Should there be a difference between the character portrayed and the actor's true personality?

It depends, if the acting that they are doing affects their personal lives and thier walk with Christ, then they should not play the role of the character who is doing these unChrist-like things. If the character is genuinely in a true relationship with God, they should be completely seperate in terms of personality between their character and thier true self. If they do not endorse the things that they do in the movie, and do not let it affect them, then they will be fine. An example to prove this is in a school play. If a character is portraying actions that are not congruent with their faith, and they do not mean the lines that they say, it is simply acting. Acting is portraying a part to most reflect the character, not ourselves. This is why the people who act in a movie generally refer to themselves in third person as "the character" because they are not trying to be themselves. The goal of acting is to give someone who has skill in understanding the personality of the implied character, and being able to mimic their actions and attitudes on screen for an audience. It brings art and aesthetic value to the media presented. It does something that most people cannot do. I say that if a Christian swears in a movie, and doesn't promote it, it is actually worthwile in presenting a part.

What is the significance of the girl's interaction with darkness in the poem "Adolescence II"

There are many different interactions with darkness included within the poem "Adolescence II". The first interaction is in the first line where the narrarator states "Although it is night, I sit in the bathroom, waiting". This is significant because the girl hints that she usually doesn't like to be around darkness and that this is a change for her.

Secondly, it states that the "Venetian blinds slice up the moon; the tiles quiver in pale strips". This is also significant because it attaches the word quiver, which implies fear to the tiles which have both darknesss and light resting on them. The seal men are also typically characterized as a dark color because seals are black. They interact with the girl by posing questions that she doesn't know how to answer. They are portrayed as evil, sinister, and menacing creatures. They tend to threaten her as she is in this dissolusioned state.

Thirdly, the although the pools of ink glitter, ink is still representative of darkness. It is almost impossible to get ink out of anything, implying that the darkness she interacts with is always with her in some form or another. She also mentions the ragged holes that the figures leave behind at the edge of darkness. This is interesting because darkness is visualized as her insanity; when she is shrouded in darkness, she hallucinates or at least is not sober. Once the darkness leaves, she starts to become normal again. However, she does not feel normal quite yet, as it states that night (darkness) rests like a ball of fur on her tongue. This is even more substantial and worse than a bitter aftertaste. In the text it provides, we see it as something lingering with her that is almost vomit-inducing. The significance is in the rejection of darkness by the girl. The problem is that she stuggles to escape from it; this is what haunts her and leaves her in such a terrible state of consciousness.

Postmodernism in "Adolescence II"

"Adolescence II" is by far one of the most postmodern literary works I have ever assesed. The only "structure" in the entire poem is that it is broken up into parts of three. The lines could end anywhere that the author wants. There is also no rhyme scheme, although this does not mean that it is not poetry. Some would conclude that rhyming actually limits poetry from creating an image that is understandable to the reader. Speaking of understandability in this poem, it is extremely fragmented. It uses metaphors that I cannot quite understand, like "baby breasts are alert" and it is never mentioned why the person is sitting, waiting in the bathroom at night. The only concrete evidence provided is that the moon shines through the blinds and the tiles apparently shimmer in the moonlight when described as "quivering". Discontinuity is celebrated in this poem. Who are the seal men with round eyes and sharp eyelashes? Why do they bring the scent of licorice? Truly, this is a postmodern piece because it provides no solutions, as if to say "bring on disorder" or "tear down common sense and logic". They say "Can you feel it yet?" and "Well, maybe next time." Still, this is really difficult to understand what they mean. Then, they vanish, leaving ragged holes at the edge of darkness, while darkness rests like a ball of fur on the narrarator's tongue. It may be possible that the person is seeing strange shapes in the dark and it leaves them in fear of darkness. It is as if darkness is personified, interrogating the narrarator and making them feel uncomfortable. It celebrates the absense of light, the only concrete thing that exists is the light. Everything else may be true to them in darkness, but it does not apply to all. This is postmodern because it is accepted and not nesesarrily said that it is true for everyone.

An inadequate understanding of reality?...I THINK NOT!!!

I may be very opinionated in the area of whether or not humans have an accurate understanding of reality, but I think I can prove my point with a detailed, 8th grade paragraph.
First off, I have come to the conclusion that language is not able to describe an object accurately because each word we use is automatically casting an object into a certain known realm, ie: categorizing it. In the poem "Oryx and Crake" by Margaret Atwood, she goes on to try and describe "toast" with words. Obviously this is inevitably pointless because she uses examples of how words are unable to capture the "essence" of toast. This is not the purpose of the text; it is to convey to the reader that toast is whatever they want it to be, which always comes back to that terrible meaningless word "thing". When eventually the Snowman says "Forget it"..."Let's try again", and goes on to describe it as a pointless invention from the dark ages and other random things, the author is just being a rebel. This is complete idiocy because if they are trying to prove that humans have an inadequate understanding of reality, this author failed miserably. They forget that the categories into which we place objects vary in specificity depending on the word used. What they did prove is that words eventually become "thing". They forgot that the human mind is virtually limitless. We don't need words. Pictures will do fine; if they are blind, create an object out of a malliable material that closely represents whatever idea you are trying to convey. This eliminates the meaninglessness of words like "thing", "object", "stuff", and "material". The list could go on and on, but humans do have the capacity to experience and understand reality, even if something is just a copy.