Essays
Interesting essays written by UPHS students!
If you have any you would like to submit, please send them via email to: [email protected]
If you have any you would like to submit, please send them via email to: [email protected]
The V in Villain is now the V in Voldemort
Tiaam Majzoubi
If Harry Potter is the Boy-Who-Lived then Voldemort is the man who never dies. In J.K. Rowling’s novel, Harry Potter and The Sorcerer’s Stone, a young boy enters a world of magic and finds himself pitted against the most evil dark wizard of all time. Known to most of the wizarding world as “He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named” or “You-Know-Who,” this sinister adversary works from the shadows throughout most of the novel in order to exact his revenge. Despite only being a minor presence in the novel, Voldemort is inarguably the perfect archetypal villain as he meets all the necessary criteria, especially these attributes: working against the hero, not revealing his identity until the end, and ultimately being defeated.
For instance, Voldemort is an archetypical villain because he continuously works against the hero of the novel, Harry Potter. Readers eventually learn the motive behind Voldemort’s schemes against Harry when it is divulged that “You- Know-Who [Voldemort] killed ‘em [Harry’s parents]… he tried to kill you [Harry] too… No one ever lived after he decided ter kill em’, no one except you, and he'd killed some o’ the best witches an’ wizards of the age… an’ you was only a baby, an’ you lived. ” (Rowling 55-56). It is also revealed that no one knows precisely why Harry was targeted by Voldemort nearly 11 years ago, and although Voldemort was defeated long before the events in Harry Potter and The Sorcerer’s Stone, people still fear his return.
The fears of the wizarding world are proven to be entirely valid, as Harry quickly becomes a target during his school year when Voldemort returns and fulfills the second criteria of an archetypal villain by constantly seeking to undermine him. Using Professor Quirrell as an underling to carry out his orders, Voldemort nearly kills Harry during a quidditch match by jinxing his broom to throw him off. Quirrell later discloses, “Your friend Miss Granger accidentally knocked me over as she rushed to set fire to Snape at that quidditch match… another few seconds and I’d have got you off that broom” (Rowling 288-289). Of course, Harry is unaware at this point that Quirrell is merely a puppet and Voldemort is the true villain pulling the strings.
Yet Voldemort does not remain undiscovered for long, as he embodies the third characteristic of an archetypical villain by revealing himself in the very last chapter of the novel. As described by Harry after Quirrell unwraps the covering on his head, “where there should've been a back to Quirrell's head, there was a face, the most terrible face Harry had ever seen” (Rowling 293). This face was none other than Voldemort’s, who was now forced to share a body with Quirrell after being defeated by Harry all those years ago. Furthermore, Voldemort describes himself as a being reduced to “mere shadow and vapor,” who has a form only when it is possible to “share another’s body” (Rowling 293). Consequently, as presented by Mariam Kushkaki in her dissertation, “Unmasking the Villain: A Reconstruction of The Villain Archetype in Popular Culture,” Voldemort qualifies as an archetypical villain because he consistently plots to achieve immortality by extracting the Elixir of Life from the Sorcerer's Stone, therefore striving to disrupt the status quo of the natural order of life (Kushkaki 14).
However, Voldemort unwittingly fulfills the final criteria of an archetypical villain by ultimately being defeated by Harry (the hero) at the end of Harry Potter and The Sorcerer’s Stone. When Voldemort attempts to force Harry to retrieve the Stone, Harry defends himself by grabbing onto Quirrell, which destroys Quirrell’s body and expels Voldemort. Dumbledore [the headmaster of Harry’s wizard school] later discloses to Harry, “Your mother died to save you. If there is one thing Voldemort cannot understand, it is love. He didn’t realize that love as powerful as your mother’s for you leaves its own mark” (Rowling 299). Thus, Dumbledore explains that Quirrell, “full of hatred, greed, and ambition, sharing his soul with Voldemort, could not touch you [Harry]” as the power of Harry’s mother’s love conquers the forces of Voldemort’s villainous evil (Rowling 299).
Moreover, an article by Scott T. Allison and George R. Goethals titled “Does the Villain‘s Journey Mirror the Hero’s Journey?” cites writer Christopher Vogler, who explains that “the paths of the two start on the opposite sides of the spectrum and converge toward ―one or more epic clashes...[in which] the villain‘s mastery is handed over to the hero after the villain is defeated” (Allison and Goethals 16). In this case, by defeating Voldemort, Harry was able to attain mastery over the trauma of his past.
Without a shadow of a doubt, Voldemort undeniably meets the expectation of a classic archetypical villain. Not only does he constantly work against Harry and cunningly endeavor to undermine him, but Voldemort also does not unveil himself as the villain until the very last minute (in more ways than one) before being defeated by the power of love. Truly, in a seemingly neverending line of fictional bad guys, Voldemort is a villain who stands above the rest.
For instance, Voldemort is an archetypical villain because he continuously works against the hero of the novel, Harry Potter. Readers eventually learn the motive behind Voldemort’s schemes against Harry when it is divulged that “You- Know-Who [Voldemort] killed ‘em [Harry’s parents]… he tried to kill you [Harry] too… No one ever lived after he decided ter kill em’, no one except you, and he'd killed some o’ the best witches an’ wizards of the age… an’ you was only a baby, an’ you lived. ” (Rowling 55-56). It is also revealed that no one knows precisely why Harry was targeted by Voldemort nearly 11 years ago, and although Voldemort was defeated long before the events in Harry Potter and The Sorcerer’s Stone, people still fear his return.
The fears of the wizarding world are proven to be entirely valid, as Harry quickly becomes a target during his school year when Voldemort returns and fulfills the second criteria of an archetypal villain by constantly seeking to undermine him. Using Professor Quirrell as an underling to carry out his orders, Voldemort nearly kills Harry during a quidditch match by jinxing his broom to throw him off. Quirrell later discloses, “Your friend Miss Granger accidentally knocked me over as she rushed to set fire to Snape at that quidditch match… another few seconds and I’d have got you off that broom” (Rowling 288-289). Of course, Harry is unaware at this point that Quirrell is merely a puppet and Voldemort is the true villain pulling the strings.
Yet Voldemort does not remain undiscovered for long, as he embodies the third characteristic of an archetypical villain by revealing himself in the very last chapter of the novel. As described by Harry after Quirrell unwraps the covering on his head, “where there should've been a back to Quirrell's head, there was a face, the most terrible face Harry had ever seen” (Rowling 293). This face was none other than Voldemort’s, who was now forced to share a body with Quirrell after being defeated by Harry all those years ago. Furthermore, Voldemort describes himself as a being reduced to “mere shadow and vapor,” who has a form only when it is possible to “share another’s body” (Rowling 293). Consequently, as presented by Mariam Kushkaki in her dissertation, “Unmasking the Villain: A Reconstruction of The Villain Archetype in Popular Culture,” Voldemort qualifies as an archetypical villain because he consistently plots to achieve immortality by extracting the Elixir of Life from the Sorcerer's Stone, therefore striving to disrupt the status quo of the natural order of life (Kushkaki 14).
However, Voldemort unwittingly fulfills the final criteria of an archetypical villain by ultimately being defeated by Harry (the hero) at the end of Harry Potter and The Sorcerer’s Stone. When Voldemort attempts to force Harry to retrieve the Stone, Harry defends himself by grabbing onto Quirrell, which destroys Quirrell’s body and expels Voldemort. Dumbledore [the headmaster of Harry’s wizard school] later discloses to Harry, “Your mother died to save you. If there is one thing Voldemort cannot understand, it is love. He didn’t realize that love as powerful as your mother’s for you leaves its own mark” (Rowling 299). Thus, Dumbledore explains that Quirrell, “full of hatred, greed, and ambition, sharing his soul with Voldemort, could not touch you [Harry]” as the power of Harry’s mother’s love conquers the forces of Voldemort’s villainous evil (Rowling 299).
Moreover, an article by Scott T. Allison and George R. Goethals titled “Does the Villain‘s Journey Mirror the Hero’s Journey?” cites writer Christopher Vogler, who explains that “the paths of the two start on the opposite sides of the spectrum and converge toward ―one or more epic clashes...[in which] the villain‘s mastery is handed over to the hero after the villain is defeated” (Allison and Goethals 16). In this case, by defeating Voldemort, Harry was able to attain mastery over the trauma of his past.
Without a shadow of a doubt, Voldemort undeniably meets the expectation of a classic archetypical villain. Not only does he constantly work against Harry and cunningly endeavor to undermine him, but Voldemort also does not unveil himself as the villain until the very last minute (in more ways than one) before being defeated by the power of love. Truly, in a seemingly neverending line of fictional bad guys, Voldemort is a villain who stands above the rest.
Works Cited
Allison, Scott T., and George R. Goethals. “Does the Villain‘s Journey Mirror the Hero‘s Journey? Heroes: What They Do and Why We Need
Them.” University of Richmond, 29 August 2014, blog.richmond.edu/heroes/2014/08/29/does-the-villain’s-journey-mirror-the-hero’s-
journey, Accessed 2 March. 2017.
Kushkaki, Mariam. “Unmasking the Villain: A Reconstruction of The Villain Archetype in Popular Culture.” Dissertation, sdsu-
dspace.calstate.edu/bitstream/handle/10211.10/4282/Kushkaki_Mariam.pdf?sequence=1, San Diego State University, 2013. Web.
Accessed 2 March. 2017.
Rowling, J. K. Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone. New York: Scholastic, 1997. Print.
Them.” University of Richmond, 29 August 2014, blog.richmond.edu/heroes/2014/08/29/does-the-villain’s-journey-mirror-the-hero’s-
journey, Accessed 2 March. 2017.
Kushkaki, Mariam. “Unmasking the Villain: A Reconstruction of The Villain Archetype in Popular Culture.” Dissertation, sdsu-
dspace.calstate.edu/bitstream/handle/10211.10/4282/Kushkaki_Mariam.pdf?sequence=1, San Diego State University, 2013. Web.
Accessed 2 March. 2017.
Rowling, J. K. Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone. New York: Scholastic, 1997. Print.
Racial Identification
Melania Hernandez
In the preface to his book The Barbershop, Vershawn Young speaks upon his personal problem with acceptance of his himself and of being African-American. He mentions how he never can quiet fit in with either sides or groups of his race. He felt as he was split in two. With his black friends and people from his neighborhood he was disowned for not being black enough and with his white friends or more educated individuals the benefits he flaunted in the barbershop were now disadvantages and made him too black (Young 53).
As I continued reading this I realized how Vershawn’s story and problem is shared among different races and people. One of them being myself included. I am socially defined as "non-white," for being Mexican-American and thrown into a world filled of confusion and ambivalence due to racial identity. Being Mexican-American is extremely difficult due to the constant struggle of attempting to balance both identities without losing ourselves in one or the other. We are caught in between the demands of our races and society predicaments of hostile environments. Which only lead to the construction of a new identity that will allow them to fit in and be perceived as normal by others.
A personal struggle I have is when I go to Mexico, people constantly judge me because I come from "El norte" (United States). They stereotype Mexican-Americans to be stuck-up, lazy, and cocky towards people who don't have the privilege to be able to call both countries their home. Although I speak fluent Spanish, the fact that I can speak English is enough for people to perceive me as "too American" to be Mexican. If I don't speak it perfectly, I'm ridiculed. My “American” traits in being loud and liberal are deemed to be as too out the ordinary for a woman in the culture there. And not agreeing with traditional rules makes me rude and strange.
The challenge is not just abroad it is also here at home. Just like in Mexico the lone fact that speak I can speak Spanish makes me "too Mexican" to be American. Also when English is not spoken perfectly or with an accent you are ridiculed and deemed as uneducated. Making friendships/relationships with non-Hispanics can be difficult due to no comprehension/connection of one another's culture and traditions. Growing up in a Mexican household, you are constantly pressured to keep the culture and traditions alive, but when you're living in a foreign country, society makes the challenge only gets harder.
Society is said to be acceptive and open, but in reality it is the exact opposite. Society is set up in this way that it separates us from our culture and at the same time different cultures from each other. Society secretly divides all of us with invisible racial barriers. That isolate people and make them feel out of place and not fit in and give them racial anxiety. That eventually ends up putting them in a position in where they are forced choose one or the other race and usually it is the one that is more socially accepted. They want us to adapt to their world but this in reality becomes coercion change and transformation of us becoming ideal beings. With this they make us culturally unaware and afraid of each other's cultures.
The constant racial identity tug-of-war is not a matter of who's right and wrong or even identity itself—it's ignorance in a nutshell from both sides. We have to stop trying to change people and morphing them to be unrealistic being. Instead of constantly feeling like we need to satisfy the requirements to be one or the other, we need to embrace the fact that we are blessed to be a part of two growing communities with so much to offer. We need to be more acceptive of people's cultural background. Their cultures and traditions are sacred and need to be respected. Instead of groups imposing and criticizing, they need to be open and help ease the tension Mexican-Americans, or any person that feels like they are juggling two different worlds.
We have to urge people to be acceptive of something that is nonnegotiable. We do not choose what race to be, I did not chose to be American I did not choose to be Mexican so why are we condemned so harshly on something we have no absolute choice on?
As I continued reading this I realized how Vershawn’s story and problem is shared among different races and people. One of them being myself included. I am socially defined as "non-white," for being Mexican-American and thrown into a world filled of confusion and ambivalence due to racial identity. Being Mexican-American is extremely difficult due to the constant struggle of attempting to balance both identities without losing ourselves in one or the other. We are caught in between the demands of our races and society predicaments of hostile environments. Which only lead to the construction of a new identity that will allow them to fit in and be perceived as normal by others.
A personal struggle I have is when I go to Mexico, people constantly judge me because I come from "El norte" (United States). They stereotype Mexican-Americans to be stuck-up, lazy, and cocky towards people who don't have the privilege to be able to call both countries their home. Although I speak fluent Spanish, the fact that I can speak English is enough for people to perceive me as "too American" to be Mexican. If I don't speak it perfectly, I'm ridiculed. My “American” traits in being loud and liberal are deemed to be as too out the ordinary for a woman in the culture there. And not agreeing with traditional rules makes me rude and strange.
The challenge is not just abroad it is also here at home. Just like in Mexico the lone fact that speak I can speak Spanish makes me "too Mexican" to be American. Also when English is not spoken perfectly or with an accent you are ridiculed and deemed as uneducated. Making friendships/relationships with non-Hispanics can be difficult due to no comprehension/connection of one another's culture and traditions. Growing up in a Mexican household, you are constantly pressured to keep the culture and traditions alive, but when you're living in a foreign country, society makes the challenge only gets harder.
Society is said to be acceptive and open, but in reality it is the exact opposite. Society is set up in this way that it separates us from our culture and at the same time different cultures from each other. Society secretly divides all of us with invisible racial barriers. That isolate people and make them feel out of place and not fit in and give them racial anxiety. That eventually ends up putting them in a position in where they are forced choose one or the other race and usually it is the one that is more socially accepted. They want us to adapt to their world but this in reality becomes coercion change and transformation of us becoming ideal beings. With this they make us culturally unaware and afraid of each other's cultures.
The constant racial identity tug-of-war is not a matter of who's right and wrong or even identity itself—it's ignorance in a nutshell from both sides. We have to stop trying to change people and morphing them to be unrealistic being. Instead of constantly feeling like we need to satisfy the requirements to be one or the other, we need to embrace the fact that we are blessed to be a part of two growing communities with so much to offer. We need to be more acceptive of people's cultural background. Their cultures and traditions are sacred and need to be respected. Instead of groups imposing and criticizing, they need to be open and help ease the tension Mexican-Americans, or any person that feels like they are juggling two different worlds.
We have to urge people to be acceptive of something that is nonnegotiable. We do not choose what race to be, I did not chose to be American I did not choose to be Mexican so why are we condemned so harshly on something we have no absolute choice on?
Works Cited
Young, Vershawn Ashanti. (2007). Prelude: The Barbershop. Expository Reading and Writing Course, Semester 2. Page 52-55.
Morality in The Secret History
Olivia Gonzales
Vermont is a quiet state in the Northeast United States that usually goes unnoticed. Whether that makes it an unusual place for cold-blooded murder, or the optimal one, is anyone’s guess. The Secret History by Donna Tartt is a psychological thriller that puts a delightfully macabre spin on the traditional campus novel. The plot follows a group of wealthy college students trying to recreate the fits of madness experienced by the ancient Greeks; however, they accidentally murder an innocent farmer in pursuit of their goal. Henry, Francis, Charles, and Camilla spend the fall semester trying to cover up their crime, but are under the constant threat of exposure by Bunny Corcoran, a fellow student who is upset he is not included in their scheme. In The Secret History, Donna Tartt influences how readers perceive the morality of her characters by using literary devices such as point-of-view, an unreliable narrator, and mixed tense.
The Secret History is written in the first person, causing readers to relate to and agree with the characters’ mindsets. Readers find it easy to excuse the moral crimes committed by the characters because the characters themselves do not assign much importance to them. For example, after murdering Bunny later in the book, Charles asks Henry how he could justify “cold-blooded murder”, to which Henry replies, “I prefer to think of it as redistribution of matter” (Tartt 302). Similarly, after accidentally murdering a farmer, Francis tells Henry, “It's a terrible thing, what we did…I mean, this man was not Voltaire we killed” (Tartt 197). He calls the murder of an innocent man “a shame” (197). Francis is flippant and mostly unperturbed. In both instances, Richard finds himself agreeing with his friends. First person point-of-view creates an intimacy between the reader and the protagonist where it is easy to relate to the story. When a person reads in the first person for enough time, they will undoubtedly begin to adopt some of the character’s opinions, whether they choose to or not. By choosing this point-of-view, Donna Tartt makes her characters likeable and relatable, all the while subtly forcing her readers down this morally ambiguous path.
Furthermore, The book is told from the point-of-view of Richard Papen, a new student at Hampden College, who serves as the unreliable narrator. An unreliable narrator is defined by Oxford Reference as “a narrator whose account of events appears to be faulty, misleadingly biased, or otherwise distorted.” Richard grows up in a small California town where he suffers from poverty, abuse, and neglect. Richard admits his “fatal flaw” is “a morbid longing for the picturesque at all costs” (Tartt 7). His obsession with beauty leads him to associate his ugly surroundings at home with his unhappiness. Richard believes that by leaving California his life will be better. He confirms this by admitting the main reason he was attracted to Hampden was because the brochure was “pretty” (11). Through this quote, Richard shows that he is biased towards his life in Vermont. He sees Hampden, and his friends there, as his salvation from his uncultured and shameful lifestyle in California. His account of the story is biased because he idolizes his friends too much to vilify them, no matter how grievous their crimes. This means readers cannot take anything Richard says as one hundred percent true, and are not able to fully assess the gravity of the situation in the book in order to make morally sound judgements.
Finally, Tartt employs mixed tense to give the narrative a foreboding and nostalgic tone and to generate sympathy from her readers, further muddling their morality. Richard tells the story as if it were a memory, in past tense. He drops hints at the heinous crimes that will unfold in the future, but never lets the reader in on the full story. When he first learns of the farmer’s murder, “I realize that at this particular point in time…I might have chosen to do something very different from what I actually did” (Tartt 199). By this point, readers know something horrible is about to happen, but not what; they know Richard is remorseful, and begin preparing themselves to forgive him before anything morally questionable even happens. Morbid curiosity keeps the reader engaged on the story. Similarly, Richard will pause the story and monologue to the audience in past participle to win sympathy. Later, he speculates as to whether he is a good person or not, and appeals to the human desire to ‘be good’ (Tartt 275). Richard opens the novel by summarizing his childhood, describing the years of emotional abuse and poverty he experienced (Tartt 7-10). He often mentions his home life to readers when his friends talk about their wealth, as if to distance himself from his peers. Tense plays an enormous part in the tone and mood of the story, and also contributes to how the narrator is viewed by the audience.
In conclusion, Donna Tartt combines uses a variety of literary devices to influence the way characters and their moral values, or lack of them, are perceived by the audience. The Secret History uses an unreliable narrator to discredit the validity of the narrative, and is written in first person to cause readers to agree with the characters’ motives. Not to mention the way Tartt used multiple tenses to set the tone of the story in a way that warrants sympathy. It is incredibly easy to criticize Richard Papen for how easily he was corrupted by his friends, and yet readers are tricked into falling in love with those very people after only five hundred and fifty-nine pages. people would condemn another before taking a moment to examine themselves.
The Secret History is written in the first person, causing readers to relate to and agree with the characters’ mindsets. Readers find it easy to excuse the moral crimes committed by the characters because the characters themselves do not assign much importance to them. For example, after murdering Bunny later in the book, Charles asks Henry how he could justify “cold-blooded murder”, to which Henry replies, “I prefer to think of it as redistribution of matter” (Tartt 302). Similarly, after accidentally murdering a farmer, Francis tells Henry, “It's a terrible thing, what we did…I mean, this man was not Voltaire we killed” (Tartt 197). He calls the murder of an innocent man “a shame” (197). Francis is flippant and mostly unperturbed. In both instances, Richard finds himself agreeing with his friends. First person point-of-view creates an intimacy between the reader and the protagonist where it is easy to relate to the story. When a person reads in the first person for enough time, they will undoubtedly begin to adopt some of the character’s opinions, whether they choose to or not. By choosing this point-of-view, Donna Tartt makes her characters likeable and relatable, all the while subtly forcing her readers down this morally ambiguous path.
Furthermore, The book is told from the point-of-view of Richard Papen, a new student at Hampden College, who serves as the unreliable narrator. An unreliable narrator is defined by Oxford Reference as “a narrator whose account of events appears to be faulty, misleadingly biased, or otherwise distorted.” Richard grows up in a small California town where he suffers from poverty, abuse, and neglect. Richard admits his “fatal flaw” is “a morbid longing for the picturesque at all costs” (Tartt 7). His obsession with beauty leads him to associate his ugly surroundings at home with his unhappiness. Richard believes that by leaving California his life will be better. He confirms this by admitting the main reason he was attracted to Hampden was because the brochure was “pretty” (11). Through this quote, Richard shows that he is biased towards his life in Vermont. He sees Hampden, and his friends there, as his salvation from his uncultured and shameful lifestyle in California. His account of the story is biased because he idolizes his friends too much to vilify them, no matter how grievous their crimes. This means readers cannot take anything Richard says as one hundred percent true, and are not able to fully assess the gravity of the situation in the book in order to make morally sound judgements.
Finally, Tartt employs mixed tense to give the narrative a foreboding and nostalgic tone and to generate sympathy from her readers, further muddling their morality. Richard tells the story as if it were a memory, in past tense. He drops hints at the heinous crimes that will unfold in the future, but never lets the reader in on the full story. When he first learns of the farmer’s murder, “I realize that at this particular point in time…I might have chosen to do something very different from what I actually did” (Tartt 199). By this point, readers know something horrible is about to happen, but not what; they know Richard is remorseful, and begin preparing themselves to forgive him before anything morally questionable even happens. Morbid curiosity keeps the reader engaged on the story. Similarly, Richard will pause the story and monologue to the audience in past participle to win sympathy. Later, he speculates as to whether he is a good person or not, and appeals to the human desire to ‘be good’ (Tartt 275). Richard opens the novel by summarizing his childhood, describing the years of emotional abuse and poverty he experienced (Tartt 7-10). He often mentions his home life to readers when his friends talk about their wealth, as if to distance himself from his peers. Tense plays an enormous part in the tone and mood of the story, and also contributes to how the narrator is viewed by the audience.
In conclusion, Donna Tartt combines uses a variety of literary devices to influence the way characters and their moral values, or lack of them, are perceived by the audience. The Secret History uses an unreliable narrator to discredit the validity of the narrative, and is written in first person to cause readers to agree with the characters’ motives. Not to mention the way Tartt used multiple tenses to set the tone of the story in a way that warrants sympathy. It is incredibly easy to criticize Richard Papen for how easily he was corrupted by his friends, and yet readers are tricked into falling in love with those very people after only five hundred and fifty-nine pages. people would condemn another before taking a moment to examine themselves.
Works Cited
Baldick, Chris. "Unreliable Narrator - Oxford Reference." Unreliable Narrator - Oxford Reference. Oxford University Press, 2008. Web. 27
Sept. 2016.
Tartt, Donna. The Secret History. Vintage Books, 1992.
Sept. 2016.
Tartt, Donna. The Secret History. Vintage Books, 1992.
Perks of Being a Biologist
Kylie Morphis
I already had a passion for science, but I fell in love with biology the moment I realized I could take this information and apply it in every aspect of my life. At the time, I was merely a fifteen year old college student, persevering through summer school Biology. As much as I enjoyed reading up on cellular respiration, I was also a Food Network addict.
As I lay in bed watching Cutthroat Kitchen, I was completely enthralled. The “foodie” in me loved watching competitors fight to the death to arrange random food into a gourmet plate, and the biologist in me marveled over the scientific aspect of it all.
Surprising as it may seem, a biologist has a lot in common with a chef. Bet you did not know that a biologist was much like a chef. For instance, think about how a chef prepares a plate. Like a biologist, a chef would complete the experiment by following a recipe and a list of procedures. Likewise, as a biologist, I get the best of both worlds. You might think one needs to be a culinary expert to shuck a clam skillfully, but Professor Hansen made sure this biologist knew her way around a plate of seafood. In this case, a clam on a dissection plate of wax. Anyone who says biology cannot be applied in everyday life surely has not looked into the depths of cooking.
As the competitor shredded the cabbage with a weed wacker, he commented “I'm going to need some protein for this plate.” My thought exactly; after all, how else was the judge going to keep his cells generating energy?
No matter where I end up in twenty years, I will always be the same frantic scientist screaming at the contestants on the Cooking channel. Hopefully, I will have the doctorate to justify my insanity. Being a chef is an art form, but nothing is spicier than the life of a biologist. There is science behind everything, and there is nothing more rewarding than being the biologist who can see the processes in life.
As I lay in bed watching Cutthroat Kitchen, I was completely enthralled. The “foodie” in me loved watching competitors fight to the death to arrange random food into a gourmet plate, and the biologist in me marveled over the scientific aspect of it all.
Surprising as it may seem, a biologist has a lot in common with a chef. Bet you did not know that a biologist was much like a chef. For instance, think about how a chef prepares a plate. Like a biologist, a chef would complete the experiment by following a recipe and a list of procedures. Likewise, as a biologist, I get the best of both worlds. You might think one needs to be a culinary expert to shuck a clam skillfully, but Professor Hansen made sure this biologist knew her way around a plate of seafood. In this case, a clam on a dissection plate of wax. Anyone who says biology cannot be applied in everyday life surely has not looked into the depths of cooking.
As the competitor shredded the cabbage with a weed wacker, he commented “I'm going to need some protein for this plate.” My thought exactly; after all, how else was the judge going to keep his cells generating energy?
No matter where I end up in twenty years, I will always be the same frantic scientist screaming at the contestants on the Cooking channel. Hopefully, I will have the doctorate to justify my insanity. Being a chef is an art form, but nothing is spicier than the life of a biologist. There is science behind everything, and there is nothing more rewarding than being the biologist who can see the processes in life.
Plastic: How Did We Get Here and What Do We Do Now?
Jennifer Meeker
Amongst countless movements to protect the Earth’s environment, this November, California has gone down in history as the first state to put a plastic bag ban on their ballot. Unlike neighboring states, California has taken the first step to potentially eradicate the circulation and usage of all plastic bags. Despite the endeavours of many cities across the United States, plastic bag bans/restrictions have minimal effect within their communities, as there are no official laws regulating usage. Prior to this addition on the next ballot, California began implementing major laws in July of 2015 when large grocery stores and supermarkets, including Target and Walmart, would be charged with hefty fines for offering customers plastic bags. California's SB 270 (Solid waste: single-use carryout bags), which outlines the restrictions of plastic bag usage also provided $2 million in loans to plastic bag manufacturers in order to shift production to reusable bags (Schultz). As the state of California strives to reduce plastic usage, citizens find themselves struggling to alter their dependent relationship with plastic products, which leaves them wondering, why must their relationship with plastic be altered at all?
Without a deeper understanding of how plastic fundamentally impacts the world around us, it is easy to assume that such common items, like plastic bags, are less than alarming. Of course, common plastic products are labeled hazardous for obvious reasons, yet warning labels on the chemical components are nonexistent. Therefore, the responsibility of informing plastic users has unofficially been placed on the Chemical Heritage Foundation. The Chemical Heritage Foundation was founded in 1982 to provide the public with valuable information regarding the history of science and, inevitably, chemicals of all sorts. According to their written “biography” of plastic, the first fully synthetic plastic (it was fully man made and did not contain anything produced by nature) was created in 1869 by Leo Bakeland, but plastic did not become a part of everyday life until the mid 1930’s.
In the light of World War ll, the United States was in desperate need of a material that could replace the growing need for raw materials. Inventors such as Wallace Carothers, who is credited with the invention of nylon, furthered the evolution of plastic by inventing new types of the synthetic material to fill the places of many expensive raw materials. The Chemical Heritage Foundation used a quote from Susan Freinkel book Plastic: A Toxic Love Story to further explain the world’s relationship with plastic. Freinkel takes a moment to examine what it was about plastic that made it so desirable. Freinkel states, “In product after product, market after market, plastics challenged traditional materials and won, taking the place of steel in cars, paper and glass in packaging, and wood in furniture” (4). This goes to show that perhaps plastic itself was not desired by consumers, rather by the production side of things. Plastic was less expensive than the raw materials it was replacing and it could be made into pretty much anything, making it almost irresistible to the producers.
Furthermore, the Chemical Heritage Foundation offered insight as to what motivated individuals to begin adopting plastic into their everyday lives. The United States’ recent victory in World War II had the citizens spirits at at an all time high. A majority of this excitement was channeled into shopping. Shopping was a new and rather enticing prospect for many, as shopping had never been seen as a recreational activity until then. It was during this short timespan that the American Dream, which had once been the sheer idea of freedom, shifted to the idea of material wealth. With this shift, it can be presumed that shopping became even more appealing to the existing American citizens and more recent immigrants. A large majority of what people wanted to buy, such as cars, televisions, radios, etc. contained a large amount of plastic. Automobile designs had already began replacing large portions of the interior and exterior with durable plastic. At the time, people believed that plastic was a gift from God himself. It was cheap, it was abundant, and it was believed to be completely safe. The American citizens, and people all over the world for that matter, were content. However, the honeymoon phase with their beloved plastic did not last long. Plastic debris was already showing up in the ocean by the 1960’s. Along with the first sight of debris came a decade obsessed with the environment. During this environment emphasised decade countless books, such as Rachel Carson’s well known, Silent Spring, were published. These publications brought the not-so-pleasant truth, being that the once cure all substance everyone loved was actually filled with harmful chemicals, to light. Even with the general public armed with this newfound information, plastic continued to become an increasingly large part of everyday life. The question that anti-plastic individuals continue to ask is, why? Why is plastic still such a large part of people’s lives if they know how harmful it can be to them, and to the environment around them?
As it turns out, the question of ‘why’ is not one that is easily answered. When plastic was first introduced, as previously stated, it contained harmful chemicals. In a scholarly essay, authors George Bittner, Chun Yang, and Matthew Stoner pick apart the chemical makeup of plastic and discuss some of the side effects these chemicals cause. It was discovered that the most prominent of these chemicals, BPA (bisphenol A), mimics estrogen, a hormone naturally produced by women. It was not until 2012 that this chemical was legally banned in the United States. After BPA was banned, it was quickly replaced by a substitute, BPS (bisphenol S). In her article for Scientific American, Jenna Bilbrey, explains her findings after looking into the dangers of BPA replacement. She found that even though many products claim to be BPA free, BPS side effects seem to be almost identical to those of BPA. She states, “Yet BPS is getting out. Nearly 81 percent of Americans have detectable levels of BPS in their urine. And once it enters the body it can affect cells in ways that parallel BPA.” These effects that Bilbrey mentioned ranged from hyperactivity observed in zebrafish to heart arrhythmia in rats who were exposed to BPS. While these findings do not conclude that humans exposed to BPS will indefinitely suffer these same health problems, is it worth the risk? According to Deborah Kurrasch, a researcher at University of Calgary, the problem stems from the shortcomings of industry regulation (Bilbrey). She states, “We’re paying a premium for a ‘safer’ product that isn’t even safer…” Kurrasch is referring to the fact that consumers pay an elevated price for BPA free plastic and are still receiving product that is packed full of dangerous chemicals. This problem remains unaddressed by the FDA. These experiments proved BPS is just as harmful as the chemicals before it, and not only has this remained unaddressed by the FDA, but by consumers as well. It seems as if a majority of individuals armed with this information either choose to adhere to the “what they don’t know can’t hurt them” principal or ignore it all together.
Looking beyond the chemicals and their side effects, plastic pollution is separate, but very real problem. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, plastic products make up 12.8% of the trash produced in America, taking the third largest percent with food being the second largest at 14.6% and paper being the largest at 27%. In 2013 Americans produced around 254 million tons of trash. Based on that number Americans produced roughly 32.5 million tons of plastic waste. That is equivalent to 6.5 million elephants, assuming the elephants were of an average weight. Now, the decomposition time for different types of plastic varies, but it is safe to say that it takes over 400 years for 1 plastic water bottle to decompose. Consider also that trash does not decompose in landfills as the public is told, quite the opposite actually. Trash is, in a way, preserved in landfills. Some food can even remain distinguishable after spending 2 decades in a landfill (Humes, 159). The lack of decomposition in landfills is a problem that is continuously pushed aside, presumably because no one really sees the problem it is causing. Landfills are never where the general population can see them. They are kept where only the people hired to tend them will see. “Out of sight, out of mind” is the perfect way to think about it. Eventually, the world will be unable to manage hidden landfills, as distant, open space is depleted. Once the environment becomes littered with non-biodegradable garbage, it may be too late to reverse the damage.
In his book Garbology: Our Dirty Love Affair With Trash, Edward Humes offers ample first hand information and vivid descriptions of the Pacific Garbage Patch. Many hear the words garbage patch and assume that it is referring to some sort of island composed of plastic debris, when in fact the garbage patch is nothing short of a plastic soup. The Pacific Garbage Patch refers to a portion of the North Pacific gyre that is packed full of plastic pellets freely churning with the ocean’s currents.These tiny plastic pellets act as a sponge and soak up all the dangerous toxins it possibly can. The danger of these tiny toxin infused pellets is that the smallest fish in the sea are ingesting these pellets. After these tiny fish have ingested the pellets bigger fish are eating them, and so on and so forth. This triggers a chain reaction known as biomagnification. Humes explains the process in the following excerpt from Garbology:
This is the scenario the researchers are trying to gauge to see if it threatens marine ecosystems and human food safety: Let’s say the
little fish eats ten tiny pieces of POPs-infused [toxin infused] plastic. Then a bigger fish comes along and eats ten of those tiny fish. Now
we have a fish that has embodied the equivalent of one hundred contaminated pieces of plastic. Then a bigger fish eats a bunch of those,
and so on up the food chain, with the chemicals becoming progressively more concentrated in the larger sea creatures. This is bio-
magnification (132).
There is a chance that these larger fish with the high concentration of toxins in their stomachs will end up in can on the grocery store shelf, and finally on someone’s dinner plate. The end result of this pollution cycle is anything but positive for humans. The trash human’s produce is coming back to them, only not at all in the way many thought it would. It is making it’s second appearance on dinner plates. This second appearance may seem surprising, but in reality, almost all food is exposed to plastic one way or another. For instance, food spends a majority of its “life cycle” embodied in plastic. A prime example of these circumstances include the packaging of red meat, a common food choice for citizens of America. Red meat is often seen situated in a styrofoam tray and then wrapped in a thin layer of clear plastic. After the meat escapes it plastic prison and is prepared for consumption, there is a high probability the leftovers will be tossed in a plastic tupperware container, patiently awaiting it’s next release. This is only one example of the many ways plastic finds itself nestled in the center of an average American’s life.
While the changes that California is attempting to make is a step in the right direction, the truth is, charging customers for single use plastic bags or even banning them all together will not make a noticeable difference in the overall plastic pollution. The root of all the problems with plastic is not as easy to pinpoint as one may think. It is obvious a main component of the problem is how dependent the world is on plastic. Almost every product available for purchase contains some sort of plastic. There is no way that the world can stop using and producing plastic all together. With that being said, there is progress to be made. If the world as a whole were to cut back on the amount of plastic that is produced and did its best to replace whatever plastic products they could with safer materials, progress will be seen.
After careful consideration, citizens of the globe should heavily consider how they're regular dependency on plastic products affects the environment around them. Essentially, the solution lies in the knowledge of others, as it is clear that many are unaware of the troubles at hand. Somehow the consequences of this dependency have been swept under the rug for decades, but soon they will be too prominent to ignore. Whether it be at the discretion of the nation's government, or at the hands of popular businesses, it is clear that regulations against the frugal usage of plastic products should administered. As the waste buildup appears to be never ending, small precautions such as plastic recycling containers at the community grocery store will no longer suffice. Space on Earth is not as abundant as it may seem. A majority of the Earth’s surface is taken up by the oceans, which only leaves so much space for civilization, and inevitably, landfills. Plastic is slowly chipping away at each ocean, available land, and even the health of the general population. All the pollution that has been hiding will eventually come back to those who are responsible for creating it in the first place, and unless people realize the severity of the situation, the problem will only continue to grow.
Without a deeper understanding of how plastic fundamentally impacts the world around us, it is easy to assume that such common items, like plastic bags, are less than alarming. Of course, common plastic products are labeled hazardous for obvious reasons, yet warning labels on the chemical components are nonexistent. Therefore, the responsibility of informing plastic users has unofficially been placed on the Chemical Heritage Foundation. The Chemical Heritage Foundation was founded in 1982 to provide the public with valuable information regarding the history of science and, inevitably, chemicals of all sorts. According to their written “biography” of plastic, the first fully synthetic plastic (it was fully man made and did not contain anything produced by nature) was created in 1869 by Leo Bakeland, but plastic did not become a part of everyday life until the mid 1930’s.
In the light of World War ll, the United States was in desperate need of a material that could replace the growing need for raw materials. Inventors such as Wallace Carothers, who is credited with the invention of nylon, furthered the evolution of plastic by inventing new types of the synthetic material to fill the places of many expensive raw materials. The Chemical Heritage Foundation used a quote from Susan Freinkel book Plastic: A Toxic Love Story to further explain the world’s relationship with plastic. Freinkel takes a moment to examine what it was about plastic that made it so desirable. Freinkel states, “In product after product, market after market, plastics challenged traditional materials and won, taking the place of steel in cars, paper and glass in packaging, and wood in furniture” (4). This goes to show that perhaps plastic itself was not desired by consumers, rather by the production side of things. Plastic was less expensive than the raw materials it was replacing and it could be made into pretty much anything, making it almost irresistible to the producers.
Furthermore, the Chemical Heritage Foundation offered insight as to what motivated individuals to begin adopting plastic into their everyday lives. The United States’ recent victory in World War II had the citizens spirits at at an all time high. A majority of this excitement was channeled into shopping. Shopping was a new and rather enticing prospect for many, as shopping had never been seen as a recreational activity until then. It was during this short timespan that the American Dream, which had once been the sheer idea of freedom, shifted to the idea of material wealth. With this shift, it can be presumed that shopping became even more appealing to the existing American citizens and more recent immigrants. A large majority of what people wanted to buy, such as cars, televisions, radios, etc. contained a large amount of plastic. Automobile designs had already began replacing large portions of the interior and exterior with durable plastic. At the time, people believed that plastic was a gift from God himself. It was cheap, it was abundant, and it was believed to be completely safe. The American citizens, and people all over the world for that matter, were content. However, the honeymoon phase with their beloved plastic did not last long. Plastic debris was already showing up in the ocean by the 1960’s. Along with the first sight of debris came a decade obsessed with the environment. During this environment emphasised decade countless books, such as Rachel Carson’s well known, Silent Spring, were published. These publications brought the not-so-pleasant truth, being that the once cure all substance everyone loved was actually filled with harmful chemicals, to light. Even with the general public armed with this newfound information, plastic continued to become an increasingly large part of everyday life. The question that anti-plastic individuals continue to ask is, why? Why is plastic still such a large part of people’s lives if they know how harmful it can be to them, and to the environment around them?
As it turns out, the question of ‘why’ is not one that is easily answered. When plastic was first introduced, as previously stated, it contained harmful chemicals. In a scholarly essay, authors George Bittner, Chun Yang, and Matthew Stoner pick apart the chemical makeup of plastic and discuss some of the side effects these chemicals cause. It was discovered that the most prominent of these chemicals, BPA (bisphenol A), mimics estrogen, a hormone naturally produced by women. It was not until 2012 that this chemical was legally banned in the United States. After BPA was banned, it was quickly replaced by a substitute, BPS (bisphenol S). In her article for Scientific American, Jenna Bilbrey, explains her findings after looking into the dangers of BPA replacement. She found that even though many products claim to be BPA free, BPS side effects seem to be almost identical to those of BPA. She states, “Yet BPS is getting out. Nearly 81 percent of Americans have detectable levels of BPS in their urine. And once it enters the body it can affect cells in ways that parallel BPA.” These effects that Bilbrey mentioned ranged from hyperactivity observed in zebrafish to heart arrhythmia in rats who were exposed to BPS. While these findings do not conclude that humans exposed to BPS will indefinitely suffer these same health problems, is it worth the risk? According to Deborah Kurrasch, a researcher at University of Calgary, the problem stems from the shortcomings of industry regulation (Bilbrey). She states, “We’re paying a premium for a ‘safer’ product that isn’t even safer…” Kurrasch is referring to the fact that consumers pay an elevated price for BPA free plastic and are still receiving product that is packed full of dangerous chemicals. This problem remains unaddressed by the FDA. These experiments proved BPS is just as harmful as the chemicals before it, and not only has this remained unaddressed by the FDA, but by consumers as well. It seems as if a majority of individuals armed with this information either choose to adhere to the “what they don’t know can’t hurt them” principal or ignore it all together.
Looking beyond the chemicals and their side effects, plastic pollution is separate, but very real problem. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, plastic products make up 12.8% of the trash produced in America, taking the third largest percent with food being the second largest at 14.6% and paper being the largest at 27%. In 2013 Americans produced around 254 million tons of trash. Based on that number Americans produced roughly 32.5 million tons of plastic waste. That is equivalent to 6.5 million elephants, assuming the elephants were of an average weight. Now, the decomposition time for different types of plastic varies, but it is safe to say that it takes over 400 years for 1 plastic water bottle to decompose. Consider also that trash does not decompose in landfills as the public is told, quite the opposite actually. Trash is, in a way, preserved in landfills. Some food can even remain distinguishable after spending 2 decades in a landfill (Humes, 159). The lack of decomposition in landfills is a problem that is continuously pushed aside, presumably because no one really sees the problem it is causing. Landfills are never where the general population can see them. They are kept where only the people hired to tend them will see. “Out of sight, out of mind” is the perfect way to think about it. Eventually, the world will be unable to manage hidden landfills, as distant, open space is depleted. Once the environment becomes littered with non-biodegradable garbage, it may be too late to reverse the damage.
In his book Garbology: Our Dirty Love Affair With Trash, Edward Humes offers ample first hand information and vivid descriptions of the Pacific Garbage Patch. Many hear the words garbage patch and assume that it is referring to some sort of island composed of plastic debris, when in fact the garbage patch is nothing short of a plastic soup. The Pacific Garbage Patch refers to a portion of the North Pacific gyre that is packed full of plastic pellets freely churning with the ocean’s currents.These tiny plastic pellets act as a sponge and soak up all the dangerous toxins it possibly can. The danger of these tiny toxin infused pellets is that the smallest fish in the sea are ingesting these pellets. After these tiny fish have ingested the pellets bigger fish are eating them, and so on and so forth. This triggers a chain reaction known as biomagnification. Humes explains the process in the following excerpt from Garbology:
This is the scenario the researchers are trying to gauge to see if it threatens marine ecosystems and human food safety: Let’s say the
little fish eats ten tiny pieces of POPs-infused [toxin infused] plastic. Then a bigger fish comes along and eats ten of those tiny fish. Now
we have a fish that has embodied the equivalent of one hundred contaminated pieces of plastic. Then a bigger fish eats a bunch of those,
and so on up the food chain, with the chemicals becoming progressively more concentrated in the larger sea creatures. This is bio-
magnification (132).
There is a chance that these larger fish with the high concentration of toxins in their stomachs will end up in can on the grocery store shelf, and finally on someone’s dinner plate. The end result of this pollution cycle is anything but positive for humans. The trash human’s produce is coming back to them, only not at all in the way many thought it would. It is making it’s second appearance on dinner plates. This second appearance may seem surprising, but in reality, almost all food is exposed to plastic one way or another. For instance, food spends a majority of its “life cycle” embodied in plastic. A prime example of these circumstances include the packaging of red meat, a common food choice for citizens of America. Red meat is often seen situated in a styrofoam tray and then wrapped in a thin layer of clear plastic. After the meat escapes it plastic prison and is prepared for consumption, there is a high probability the leftovers will be tossed in a plastic tupperware container, patiently awaiting it’s next release. This is only one example of the many ways plastic finds itself nestled in the center of an average American’s life.
While the changes that California is attempting to make is a step in the right direction, the truth is, charging customers for single use plastic bags or even banning them all together will not make a noticeable difference in the overall plastic pollution. The root of all the problems with plastic is not as easy to pinpoint as one may think. It is obvious a main component of the problem is how dependent the world is on plastic. Almost every product available for purchase contains some sort of plastic. There is no way that the world can stop using and producing plastic all together. With that being said, there is progress to be made. If the world as a whole were to cut back on the amount of plastic that is produced and did its best to replace whatever plastic products they could with safer materials, progress will be seen.
After careful consideration, citizens of the globe should heavily consider how they're regular dependency on plastic products affects the environment around them. Essentially, the solution lies in the knowledge of others, as it is clear that many are unaware of the troubles at hand. Somehow the consequences of this dependency have been swept under the rug for decades, but soon they will be too prominent to ignore. Whether it be at the discretion of the nation's government, or at the hands of popular businesses, it is clear that regulations against the frugal usage of plastic products should administered. As the waste buildup appears to be never ending, small precautions such as plastic recycling containers at the community grocery store will no longer suffice. Space on Earth is not as abundant as it may seem. A majority of the Earth’s surface is taken up by the oceans, which only leaves so much space for civilization, and inevitably, landfills. Plastic is slowly chipping away at each ocean, available land, and even the health of the general population. All the pollution that has been hiding will eventually come back to those who are responsible for creating it in the first place, and unless people realize the severity of the situation, the problem will only continue to grow.
Works Cited
“Checkout Bag Ordinance.” Sfenvironment.org. N.d. Web. 2 April 2016.
Bilbrey, Jenna. “BPA-Free Plastic Containers May Be Just As Hazardous.” Scientific American. 11 August 2014. Web. 10 April 2016.
Bittner, George D., Chun Z. Yang, and Matthew A. Stoner. "Estrogenic Chemicals Often Leach From BPA-Free Plastic Products That Are
Replacements For BPA-Containing Polycarbonate Products." Environmental Health: A Global Access Science Source 13.1 (2014): 1-26.
Academic Search Premier. Web. 11 Apr. 2016.
“The History and Future of Plastics.” Chemical Heritage Foundation. N.d. Web. 1 April 2016.
Humes, Edward. Garbology: Our Dirty Love Affair With Trash. New York: Avery, 2012.
Municipal Solid Waste.” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 27 March 2016. Web. 5 April 2016.
O’Conner, Lydia. “Landmark Plastic Bag Ban Officially on Hold.” Huffington Post. 24 February 2015. Web. 1 April 2016.
Schultz, Jennifer. "California bags plastic bags." State Legislatures 40.10 (2014): 10. Global Reference on the Environment, Energy, and Natural
Resources. Web. 4 April. 2016.
Bilbrey, Jenna. “BPA-Free Plastic Containers May Be Just As Hazardous.” Scientific American. 11 August 2014. Web. 10 April 2016.
Bittner, George D., Chun Z. Yang, and Matthew A. Stoner. "Estrogenic Chemicals Often Leach From BPA-Free Plastic Products That Are
Replacements For BPA-Containing Polycarbonate Products." Environmental Health: A Global Access Science Source 13.1 (2014): 1-26.
Academic Search Premier. Web. 11 Apr. 2016.
“The History and Future of Plastics.” Chemical Heritage Foundation. N.d. Web. 1 April 2016.
Humes, Edward. Garbology: Our Dirty Love Affair With Trash. New York: Avery, 2012.
Municipal Solid Waste.” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 27 March 2016. Web. 5 April 2016.
O’Conner, Lydia. “Landmark Plastic Bag Ban Officially on Hold.” Huffington Post. 24 February 2015. Web. 1 April 2016.
Schultz, Jennifer. "California bags plastic bags." State Legislatures 40.10 (2014): 10. Global Reference on the Environment, Energy, and Natural
Resources. Web. 4 April. 2016.