English Class Assignments

Just to Say
This is just to say
That I think
Your food
Was maltasting

I know
You tried
For delicious
Treats

Your attempt
Failed
Better luck
Next time

Next time
I will eat
Better food
Without you near

Fresh Milk
Everyone loves fresh
Milk

It makes sweet
Pastries

Pretty sugary swirly
Delights

Baked with everlasting
Flavour

Firstly taken in
Smell

Later adored by
Sight

Caressed finely with
Feeling

The grinding crunch
Sound

The pure decadence
Taste

Senses come together
Perfection

THE CHRYSALIDS ARTICLE - THE SEARCH BEGINS: A FATHER'S QUEST FOR HIS DEVIANT CHILDREN

Quote of the Article:

Peter 5:10 – “And after you have suffered a little while, the God of all grace, who has called you to his eternal glory in Christ, will himself restore, confirm, strengthen, and establish you!”

As all of our readers are aware from previous articles, it has recently been discovered that Waknuk is infested. This beautiful, pristine and sterile town has become – and been for God knows how long – polluted by invisible deviations. These deviations are particularly petrifying for our society because they pose a threat that has never before been seen. Their deviation is not a physical one, rather a mental one, and that is how they managed to escape execution at birth.

Waknuk is a town recognized for its fine and efficient elimination of deviations, and has never had such an outbreak before. Of course, this only makes the matter more terrifying because it raises doubts in Waknuk’s residence about the true adequacy of Waknuk’s deviation elimination process.

After being first to publish the missing deviations story, The London Times received an influx of questions from the public, all questioning the verity of the horrific story and the system of elimination for newborn deviations. To clear up both matters: We regret to say that the story is indeed true. With regards to the second matter, The London Times took it up with resident Joseph Strum, whose own children are deviations in the matter.

Let us be honest: Joseph Strum has been on the forefront of deviation and mutant expulsion for a long time, so it would not be right for the thought of him having something to do with his son’s anomaly going unnoticed for all this time to cross my mind, but it did, and it was something that I quickly repented for after speaking with him.

Mr. Strum is one of the most honest people in our populace. He has taken care of Waknuk, and has dedicated his life to making sure that the people of Waknuk are protected from the wrath of the deviations and mutants. This town would be in an anarchic state; it would be taken over by the wretched mistakes, which God sends in the form of deformed creatures, if it were not for Strum. God bless you Mr. Strum, for Waknuk would not be the peaceful town it is today without your hard work.

On the subject of peace, let us return to the destruction of Waknuk’s peace, which has been posed by these currently missing deviations. These deviations are sure to harm our society, especially if not caught and if given the chance to reproduce. They pose a tremendous threat to our society, and are not even trying to be good citizens and respect the rules of our society. They have simply chosen to ignore our rules and disobey us to the highest possible level. These mind-mutants should turn themselves in, and allow for God’s will to be imposed upon them. They must repent, or let us repent for them.

Now to issue a plea to all the good, law-abiding citizens in Waknuk:

Do not harbour these mutants, do not shelter them and do not show them any mercy. If some of the deviants’ own father is able to better society by expelling a demonized creature, which he used to call his own, then you are surely able to do so as well. They have escaped us, and they pose a detriment to us. We, as a community, need to prevent any threats to the greater good. We, as devout Christians, have a duty to God to keep his image of man alive. We cannot contaminate that which is pure. We cannot contaminate Waknuk! So join us tomorrow in the hunt for the mind-mutants!

JULIET'S THOUGHTS ON ROMEO

The boy flaunts

By me heart her taunts

Cometh he will, each fair night

Profess my beauty by clear light

He thinketh his love for me is true

But with each hour of passing, new love may brew

As it did with Rosaline

And as it did with me too

He is with an open heart

One which I must close

With the help of Cupid's dart

I will make sure that it glows

With affection for only me

A love so sweet and pure

So that there is no other 'she'

A love which will endure

A marriage proposal, morrow will bring

Entrusting to me that our love is more than a fling

My adoration for sweet Romeo

For if one is not at me by morrow

I will sit and weep of sorrow

Despite this stupid hate for all that is Montague

My heart's desires are as strong as glue

Set upon only him I am

So set that I will disregard all the rest of them.

WAS IT MORAL? - PART 2

Another moral discussion that was initiated by my English teacher: "The Inheritor" by Frank Roberts. The question was about whether or not the story is about morals and values. Most of classmates claimed that it indeed was - I however, disagreed.

This story is most definitely not about morals and values. As I was discussing with my peers today, the man in this story does not portray a heightened sense of right and wrong. No, the man simply displays the human desire of not having his hard work become useless. The question is going to lead people to think that he saved that poor ewe out of the goodness of his heart, or because he is such an ethically superior being, but that isn’t the reason. He killed a dingo; let us not forget that. If he was so wonderful and ethical –not that anybody is saying that he is- wouldn’t he have devised a plan in which nobody had to die? He did not. He devised a plan in which he distracted the dingo, killed him and then saved an ewe. Similar to question 6 of the questions we had to answer, we were asked our opinion as to what he would do if he were in a situation of crime, environmental issues or corrupted governments. I answered that it is impossible for us to decide what he would do, as there is not enough information present. The questions imply that the story was about morals, and that is the only way that question 6 can be answered for certain. See, question 6 requires you to know what a person’s moral values are like, and thus, how these morals would be applied in undesirable situations. Sadly, because the story had nothing to do with morals, the questions can’t be answered. Do you really think that this man would stand outside in the pouring rain to protest evergreen trees getting cut down? Probably not, but then again we don’t know if he’s an active member of the “save the trees world peace organization.” :P Do you think that he would participate in overthrowing the corrupted government that hadn’t really done anything to him personally? Once again, he might, but we can’t be certain. And lastly, do you really think that this lovely man would stand up to the thugs mugging the little guy in the dark alley? Most likely not, he’d probably just keep walking. In the story, he does portray bravery by attracting the dingo’s attention to himself, but we can’t say that he’d do that for a stranger, for sure. The crime scenario however, is probably the most likely scenario where he would take action. As I said, this story is about a guy, who put effort into something and didn’t want to see it go to waste. He risked his life for this mentally challenged ewe. He got into a fight with a dingo. Then the retarded ewe walked straight into the middle of the fight – genius, right? Luckily, the ewe’s action helped get the man on top and allowed him to strangle the dingo. So this man, whose initial goal was to get up into a tree, decided to save an ewe? Funky dude, am I right? Then, when this really stupid ewe kept walking away from him, he put the effort into capturing the ewe, and hauling it up the tree. Funniest of all, by the end, when the helicopter comes to rescue him, he refuses to go without the ewe. He could have saved himself by getting into that helicopter, but no, he decided to take the ewe that caused him so much suffering. There are only three reasons that a person would do that:

A)   The person is insane.

B)   The person has a serious crush on this sheep, which I think is pretty funny.

C)   The person knows that they put a ton of blood, sweat and tears into saving this animal, that letting it die now would defeat the purpose.

The man had decided in his unclear state of mind that he would save an ewe. He did, and he put more effort into saving it than the ewe deserved. Now imagine that when this helicopter came that he said: “well okay, I guess this ewe can die!” That would make him stupider than the ewe. This man doesn’t have an amazing set of morals. This man just knows that letting all of his works go to waste is stupid. By spending time with the sheep, he has seen the consequences of being stupid. Now, of course, he wants to go through with what he started. He wants to save this sheep totally. If he hadn’t, then all of that work would’ve simply been for nothing. He would look back and think: “whoa, I was stupid. I saved that sheep, and then I killed it, like what? Ain’t nobody got time for that!”  He just doesn’t want to throw his hard work away, like every other human. He was in an unclear state of mind. Think about it, it’s like you writing your essay for school, and then right before class starts, crumpling it up and throwing it away. You don’t keep your essay in good condition because you have lovely morals, or because you are so well raised, no! You keep that essay in good condition because you don’t want all that hard work to go to waste. This was the same thing with the ewe, only in this case he didn’t have to save the ewe. In conclusion, the story is not about morals. The story is about preserving something you put effort into. Thank you very much ladies and gentlemen. 

WAS IT MORAL?

After reading the story "Gentleman, Your Verdict" by Michael Bruce, our teacher asked us to discuss whether or not Captain Oram made the right decision morally. Though most of my classmates believed that he did make the right decision, I did not. 

The moral issue that concerns the author is that of whether or not a man has the right to play god. It is a hot topic for debates, and has been argued for centuries. I am not religious, but I personally feel that no one has this right. This is one of the reasons that I am generally opposed to situations/assignments/activities that require me to take on the role of destiny. So far this year, I have had to participate in such activities in two different classes. I am opposed to them because they work to desensitize us on the subject of killing, and force us to take on a role that we are not entitled to take on. Sorry for the rant.

Bruce’s language use tries to imply that Captain Oram was justified in his decision. I agree with the majority that Captain Oram made the most rational decision under the circumstances – if he were not a captain. As a captain, Oram has to lead, but more than that he has to treat his whole crew equally, and nurture a caring spirit. Though he did lead by empowering himself to play the role of god, he did not treat his whole crew equally, nor did he encourage a caring spirit. (To quickly define “caring spirit”:  a sense amongst team members that encourages them to give their own lives to save the lives of their teammates.)

Since most of my peers have obviously become desensitized to the subject of murder, they fail to remember that murder is very rarely justified. They feel that “desperate times call for desperate measures.” This is true, but they regard the situation with no emotion whatsoever. However, human emotion is extremely important to society, it keeps people from veering away from their morals, which keeps the world from entering a state of anarchy. Compassion is the key. Simply put, there was another option in the matter, one that I –and most of my close friends- would’ve chosen.

The option that I am referring to is the “all for one, and one for all” option. I would’ve chosen death with all my friends. Partially because I wouldn’t have the power to kill somebody that I am close with, but also because that is what is morally right. Captain Oram took it upon himself to decide who is most important. Using his common sense, he reasoned that the people with families are more important than those without. This is fair enough, however it was a rash decision considering that the others could’ve had more to contribute, had they survived. I understand that he didn’t have a lot of time, nor was in a totally clear state of mind.

The main mistake that Captain Oram made was that he didn’t inform his crew that he was about to kill them. As a captain, it is his duty to do this. This was horrible on his part, and extremely cowardly. Cold-blooded murder, plain and simple. He didn’t flinch while pouring that whiskey, nor did he flinch as the bodies dropped. He also didn’t consider the long term. If you knew that your crewmates died without their consent for you, would you really want to continue living? Wouldn’t you have doubts as to whether or not you really deserved life more than your fellow man? Probably not.

Even though he killed himself, he still consulted no one in making this life or death decision, which was wrong. The captain killed people, he prioritized lives based on one small detail and he didn’t consider much as a leader. Captain Oram was a bad person in the story, and I am personally glad that he died. Committing suicide was the right thing to do on his part, based on the things he did.

Lastly, I’d like to address the issue of the majority saying that the Captain was justified in what he did. I feel that they are missing the point, which is the fact that the Captain prioritized the lives based on a simple piece of paper called a marriage certificate. The question that needs to be addressed is whether or not empowering yourself to prioritize lives is okay. The answer to the question is no, because you aren’t god. If all of the people are able to make such emotionless decisions without hesitation, then what would we become? We’d be an Orwellian society, one that disregards emotions, and looks at human lives in the same way they do math. Think about a building. On one floor you have a moderately rich, taxpaying, working-class person. This person is a contributor. On the other, you have a single mom, who occasionally abuses drugs and is on welfare. This person is a user of commodities. You have to kill one. How can you possibly think of the situation rationally? This isn’t a lifeless piece of paper; both are human lives – living things! Sure, one may not contribute all that much, but you cannot simply eliminate them because of that. They are still human, like you and like me. Who are you to decide that one of them is more useless than the other? How can you be so cold-bloodedly calculated? This is the trait of psychopaths.

Since I am getting way too angry, I’ll stop talking. To wrap up, Captain Oram died -and should be remembered- as a coward. 

CHARLOTTE'S RESPONSE TO MS. HANCOCK

You were always so lovely

Fiery hair and all

 Making everybody happy

Class with you was always a ball

So enthusiastic

So brave

So graceful

A slave --

To your students

You would have given all

You, yourself

Always took the fall

You had to endure

Cat-calling and more

Always believing

Things not needing

You were an angel with a curse

For you were always the nurse

Of sickened and hurt souls

Like mine

TROJANS IN MY MIND - A POETIC RESPONSE TO "THE SOUND OF THE HOLLYHOCKS"

With spring in bloom

it finally sets in,

the feeling of doom.

Guilt finds it's way

through the foggy light of day.

Through the pinkish hue of the hollyhocks

I am now lost.

Each perfect little petal

like a perfect little dagger,

straight through my weakened heart.

Coming in waves

it never leaves

hidden in the caves

of my trojan mind.

I still see him

deep within the haze

his shadow is dim

unlike his gaze,

which cuts-

through the garden below

each blinking motion

a gut wrenching show.

He is still there

that I know.

He will never be gone

like the most horrid of foe.

He is not that to me,

much more than so

he is elegant

he is true

he is kind

he is low-

Low in hiding

but he is not gone,

he is simply residing

 within the trojans of my mind