Thomas Paine's "Common Sense"

"In the early ages of the world, according to the scripture chronology there were no kings; the consequence of which was, there were no wars; it is the pride of kings which throws mankind into confusion. Holland, without a king hath enjoyed more peace for this last century than any of the monarchical governments in Europe. Antiquity favours the same remark; for the quiet and rural lives of the first Patriarchs have a snappy something in them, which vanishes when we come to the history of Jewish royalty."

Disregarding the raging antisemitism towards the end of the passage, I feel this passage is the most interesting one of T-Paine's theories. I find his ideas would theoretically make the most sense and would help his discourse community the most. I personally agree completely with his remarks(not including the last anti-Semitic part).

The diction of his language is also very easy to follow, while other portions of his text tend to lose the reader. He is very straightforward with his ideas which helps the reader look into the concepts rather than the complexity of the language.

-A.J.P.

I agree with Anna and Justin in that I found it similar to ATSS. After reading ATSS, which was written in such a way as to arouse deep emotion (pathos) from the reader, I found Bookseller to be impersonal, almost cold. Whereas Hosseini pushed the reader along in terms of pathos, Seierstad's retellings are open-ended and subtle; she doesn't lead you either way but rather lets the story speak for itself. In this way, Hosseini's story was much more manipulative and calculated. Bookseller feels more narrative to me in that the purpose isn't as clear as it was in ATSS. I personally like ATSS much more; the story was enthralling and I felt a clear connection with the characters. ATTS's purpose was crystal-clear, and can really only be interpreted in one way. However, in Bookseller there are more subtle implications and I think that you can do more with it in terms of rhetorical analysis because there are so many ways that it can be interpreted.

Bookseller of Kabul

After looking at the comments above ^^, I personally agree with the majority of the group in saying that I enjoy A Thousand Splendid Sun more than The Bookseller of Kabul. While I am only on page 76 and have not gotten deep into the story of the book, I feel that TBK fails to portray a successful anecdotal narrative. I personally enjoy “stories” rather than an article of events. The reason for Seierstad’s struggle in succeeding to my personal standards may be due to the non-fiction aspect of the book, while ATSS was merely the story of all Afghan women.

Bookseller of Kabul

I feel like this is just more of the same that we read for summer reading. I feel like once you read one of the books, you become desensitized and it no longer can have legitimate pathos. With that in mind, I feel like the Bookseller of Kabul is better written because it doesn't seem as extreme, and is more relateable. However, I feel that in total the books are too similar for the second one to have as much of an impact.

Bookseller of Kabul

At this point, the book seems very jaded. Seierstad's intent to develop personal experiences among her characters (ethos) seems lacking. Her book tends to seem repetitive in its events, creating a massive similarity to A Thousand Splendid Suns by Hoessini. In her attempts to portray a new, enlightening novel, she finds herself tied up in the hackneyed examples of many authors intent on bringing light to the commonly known issue of oppression based on culture around the world. So far I have not been hit by a real monumental scene of the novel that would really make me sympathize (based on the story!!, of course in reality I think it is awful that such oppression can exist, yet who am I to judge based on my own perceptions of democracy) with the characters in the novel. Excitement seems to escape the pages of A Thousand Splendid Suns, resulting in my diminished interest and appeal of the characters who strive to persevere, endure, and breakthrough the fettering fates that society sends their way. 

Eh

Not to give away the ending to anyone who hasn't read it, but DON'T get excited! I really liked the book in the beginning, I love cultural and travel books, and I thought the author did a really good job of presenting the story objectively. Without any further explanation, I was infuriated and or sympathetic to the actions of the characters. I appreciated the anecdotal style of the plot, but I feel that the stories lacked transitions, and sometimes the purpose for the stories is lost. Not to mention, the ending (or lack thereof)! Coming before the age of Kite Runner and A Thousands Splendid Suns, the book is an impressive breakthrough to Middle Eastern novels, but having read the others, I was slightly disappointing.

Bookseller of Kabul

While my thoughts towards Bookseller are bound to change as I progress further into the work, I believe I have a pretty good sense of what the rest of the work will be like. Like my fellow readers, I find myself constantly drawing parallels between Bookseller and A Thousand Splendid Suns. Whereas ATSS was a total pity story, carefully calculated to tug at the reader's heart strings through the watered-down caricatures of real life "characters", Bookseller journeys into an ocean of moral ambiguity. Seierstad employs a distant, detached, matter-of-fact voice in her recounting of the Bookseller's story, not surprising given her history as a journalist. Her style emphasizes the total lack of moral judgement that each character receives in the book, and affirms the idea that in reality, there is no black or white, good or bad, but rather, varying shades of grey. Seierstad makes her point most apparant through the character of the Sultan, a rare walking paradox in the realm of literature but no doubt all-too-common in every-day life, especially in Afghanistan. Seierstad's totally-non-judgemental-whatsoever voice is meant to tell us, the reader, that we too are not meant to pass judgement on the going-ons of her work, but to simply accept the work as an exploration of a completely alien society.

No character in Bookseller represents the classical antagonist or protagonist that we all yearn for; rather, i believe there are two broad "characters" in the novel: society, and the actual person-characters. We are not passing judgement on either of these "characters", merely exploring the affects a seemingly-cruel society has on its constituents. Seirstad's "asides" giving us broader info re: Afghani society at large especially emphasizes this point. For example, our first instinct is to hate Jamila's family for murdering their own kin and blood. Yet, Seirstad then, in her total calm matter-of-fact detached way, informs us that Afghan society views love as a sin, honor as the supreme ranking of one's worth, and Jamila's action as a veritble crime, and thus, in a society where everyone is ingrained to think in such a way since birth, is there truly any other logical option but for Jamila's family to kill her? It seems incredibly cruel to us, but that is why Seirstad wrote her work, to bring us some grain of understanding of such a totally alien society.

It is this very lack of antagonist that perhaps angers or puts off so many of my fellow classmates. As human beings, it is our natural desire to despie any perceived evil, to believe that there is some source of this evil that can easily be blamed away. Seirstad, with her lack-of-judgement, has presented us with a society in which there is no one person to blame for the perceieved-evil, no source for this seemed depravity which we believe has enveloped the country, and I believe it angers us as readers that there is no easily expendable source, but rather that the malevolence just is, floating in the air.

....this is what happens when you stay up the whole weekend working on your junior thesis and then write a blog post at 2 in the morning