Sunday, February 8, 2015

pies are sinfully delicious

This week we wrote an in-class essay on an amusing anecdote of a child’s struggle with wrongdoing.  Although at the time I was frantically focused on composing an AP student-worthy masterpiece (only Ms. V knows how successful I was with that), I can now allow my mind reign to ruminate over the central message of Soto’s story. The connotative diction and vivid imagery he uses show how the irresistibly “sweet” immediate effects of sin serenaded his not-yet-matured six-year-old senses, gently detaching him from the whispers of his tugging conscience. Soto portrays himself as caught in a “sticky” web of guilt, unable to distinguish between the pleasure and abhorrence of sin as they continually morph and transpose, until he finally concludes that sin is, essentially, “what you took and didn’t give back.”

Allow me to present a more articulate definition.

A wise person once said, “Sin is what causes uneasiness in your heart and what you dislike others to become aware of.” The first part of this concise yet comprehensive statement has to do with the innate gauge and inherent notion of goodness that exists within every human being. When a person breaks this notion, their inner gauge picks it up as a warning sign and alerts them that something is not right. In a similar vein, think about the second characteristic mentioned. If you have to quickly switch tabs when you hear your parents at the door, shove the phone in your pocket when the teacher passes by, or minimize the window when your boss steps in, you’re probably doing something you shouldn’t be.

It’s crucial that we respond to the disturbances in our heart by leaving and reversing what’s wrong; if we suppress them, our gauge will eventually dim out and cease to function—leaving us lost, as young Soto was, in a haze of pleasure and peccancy. 

1 comment:

  1. Huda, what an interesting topic! I didn't even think to talk about the essay we wrote this week. I also enjoyed the breakdown of your quote and thought it was very well analyzed.

    ReplyDelete