Comparing The Glass Castle And The Hate U Give By Angie Thomas

1492 Words6 Pages

Children have grown up alongside their parents since humans started as a species, and the general population has accepted the fact that parents greatly shape the growth of children. The memoir The Glass Castle by Jeannette Walls and the novel The Hate U Give by Angie Thomas both explore a young girl’s journey through adolescence. Throughout each novel, influences such as parents and peers drive the development of Starr in The Hate U Give and Jeannette in The Glass Castle. However, in Malcolm Gladwell's article, "Do Parents Matter?", he writes about Judith Harris, a psychologist who proposed a theory that “peers trump parents” (Gladwell 7) as influences on children. Other parts of this theory were that genes of parents matter more than actual …show more content…

During her childhood, Rex is an alcoholic; however, he intensely tries to detox. "Dad went to great lengths to make sure there was no alcohol in it before he accepted a glass” (Walls 263). Rex demonstrates determination by not giving up on ending his alcoholism. He passes down his trait of resilience to Jeannette, "I decided I wanted to go [to New York], too, and that winter we came up with a plan. Lori would leave by herself for New York in June, after she graduated. She'd settle in, find a place for us, and I'd follow her as soon as I could” (223). Although Rex steals Jeannette’s money to satisfy his alcohol addiction, she persists, makes the money back, and eventually moves to New York. This directly relates to Harris’s theory that, "Since genes account for about half of personality variations among people, it’s quite possible that nice children are nice simply because they received nice genes from their parents” (Gladwell 4). Jeannette did not receive her persistence through Rex’s teachings but through his …show more content…

On his father (Mr. Fullman)’s 50th birthday, Mr. Fullman’s tenant tells him that he would not leave the house even though his lease is up. Mr. Fullman decides “What’s the point of [kicking him out]... it’s not worth the effort” (Keret 46). The narrator’s father demonstrates compliance by not asserting himself against the tenant. Consequently, the narrator tries to do the opposite of what his father does, “... I whacked his tenant across the face with a wrench” (47). Even though the narrator cannot affect the situation because he does not own the apartment, he defends himself and his father by hurting the tenant. This is the opposite behavior of his dad, which verifies Harris’s theory that “Adolescents aren’t trying to be like adults--they are trying to contrast themselves with adults” (Gladwell

Open Document