Disregard the following:

Juno sincerely apologizes for all this hype & wishes her life was not common knowledge dictated and destroyed by the uninvolved.

Sorry for not buying into it, everyone. Sorry for limiting your reasons to respect me. Sorry for having the flaw of emotion. And trying to make debacles work.

But then again, why I am sorry when it's not my fault?
Why do I persistently attempt to combat the void?

Oh yeah: because I'm genuine. Because I care. Because maybe, I am what you're not seeing. And maybe, I should be.

-
Now if you payed no heed to the title, why would you do the same to me?
-

I'm just striving to slake the spare contingencies and further erase all excuses derived by inadvertent, circumstantial, unavailing, quixotic events.

It is contemptible how inconsequential this all is now.
So what's the crux of my bombastic clamor?

Even remonstrance is incommensurate at this point.

Even I know that I am far from your pragmatic view and I'm sure this just aids your predetermination, of who and what I am, with parsimonious room for revision.

This deficiency is what is unbearable to me.But I guess this is just one of those things that has to be dealt with.
Just dealt with.

...Unless you'd like to show me your cards...

One thing you should know about me: You don't know me.

The Things They Carried: Quote Response

“It's now 1990. I'm forty-three years old, which would've seemedimpossible to a fourth grader, and yet when I look at photographs ofmyself as I was in 1956, I realize that in the important ways I haven'tchanged at all. I was Timmy then; now I'm Tim. But the essence remains thesame. I'm not fooled by the baggy pants or the crew cut or the happysmile—I know my own eyes—and there is no doubt that the Timmy smiling atthe camera is the Tim I am now. Inside the body, or beyond the body, thereis something absolute and unchanging. The human life is all one thing,like a blade tracing loops on ice: a little kid, a twenty-three-year-oldinfantry sergeant, a middle-aged writer knowing guilt and sorrow,” (236).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In one of his novels, and in the above excerpt from that book, Tim O’Brien constantly discusses the idea of time elapsing and the effects thereof. In the above quote I feel that his allegation pertaining to life’s changes is, on many levels, true. Everyone goes through phases and is constantly turning into something more defined (or vague even). As time passes, decisions are presented and choices are made. People learn and grow from life experiences. While some refuse to do such things, there is still an effect- even though there is no action.

In this passage, the example he makes to prove his point is by simply looking back to the past. Just by seeing where one has been can show a variation to who they are now. Many things may be the same, yes, but also many more things- hidden even- may be altered. But not the core. Tim O’Brien(the character)’s transformation was rather drastic throughout the novel. He progressed from an embarrassed, naive young man to a hardened solider. He witnessed many things that many people never even hear of in a lifetime. Yet, despite all of this turmoil and ‘growing up’, he is still able to recognize who he is.

While I do believe that some people can leave behind the essence ofthemselves and forget who they are momentarily, I also believe that there are others who do not and never will.
Take, for example yourself:
Have you ever wished the ‘you’ now could meet the old you? Everyone has. And the way you know that you are the same person through all this time is to look back and ask yourself if that ‘you’ way back when would admire who they are today or be ashamed. It doesn’t even matter what the answer is: If you can remember, the essence of yourself is still there after all this time. Memories and emotional responses to these recollections are the best devices for comparison, because you have to use a part of yourself to clarify the preferences you make.

Another example in the novel is the progression of Mary Jean’s character. She starts off as an innocent, yet eager, young girl and converts into something comparable to a nightmare. She seems to have lost all that she was as the result of this transformation, and even during it; however, she still knows who she is. This is who she longed to be all along- whether or not she was aware of it. She still wears her pink sweater and still knows her past, but now her present is garnished with nighttime prowls and her neck is draped with a ring of tongues.

People change, sometimes even beyond the recognition of others, this is an undeniable fact. But another reality is that people also have memories and never cease to see themselves. Whether or not it is in a ‘new light’; it does not matter. Knowing where one has been only helps to forge a clearer path to where one is headed. It is impossible to forget who you are. Maybe loose sight, but never forget. You can’t forget about what you feel when you look into your eyes in an old photo. You can’t forget about a piece of yourself. You can’t forget about the feelings you’ve had that have determined where you are now. You can’t forget about your own life.

Why I Write, (Irene Gut Opdyke)

My name is Irene Gut Opdyke and I am a Holocaust Rescuer.

I write to shock.
My goal is to interest my audience with my story, my experiences. I want to show the world the horrors I've witnessed and that the terrors my friends endured were real. I would like to reveal the rawness of the Holocaust.

I write to tell.
You need to hear about the lives and the stories I've encountered. I need to inform ignorance and educate obliviousness with harsh truths. I want to expose the reality that once was, for all it was, so it will never be again.

I write to prevent.
We must ensure that these nightmares never repeat themselves ever again. Together, we have to relay the memories of those affected by this tragedy. We can not allow a life to be treated in such a disgusting manner. I am trying to add to the reservoir of recourses so there will not be a relapse in history.

I hope that my influence positively changes as many lives as possible and that it was enough. These lives were in God's hands, as well as mine. As well as mine.

In My Hands + Quote = This Post

"If fear alters behavior, you're already defeated,". -Brenda Hammond

This quote ties in perfectly with the novel "In My Hands", written by Irene
Gut Opdyke. In this compilation of memories of a Holocaust rescuer, the
faint and wavering line between being believed and getting caught is so
hard to grasp. Acting is everything: If you fail to cover yourself in a facade
of sorts, you are dead. Period. Imagine living your life wondering where
your family is and being forced to abide by the new motto: "We must
pretend to be German, so we could finally be Polish again," (Page 56). The
only way to survive is to feed off of hope and conceal your overwhelming
fear. This is how Irene Gut lived during the times that her land, Poland,
was in war. She straggled along, even by herself at times, surviving off of
hollow promises.

After she was captured, she escaped the hospital with some help from a
friend: "We were both looking at the X ray, doctor and nurse conferring
about a pacient. I breathed out slowly, as though I had been holding my
breath for days," (Page 44). She had to act as though nothing was different
about that day. Irene had to stifle her excitement and fear and worries. She
escaped recalling how she "... slipped through their net as easy as
smoke," (Page 45). It sounded like a dream. 

The next lie she was forced to live was that of another identity. For some
time Irene Gut went by the name Rachel and improved her German to stay
unsuspected. When caught and interrogated, she stayed calm and did not
let her nerves show how prevalent they really were. I found it amazing how
she deceived a Guard by leading him to her 'house' and then bolted away.
She was so brave; taking such an immense risk. If she had leaked her plans
of darting away for one second- she would have been punished and trapped.
One second, maybe less, that's all it would have taken. 

Later in the novel Irene sees Jews being slaughtered in the back of the
hotel/restaurant she is employed at. It must have been impossible to have to
hide that horrid scene. She was told to just forget it ever happened, and I bet
she wished she could. Later she witnesses another brutal scene where she
makes the repetitive statements: "But it was not a bird. It was not a bird.
It was not a bird," (Page 117). In this portion of the novel, Irene is talking
about a Nazi solider using a baby as a target- throwing it in the air and shooting
it in front of its mother. Horrible. I could not even begin to imagine the amount
of control she must have had and I can not believe that she and her friends found
safe shelter during this street massacre of sorts.

A touching scene in the novel that reminds me of the above quote by Brenda
Hammond, is when a husband is trying to console his questioning wife about where
they are to be taken, and Irene comments "He was trying to be brave for her, I could
see," (Page 91). It was so touching to see them try to help each other and stick
together through the chaos. If he had let her see his fear and concerns; she would
have lost any amount she had ever possessed. This is like how Irene tried to shield
her sister from the atrociousness of the war. At that time they had to be each
other’s backbones, their safety- even if it was only a false sense of it. It was
the best that they could do.

In addition, Irene's father warns her: "'You must not let this ruin your life.
God has plans for you'," to which Irene responds: "'I must believe that. But it
is very hard'," (Page 82). She was a very very brave woman who learned
how to keep her fears deep inside her, for this was the only safe place to have any.

Hamlet & Oskar (NOTE: This piece focuses on Hamlet the character rather than the play as a whole).

In the novel Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close there were many instances of
satire and prevalent use of cultural asides. One such reference was the relation
between Hamlet and Oskar.

Hamlet was a depressed Prince, irascible and secretive,
after his father was murdered. Later Hamlet discovers that it was his uncle
(Claudius) who killed the former King to steal the crown, queen, and other such
‘trophies’. Hamlet, being the only one who was exposed to the truth (through the
ghost of his father), devotes his life to attaining revenge for his father’s
demise. In addition, it seemed as though all had forgotten about the former King.
This fueled Hamlet’s strife with his loss even more and caused an added push for
vengeance.

Foer’s Oskar is in many ways Shakespeare’s character Hamlet. Most obviously,
they both dealt with the loss of their fathers. In turn, they became distraught with
sadness and overwhelmed with confusion. Very small examples of this state are
exemplified through Oskar’s “Heavy boots” analogy and Hamlet’s constant play on
words, for example, “I am too much in the sun”. Also, both characters are
vehemently over-protective of their respective mothers and wish that they could
not fall in love again. The main difference between Oskar and Hamlet is that Hamlet
has a medium in which to thrust all of his hate-laced remorse. Hamlet is aware of
the cause of his father’s death: the how, the why. Oskar has no such target. He
does not know exactly how his father passed and he cannot grasp the concept of
his absence in any logical manner. This conundrum presented in Oskar’s life leads
him to search for meaning where there might not be any. He is so concentrated on
obtaining a solid reason or certain fact about his dad’s death that he is looking
past the realistic and will literally go ‘great lengths’ to achieve a restful mind.

I noticed many traces of the play Hamlet, Prince of Denmark directly linked
to Oskar. The most evident was on pages 142 - 147 when the novel discussed Schell’s
participation in his school’s play. In the rendition exhibited, there is some humor
and fantasy attached, but this does not take away from the power of what is being
said on both the surface and underneath. The momentary excursion, lapse in reality,
and butchered lines were not acts of mutilation, but rather, another way in which
insight into Oskar’s life and mind could be shed. Oskar, in his imagination’s
version of the play, focuses his anger on Jimmy Snyder and whips witty lines as
well as bashing him with his costume. This onslaught (verbally and physically) was
the result of Oskar’s pent-up emotions and hidden searches for answers. His life
is a play. Oskar is constantly performing, though his audience varies in composition
and attentiveness. For instance, he hides things like his quest or bruises.

Oskar attempts to conceal his emotions while Hamlet outwardly thrashes others
with his; yet they both find ways to cope.