Non-Fiction Critical Analysis

In the article “Horoscopes - Fun But Utterly Fallible”, by Peter M. Nardi, the author uses many examples and biased vocabulary to persuade readers to believe that zodiac horoscopes are completely untrue. Nardi uses examples of experiments and quotes from psychologists, such as Bertram Forer, P.T. Barnum, and Charles Reichardt, as well as researchers, such as Richard McFall and John McGrew. Nardi also gives his own zodiac sign, and uses examples of things he’s seen on the internet about his own sign. He also states, along with other psychologists that he mentions, that horoscopes generality makes it so anyone can refer to themselves as what the horoscope says.  Throughout the entire article, the author consistently denies any truth that could lie in horoscopes.

Within the article, Nardi describes a few experiments performed by psychologists or researchers that help to prove that zodiac is inaccurate. For example, the first experiment that Nardi explains is one performed by psychologist Bertram Forer in 1949, “...subjects completed a personality test and received a written assessment of their results. Forer asked them to rate the accuracy of their personal profiles; the result was very high ratings (an average 4.26 where 5 is "very accurate"). However, each person received the exact same assessment that Forer took from a newspaper horoscope: ‘You have a need for other people to like and admire you, and yet you tend to be critical of yourself. While you have some personality weaknesses you are generally able to compensate for them. You have considerable unused capacity that you have not turned to your advantage.’" This experiment was very smart, considering that if a person had just seen this in a book or on a website when looking up traits of their astrological sign, they would most likely believe this statement to be true. This is because, as Nardi later states in the article, if people read something positive that is supposed to represent themselves, they will probably believe it to be true, if it’s general enough that it could apply to just about anyone. That, as the article explains, is how horoscopes are designed, according to those who are anti-zodiac accuracy. Another example of an intelligent experiment done is one performed by another psychologist, Charles Reichardt, “Intrigued that the horoscopes on an online website suggested that Taurus, Sagittarius and Virgo people tend toward conservatism, he looked at 40,637 respondents in the GSS dataset and found no statistical difference in identifying oneself as liberal, conservative or moderate among the 12 zodiac signs. Using several other measures, Reichardt concluded that ‘astrology provides little if any basis for accurately describing individual human differences.’" This experiment also proves that horoscopes are untrue. But this experiment has another aspect, which is that people are categorized to be certain things based on their zodiac sign, but a lot of the time that isn’t really what they are, as the experiment proves.

Honestly, I’m torn on whether or not I should agree with Nardi and his idea that horoscopes are always utterly untrue. On the one hand, I think astrology and zodiac is just a fun thing, and I personally love it and love to read about it not just for myself, but for other people too. Among doing that, I have come across both horoscopes and zodiac descriptions that did represent myself or someone else, as well as ones that didn’t. Sometimes I have found that ones I read, particularly about myself, are revealingly accurate. But then again, I do believe (agreeing with Nardi) that if people read positive or hopeful horoscopes, they will most likely believe them because people always want to think good things about themselves. A certain part of me wants astrology and all of it’s theories and horoscopes to be true, a) because it gives people something to believe in and discover, and b) because it’s a plain fun thing to have faith in. On the contrary, another part of me thinks it could just be hogwash that astrologers made up because they either created it but don’t have reasoning with not enough scientific backing, or they wanted people to have something hopeful to believe in, if say they weren’t religious or just unsure about themselves. This brings up a couple questions that I have. The first is: if zodiac is all hogwash, why does it somehow end up to be relatable and sometimes fully accurate? Although the second is: if zodiac was just created for people who were unsure about themselves, could it possibly force people to believe they’re someone that they’re not? Overall, I feel that this article, although stating an obvious bias, was very intriguing and most definitely made me question my past belief in zodiac.

Perspectives Missing in the Book Burned (Revised Literary Essay)

The book Burned, by Ellen Hopkins, is a story about a girl named Pattyn, and how she struggles with family, boys, and religion. She and the rest of her family are all Mormons, so when Pattyn begins making more rebellious choices, it causes her trouble. The entire book is told in verse from Pattyn's perspective, but the author failed to include the perspectives of Pattyn's mother and father, and this affects the entire story.

   

The first perspective missing from Burned is that of the father. So far in the book, Pattyn's father has most definitely made life quite hard, but there are points where it may be beneficial to read the father's thoughts. For example, there is a dialogue between Pattyn and her father which is, "Dad will you miss me?" Pattyn asks. Her father responds, "Miss you? I don't even know, Pattyn." (Hopkins 173). This conversation, which is already important, but is also definitely a place where it would be compelling to read what the father is thinking. For one thing, Pattyn's father is practically saying he will not miss her, even though he isn’t saying those exact words. Obviously, no daughter would ever want to hear that from her father, so even just implying it is hurtful. Also, maybe there's more to it than just what the father says. Maybe he really will miss Pattyn, but doesn't want to admit it because he doesn't feel comfortable with showing emotion, which is actually shown earlier in the book. Another example is when Pattyn is now staying at her Aunt Jeanette's house for a portion of the summer, and Pattyn says (referring to her father), "He didn't bother with good byes, which only hurt a little." (Hopkins 192).The author made this sentence depressing to help the readers comprehend that Pattyn is still a little girl inside who only wants to be loved by her father. On the other hand, the author excluded the father's point of view in this section especially because if we had heard his thoughts on this, it might make Pattyn's statement less pitiful, and cause the father less blame. A final example is when Pattyn's father is punishing her for being romantic with a boy named Derek, after the the father has slapped her she says, "Defiance rose up like vomit. I swung back and yelled, 'Don't you ever do that again!' He caught my arm. Held it midair, and I found in his eyes conflicting emotions-something almost like apology, and something very much like satisfaction." (Hopkins 148). This page is very interesting, because at this point the author almost does give us a little of the father's perspective, but still through Pattyn. It would be so engaging to know how the father felt in that moment, considering it is so powerful. The father would most likely be feeling the emotions that Pattyn describes in his eyes, but it would be preferered to have the father himself put his feelings into words. If this were to occur, it may even unleash some of the father's notions for slapping Pattyn in the first place.

The second perspective missing from Burned is that of the mother. The mother seems to always be busy with her large family (Pattyn has six sisters), and obedient to her husband when he is nothing but rude to her. For example, Pattyn questions the things that happen in her family, "How, no matter what happened the night before, the next day Mom and Dad would be tandem in bed?" (Hopkins 35). The question Pattyn is asking is could also be speaking for what the readers may like to know. If the mother's perspective was shown here, then maybe she would have something to say about that. The reason that Pattyn's mother is still even married to Pattyn's father could be two reasons; the first is that she feels she needs her husband's money and protection to support her family, and the second is that a part of her still loves him and remembers him the way he used to be when they married. Another example is when Pattyn is reminiscing, "...But this tiny piece of me kept thinking back to another, happier time, when Mom loved Dad. And me. And Dad loved Mom. And me." (Hopkins 52). This line is very strong, because it gives readers a glimpse of what Pattyn's life was like before everything became troublesome. But, it could be helpful to read what the mother thinks of all this, because she most likely wishes it was like it was in the past all the time.

The fact that the story lacks these two perspectives of the father and the mother greatly affects the story. One reason for this is because if the perspectives had been there, it is possible that Pattyn's point of view wouldn't attract as much sympathy. Not that the parents' perspectives would outshine Pattyn's, since it is a book for teens, but it would prove some of her points wrong and cause the blame to fall less on the parents, and more all three of them. Another reason for this is that the mother and father are very significant characters in the story, but in many scenes their opinion is not needed, since the story is centered around Pattyn. For example, whenever Pattyn is at school or outside of home, there really is no input for the parents to make. And finally, when teens read young adult books, they usually like to read about someone around their age, like Pattyn. If they were reading about the mother and father's points of view, they may not understand or find it less interesting because it is much harder to relate to it. But, it still would be interesting to sometimes get a taste of what the father or mother's thoughts are once and a while, because it could 1) add alternate perspectives besides Pattyn's, and 2) add more depth to the story as a whole.

Overall, Hopkins made the right decision by not replacing Pattyn's entire perspective with that of her mother's and/or father's, but she should've included a bit of it where it was needed, or even just where it would make the story more gripping. All YA books that include a powerful conflict between the child and the parents should include a little of the parents' point of view. Maybe if this were to actually start appearing in some or all YA books, it could be used in comparison to other things related to the same family conflict, like books about divorce, or books about child abuse. Also, it is in fact true that some parents do not like their child reading these especially disturbing YA books so maybe, (and this is a bit of a stretch), parents would be at least the slightest bit more comfortable with their child reading the book if the parental characters in the book got to say what they felt. In conclusion, Burned by Ellen Hopkins, despite it lacking some perspective of the parents, is a fantastic book, and even without the parents' perspective it still locks the reader in and forces them to keep turning one page after another.

Link to old blog post: http://natashasbookblog26.blogspot.com/2014/11/perspectives-missing-in-book-burned_30.html