to them.

The most obvious aspect of this ad is the color scheme. The colors are all "warm" colors and range from a deep red to a bright yellow.  These colors not only coincide with the bag of chips, but they also coincide with the thought of being dynamic. Considering this ad was published in January, a time where everything is gray, white, or blue, having a warm colored ad is striking, and it calls attention to itself (kind of like the "Arrest me red" car that everyone wants). 

The next aspect of this ad is the bag of chips itself. It is on the right side of the ad, after the sentence that is on the ad. It is also located at the part of the ad where the color scheme is lighter. The bag itself has the words "popped, not fried" on it, automatically making it sound more alluring (because no one likes to admit they eat fried food). 

Moving on to the words that are on the ad, the sentence says in big, bold letters, "You walk everywhere!". This part of the sentence is very empowering because it is giving a false sense of a healthy lifestyle to whoever is reading it.  The next part of the sentence says, in smaller letters, "Unless it is overcast or raining". This part of the sentence adds some reality to the situation and brings people back down to earth, because apparently, no one in London owns an umbrella. Finally, the trademark saying for Popped Chips is on the bottom right side of the ad, and it is placed there to make sure that the reader doesn't forget the saying. It is the last thing that the reader is going to look at, and for marketing, it's important that the readers associate the trademark saying with the brand. Most TV commercials do the exact same thing. 

This ad represent three out of the seven deadly sins. These three are: Gluttony, Sloth, and Pride. Going into the big picture of this ad, it is pretty easy to recognize how this is Gluttony. The easiest part to distinguish how this ad is Gluttony is what is written on the bag. The bag says that the chips are popped, not fried, which automatically makes them healthier than any other brand of chips that aren't fried. In reality, chips are still chips, and they are unhealthy no matter what, but the saying helps to take any guilt out of eating these chips. 

The next sin that the big picture addresses is Sloth. This one is harder to spot, but based on specific locations, it applies. The sentence "Unless it's overcast or raining" already brings reality to the situation. However, this ad was made in London, where it rains all the time, and is overcast nearly as much. The same goes for almost anywhere in the Northeast or Seattle, it rains all the time in those locations. Saying that it and having it in a city that rains all the time, would mean that the person is never walking anywhere, which then means that they are being lazy by sitting at home eating chips. 

The final sin that this ad represents is Pride. Assuming that this person lives somewhere sunny all the time, (according to the ads logic) they will walk everywhere. This is actually a big deal because walking is really good for the human body, and it is also better for the environment because the person is not driving a car. This could cause people to boast about how cool they are for being environmentally conscious and overall healthier than the majority of the population. 

This ad is addressed to audiences who are looking for a healthier alternative to something that they love. It is also playing a part in their New Year's Resolutions, considering it was written in January of 2016. This ad could affect anyone, and is targeted to everyone who likes chips but is also looking to be healthy. This ad affects any socioeconomic background, and culturally, the person will be associated with the healthy aspects of culture. 

Overall, this ad hits the sins Gluttony, Sloth, and Pride. It affects anyone wanting to be somewhat healthy, and its aspects help to make it seem interesting. The post itself has nothing against Popped Chips, but the ad was fun to make fun of and analyze.