Thursday, April 17, 2008

With freedom to be who you are and what you are, it is a definition of individuality. People decide on a day to day basis how they want to be perceived. Although, my response to this reaction was not anything close to this one. I wasn't exactly sure on how to take the story when I first read it. I looked at the story as something that unidentified a person but not exactly was from the idea of freedom to decide and perception of self.

I think the author was effective in getting her point across. It makes sense to say that as one does wrong, they are stripped of their rights and in this case, name. It seems like such a little thing to do but in retrospect, it has a large effect on the individuality of that said person.

2 comments:

Brad Dimock said...

I agree with your reaction to the story,"she unnames them," I didn't think about them being freed, I thought they were just being unidentified.

Patrick's Blog said...

I agree with you interretation of the story. The message is that someone's wrong doing may identify them in a certain way or may unidentify them if the act is out of character. The acts can work in both ways.