I used to love snow. It was pretty and white and fluffy and if there's a lot of it, you actually get to miss school. It was just swell. But now...snow and I are not friends. Now, I think snow is just cold and icky. Snow just means that it's too cold to rain. I still enjoy snow days, but all of a sudden I am very aware that those oh so glorious snow days mean we have to stay in school longer in the summer when the weather is at it's most wonderful.
When I small child, I used to get all geared up in my snow suit and hat and gloves and whatnot, and then would spend hours out in the snow. I used to build snow forts and snowmen and snow caves. Actually, I would pile a bunch of snow up in the middle of our yard and then dig a hole and hide in it. I was a pretty weird kid, obviously. I think I hid like that because my sister used to sit on me in the snow and force my face into it. So I have some bad memories associated with snow and I think that really taints my opinion and feelings about snow in general.
But I have to admit, snow really is pretty even if it just is frozen water particles. I really like that feeling that you get when you wake in the morning and see a really bright light coming through your window, which means it has snowed. And it's even better when there is a snow day and you get to sleep in as late as you want and then warm your warm and cozy pajamas. Despite my dislike of snow, the sleeping in and being lazy for a whole day is a rather nice part of the whole thing.
Still, snow is not my friend. I have pretty strong feelings against it. But I can tolerate it if I have to.
Thursday, December 2, 2010
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
Dark Romanticism in "The Minister's Black Veil"
"The Minister's Black Veil" by Nathaniel Hawthorne starts out very simply. The setting is not mysterious like some other stories from the Dark Romanticism trend, but revealed to be the town of Milford. The residents are enjoying a nice summer day and everything seems very simple, until a little mystery comes into the story. Reverend Hooper is, at first, described as being “a gentlemanly person of about thirty, though still a bachelor…dressed with clerical neatness, as if a careful wife had starched his band and brushed the weekly dust from his Sunday’s garb" (Hawthorne). The mystery of the story is then introduced when the residents of Milford begin to notice that Reverend Hooper was wearing a black veil that started at his forehead and fell down over his eyes and nose. The only part of his face that was visible was his mouth, and his breathing caused the veil to move eerily. The people of the town are basically just shocked and their fixation on Reverend Hooper's veil takes over the story.
This fixation causes the story to become more and more mysterious and it doesn't matter what the Reverend is saying to the people anymore, because they are just centered on the mysterious black veil on his face. Many of the residents are shocked- and even frightened. This fear of the mysterious veil is another characteristic of the style of dark romanticism. The members of the town agree that he looks disturbing, and this gossiping and ridiculing makes them seem like the bad people in the story; the negative characters that are always present in a story of this style. The residents start to say that the Reverends sermon, which had to do with secret sins, had to do with his own life. Basically, the town people think that the veil could have come from the devil somehow. The veil gave people the chills, and they did not want to go near Reverend Hooper (Hawthorne). The only person who would talk about it with him was his intended wife, and she told him that the veil was troubling the people of the town and that he should probably take it off, and she also asked him why he was wearing the veil. Hooper replied in a very vague manner, saying that his veil was merely a symbol of the mask of sin all people wear (Hawthorne). This statement gives the story a much darker and more sinister quality.
His intended wife was very upset about this statement, and she began to have some of the same fears about the veil and about Reverend Hooper as many of the members of the church had as well. She was so upset about the veil and so troubled by it that she actually broke off her engagement with Hooper. This sad end of a relationship is another example of a characteristic of dark romanticism, as well as adding more mystery to the story line. For the rest of his life, Reverend Hooper continued to wear the black veil that was a symbol for masked sin. People feared him because of this, and generally tried to avoid him. Solitude is, I think, another good example of dark romanticism. A lot of time passes and Reverend Hooper is on his death bed. His nurse is the woman that he was once going to marry, and she never totally got over him (Hawthorne). Before he died, Hooper said that he would not take off the veil. He held it to his face as he died, and it was not taken off for his funeral. Hooper was even buried in the veil. The biggest part of this story is mystery, I think, because the reader has no idea what is really going on with the veil that Reverend Hooper wears.
As well as having a lot of mystery and talk of sin, this story is very emotional. The town people relied more on their emotions, mostly fear, instead of using reason and trying to understand the point that Reverend Hooper was making with his sinister black veil. Another common characteristic of dark romanticism is when the author leaves part of the story open to interpretation, which I think that Hawthorne does because he never addresses a lot of the mystery of the story.
Hawthorne, Nathaniel. "The Minister's Black Veil." Ibiblio - The Public's Library and Digital Archive. Web. 01 Dec. 2010..
This fixation causes the story to become more and more mysterious and it doesn't matter what the Reverend is saying to the people anymore, because they are just centered on the mysterious black veil on his face. Many of the residents are shocked- and even frightened. This fear of the mysterious veil is another characteristic of the style of dark romanticism. The members of the town agree that he looks disturbing, and this gossiping and ridiculing makes them seem like the bad people in the story; the negative characters that are always present in a story of this style. The residents start to say that the Reverends sermon, which had to do with secret sins, had to do with his own life. Basically, the town people think that the veil could have come from the devil somehow. The veil gave people the chills, and they did not want to go near Reverend Hooper (Hawthorne). The only person who would talk about it with him was his intended wife, and she told him that the veil was troubling the people of the town and that he should probably take it off, and she also asked him why he was wearing the veil. Hooper replied in a very vague manner, saying that his veil was merely a symbol of the mask of sin all people wear (Hawthorne). This statement gives the story a much darker and more sinister quality.
His intended wife was very upset about this statement, and she began to have some of the same fears about the veil and about Reverend Hooper as many of the members of the church had as well. She was so upset about the veil and so troubled by it that she actually broke off her engagement with Hooper. This sad end of a relationship is another example of a characteristic of dark romanticism, as well as adding more mystery to the story line. For the rest of his life, Reverend Hooper continued to wear the black veil that was a symbol for masked sin. People feared him because of this, and generally tried to avoid him. Solitude is, I think, another good example of dark romanticism. A lot of time passes and Reverend Hooper is on his death bed. His nurse is the woman that he was once going to marry, and she never totally got over him (Hawthorne). Before he died, Hooper said that he would not take off the veil. He held it to his face as he died, and it was not taken off for his funeral. Hooper was even buried in the veil. The biggest part of this story is mystery, I think, because the reader has no idea what is really going on with the veil that Reverend Hooper wears.
As well as having a lot of mystery and talk of sin, this story is very emotional. The town people relied more on their emotions, mostly fear, instead of using reason and trying to understand the point that Reverend Hooper was making with his sinister black veil. Another common characteristic of dark romanticism is when the author leaves part of the story open to interpretation, which I think that Hawthorne does because he never addresses a lot of the mystery of the story.
Hawthorne, Nathaniel. "The Minister's Black Veil." Ibiblio - The Public's Library and Digital Archive. Web. 01 Dec. 2010.
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Journal #25: Masks
Off the top of my head, I cannot recall a time when I have worn a hypothetical mask for a really and truly serious reason. Because sure, I have worn a hypothetical "mask" before, like pretty much everyone else in the world has. I think that at some point, all of us are sick of our emotions being out on display and just want to be closed off for a little while to just be able to ignore things that we do not want to dwell or focus on any longer.
If I do not want someone to know how I am feeling at the moment, I think that it has always just been easier to wear this hypothetical mask you are asking me to write about. For instance, today at work, my boss, who I fondly refer to as "Crazy Joan", yelled at me because apparently my desk is not at her preferred level of cleanliness. And instead of crying because her face is scary when she yells, I contained myself. I suppose you could call that "wearing a mask". And then I cried a little bit when she left because she obviously is not a very nice lady.
Another time I have done this is when one of my friends got a really, really, ugly homecoming dress. She does not go to our school, thank goodness, so I did not have to look at it for a long time. But this dress was seriously ugly, and she asked what I thought of it. What was I supposed to say? "That dress looks like someone threw up on it and then sprinkled a hefty dose of cat litter on top"? No. She would have punched me in the face. So I smiled and said I liked it. Because otherwise, she probably would have cried...she's like that.
For small reasons like those, I have masked my emotions. But when I feel very serious about something, I usually do not want my opinion hidden, so I would not mask that. But there definitely have been times when I have needed to do this.
If I do not want someone to know how I am feeling at the moment, I think that it has always just been easier to wear this hypothetical mask you are asking me to write about. For instance, today at work, my boss, who I fondly refer to as "Crazy Joan", yelled at me because apparently my desk is not at her preferred level of cleanliness. And instead of crying because her face is scary when she yells, I contained myself. I suppose you could call that "wearing a mask". And then I cried a little bit when she left because she obviously is not a very nice lady.
Another time I have done this is when one of my friends got a really, really, ugly homecoming dress. She does not go to our school, thank goodness, so I did not have to look at it for a long time. But this dress was seriously ugly, and she asked what I thought of it. What was I supposed to say? "That dress looks like someone threw up on it and then sprinkled a hefty dose of cat litter on top"? No. She would have punched me in the face. So I smiled and said I liked it. Because otherwise, she probably would have cried...she's like that.
For small reasons like those, I have masked my emotions. But when I feel very serious about something, I usually do not want my opinion hidden, so I would not mask that. But there definitely have been times when I have needed to do this.
Wednesday, November 24, 2010
"The Pit and the Pendulum"
The characteristics of dark romanticism are quickly introduced into the short story "The Pit and the Pendulum" by Edgar Allan Poe. The narrator immediately tells of his despair and sickness, saying that he felt his senses were leaving him (Poe). The setting is also very mysterious in the beginning, another characteristic of dark romanticism, and even when the setting is first revealed to be in some kind of apartment with thick curtains and candles all around. However, the setting soon changes and is less obvious, seeming to be a prison or dungeon of sorts, and the reader still does not know what led the main character/narrator to be there, and where exactly the narrator is, other than just a nondescript prison. It seems that the narrator then begins to hallucinate, adding more mystery to what is real and what is not. The ideas of dark romanticism are anti-transcendentalism, meaning that beauty and nature and individuality are not important. Poe writes garish, ugly scenes, but this descriptive imagery allows you to put the picture in your head and draw some of your own conclusions. This continued air of mystery draws the reader in further and is one of the biggest parts of dark romanticism.
The reader is still totally out of the loop for what is really going on in the story, so Poe supplies little flashbacks here and there. The narrator seems to have been captured somehow, with people looming over him and of the horror that the narrator felt upon being captured (Poe). The intense imagery that Poe uses in the story is also consistent with dark romanticism ideas, and this is evident throughout the entire story. The narrator notes while in his dungeon that "the darkness of eternal night encompassed me" (Poe), and the darkness and added despair in the story is highlighted and emphasized several times as the reader continues through the narrators ordeal. This focus on darkness and nighttime is important, showing the dark and Gothic qualities of the writing style.
As the reader, I cannot help but wonder if the story is entirely truthful. A lot of dark romanticism stories try and trick the reader, making dreams and thoughts seem like a true part of the story, and then changing course suddenly. However, the reader can never really know if they are being tricked until the author decides to make it clear that all is not as it seems.
One of the strongest elements of "The Pit and the Pendulum" is pure fear. The narrator is terrified, not knowing where he really is and not able to remember how he even got there with the exception of a few hazy and nondescript details. He is obviously terrified of whatever dungeon he is trapped in, and dreads what is to come. Eventually, he escapes his torture chamber by falling into a pit of some sort, only to be terrified once more by the swinging pendulum with razor like blades that comes closer and closer to him with each swing. The narrator continues to agonize and despair, making the story seem darker and darker with every word. It seems as if hysteria begins to overtake him, distorting mind and his senses and his death seemingly continues to draw nearer. More and more troubles are encountered by the narrator as the story continues, making the story characteristically suspenseful, both by Poe's standards and the standards of dark romanticism. The story ends with unexpected salvation, and the truth about the mystery is revealed.
Poe, Edgar Allan. "The Pit and the Pendulum." Literature.org - The Online Literature Library. Web. 24 Nov. 2010..
The reader is still totally out of the loop for what is really going on in the story, so Poe supplies little flashbacks here and there. The narrator seems to have been captured somehow, with people looming over him and of the horror that the narrator felt upon being captured (Poe). The intense imagery that Poe uses in the story is also consistent with dark romanticism ideas, and this is evident throughout the entire story. The narrator notes while in his dungeon that "the darkness of eternal night encompassed me" (Poe), and the darkness and added despair in the story is highlighted and emphasized several times as the reader continues through the narrators ordeal. This focus on darkness and nighttime is important, showing the dark and Gothic qualities of the writing style.
As the reader, I cannot help but wonder if the story is entirely truthful. A lot of dark romanticism stories try and trick the reader, making dreams and thoughts seem like a true part of the story, and then changing course suddenly. However, the reader can never really know if they are being tricked until the author decides to make it clear that all is not as it seems.
One of the strongest elements of "The Pit and the Pendulum" is pure fear. The narrator is terrified, not knowing where he really is and not able to remember how he even got there with the exception of a few hazy and nondescript details. He is obviously terrified of whatever dungeon he is trapped in, and dreads what is to come. Eventually, he escapes his torture chamber by falling into a pit of some sort, only to be terrified once more by the swinging pendulum with razor like blades that comes closer and closer to him with each swing. The narrator continues to agonize and despair, making the story seem darker and darker with every word. It seems as if hysteria begins to overtake him, distorting mind and his senses and his death seemingly continues to draw nearer. More and more troubles are encountered by the narrator as the story continues, making the story characteristically suspenseful, both by Poe's standards and the standards of dark romanticism. The story ends with unexpected salvation, and the truth about the mystery is revealed.
Poe, Edgar Allan. "The Pit and the Pendulum." Literature.org - The Online Literature Library. Web. 24 Nov. 2010.
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
Analysis of Criticism of "The Raven"
I chose the criticism "The Self-Deconstruction of 'The Raven'" by Leland Person to analyze. This was the first criticism I saw on Bloom's Literary Reference that was of substantial length and actually looked a little bit more interesting than some of the others. Leland points out first that Edward Allan Poe does not approach writing like a lot of other authors do. Instead, Poe is broad, and therefore the reader has to make some of their own conclusions for the poem or story (Person). The biggest problem with this style of writing, which I do agree Poe uses, is that the story and its' meaning can be interpreted in a lot of different ways, and the reader will never know the true answer. However, Person also says that maybe Poe wanted it to be like this, and I agree that Poe wanted people to read further into the literature so that they could derive their own theories about the peom or story. I personally think that Poe wanted the mystery to continue far after the writing was actually done.
In "The Raven", the reader has to determine what the meaning is of the repeated use of the word "nevermore", spoken by the raven that is tormenting the narrator of the story. Because Poe does not tell the reader what this means, they have to try and make it up for themselves and determine the truth. Person says that there is a possibility that Poe never meant for the word to have a real meaning, but used it to make the reader think and develop some of their own ideas. The poem can also be interpreted in a lot of different ways, making it harder to tell what a lot of the little references mean, or if they are significant at all.
I think Poe is a wonderful author, and this method he uses, to allow the reader create their own philosophy and meaning to the story, makes him even better. However, the idea that "nevermore" has absolutely no meaning in the story (Person) is a little hard for me to accept. Unlike Person, I do think that Poe had a purpose and meaning behind this repated word, other than to force the reader to think. There is a chance that Poe's meaning is really insignificant, but I think that there is definitely still some kind of meaning hidden there that Poe may not intend for others to totally understand.
Person goes on in his criticism to say that the reader is sort of able to control the story, which I definitely agree with, but not on all levels. Poe gave the reader a room to interpret the story however they wanted, but still had a set ending and beginning. The main point that Person tried to get across in the analysis was that Poe allowed the reader to give their own edge to the story, but I think that Poe also did not let the reader stray too far from what he actually had planned for the story. Overall, this criticism seemed to be pretty well-researched, and had a lot of opinions that were backed up with thoughts and evidence, and Person made a lot of good points that I agreed with, and some that I did not.
Person, Leland S., Jr. "Poe's Composition of Philosophy: Reading and Writing 'The Raven,'" Arizona Quarterly 46, no. 3 (Autumn 1990): pp. 1-2, 8, 12. Quoted as "The Self-Deconstruction of 'The Raven'" in Harold Bloom, ed. Edgar Allan Poe, Bloom's Major Poets. Philadelphia: Chelsea House Publishing, 1999. (Updated 2007.) Bloom's Literary Reference Online. Facts On File, Inc. http://www.fofweb.com/activelink2.asp?ItemID=WE54&SID=5&iPin= BMPEAP25&SingleRecord=True (accessed November 22, 2010).
In "The Raven", the reader has to determine what the meaning is of the repeated use of the word "nevermore", spoken by the raven that is tormenting the narrator of the story. Because Poe does not tell the reader what this means, they have to try and make it up for themselves and determine the truth. Person says that there is a possibility that Poe never meant for the word to have a real meaning, but used it to make the reader think and develop some of their own ideas. The poem can also be interpreted in a lot of different ways, making it harder to tell what a lot of the little references mean, or if they are significant at all.
I think Poe is a wonderful author, and this method he uses, to allow the reader create their own philosophy and meaning to the story, makes him even better. However, the idea that "nevermore" has absolutely no meaning in the story (Person) is a little hard for me to accept. Unlike Person, I do think that Poe had a purpose and meaning behind this repated word, other than to force the reader to think. There is a chance that Poe's meaning is really insignificant, but I think that there is definitely still some kind of meaning hidden there that Poe may not intend for others to totally understand.
Person goes on in his criticism to say that the reader is sort of able to control the story, which I definitely agree with, but not on all levels. Poe gave the reader a room to interpret the story however they wanted, but still had a set ending and beginning. The main point that Person tried to get across in the analysis was that Poe allowed the reader to give their own edge to the story, but I think that Poe also did not let the reader stray too far from what he actually had planned for the story. Overall, this criticism seemed to be pretty well-researched, and had a lot of opinions that were backed up with thoughts and evidence, and Person made a lot of good points that I agreed with, and some that I did not.
Person, Leland S., Jr. "Poe's Composition of Philosophy: Reading and Writing 'The Raven,'" Arizona Quarterly 46, no. 3 (Autumn 1990): pp. 1-2, 8, 12. Quoted as "The Self-Deconstruction of 'The Raven'" in Harold Bloom, ed. Edgar Allan Poe, Bloom's Major Poets. Philadelphia: Chelsea House Publishing, 1999. (Updated 2007.) Bloom's Literary Reference Online. Facts On File, Inc. http://www.fofweb.com/activelink2.asp?ItemID=WE54&SID=5&iPin= BMPEAP25&SingleRecord=True (accessed November 22, 2010).
Monday, November 22, 2010
The Raven
Literal Meaning:
One night at midnight while I was weary and reading a book of legends, I was almost asleep when I heard tapping at my door. I thought it was a visitor at my chamber, telling myself not to be afraid. It was December, and the fire was dying out slowly. I started to hope for tomorrow, because I was lost in sadness thinking of Lenore, who is no longer alive. The purple curtain at my window rustled and scared me more than before as my heart started beating faster. I stood up, assuming that there was a visitor at my chamber door, nothing more. I became more brave and stopped hesitating, I called out to the visitor, apologizing and saying that I had been dozing and therefore had not answered the door sooner. I could barely hear the noise and then I opened the door, shocked to see that there was no one there at the door- just darkness.
I stood looking into the darkness with fear, wondering what was going on. It was silent and the darkness was unrelenting, and all I heard was the whisper of the word "Lenore!", to which I echoed, "Lenore!". And that was it. I went back into the chamber, still startled, and then heard more tapping, only louder than before. This time I assumed that the noise came from something at my window, so I went to explore and had to assume that it was simply the wind making the noises I heard. I opened the shutter and there was a raven, which flew into my chamber and then perched above the door on a bust of Pallas. It just sat there, nothing more. The black bird continued to sit, stirring my sadness and then making me smile. It was grim and stately, and as I spoke to the raven about my sorrow, it simply replied, "nevermore".
I was astounded at the words of the raven, and marveled at this ability. The word it spoke meant little to me, with little relevancy. It continued to speak only one word, "nevermore" as time went on, and uttered no other words. He did not move, and the bird continued to say the word. The silence was broken and I was unhappy, caught up in my sorrow as the raven continued to speak only one word- "nevermore". The raven seemed to be tormenting me so I put my padded chair in front of the door and sat on it, trying to figure out what was going on with this whole bird thing. I sat and guessed, but could not decide what was going on for the life of me. It's fiery eyes burned me as I continued to sit on the chair in the lamp-light, thinking about how Lenore really is nevermore (because she's dead).
The air then grew heavy and dense and my memories of Lenore began to torment me, although I tried to forget them. I wanted to forget Lenore, but these constant reminders made it impossible to do so. As the raven said, "Nevermore". I will never be able to forget. I thought the raven was a prophet sent from someone, possibly the devil, and asked if I would ever stop being haunted by Lenore and the memories I have of her. I begged for the prophet to tell me, and the raven simply said, "Nevermore." Lenore was up in heaven with God, named by the angels. She was a rare and beautiful woman. And the raven continued to repeat the same word.
I started to yell, screaming at the raven to go back into the night and just leave me alone. I wanted it to leave me alone with my loneliness and leave its perch on the bust above the door to my chamber. But the raven stayed, never leaving or moving, tormenting me with it's eerie prophecy, continually telling me "nevermore."
Poetic Devices:
-Repetition, like in the repeated use of the word "nevermore".
-Simile/Metaphor, like when Poe compares the raven to the devil or a prophet.
-Imagery used to set up the setting of the story and make it descriptive.
-Rhyming, examples: lore/door, floor/Lenore, before/explore.
-Symbolism, because the Raven can be seen as a symbol for Lenore's death and the sorrow he feels.
Figurative Meaning:
I think that the grief that the narrative felt due to the death of his love, Lenore, caused him to sort of lose his mind. I cannot say if the raven is real or a hallucination caused by stress, lack of sleep, or drugs, but I think that the narrative's feelings caused the raven to "appear" to him in the poem and force him to confront his thoughts about Lenore and her untimely death.
Poe, Edgar Allen. "The Raven." PoemHunter.Com - Thousands of Poems and Poets.. Poetry Search Engine. Web. 21 Nov. 2010. .
One night at midnight while I was weary and reading a book of legends, I was almost asleep when I heard tapping at my door. I thought it was a visitor at my chamber, telling myself not to be afraid. It was December, and the fire was dying out slowly. I started to hope for tomorrow, because I was lost in sadness thinking of Lenore, who is no longer alive. The purple curtain at my window rustled and scared me more than before as my heart started beating faster. I stood up, assuming that there was a visitor at my chamber door, nothing more. I became more brave and stopped hesitating, I called out to the visitor, apologizing and saying that I had been dozing and therefore had not answered the door sooner. I could barely hear the noise and then I opened the door, shocked to see that there was no one there at the door- just darkness.
I stood looking into the darkness with fear, wondering what was going on. It was silent and the darkness was unrelenting, and all I heard was the whisper of the word "Lenore!", to which I echoed, "Lenore!". And that was it. I went back into the chamber, still startled, and then heard more tapping, only louder than before. This time I assumed that the noise came from something at my window, so I went to explore and had to assume that it was simply the wind making the noises I heard. I opened the shutter and there was a raven, which flew into my chamber and then perched above the door on a bust of Pallas. It just sat there, nothing more. The black bird continued to sit, stirring my sadness and then making me smile. It was grim and stately, and as I spoke to the raven about my sorrow, it simply replied, "nevermore".
I was astounded at the words of the raven, and marveled at this ability. The word it spoke meant little to me, with little relevancy. It continued to speak only one word, "nevermore" as time went on, and uttered no other words. He did not move, and the bird continued to say the word. The silence was broken and I was unhappy, caught up in my sorrow as the raven continued to speak only one word- "nevermore". The raven seemed to be tormenting me so I put my padded chair in front of the door and sat on it, trying to figure out what was going on with this whole bird thing. I sat and guessed, but could not decide what was going on for the life of me. It's fiery eyes burned me as I continued to sit on the chair in the lamp-light, thinking about how Lenore really is nevermore (because she's dead).
The air then grew heavy and dense and my memories of Lenore began to torment me, although I tried to forget them. I wanted to forget Lenore, but these constant reminders made it impossible to do so. As the raven said, "Nevermore". I will never be able to forget. I thought the raven was a prophet sent from someone, possibly the devil, and asked if I would ever stop being haunted by Lenore and the memories I have of her. I begged for the prophet to tell me, and the raven simply said, "Nevermore." Lenore was up in heaven with God, named by the angels. She was a rare and beautiful woman. And the raven continued to repeat the same word.
I started to yell, screaming at the raven to go back into the night and just leave me alone. I wanted it to leave me alone with my loneliness and leave its perch on the bust above the door to my chamber. But the raven stayed, never leaving or moving, tormenting me with it's eerie prophecy, continually telling me "nevermore."
Poetic Devices:
-Repetition, like in the repeated use of the word "nevermore".
-Simile/Metaphor, like when Poe compares the raven to the devil or a prophet.
-Imagery used to set up the setting of the story and make it descriptive.
-Rhyming, examples: lore/door, floor/Lenore, before/explore.
-Symbolism, because the Raven can be seen as a symbol for Lenore's death and the sorrow he feels.
Figurative Meaning:
I think that the grief that the narrative felt due to the death of his love, Lenore, caused him to sort of lose his mind. I cannot say if the raven is real or a hallucination caused by stress, lack of sleep, or drugs, but I think that the narrative's feelings caused the raven to "appear" to him in the poem and force him to confront his thoughts about Lenore and her untimely death.
Poe, Edgar Allen. "The Raven." PoemHunter.Com - Thousands of Poems and Poets.. Poetry Search Engine. Web. 21 Nov. 2010. .
Sunday, November 21, 2010
Journal #24: Scaring the Bejeezus out of Me
There are several things in this world that simply scare the bejeezus out of me. Old people. Clowns. Spiders. Feet. Hangnails. And nothing scares the bejeezus out of me like a stupid Jack-In-The-Box.
Old people scare me simply because they make me sad. Whenever I go to a nursing home I'm torn between wanting to adopt the residents and wanting to run away from them and their wrinkly skin. But mostly, I want to run away. I find it unnatural for old people to be clustered together like that, even though a lot of them probably have no other place to go. Also, old people typically have cold hands (you know, with the poor circulation and whatnot) and their lips are so chapped that I want to pin them down and force some Carmex on them.
Clowns are another thing that terrify me. Why do those people feel the need to paint their faces (conveniently hiding their true identities), wear terribly mismatched clothes and gi-norm-o shoes, and try and make people laugh with incredibly stupid jokes that often make no sense at al? It honestly does not make sense to me why they would do that. I've seen an episode of Supernatural where this magic people dressed up as clowns, chose a child/family as their victim, and then creeped on said child until they were invited into their homes. And then, the clown impostor would EAT the parents. End of story, because I feel that it pretty self-explanatory.
And like most people, my mind plays tricks on me and things scare me even more. Like after I see a scary movie...I'm inconsolable. I do that weird running leap/jump onto my bed at night just in case someone is going to grab me...it's a sickness. My mind also often freaks me out with imaginary noises, scenarios, and that awful "Oh my lord, there is someone watching me, I am legit gonna die right" feeling. Good stuff.
Old people scare me simply because they make me sad. Whenever I go to a nursing home I'm torn between wanting to adopt the residents and wanting to run away from them and their wrinkly skin. But mostly, I want to run away. I find it unnatural for old people to be clustered together like that, even though a lot of them probably have no other place to go. Also, old people typically have cold hands (you know, with the poor circulation and whatnot) and their lips are so chapped that I want to pin them down and force some Carmex on them.
Clowns are another thing that terrify me. Why do those people feel the need to paint their faces (conveniently hiding their true identities), wear terribly mismatched clothes and gi-norm-o shoes, and try and make people laugh with incredibly stupid jokes that often make no sense at al? It honestly does not make sense to me why they would do that. I've seen an episode of Supernatural where this magic people dressed up as clowns, chose a child/family as their victim, and then creeped on said child until they were invited into their homes. And then, the clown impostor would EAT the parents. End of story, because I feel that it pretty self-explanatory.
And like most people, my mind plays tricks on me and things scare me even more. Like after I see a scary movie...I'm inconsolable. I do that weird running leap/jump onto my bed at night just in case someone is going to grab me...it's a sickness. My mind also often freaks me out with imaginary noises, scenarios, and that awful "Oh my lord, there is someone watching me, I am legit gonna die right" feeling. Good stuff.
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
Thoreau Criticism
I looked on Bloom's Literary Reference Online to find a criticism on Thoreau and the title that stuck out the most to me was "Walden and the American Dream: Challenge or Myth?", which was written by Michaela Keck. Throughout the analysis, Keck most noticeably talks about Thoreau's ideas of "interconnectedness", and how he wanted to break away from society and leave behind most everything that he knew. Thoreau wanted to focus on the things wrong in his life, and Keck places a lot of emphasis on that. Keck also points out that the main reason that Thoreau went off into the wilderness was to "spend time on himself" and see if he could still survive (Keck). Keck continues to talk about the things that Thoreau did while staying at Walden, and emphasis some of the philosophies that he tried to keep up over the two year, two month, and two day stay there.
The analysis itself was pretty well written and easy to read. I do not think it could really be considered college-level reading, but it was still factual and to the point without being overly simplistic. Keck also included different sources in her criticism, making it seem more well rounded and not too opinionated. Keck even used different parts of Walden to emphasis and back up some of the points that she made throughout her criticism. Reading Keck's analysis/criticism also makes it easier to understand some of the slightly obscure points that Thoreau tried to get across in Walden that were totally lost on me- due to language and age and such. A lot of Thoreau's ideas are very different than ideas people now have (and I do not think I know any people willing to live like he did for those two years), and Keck kind of puts his words in more simple and common terms in her analysis.
Thoreau meant for Walden to be an "old fashioned" sort of documentary- not to persuade, but to inform (Keck). When Thoreau went back to society after his stint in the wilderness, he was sort of seen as a hypocrite, and Keck does spend some time talking about this. She also says that if a reader were to look at Walden as a persuasive book or essay, they would see Thoreau as a complete failure for going back to society the way that he did, and also for giving himself little indulgences along the way (although I do not think dinner with a sibling can really be seen as an indulgence, no matter the situation Thoreau was in).
Overall, I would say that this criticism was pretty good. It was well written and although the topic seems a little dull, the essay did not seem to drag on forever. Walden was not meant to be a part of the "American Dream"- it was just Thoreau writing about how he personally got away from the pressures of society. The essay also seems well researched, which I think is a very important quality.
Keck, Michaela. "Thoreau's Walden and the American Dream: Challenge or Myth?" In Bloom, Harold, ed. The American Dream, Bloom's Literary Themes. New York: Chelsea Publishing House, 2009. Bloom's Literary Reference Online. Facts On File, Inc. http://www.fofweb.com/activelink2.asp?ItemID=WE54&SID=1&iPin=BLTTAD021&SingleRecord=True (accessed November 16, 2010).
The analysis itself was pretty well written and easy to read. I do not think it could really be considered college-level reading, but it was still factual and to the point without being overly simplistic. Keck also included different sources in her criticism, making it seem more well rounded and not too opinionated. Keck even used different parts of Walden to emphasis and back up some of the points that she made throughout her criticism. Reading Keck's analysis/criticism also makes it easier to understand some of the slightly obscure points that Thoreau tried to get across in Walden that were totally lost on me- due to language and age and such. A lot of Thoreau's ideas are very different than ideas people now have (and I do not think I know any people willing to live like he did for those two years), and Keck kind of puts his words in more simple and common terms in her analysis.
Thoreau meant for Walden to be an "old fashioned" sort of documentary- not to persuade, but to inform (Keck). When Thoreau went back to society after his stint in the wilderness, he was sort of seen as a hypocrite, and Keck does spend some time talking about this. She also says that if a reader were to look at Walden as a persuasive book or essay, they would see Thoreau as a complete failure for going back to society the way that he did, and also for giving himself little indulgences along the way (although I do not think dinner with a sibling can really be seen as an indulgence, no matter the situation Thoreau was in).
Overall, I would say that this criticism was pretty good. It was well written and although the topic seems a little dull, the essay did not seem to drag on forever. Walden was not meant to be a part of the "American Dream"- it was just Thoreau writing about how he personally got away from the pressures of society. The essay also seems well researched, which I think is a very important quality.
Keck, Michaela. "Thoreau's Walden and the American Dream: Challenge or Myth?" In Bloom, Harold, ed. The American Dream, Bloom's Literary Themes. New York: Chelsea Publishing House, 2009. Bloom's Literary Reference Online. Facts On File, Inc. http://www.fofweb.com/activelink2.asp?ItemID=WE54&SID=1&iPin=BLTTAD021&SingleRecord=True (accessed November 16, 2010).
Journal #23: A Week Without...My Lifeline.
A week without technology. Okey dokey...are you serious? Like, is this legit? I believe we have had a conversation very similar to this one in the journal "My Favorite _____" (aka "My Favorite Thing). A week without technology would not end well for me. I actually have had to experience this before, while on a mission trip...in Kentucky. It was awful. When I finally got to check my email five days later, I had 237 emails, most of which were from Target and Mallorie Kay Lohman. I just do not do very well when I do not have my most favorite of things.
Television is not as important to me as my iPod and cell phone, even though I still enjoy it. Thursday nights are full up with The Big Bang Theory, 30 Rock, The Office, Outsourced, and Community, while Tuesday nights are dedicated to Glee and Sunday nights Desperate Housewives. However, there are have been many times that I have been unable to watch my favorite shows, and it does not bother me that much, because they are just television shows. There are other things that I can do other than watch television, like read or bake something or do a delightful little arts and crafts project.
Another form of technology that I would have to give up if I were to "unplug" my life would be my computer. Like my iPod and cell phone, it would be hard for me to give up my laptop, simply because I use it to procrastinate and spend time. For instance, before I remembered to finally finish this blogpost, I was creeping on facebook and checking my email and simply messing around before I decided that I should probably get this done.
To sum it up, I would be very lost without my technology. It is not like I have an unhealthy obsession...I was raised in this generation where instead of playing outside, people watch television and movies, and instead of having a baby sitters club, we get on facebook. That is just the way things are, whether people like it or not.
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
Exceptions to Laws
I hate when people bring up so scenario's like if your sister was dying and you did not have enough money to buy the magical exilir, would it be okay for you to steal it? No. No, it would not be okay. You cannot just steal something because someone needs it. People get sick and people die every single day. You might not want your sister to die...but she's sick. It's going to happen, and instead of risking stealing something, you should be spending more time with the sister you are so concerned about.
I do not think that there are very many exceptions to breaking the law. For the most part, laws are set in place to keep society in place and structured, and to keep people safe. But like most everything else in the world, there are a few exceptions to this. Although there are these exceptions, the consequences of these can still be pretty harsh.
Gandhi is an example of this. To gain freedom and rights for his country, he exhibited civil disobedience. He did not do anything extreme, like murder or violent activities. Instead, he was nonviolent while he tried to make a point. Hunger strikes and long marches are examples of this. Technically, Gandhi and his followers were breaking the law. But they were not hurting anyone, and they were not being radical or extreme. They still suffered the consequences of breaking the law- spending nights in jail and being hurt.
There would be several other exceptions, like Nazi-Germany or hostile Africa. The rules/laws were ridiculous, and there were people who tried to defy them. Many of them were punished and even killed, but this is an example of when breaking the law might be considered okay.
I do not think that there are very many exceptions to breaking the law. For the most part, laws are set in place to keep society in place and structured, and to keep people safe. But like most everything else in the world, there are a few exceptions to this. Although there are these exceptions, the consequences of these can still be pretty harsh.
Gandhi is an example of this. To gain freedom and rights for his country, he exhibited civil disobedience. He did not do anything extreme, like murder or violent activities. Instead, he was nonviolent while he tried to make a point. Hunger strikes and long marches are examples of this. Technically, Gandhi and his followers were breaking the law. But they were not hurting anyone, and they were not being radical or extreme. They still suffered the consequences of breaking the law- spending nights in jail and being hurt.
There would be several other exceptions, like Nazi-Germany or hostile Africa. The rules/laws were ridiculous, and there were people who tried to defy them. Many of them were punished and even killed, but this is an example of when breaking the law might be considered okay.
Friday, November 12, 2010
Gandhi vs. Thoreau
The main difference between "Civil Disobedience" by Henry Thoreau and "One the Eve of Historic Dandi March" by Gandhi is very simple. Gandhi had a true purpose to fight the government and the wrong they were doing. Thoreau, however, had no real, important purpose. He was jailed for his refusal to pay a poll tax- he spent one night in jail, probably less than 24 hours, and was given good food before someone else paid his poll tax and he was released (Thoreau). Gandhi, on the other hand, spent countless nights in jail. He was beaten and went on hunger strikes and did this all without complaint- because he was making a point. The British control in India really was unfair, and as was their treatment of the native people (Gandhi).
Thoreau was being egotistical. He did not pay his due poll tax because he did not want to vote, and this is unfair. There were probably plenty of other people around that did not want to vote either, but they probably paid the due tax and stayed out of trouble (Thoreau). Thoreau did this for himself, not for others. He was selfish and impractical and was trying to make a point that really did not need to be made. Just because he thought the taxes were doing towards a war he didn't support didn't mean that they actually were. Eventually, this money could have come back to him in another way.
Gandhi was much more justified in his civil disobedience. Although I do not agree with or condone breaking the law, I think that there are exceptions. Like...if you lived in Nazi-Germany. Or India during this time period...Gandhi was fighting for his rights and the rights of his fellow countrymen. He not penny pinching and trying to avoid a relatively small tax, he was trying to change history and do good things so that people would be treated more fairly and altogether better (Gandhi). Thoreau was definitely not above the law...and neither was Gandhi, who paid for the misdemeanors he committed. A big difference is that Gandhi anticipated and did not complain about the consequences of his actions. He knew that, by law, he was doing wrong. But Thoreau, on the other hand, seemed to kind of think that he was above the law in the way. He tried to make himself a martyr when it was his own fault he was jailed for a short period of time.
One more difference is that Gandhi...he's the real deal. He was not just playing around, he was not just trying to make a little point. He was trying to change the world- and he succeeded. Great people like Martin Luther King Jr. have followed in Gandhi's nonviolent tactics, and Gandhi also eventually won the fight against the British influences in India. Thoreau seemed to be...dabbling in civil disobedience, just to see what would happen. I do not think that he was all that serious about taxes, but what trying to make a point. His approach was poorly thought out and he came off looking like a really stupid person. I am not a fan.
Gandhi, Mohandas. "On the Eve of the Historic Dandi March." Glencoe Literature. Comp. Jeffery D. Wilhelm. American Literature ed. Columbus: McGraw-Hill, 2010. 229-230. Print.
Thoreau, Henry."Civil Disobedience." Glencoe Literature. Comp. Jeffery D. Wilhelm. American Literature ed. Columbus: McGraw-Hill, 2010. 220-227. Print.
Thoreau was being egotistical. He did not pay his due poll tax because he did not want to vote, and this is unfair. There were probably plenty of other people around that did not want to vote either, but they probably paid the due tax and stayed out of trouble (Thoreau). Thoreau did this for himself, not for others. He was selfish and impractical and was trying to make a point that really did not need to be made. Just because he thought the taxes were doing towards a war he didn't support didn't mean that they actually were. Eventually, this money could have come back to him in another way.
Gandhi was much more justified in his civil disobedience. Although I do not agree with or condone breaking the law, I think that there are exceptions. Like...if you lived in Nazi-Germany. Or India during this time period...Gandhi was fighting for his rights and the rights of his fellow countrymen. He not penny pinching and trying to avoid a relatively small tax, he was trying to change history and do good things so that people would be treated more fairly and altogether better (Gandhi). Thoreau was definitely not above the law...and neither was Gandhi, who paid for the misdemeanors he committed. A big difference is that Gandhi anticipated and did not complain about the consequences of his actions. He knew that, by law, he was doing wrong. But Thoreau, on the other hand, seemed to kind of think that he was above the law in the way. He tried to make himself a martyr when it was his own fault he was jailed for a short period of time.
One more difference is that Gandhi...he's the real deal. He was not just playing around, he was not just trying to make a little point. He was trying to change the world- and he succeeded. Great people like Martin Luther King Jr. have followed in Gandhi's nonviolent tactics, and Gandhi also eventually won the fight against the British influences in India. Thoreau seemed to be...dabbling in civil disobedience, just to see what would happen. I do not think that he was all that serious about taxes, but what trying to make a point. His approach was poorly thought out and he came off looking like a really stupid person. I am not a fan.
Gandhi, Mohandas. "On the Eve of the Historic Dandi March." Glencoe Literature. Comp. Jeffery D. Wilhelm. American Literature ed. Columbus: McGraw-Hill, 2010. 229-230. Print.
Thoreau, Henry."Civil Disobedience." Glencoe Literature. Comp. Jeffery D. Wilhelm. American Literature ed. Columbus: McGraw-Hill, 2010. 220-227. Print.
Thursday, November 11, 2010
Rejection of Romanticism
Although Emerson embraced and celebrated Romanticism during a lot of his writing career in the nineteenth century, towards the later years of his life he began to reject Romanticism and then began to completely shy away from it and changes his ideas and belief regarding philosphy and life in general. In my opinion, Emerson first started to reject Romanticism early on because of the many different hardships that he experienced during his life. First, his wife died when she was only nineteen years old and he was in this twenties. Emerson reportedly refused to mourn the death of his wife (Edmundson) and continued on with his life. Although he may have refused to mourn this loss outwardly, their is a very good chance that the emotional pain took its toll on Emerson. And then only a few years after the death of his wife, Emerson also lost one of his brothers; the one he had always been closest to. Losing loved ones, especially spouses or siblings, causes a lot of tragic emotional pain. The pain that must have come along with these various losses must have been hard on Emerson, and probably eventually made him rethink his life and what he believed in. I think that as Emerson continued to experience loss throughout his life, he started to give up on the idea of Romanticism, and along with it, the related ideas of Transcendentalism.
Transcendentalism is a branch of Romanticism that calls for people to view different objects of the world as just small versions of the whole universe. It also says to trust one's own intuition (Define). I think that as Emerson continued to go through life and experience struggles and more loss, he started to rethink his support of the ideas that go along with Romanticism and with it, Transcendentalism. I do not blame Emerson for this change of heart- I think that these ideas probably sounded good to Emerson at first. He liked the aspects of nature and beauty that went along with Romanticism, and therefore he believed in it and wrote his essays and other works in the style. However, as Emerson grew older, he experience hardships that caused his outlook on life to change pretty dramatically (Edmundson). After he endured the loss of his wife and brother, Emerson later lost his son, Waldo. He continued to change his philosophies, and I do not think that it makes him a hypocrite. As his life changed, his ideas began to change as well.
As Emerson began to move away from the ideas of Romanticism, he moved towards some Freudian ideas instead, like the belief that condensed liberation is inadequate (Edmundson). I think that as Emerson aged and experienced different things, his ideas continued to change as well. Mostly, I think that he began to reject Romanticism and Transcendentalism simply because those beliefs and ideas just did not work out for him and the things that happened in his life. He gave up on them because that was not the way his life was going.
"Define Transcendentalism." Dictionary.com. Web. 11 Nov. 2010..
Edmundson, Mark. "Emerson and the Work of Melancholia." Facts on File. Web. 11 Nov. 2010.
Transcendentalism is a branch of Romanticism that calls for people to view different objects of the world as just small versions of the whole universe. It also says to trust one's own intuition (Define). I think that as Emerson continued to go through life and experience struggles and more loss, he started to rethink his support of the ideas that go along with Romanticism and with it, Transcendentalism. I do not blame Emerson for this change of heart- I think that these ideas probably sounded good to Emerson at first. He liked the aspects of nature and beauty that went along with Romanticism, and therefore he believed in it and wrote his essays and other works in the style. However, as Emerson grew older, he experience hardships that caused his outlook on life to change pretty dramatically (Edmundson). After he endured the loss of his wife and brother, Emerson later lost his son, Waldo. He continued to change his philosophies, and I do not think that it makes him a hypocrite. As his life changed, his ideas began to change as well.
As Emerson began to move away from the ideas of Romanticism, he moved towards some Freudian ideas instead, like the belief that condensed liberation is inadequate (Edmundson). I think that as Emerson aged and experienced different things, his ideas continued to change as well. Mostly, I think that he began to reject Romanticism and Transcendentalism simply because those beliefs and ideas just did not work out for him and the things that happened in his life. He gave up on them because that was not the way his life was going.
"Define Transcendentalism." Dictionary.com. Web. 11 Nov. 2010.
Edmundson, Mark. "Emerson and the Work of Melancholia." Facts on File. Web. 11 Nov. 2010.
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
Journal #21: Emerson vs. Franklin
Ralph Waldo Emerson obviously shows examples of self-reliance through his essay...which is actually titled "Self-Reliance", so it is pretty obvious that self-reliance is big for Emerson right from the start. In the essay he wrote about the importance of being able to depend on yourself and to able be to reflect upon yourself as well. Emerson wrote in the Romanticism (Transcendentalism, specifically), which put emphasis on innocence and nature and youth. His idea was that you needed to get away from the world once and a while so that you could self-reflect and think about all of the things going on in your life.
Franklin also showed signs of self-reliance. In his virtues, like the Masonic virtues, Franklin listed some traits that would take some self-reliance to accomplish. Part of Franklin's philosophy was not to lean too much on others. I cannot say if Benjamin Franklin was into self reflection, though. However, the two do not necessarily go together. Emerson wanted his self reflection to be done privately, away from the eyes of the rest of the world. This meant having to have self-reliance to be able to actually be able to "get away". Emerson brought nature into this by saying that a person can relax in and be one with nature, giving them peace so that they can start to reflect upon what has happened in their lives. Franklin, however, definitely did not place as much emphasis on nature and innocence and such. He was more concerned with society and the going on's of society, as well as how he appeared in the public eye. He was much more focused on the ideas of Rationalism, science and knowledge, than of things like nature and youthfulness.
Emerson was much less concerned with society and much more concerned with nature and one's own self. Franklin supported self-reliance to accomplish the virtues that he set out, but he did not place as much faith in it than Emerson did.
Franklin also showed signs of self-reliance. In his virtues, like the Masonic virtues, Franklin listed some traits that would take some self-reliance to accomplish. Part of Franklin's philosophy was not to lean too much on others. I cannot say if Benjamin Franklin was into self reflection, though. However, the two do not necessarily go together. Emerson wanted his self reflection to be done privately, away from the eyes of the rest of the world. This meant having to have self-reliance to be able to actually be able to "get away". Emerson brought nature into this by saying that a person can relax in and be one with nature, giving them peace so that they can start to reflect upon what has happened in their lives. Franklin, however, definitely did not place as much emphasis on nature and innocence and such. He was more concerned with society and the going on's of society, as well as how he appeared in the public eye. He was much more focused on the ideas of Rationalism, science and knowledge, than of things like nature and youthfulness.
Emerson was much less concerned with society and much more concerned with nature and one's own self. Franklin supported self-reliance to accomplish the virtues that he set out, but he did not place as much faith in it than Emerson did.
Monday, November 8, 2010
Journal #20: Self-Reflection
Hmm. Taking a break from society seems a little impossible. Society is kind of surrounding us...because we kind of are society. So unless you are planning an exorcism or are going to purposely get lost in the woods, you are going to have a problem with that whole "take a break from society" thing. Apart from mediation and intense thought, it is hard to have a serious self-reflection.
Self-reflection is still important, although I do not think you need to take a break from society to achieve this. Finding a quiet place doesn't mean that your taking a break from society...it just means you have found a a peaceful and probably really relaxing place where you can use phrases "letting go" and "be one with nature" to describe your feelings of elation. Being secluded does not always mean that you're away from society, depending on the circumstances...even if you "get away from it all", you still have your own thoughts and emotions to deal with. So unless you manage to suppress your feelings (which is kind of unhealthy. by the way...), you will never truly achieve true peace. It is good to try and relax and calm down, but it is difficult to completely shut the rest of the world out. We are so impressionable that there is always something on our minds. At this very moment, I am trying to type this blog and I am distracted by the thoughts of other homework I have to do tonight, the sound of my parents talking and watching television in the background, and my feelings of extreme exhaustion. Also, I am pretty hungry. So even though I am really trying to focus on doing my blog post, the rest of the world, not to mention the rest of me, is calling for my attention.
So, to make myself happy, I think that I will just wrap this nice little blog post up and am off to eat some frozen blueberries from a plastic cup.
Self-reflection is still important, although I do not think you need to take a break from society to achieve this. Finding a quiet place doesn't mean that your taking a break from society...it just means you have found a a peaceful and probably really relaxing place where you can use phrases "letting go" and "be one with nature" to describe your feelings of elation. Being secluded does not always mean that you're away from society, depending on the circumstances...even if you "get away from it all", you still have your own thoughts and emotions to deal with. So unless you manage to suppress your feelings (which is kind of unhealthy. by the way...), you will never truly achieve true peace. It is good to try and relax and calm down, but it is difficult to completely shut the rest of the world out. We are so impressionable that there is always something on our minds. At this very moment, I am trying to type this blog and I am distracted by the thoughts of other homework I have to do tonight, the sound of my parents talking and watching television in the background, and my feelings of extreme exhaustion. Also, I am pretty hungry. So even though I am really trying to focus on doing my blog post, the rest of the world, not to mention the rest of me, is calling for my attention.
So, to make myself happy, I think that I will just wrap this nice little blog post up and am off to eat some frozen blueberries from a plastic cup.
Thursday, November 4, 2010
Journal #19: Ideal USA
I honestly do not think there is such a thing as an ideal USA. Somewhere along the way, there would inevitably be some kind of conflict. Whether it be corruption or the economy, the chance that something would go wrong is undeniably high. If there really was an ideal USA, it would not be a Utopia, it would be a Dystopia. I really think that there is no such thing as an Utopia, because I also think that perfection is impossible. No matter what, there is always going to be some kind of flaw in the system.
Reality says that there will never been an ideal country or society. Problems are going to come up in almost every situation- poverty, recessions, hunger, disease, and violence can happen no matter what kind of world we live in. There are a lot of people who simply don't care about others, and these are the kinds of people that contribute to making societies Dystopian instead of Utopian. It all can boil down to human nature, if you look at it that way. Humans make errors- that's undeniable. Everyone lies, or cheats, or steals at some point in their lives. Some people do these kinds of bad things repeatedly, not really caring about the outcome or what is at stake. There are always going to be problems in the world and in our country. The problem can be something big like terrorism, or it could be something small like the road system. The point is, a lot of problems are unavoidable.
In an "Ideal America", everyone would have to be happy, which is also impossible to accomplish. There is no proven way to make every single person in the country happy- it just can't happen. Some people won't be happy for anything, and some people might think something will make them happy when it really won't.
I cannot describe an Ideal America because I'm facing the facts- there will most likely never be an ideal anything, because there are problems everywhere and with everything- our laptops lose battery power, our cars break down, our loved ones die, we lose our friends, our pencil runs out of lead, our alarm clocks don't go off. Just because our society cannot be ideal doesn't mean we can't be happy- it just means that we're always going to have some kind of problem.
Reality says that there will never been an ideal country or society. Problems are going to come up in almost every situation- poverty, recessions, hunger, disease, and violence can happen no matter what kind of world we live in. There are a lot of people who simply don't care about others, and these are the kinds of people that contribute to making societies Dystopian instead of Utopian. It all can boil down to human nature, if you look at it that way. Humans make errors- that's undeniable. Everyone lies, or cheats, or steals at some point in their lives. Some people do these kinds of bad things repeatedly, not really caring about the outcome or what is at stake. There are always going to be problems in the world and in our country. The problem can be something big like terrorism, or it could be something small like the road system. The point is, a lot of problems are unavoidable.
In an "Ideal America", everyone would have to be happy, which is also impossible to accomplish. There is no proven way to make every single person in the country happy- it just can't happen. Some people won't be happy for anything, and some people might think something will make them happy when it really won't.
I cannot describe an Ideal America because I'm facing the facts- there will most likely never be an ideal anything, because there are problems everywhere and with everything- our laptops lose battery power, our cars break down, our loved ones die, we lose our friends, our pencil runs out of lead, our alarm clocks don't go off. Just because our society cannot be ideal doesn't mean we can't be happy- it just means that we're always going to have some kind of problem.
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
Holmes Poem Analysis
The poem I chose to analyze was "The Height of Ridiculous" Oliver Wendell Holmes. I'm not going to lie, I chose this poem because I liked the title. It is immediately clear that Holmes is somewhat of a literal writer. He still uses the "flowery" language that was common in the romanticism period, but there are no difficult "hidden meanings" to interpret in the poem. Holmes conveys his sense of humor into the poem and manages to keep the mood light and simple- there does not seem to be any underlying issues going on throughout the story detailed in the poem.
It seems that the main purpose of the poem is to simply entertain his audience.
Holmes, Oliver W. "247. The Height of the Ridiculous." Bartleby.com: Great Books Online -Quotes, Poems, Novels, Classics and Hundreds More. Web. 03 Nov. 2010. http://www.bartleby.com/248/247.html
It seems that the main purpose of the poem is to simply entertain his audience.
Holmes, Oliver W. "247. The Height of the Ridiculous." Bartleby.com: Great Books Online -Quotes, Poems, Novels, Classics and Hundreds More. Web. 03 Nov. 2010. http://www.bartleby.com/248/247.html
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
Journal #18: Poem
Okay, so we're supposed to write a romanticism poem? Alrighty...roses are red, violets are blue, and a bunch of other stuff. Instead of writing a poem, I'm going to take this assignment liberally and talk about Romanticism poems instead.
One of the first uses of the phrase "roses are red, violets are blue" can be traced back to Sir Edmund Spenser in "The Faerie Queene", which was written in 1590. The poem reads "It was upon a Sommers shynie day, When Titan faire his beames did display, In a fresh fountaine, farre from all mens vew, She bath'd her brest, the boyling heat t'allay; She bath'd with roses red, and violets blew, And all the sweetest flowres, that in the forrest grew." (I'm not going to lie, I got this information from wikipedia and I really don't care). Poets and other random people have continued to use this phrase throughout time and this line has changed to things like "Roses are red, violets are blue, this poems stinks, and so do you."
I read some other people's poems and they are so humiliating that I refuse to write one myself. I can't rhyme like at all...cheese, geez, moo, coo, blah, blah, blah. That would be the extent of my poem, and everyone would laugh at me and I would probably cry and I don't need anymore stress in my life. My junior year is jammed packed with weighted classes and I feel like their repeatedly kicking me in the face and in the stomach. Next year will be wonderful...two weighted classes (plus Art IV) and a bunch of other blow off classes. It will be beautiful, and I am very excited for it.
This is the end of my journal. My hatred for poetry is...eternal.
One of the first uses of the phrase "roses are red, violets are blue" can be traced back to Sir Edmund Spenser in "The Faerie Queene", which was written in 1590. The poem reads "It was upon a Sommers shynie day, When Titan faire his beames did display, In a fresh fountaine, farre from all mens vew, She bath'd her brest, the boyling heat t'allay; She bath'd with roses red, and violets blew, And all the sweetest flowres, that in the forrest grew." (I'm not going to lie, I got this information from wikipedia and I really don't care). Poets and other random people have continued to use this phrase throughout time and this line has changed to things like "Roses are red, violets are blue, this poems stinks, and so do you."
I read some other people's poems and they are so humiliating that I refuse to write one myself. I can't rhyme like at all...cheese, geez, moo, coo, blah, blah, blah. That would be the extent of my poem, and everyone would laugh at me and I would probably cry and I don't need anymore stress in my life. My junior year is jammed packed with weighted classes and I feel like their repeatedly kicking me in the face and in the stomach. Next year will be wonderful...two weighted classes (plus Art IV) and a bunch of other blow off classes. It will be beautiful, and I am very excited for it.
This is the end of my journal. My hatred for poetry is...eternal.
Monday, November 1, 2010
Thanatopsis Explanation
Thanatopsis by William Cullen Bryant is a poem that talks about nature, death, and dying.
In the first stanza, Bryant is talking about dying in general and the very thought of dying. He says that dying is sad and cold and dark, detailing the more negative aspects. As the first stanza continues, Bryant goes on to explain that when a person dies, it's not so bad because the earth reclaims that person and they become a part of nature. He says that when the oak tree's roots extend to the buried, they pierce the dead person to make them a part of the tree. Although Bryant first called death cold and sad, his tone changes slightly when he says people are not alone in death because of their connection with nature.
Everyone dies, everyone is buried, and everyone becomes on in nature is basically the point Bryant begins to convey. He says that after death you join those who have died before you and will later be joined by those who will die after you, like a repeated cycle of death and nature. Bryant writes in his poem that bodies become a part of the earth and the beauty of nature is due to those who have died.
Bryant also says death is not bad because people remain immortal through death because they are technically still living through nature. Because of this, Bryant says that there although there are many people on earth, this number is even larger because he thinks dead people are still technically a part of earth because they have become a part of the nature that surrounds living people. Bryant says the worst part of death would be dying without anyone else noticing, even though everything that breathes will die one day and become one is nature so it does not really matter. People will continue living even after you die, but no matter how each individual acts after your death, they will all have the same fate. According to Bryant, the individual lifestyles that people led do not matter because at the end, everyone will die and be placed with each other.
The most important part of the poem is that Bryant wants people to realize that they will die along with everyone else; it is important to be happy while living so that when your day comes they will go in to death happily.
In the first stanza, Bryant is talking about dying in general and the very thought of dying. He says that dying is sad and cold and dark, detailing the more negative aspects. As the first stanza continues, Bryant goes on to explain that when a person dies, it's not so bad because the earth reclaims that person and they become a part of nature. He says that when the oak tree's roots extend to the buried, they pierce the dead person to make them a part of the tree. Although Bryant first called death cold and sad, his tone changes slightly when he says people are not alone in death because of their connection with nature.
Everyone dies, everyone is buried, and everyone becomes on in nature is basically the point Bryant begins to convey. He says that after death you join those who have died before you and will later be joined by those who will die after you, like a repeated cycle of death and nature. Bryant writes in his poem that bodies become a part of the earth and the beauty of nature is due to those who have died.
Bryant also says death is not bad because people remain immortal through death because they are technically still living through nature. Because of this, Bryant says that there although there are many people on earth, this number is even larger because he thinks dead people are still technically a part of earth because they have become a part of the nature that surrounds living people. Bryant says the worst part of death would be dying without anyone else noticing, even though everything that breathes will die one day and become one is nature so it does not really matter. People will continue living even after you die, but no matter how each individual acts after your death, they will all have the same fate. According to Bryant, the individual lifestyles that people led do not matter because at the end, everyone will die and be placed with each other.
The most important part of the poem is that Bryant wants people to realize that they will die along with everyone else; it is important to be happy while living so that when your day comes they will go in to death happily.
Monday, October 25, 2010
Journal #17: Nature
I'm going to be honest. I do not bond with nature, because nature is not my friend. Nature has spiders, and I hate spiders with a really deep fiery passion because they scare the living bejeezus out of me. They have way too many legs and eyes and they spin webs.
Because of my fear of spiders, my severe allergy to poison ivy, my dislike of mud, and several others factors, I stay away from nature. Nature is dirty and it gives you diseases like poison oak/ivy and rabies. There are some parts of nature that aren't that bad, though, like if you are bonding with nature in a clean, insect-free situation. When there is no excessive dirtiness or scary bugs, then nature does not bother me that much. I'm still wary of poison ivy and whatnot, though. Besides, animals aren't all that cute either. Sure, you may think Bambi is all cute and leaps through meadows and befriends beavers and rabbits, but that's just an act. Really, Bambi is waiting at the edge of the meadow waiting for you to finish your picnic lunch, ready to pounce and eat you and spit out your bones. It's just the truth.
Last summer when we went to Montana and hiked in the mountains, and I was extremely displeased with the amount of nature that was surrounding me. Leaves. Mud. Ants. Flies. Spiders. Vicious, bloodthirsty bears. The experience was not a pleasant one for me, especially since it involved walking five miles up a mountain and then back down with no water and only a very small bag of white cheddar goldfish to eat. There were eight very hungry people that had to share that tiny little bag of goldfish and it was actually a really terrifying for all of us. I never want to go through that kind of emotional and physical pain again. Nature inflicted that pain on me, and I will hold this grudge forever.
Because of my fear of spiders, my severe allergy to poison ivy, my dislike of mud, and several others factors, I stay away from nature. Nature is dirty and it gives you diseases like poison oak/ivy and rabies. There are some parts of nature that aren't that bad, though, like if you are bonding with nature in a clean, insect-free situation. When there is no excessive dirtiness or scary bugs, then nature does not bother me that much. I'm still wary of poison ivy and whatnot, though. Besides, animals aren't all that cute either. Sure, you may think Bambi is all cute and leaps through meadows and befriends beavers and rabbits, but that's just an act. Really, Bambi is waiting at the edge of the meadow waiting for you to finish your picnic lunch, ready to pounce and eat you and spit out your bones. It's just the truth.
Last summer when we went to Montana and hiked in the mountains, and I was extremely displeased with the amount of nature that was surrounding me. Leaves. Mud. Ants. Flies. Spiders. Vicious, bloodthirsty bears. The experience was not a pleasant one for me, especially since it involved walking five miles up a mountain and then back down with no water and only a very small bag of white cheddar goldfish to eat. There were eight very hungry people that had to share that tiny little bag of goldfish and it was actually a really terrifying for all of us. I never want to go through that kind of emotional and physical pain again. Nature inflicted that pain on me, and I will hold this grudge forever.
Thursday, October 21, 2010
Journal #16: My Favorite ______
My favorite _____ would probably have to be _____. It's fun and entertaining and interesting and I love it. Whenever people ask me what my favorite _____ is, I always know exactly what I'm going to tell them.
But really, my favorite thing is my iPod, Penelope. She is an iTouch and was given to me two years ago over Spring Break. I would probably be able to go a few days without my cell phone and maybe a day or two without food, but I absolutely need my iPod. When I'm grounded, my parents tend to go straight for the kill and take away my iPod for a couple days. And those few days of separation from Penelope the iTouch just rip me to shreds, to be honest. My drive to school becomes boring because of listening to my "Oh the Roadtrip" or "Moo" or "Rawr" playlist, I have to listen to the radio. It's an abomination. Because it's all morning talk shows and lots of commercial breaks and way too much music that I don't like. Plus, what if I have an odd hankering to listen to Britney Spears circa 2004? They don't play that stuff on the radio anymore!
And then I get to school and I'm in a really bad mood from not being able to listen to my music preferences on my way to school and I get in a intense fistfight and fail a test and set the mini lab cart on fire and roll it down the hallway, all because Penelope and I were separated on the way to school. But then it gets even worse...I get to work and I'm still in a foul mood and when my boss, crazy-Joan, asks me to go make a copy of her calorie intake log, I snap and launch myself out the window.
My iPod is my favorite thing, and that is what would happen if she and I were ever separated for a long period of time.
But really, my favorite thing is my iPod, Penelope. She is an iTouch and was given to me two years ago over Spring Break. I would probably be able to go a few days without my cell phone and maybe a day or two without food, but I absolutely need my iPod. When I'm grounded, my parents tend to go straight for the kill and take away my iPod for a couple days. And those few days of separation from Penelope the iTouch just rip me to shreds, to be honest. My drive to school becomes boring because of listening to my "Oh the Roadtrip" or "Moo" or "Rawr" playlist, I have to listen to the radio. It's an abomination. Because it's all morning talk shows and lots of commercial breaks and way too much music that I don't like. Plus, what if I have an odd hankering to listen to Britney Spears circa 2004? They don't play that stuff on the radio anymore!
And then I get to school and I'm in a really bad mood from not being able to listen to my music preferences on my way to school and I get in a intense fistfight and fail a test and set the mini lab cart on fire and roll it down the hallway, all because Penelope and I were separated on the way to school. But then it gets even worse...I get to work and I'm still in a foul mood and when my boss, crazy-Joan, asks me to go make a copy of her calorie intake log, I snap and launch myself out the window.
My iPod is my favorite thing, and that is what would happen if she and I were ever separated for a long period of time.
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
Journal #15: Logic and Reason
At the moment, I am not using much logic and reason. Because honestly, I'm freaking out. Advanced Algebra II is slowly but surely killing me- stabbing me in the heart with an icicle so that there is technically no weapon to use as evidence after the fact. I see life flashing before my eyes, but I'm not sure if it's actually my life flashing before my eyes (that's how much I'm freaking out right now). It's basically just a blur of fruit gushers and "As Told By Ginger" and peanut butter, so I'm guessing it's my life.
My own logic and reasoning is melting down into a little puddle of mush, with scraps of division signs and fractions mixed in for good measure. I wouldn't be surprised if I feel asleep tonight and dreamed of nothing but order of operations and exponents and whatnot, because that's how much math is taking over my life right now. It's a pretty wild ride, and I can honestly say that I am not enjoying it and would like to get off of the hypothetical "train" and the next stop, please. And if there are no stops, I will climb through a window of said "train" and roll on out to freedom, Indiana Jones-style.
In this Indiana Jones-esque escape, I am Indiana Jones, famous archaeologist/crime fighter/protector of ancient artifacts, and Advanced Algebra II would be the bad guys who are trying to steal Coronado's Cross.
Most of the time, when I'm not re-enacting famous scenes from Indiana Jones and I am not completely freaking out, I use my logic and reason pretty well. When I've got a problem, I always try and figure out what the best solution would be, not always the easiest solution. I am not always successful in doing this, but I always at least try. I think you pretty much have to use logic and reasoning to solve your problems, because if you don't use that, the problems are not really solved. Instead, they are just kind of patched up and tucked away, not fixed.
My own logic and reasoning is melting down into a little puddle of mush, with scraps of division signs and fractions mixed in for good measure. I wouldn't be surprised if I feel asleep tonight and dreamed of nothing but order of operations and exponents and whatnot, because that's how much math is taking over my life right now. It's a pretty wild ride, and I can honestly say that I am not enjoying it and would like to get off of the hypothetical "train" and the next stop, please. And if there are no stops, I will climb through a window of said "train" and roll on out to freedom, Indiana Jones-style.
In this Indiana Jones-esque escape, I am Indiana Jones, famous archaeologist/crime fighter/protector of ancient artifacts, and Advanced Algebra II would be the bad guys who are trying to steal Coronado's Cross.
Most of the time, when I'm not re-enacting famous scenes from Indiana Jones and I am not completely freaking out, I use my logic and reason pretty well. When I've got a problem, I always try and figure out what the best solution would be, not always the easiest solution. I am not always successful in doing this, but I always at least try. I think you pretty much have to use logic and reasoning to solve your problems, because if you don't use that, the problems are not really solved. Instead, they are just kind of patched up and tucked away, not fixed.
Monday, October 18, 2010
Common Sense
Thomas Paine's "Common Sense" is a good example of how Common Sense is not so unique. It's not so common after all- because a lot of people are definitely lacking it. Have you ever seen a house with like two feet of yard space and about 500 MILLION lawn gnomes cluttering up that little space? Well, that's a really great example of a person that has very little common sense. Because sure, one or two adorable, chipper lawn gnomes might brighten the place up a bit and you can do whatever floats your tug boat or yacht or fishing boat or whatever kind of boat you happen to float. But when you have more lawn gnomes that Switzerland has military troops, it's time to take a step back and rethink your life choices. That, my friends, is common sense at it's finest.
It is a little hard to take this work about common sense seriously. Paine seems extremely passionate about a subject that is honestly hard to take seriously. Common Sense is such an odd thing to write about...and Paine's opinions and ideas slightly overshadow the facts. It is clear the point he is trying to make- he just does not present it very well, in my opinion.
For instance, it is painfully clear to the reader what Paine's opinion on monarchy (and England in general, apparently) is... and the work is more of a persuasive essay than a factual one. He calls the very composition of monarchy "ridiculous" (Paine), and is obviously not one to hide his true feelings about the subject at hand. There is more emotion in his statements than there are facts, and that is a truly compromising element of literature and writing.
However, Paine's passion for freedom and independence and for the country is very genuine, if not a little but over the top as well. Obviously, Paine's main goal in this piece of writing is to evoke emotion and make the reader feel passionately about these subject matters, too. His enthusiasm is a little too much in certain points, but his point is very clear. He loves America, and he wants you to love it, too.
Unlike the writings of Benjamin Franklin, Paine uses heavy emotions that, although can be overdramatic, also make his writing more enjoyable and entertaining. Benjamin Franklin was a great writer for his time, but his writing skills were sometimes overshadowed by facts and information and it could sometimes be unclear what point he was trying to convey. Franklin was too factual and Paine was not factual enough, in my opinion. But between the two writers, I would have to say that Paine was more successful and persuasive. Franklin's writing was straight facts, and did not really give readers a reason to feel inspired. Paine's writings are so laced with emotion and persuasion that they give the reader every reason to wrap themselves up in an American flag and celebrate Independence Day every day. And sometimes, and author has to be that emotion to get a response from readers.
Overall, I would have to say that "Common Sense" is a bit overdramatic for my taste, but is written well enough to be considered a good work of it's time.
Paine, Thomas. "Thomas Paine's Common Sense". Archiving Early Amercia. Web. Oct 18 2010.
http://www.earlyamerica.com.
It is a little hard to take this work about common sense seriously. Paine seems extremely passionate about a subject that is honestly hard to take seriously. Common Sense is such an odd thing to write about...and Paine's opinions and ideas slightly overshadow the facts. It is clear the point he is trying to make- he just does not present it very well, in my opinion.
For instance, it is painfully clear to the reader what Paine's opinion on monarchy (and England in general, apparently) is... and the work is more of a persuasive essay than a factual one. He calls the very composition of monarchy "ridiculous" (Paine), and is obviously not one to hide his true feelings about the subject at hand. There is more emotion in his statements than there are facts, and that is a truly compromising element of literature and writing.
However, Paine's passion for freedom and independence and for the country is very genuine, if not a little but over the top as well. Obviously, Paine's main goal in this piece of writing is to evoke emotion and make the reader feel passionately about these subject matters, too. His enthusiasm is a little too much in certain points, but his point is very clear. He loves America, and he wants you to love it, too.
Unlike the writings of Benjamin Franklin, Paine uses heavy emotions that, although can be overdramatic, also make his writing more enjoyable and entertaining. Benjamin Franklin was a great writer for his time, but his writing skills were sometimes overshadowed by facts and information and it could sometimes be unclear what point he was trying to convey. Franklin was too factual and Paine was not factual enough, in my opinion. But between the two writers, I would have to say that Paine was more successful and persuasive. Franklin's writing was straight facts, and did not really give readers a reason to feel inspired. Paine's writings are so laced with emotion and persuasion that they give the reader every reason to wrap themselves up in an American flag and celebrate Independence Day every day. And sometimes, and author has to be that emotion to get a response from readers.
Overall, I would have to say that "Common Sense" is a bit overdramatic for my taste, but is written well enough to be considered a good work of it's time.
Paine, Thomas. "Thomas Paine's Common Sense". Archiving Early Amercia. Web. Oct 18 2010.
http://www.earlyamerica.com.
Thursday, October 14, 2010
Franklin's Autobiography and the American Dream
J.A. Leo Lamay, the author of "The American Dream", first begins to criticize Benjamin Franklin by saying that it is not put together well, structurally. He compares Franklin's autobiography to the famous works of Nathaniel Hawthorne, and those of Henry James as well (Lemay). It certainly is true that Franklin did not have the same distinct writing style as these two highly regarded author, but I do not think that Franklin's goal was to write a book with a certain writing style. Instead, he wanted to express his virtues and life experiences. But most people would not read Franklin's autobiography simply for entertainment. Instead, they would most likely want to learn more about the virtues and ideas that Franklin supported.
Lemay also points out that although Franklin does detail his and others economic rises, this is not the only point of the autobiography. I think that Franklin included these small parts about economics and wealth only to contribute to the other ideas that Franklin brings to attention. Instead of acting as if his wealth was a factor that made him more important, Franklin wrote that he appreciated the advantages that his wealth gave him politically, socially, and in general. I think that Franklin was more interested in detailing his virtues than the other successes of his life, and Lemay highlights this in his criticism. Franklin writes of his early poverty several times, but does not dwell on it (Lemay).
Franklin's autobiography is obviously written in the eighteenth century, which Lemay points out. However, Lemay does not criticize Franklin for this. Instead, he says that the biography portrays the first modern world in Western literature. I think Lemay is right to say this, because Franklin's autobiography really is non feudal, nonreligious, and nonaristocratric.
Lemay most critiques the fact that most of the autobiography by Benjamin Franklin is unedited and unrevised. However, I think that while mistakes can be extremely annoying, Franklin's unediting of his autobiography showed that his ideas were all thought out and important to him- things that he thought of and wrote down, not really in order and formatted. However, Lemay also says that Franklin's works are easy to relate to and descriptive.
In his critique, Lemay mostly focuses on the idea of "The American Dream". Lemay basically reinforces the idea that the American Dream is a very important concept, and says that Franklin himself was practically the epitome of this, and was a fair representation of early American citizens (Lemay).
Lemay, J.A. Leo. "Franklin's Autobiography and the American Dream". Facts on File. Web.
Oct 14 2010.
Lemay also points out that although Franklin does detail his and others economic rises, this is not the only point of the autobiography. I think that Franklin included these small parts about economics and wealth only to contribute to the other ideas that Franklin brings to attention. Instead of acting as if his wealth was a factor that made him more important, Franklin wrote that he appreciated the advantages that his wealth gave him politically, socially, and in general. I think that Franklin was more interested in detailing his virtues than the other successes of his life, and Lemay highlights this in his criticism. Franklin writes of his early poverty several times, but does not dwell on it (Lemay).
Franklin's autobiography is obviously written in the eighteenth century, which Lemay points out. However, Lemay does not criticize Franklin for this. Instead, he says that the biography portrays the first modern world in Western literature. I think Lemay is right to say this, because Franklin's autobiography really is non feudal, nonreligious, and nonaristocratric.
Lemay most critiques the fact that most of the autobiography by Benjamin Franklin is unedited and unrevised. However, I think that while mistakes can be extremely annoying, Franklin's unediting of his autobiography showed that his ideas were all thought out and important to him- things that he thought of and wrote down, not really in order and formatted. However, Lemay also says that Franklin's works are easy to relate to and descriptive.
In his critique, Lemay mostly focuses on the idea of "The American Dream". Lemay basically reinforces the idea that the American Dream is a very important concept, and says that Franklin himself was practically the epitome of this, and was a fair representation of early American citizens (Lemay).
Lemay, J.A. Leo. "Franklin's Autobiography and the American Dream". Facts on File. Web.
Oct 14 2010.
Journal #14: Declaration of Creeping
I'm a creep. I'll admit it right now- my friends and I are all creeps. We love creeping, especially on facebook. Because really, why else would we be on facebook so often? My bestfriend Mallorie Lohman and I are probably the biggest creeps of all. When we get together on facebook, there is no stopping us from being total creepers. Mallorie and I have a top list of people that we creep on. This list includes our friends, of course, as well as people we think are weird and people we don't like. We both creeped on our Farmington partners, too. Mallorie discovered that her partner is a very nice ginger who likes to play video games and build rockets, and I found out that my partner is an equally nice young lady you plays in band and has an older sister.
I know that everyone creeps- you can't even deny it. I'm a creep, and so are you. When you look at other people's facebook page, you're a creep. When you befriend random strangers in public, you're a creep. When you stalk someone, you're a creep that's looking at jail time and a restraining order. When you talk to strangers at the grocery store and start exchanging recipes, you're a creep. It may be a little harsh, but it's the true. Everyone creeps.
So...you're a creep, but it's okay. You certainly are not alone. As I am typing this, I myself am creeping on Abby, reading something in her American Literature text book. It's what make the earth go round, honestly. Creeping is okay, as long as it is down properly. There are certain rules to follow:
1. If you creep on someone, don't tell them. Unless you're friends or if you want them to break out the pepper spray. Because even though they probably are creepers too, they'll feel threatened.
2. Keep the creeping to a minimum. You don't need to creep on someone every single day, because that is no longer creeping- it's stalking. And believe it or not, that's illegal.
3. If you find out something about someone while you're secretly creeping, you can't tell them about it. It's too weird. This happens to apply to my best friend Haley and a note she found on the floor of Mr. Bryan's room.
I know that everyone creeps- you can't even deny it. I'm a creep, and so are you. When you look at other people's facebook page, you're a creep. When you befriend random strangers in public, you're a creep. When you stalk someone, you're a creep that's looking at jail time and a restraining order. When you talk to strangers at the grocery store and start exchanging recipes, you're a creep. It may be a little harsh, but it's the true. Everyone creeps.
So...you're a creep, but it's okay. You certainly are not alone. As I am typing this, I myself am creeping on Abby, reading something in her American Literature text book. It's what make the earth go round, honestly. Creeping is okay, as long as it is down properly. There are certain rules to follow:
1. If you creep on someone, don't tell them. Unless you're friends or if you want them to break out the pepper spray. Because even though they probably are creepers too, they'll feel threatened.
2. Keep the creeping to a minimum. You don't need to creep on someone every single day, because that is no longer creeping- it's stalking. And believe it or not, that's illegal.
3. If you find out something about someone while you're secretly creeping, you can't tell them about it. It's too weird. This happens to apply to my best friend Haley and a note she found on the floor of Mr. Bryan's room.
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
Journal #13: Spirit
Our school has a lot of school spirit, especially for football and other major sports like that. This is why "Spirit Day" of homecoming week is my favorite day of the whole entire school year. All of the students and most of the teachers dress up in the school colors of red and blue. Then we all pile into our designated sections of the bleachers- separated into our classes- and yell and each other and shout back and forth and whatnot.
During Spirit Day, there are a lot of fun activities that we get to do. The egg drop, the refrigerator box race, the lip-sync, the balloon stomp, and the toilet paper wrapping are a couple of the activities that the classes do to compete against each other in the games. Most of the time, the seniors get first place for homecoming week, and the freshmen get last place. Usually, that's the way things work. Points are also awarded for the float that each class designs/makes for the parade that kicks off homecoming week, and for the "days" that happen the week before. These year, the days included 80's Day, Cowgirl/Cowboy Day, and Class Color Day, all of which led up to Spirit Day on Friday. Each class was awarded additional points for the percentage of people in their class that showed school spirit and actually participated in the daily theme. I myself only participated in 3 out of 4, but oh well.
Even though I had to miss Spirit Day this year, I still love it. It is seriously the best day of the whole entire year. You get to miss class, spend the afternoon with your friends and classmates, laugh at the ridiculous competitions, and show School Spirit. It is an overall win, to say the least.
Most people love Spirit Day, but not just because you get to leave your afternoon classes. It is also a lot of fun to sit in the bleachers with your friends and classmates and cheer on your class. Our school has so much spirit, mostly for our sports teams, so that makes it even more fun.
During Spirit Day, there are a lot of fun activities that we get to do. The egg drop, the refrigerator box race, the lip-sync, the balloon stomp, and the toilet paper wrapping are a couple of the activities that the classes do to compete against each other in the games. Most of the time, the seniors get first place for homecoming week, and the freshmen get last place. Usually, that's the way things work. Points are also awarded for the float that each class designs/makes for the parade that kicks off homecoming week, and for the "days" that happen the week before. These year, the days included 80's Day, Cowgirl/Cowboy Day, and Class Color Day, all of which led up to Spirit Day on Friday. Each class was awarded additional points for the percentage of people in their class that showed school spirit and actually participated in the daily theme. I myself only participated in 3 out of 4, but oh well.
Even though I had to miss Spirit Day this year, I still love it. It is seriously the best day of the whole entire year. You get to miss class, spend the afternoon with your friends and classmates, laugh at the ridiculous competitions, and show School Spirit. It is an overall win, to say the least.
Most people love Spirit Day, but not just because you get to leave your afternoon classes. It is also a lot of fun to sit in the bleachers with your friends and classmates and cheer on your class. Our school has so much spirit, mostly for our sports teams, so that makes it even more fun.
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
Journal #12: Partners
I like working with partners, mainly because I like having someone to talk to while I work. But not when it's a person I don't know, because that's just awkward and I do not enjoy that amount of awkwardness. Another thing I like about having partners for projects/homework is that you have another person to share the work load with it.
Unless you have own of those people who don't work at all. That really irks me something fierce, because I definitely don't want to do all of the work by myself. I think the best thing you can have in a partner for schoolwork is someone that is willing to share the workload evenly and fairly. There are also a few exceptions, like if you are really, really good at something and your partner is unbelievably bad, you should probably be the one to handle that thing. But if that is the case, then your partner should take care of the other smaller aspects of the project so that it is even and much balanced out between the two of you (or more if it's a group project, I guess).
In some classes, like Spanish, I think that partners are pretty much a necessity. Especially for all those in class assignments and oral presentation that Senor Ares enjoys dishing out on a daily basis. Because I, for one, am extremely bad at Spanish. It's a disgrace. And I probably would have failed last year if Alexis hadn't been my partner, because she was good at speaking Spanish. She did the speaking part, and since I am better at the written part, that was I did. It was a fair deal and if I remember correctly, I passed Spanish II with flying colors. But now Senor Ares is shunning me because I refused to take Spanish III.
I like having partners. I think it's fun and you can still have an advantage in getting your work done. But the best thing is when your best friend is your partner, because you can actually talk and have fun while getting your work done. The End.
Unless you have own of those people who don't work at all. That really irks me something fierce, because I definitely don't want to do all of the work by myself. I think the best thing you can have in a partner for schoolwork is someone that is willing to share the workload evenly and fairly. There are also a few exceptions, like if you are really, really good at something and your partner is unbelievably bad, you should probably be the one to handle that thing. But if that is the case, then your partner should take care of the other smaller aspects of the project so that it is even and much balanced out between the two of you (or more if it's a group project, I guess).
In some classes, like Spanish, I think that partners are pretty much a necessity. Especially for all those in class assignments and oral presentation that Senor Ares enjoys dishing out on a daily basis. Because I, for one, am extremely bad at Spanish. It's a disgrace. And I probably would have failed last year if Alexis hadn't been my partner, because she was good at speaking Spanish. She did the speaking part, and since I am better at the written part, that was I did. It was a fair deal and if I remember correctly, I passed Spanish II with flying colors. But now Senor Ares is shunning me because I refused to take Spanish III.
I like having partners. I think it's fun and you can still have an advantage in getting your work done. But the best thing is when your best friend is your partner, because you can actually talk and have fun while getting your work done. The End.
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Journal #11: Ethics/Values
Ethics and Values. Wow. That's another really, almost impossibly vague blog topic. So...ethics. Ethics are just defined as a system of moral principles. Pretty much everyone in the world has a system of their own ethics, and pretty much everyone's ethics are at least a little bit diffferent from each other. For instance, there are some people that think that it is perfectly okay to get all up in someones bubble, and other people respect boundaries as part as their own personal ethics. But that's okay, because sometimes you just have to tolerate people and understand that everyone acts differently.
Values are a little harder to describe...my beloved www.dictionary.com says they are 'relatives worths, merits, or importance'. So they are a lot like ethics, and just like ethics, basically everyone has a different set of values going on. It all depends on how you think and behave. Factors like environment, upbringing, and religion also have a big impact on a persons system of ethics and values. But another definition of the word 'values' is 'to regard or esteem highly'. This pertains more to material possessions or people rather than personal beliefs. For instance, a person can value their friends, but that does not have much to do with their 'values'.
Ugh. They're similar but still different, if that makes even a little bit of sense. Like cubic zarconia vs. real diamonds. They look like they are the same thing, but the huge difference comes into play when you look at the cost. There's a big difference between Gordman's and Tiffany's, if you get what I'm saying here.
Okay, back to ethics. If you google the word 'ethics', a bunch of pictures of those old fashioned scales/weighing things come up. That is because ethics is a balance (really clever, because the pictures are of balancing scales...) of good and bad and right and wrong and all that kind of fun stuff. There are a whole bunch of different branches of ethics in philosophy, but they can be really hard to understand, because ethics in general are pretty hard to understand.
Values are a little harder to describe...my beloved www.dictionary.com says they are 'relatives worths, merits, or importance'. So they are a lot like ethics, and just like ethics, basically everyone has a different set of values going on. It all depends on how you think and behave. Factors like environment, upbringing, and religion also have a big impact on a persons system of ethics and values. But another definition of the word 'values' is 'to regard or esteem highly'. This pertains more to material possessions or people rather than personal beliefs. For instance, a person can value their friends, but that does not have much to do with their 'values'.
Ugh. They're similar but still different, if that makes even a little bit of sense. Like cubic zarconia vs. real diamonds. They look like they are the same thing, but the huge difference comes into play when you look at the cost. There's a big difference between Gordman's and Tiffany's, if you get what I'm saying here.
Okay, back to ethics. If you google the word 'ethics', a bunch of pictures of those old fashioned scales/weighing things come up. That is because ethics is a balance (really clever, because the pictures are of balancing scales...) of good and bad and right and wrong and all that kind of fun stuff. There are a whole bunch of different branches of ethics in philosophy, but they can be really hard to understand, because ethics in general are pretty hard to understand.
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
Journal #10: Science/Religion
I personally think that Religion vs. Science is a very touchy, not to mention extremely vague, subject for anyone to talk about. I do not think that writing a blog about the conflict between science and religion is something I really want to do. Because although I definitely know what side of the argument I am on, I don't think that I should have to talk about it on a blog. Nothing against this wonderful blog, but I just do not want to. So I'll yammer on for 325+ words about religion and science and how I really just think that these touchy topics should be kept separate basically forever and ever. It makes me uncomfortable when people get all worked up about whatever side they believe in and I usually just check out of the conversation if it gets to that point. But I'm kind of trying to avoid people who spend their free time debating such things, so there's a plus.
Whew. This is quite a controversial blog topic. I don't think there's anything wrong with a little good old controversy, but still. I am not a fan of being involved in it...I'm more of a 'sidelines' kind of lady myself. But Science and Religion have pretty much always been against each other, on opposing sides, because they're totally different. It's very much like the Enlightenment (Religious Ideas) vs. The Great Awakening (Rational/Scientific Thinking), Divine Intervention vs. Structured Plans, or Evolution vs. Creation by God.
Even though Science and Religion are supposed to be completely separate, they are often meshed together in debate and whatnot. But really, you can't really take both sides. It is basically just impossible, like believing in Catholicism and Hinduism at the same time. Well, it is not really that extreme, but still. It would be pretty hard to mesh the ideas of Religion and Science into one great little belief all tied together with a ribbon. But some people attempt it, like Tom Cruise. I would really prefer not to go down that road, even though Tom Cruise and I are probably pretty much the same when it comes to height.
Whew. This is quite a controversial blog topic. I don't think there's anything wrong with a little good old controversy, but still. I am not a fan of being involved in it...I'm more of a 'sidelines' kind of lady myself. But Science and Religion have pretty much always been against each other, on opposing sides, because they're totally different. It's very much like the Enlightenment (Religious Ideas) vs. The Great Awakening (Rational/Scientific Thinking), Divine Intervention vs. Structured Plans, or Evolution vs. Creation by God.
Even though Science and Religion are supposed to be completely separate, they are often meshed together in debate and whatnot. But really, you can't really take both sides. It is basically just impossible, like believing in Catholicism and Hinduism at the same time. Well, it is not really that extreme, but still. It would be pretty hard to mesh the ideas of Religion and Science into one great little belief all tied together with a ribbon. But some people attempt it, like Tom Cruise. I would really prefer not to go down that road, even though Tom Cruise and I are probably pretty much the same when it comes to height.
Sunday, September 26, 2010
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
Journal #9: Organized Religion
There are literally thousand different types of organized religion. There is Judaism, Hinduism, Islam (Like Muslims), Buddhism, Shinto, Bahaism, Confucianism, and Christianity, and those are just some of the most recognizable religions. Christianity is the biggest religion with over 2 billion followers, including Catholics, Lutherans, Methodists, Baptists, and Protestants. A lot of people are intolerant of some religions, but I definitely am not.
I practice both Catholicism and Methodism, but I still think that everyone has the right to choose which religion they want to practice. And I know that a lot of people have a problem with Muslims and think that all Muslims are terrorists, and I couldn't disagree more. While I am not a Muslim, I actually have an understanding of the religion. When I was growing up, my babysitter was Muslim, and so were the rest of the members of her family. She never schooled us on religion and never really brought it up, but I remember seeing her wearing a hijab and taking an hour every day to pray when I was little.
I also remember when 9/11 happened, and I was so confused as to why people thought all Muslims were terrorists, because when I think of Muslims, I think of the women that took care of me everyday for the first several years of my life and who would never hurt a fly. I knew that she was Muslim, and that was it.
And I never thought anything of it. I just knew that was what she believed, and I didn't care one way or the other. In recent years, I've still visited her and asked questions to get a better understanding of her religion. Basically, Muslims believe in God, and believe in Jesus. A big difference is that the Muslim religion also believes in prophets, and believe that Jesus was simply another prophet like Moses or Abraham.
Unfortunately, there are also groups of Muslims that are very extreme, and those are the groups that are usually associated with terrorism.
I practice both Catholicism and Methodism, but I still think that everyone has the right to choose which religion they want to practice. And I know that a lot of people have a problem with Muslims and think that all Muslims are terrorists, and I couldn't disagree more. While I am not a Muslim, I actually have an understanding of the religion. When I was growing up, my babysitter was Muslim, and so were the rest of the members of her family. She never schooled us on religion and never really brought it up, but I remember seeing her wearing a hijab and taking an hour every day to pray when I was little.
I also remember when 9/11 happened, and I was so confused as to why people thought all Muslims were terrorists, because when I think of Muslims, I think of the women that took care of me everyday for the first several years of my life and who would never hurt a fly. I knew that she was Muslim, and that was it.
And I never thought anything of it. I just knew that was what she believed, and I didn't care one way or the other. In recent years, I've still visited her and asked questions to get a better understanding of her religion. Basically, Muslims believe in God, and believe in Jesus. A big difference is that the Muslim religion also believes in prophets, and believe that Jesus was simply another prophet like Moses or Abraham.
Unfortunately, there are also groups of Muslims that are very extreme, and those are the groups that are usually associated with terrorism.
Monday, September 20, 2010
Journal #8: Proofreading Video
I thought that the proofreading video was kind of funny but still a little weird. Although proofreading is really important when you are writing a paper, I think a lot of the stuff the comedian mentioned would not happen in most papers, especially for high school students. I am sure there are a lot of idiots that could make over the top, funny mistakes that the comedian mentioned in the video, but I really hope people that I know do not have that problem.
I know that the video was meant to be funny, but it was also very over the top, and I think that factor made it less funny and more annoying than it was meant to be. People who are in high school really should be able to write a half decent paper without the help of spell check. A lot of the time you may have spelling mistakes in the paper, but you should not be spelling so poorly that spell check cannot even distinguish that point that you are trying to get across.
Since the video was so over dramatic, I think the comedian failed to make it very funny. The whole idea seemed ridiculous because I seriously hope that no high school student, especially one in the honor's class, has that much of a problem with spelling and typing. Because I think that after years of sitting through English class, a student should have at least a little bit of common sense when it comes to writing a paper and proofreading.
Even though the mistakes in the video were over dramatic, proofreading is still really important to get rid of any little errors that spell check could have missed, like the difference between 'there' and 'their' and other things that can be overlooked by the computer and spell check. You should always look over your own paper, and you should also have at least one other person go over it as well.
I know that the video was meant to be funny, but it was also very over the top, and I think that factor made it less funny and more annoying than it was meant to be. People who are in high school really should be able to write a half decent paper without the help of spell check. A lot of the time you may have spelling mistakes in the paper, but you should not be spelling so poorly that spell check cannot even distinguish that point that you are trying to get across.
Since the video was so over dramatic, I think the comedian failed to make it very funny. The whole idea seemed ridiculous because I seriously hope that no high school student, especially one in the honor's class, has that much of a problem with spelling and typing. Because I think that after years of sitting through English class, a student should have at least a little bit of common sense when it comes to writing a paper and proofreading.
Even though the mistakes in the video were over dramatic, proofreading is still really important to get rid of any little errors that spell check could have missed, like the difference between 'there' and 'their' and other things that can be overlooked by the computer and spell check. You should always look over your own paper, and you should also have at least one other person go over it as well.
Thursday, September 16, 2010
Journal #7: Superstitions
I am not a very superstitious person, but there are some superstitions that I kind of follow. For instance, I think that it is bad luck to break a mirror. Because if you look into a mirror and it breaks, you've obviously got some bad luck going on. If I were to break a mirror while looking into it, I would mostly like break down into tears. And when I was younger, my sister and I would hold our breath when we drove past a cemetery so that 'the ghosts wouldn't follow us home', and would do silly things like run away from black cats and make sure to not walk under any ladders. But that was when we were little, and we did not actually believe the superstitions- we were just messing around and having fun.
But there are not any superstitions that I really, truly believe in. For instance, I do not have any problems with spilling salt or being crossed by a black cat or walking under a later. I do not think that a person's good or bad luck can be decided by things like that, because I think that luck is simply random, and there is nothing you can really do to change it.
Even though I do not really believe in any superstitions, I know there are a lot of people who do. They might believe in superstitions for religious reasons or just because of stories they have heard, but I think people can believe in any kind of superstition they want- it does not matter to me, and it should not really matter to anyone else.
I am sure there is some old superstition that people believe but do not really know about or know where it came from, so I think that most people at least follow a superstition without even realizing it, not walking under a ladder. Because really, not walking under a ladder kind of just seems like it should be common sense.
But there are not any superstitions that I really, truly believe in. For instance, I do not have any problems with spilling salt or being crossed by a black cat or walking under a later. I do not think that a person's good or bad luck can be decided by things like that, because I think that luck is simply random, and there is nothing you can really do to change it.
Even though I do not really believe in any superstitions, I know there are a lot of people who do. They might believe in superstitions for religious reasons or just because of stories they have heard, but I think people can believe in any kind of superstition they want- it does not matter to me, and it should not really matter to anyone else.
I am sure there is some old superstition that people believe but do not really know about or know where it came from, so I think that most people at least follow a superstition without even realizing it, not walking under a ladder. Because really, not walking under a ladder kind of just seems like it should be common sense.
Monday, September 13, 2010
Journal #6: Falsely Blaming Someone
I think that everyone has blamed someone else for doing something that he or she really did not do. It can be something simple like "She was the one who drank the last of the milk." But it could also be something a lot more serious, like "She was the one who murdered him." An example of a serious false accusation is in The Crucible by Arthur Miller.
In those times, witchcraft was a very serious crime that almost always resulted in the accused being put to death. In The Crucible, three teenage girls begin to point fingers at others because they are scared of the consequences of some of the things that they had done. In their case, the repercussions were almost as serious as the crime in question. If someone figured out the the girls were lying, then they definitely would have been accused of practicing witchcraft and most likely would have been put to death.
However, in modern times, there could be very similar consequences. If someone were to wrongly accuse another person of murder and someone found out, the wrongful person would be punished accordingly.
For simple, everyday things, like blaming other people for little mistakes or wrong doings, there are still consequences of pointing fingers. If you were to blame someone else for doing something wrong at work, for instance, there would be repercussions. You would probably feel a lot of guilt, first of all, and that may drive you a little crazy and bother you for a long time. And if your boss was to find out, you would be blamed for both doing your job wrong and for blaming another person that did not deserve to take the fall.
One the other hand, you could also blame someone for doing something that you actually did, and they may actually be praised instead of punished. As an example, if you were to handle a business deal in an conventional way and then say it was someone elses idea, your boss may actually think it is a good idea and give the other person all the praise.
Instead of pointing fingers at other people, it would be better for everyone to step up and take the blame for the things that they have done. However, this will probably never happen. It's natural for people to want to blame others out of fear or uncertainty, and it will probably continue for the rest of our lives.
In those times, witchcraft was a very serious crime that almost always resulted in the accused being put to death. In The Crucible, three teenage girls begin to point fingers at others because they are scared of the consequences of some of the things that they had done. In their case, the repercussions were almost as serious as the crime in question. If someone figured out the the girls were lying, then they definitely would have been accused of practicing witchcraft and most likely would have been put to death.
However, in modern times, there could be very similar consequences. If someone were to wrongly accuse another person of murder and someone found out, the wrongful person would be punished accordingly.
For simple, everyday things, like blaming other people for little mistakes or wrong doings, there are still consequences of pointing fingers. If you were to blame someone else for doing something wrong at work, for instance, there would be repercussions. You would probably feel a lot of guilt, first of all, and that may drive you a little crazy and bother you for a long time. And if your boss was to find out, you would be blamed for both doing your job wrong and for blaming another person that did not deserve to take the fall.
One the other hand, you could also blame someone for doing something that you actually did, and they may actually be praised instead of punished. As an example, if you were to handle a business deal in an conventional way and then say it was someone elses idea, your boss may actually think it is a good idea and give the other person all the praise.
Instead of pointing fingers at other people, it would be better for everyone to step up and take the blame for the things that they have done. However, this will probably never happen. It's natural for people to want to blame others out of fear or uncertainty, and it will probably continue for the rest of our lives.
Thursday, September 9, 2010
Journal #5: Facebook Punishment
A lot of parents in the 21st century punish their children by taking away things like television, facebook, and the internet in general. While facebook seems to be a sort of lifeline for many teenagers, I think taking facebook away from them for a couple days is a fair punishment. Even though a lot of teenagers would say that is not a fair punishment, I think that it is. You're not supposed to enjoy your punishment, and you are definitely not supposed to like it. The whole point of a punishment is to learn from your mistakes and not do it again.
But I think that some punishments, such as taking away cell phones, can sometimes be a little unfair. While cell phones are typically used to text your friends, teenagers also use them to ask questions about homework and tests, get a ride to school, and to tell parents that they've gotten somewhere safely and what time they will be home. The parents could tell their child to stop texting, but then a lot of other things could be more difficult as a result.
Taking away a child's internet privileges is also a little bit unfair. While the internet is commonly used for facebook, email, and online games, a lot of students, especially ones in high school, have to use the internet for school projects. That includes research for a paper, blog posts for class, and getting notes off of a teacher's website. So if a parent were to stop their child from using the internet, they would have some problems with things relating to schoolwork.
Punishments that are more fair could be something like doing more work around the house, having restricted time on the internet, not be able to drive anywhere but work and school, or not being able to hang with friends during the weekend. Taking away facebook is not a bad punishment, but it could be hard to reinforce. A child could say they were doing homework and then get on facebook instead, and there would be no way for the parent to know.
But I think that some punishments, such as taking away cell phones, can sometimes be a little unfair. While cell phones are typically used to text your friends, teenagers also use them to ask questions about homework and tests, get a ride to school, and to tell parents that they've gotten somewhere safely and what time they will be home. The parents could tell their child to stop texting, but then a lot of other things could be more difficult as a result.
Taking away a child's internet privileges is also a little bit unfair. While the internet is commonly used for facebook, email, and online games, a lot of students, especially ones in high school, have to use the internet for school projects. That includes research for a paper, blog posts for class, and getting notes off of a teacher's website. So if a parent were to stop their child from using the internet, they would have some problems with things relating to schoolwork.
Punishments that are more fair could be something like doing more work around the house, having restricted time on the internet, not be able to drive anywhere but work and school, or not being able to hang with friends during the weekend. Taking away facebook is not a bad punishment, but it could be hard to reinforce. A child could say they were doing homework and then get on facebook instead, and there would be no way for the parent to know.
Friday, September 3, 2010
Journal #4: Travel
Traveling is one of my favorite things to do. Over the past year, I have gone on several vacations with my family members, including Washington D.C., New York City, Florida, and Kentucky.
For Spring Break, my parents and sister and our friend Jenna went to Washington D.C. to stay for a couple of days. Over the four days that we were there, we stayed in a hotel in Springfield, Virginia and took the Metro into D.C. every morning. During our vacation we went to the Holocaust Museum, Lincoln's Monument, Washington's Monument, and several other monuments. We also went on a very extremely boring tour of the Capitol building, and almost had to tour a wing of the White House. Luckily, we got out of that one because the line was too long and it was so hot that people started passing out. Overall, our vacation was boring except for when Jenna got captured by the Metro one day.
In June, my sister and grandma and I, along with our friend Brianna, went to New York City. While we were there, we shopped and went to a lot of museums and whatnot. After eating some seriously disgusting street vendor food, we also saw two Broadway shows and went to the Hershey store and the M&M store. We stayed for five days and lived out the dream of tourists everywhere.
In July, I went with my parents, sister, grandma, uncle, two cousins, and best friend Alexis to Florida. For four days, we stayed in Disney World and went to all of the parks and rode a lot of rides. Then, after our stay in Orlando was over, we all drove over to Vero Beach, Florida, to spend the next five days at the beach.
Towards the end of July, I went on a mission trip with my youth group at church. It was through the Appalachian Service Project, and 23 of us went to Jackson, Kentucky. During our trip we fixed up a house and did insulation, paneling, and painting. It was extremely hot, and the house did not have any air conditioning and also had very poor air circulation. By the end of the week, I was extremely relieved to be going home.
For Spring Break, my parents and sister and our friend Jenna went to Washington D.C. to stay for a couple of days. Over the four days that we were there, we stayed in a hotel in Springfield, Virginia and took the Metro into D.C. every morning. During our vacation we went to the Holocaust Museum, Lincoln's Monument, Washington's Monument, and several other monuments. We also went on a very extremely boring tour of the Capitol building, and almost had to tour a wing of the White House. Luckily, we got out of that one because the line was too long and it was so hot that people started passing out. Overall, our vacation was boring except for when Jenna got captured by the Metro one day.
In June, my sister and grandma and I, along with our friend Brianna, went to New York City. While we were there, we shopped and went to a lot of museums and whatnot. After eating some seriously disgusting street vendor food, we also saw two Broadway shows and went to the Hershey store and the M&M store. We stayed for five days and lived out the dream of tourists everywhere.
In July, I went with my parents, sister, grandma, uncle, two cousins, and best friend Alexis to Florida. For four days, we stayed in Disney World and went to all of the parks and rode a lot of rides. Then, after our stay in Orlando was over, we all drove over to Vero Beach, Florida, to spend the next five days at the beach.
Towards the end of July, I went on a mission trip with my youth group at church. It was through the Appalachian Service Project, and 23 of us went to Jackson, Kentucky. During our trip we fixed up a house and did insulation, paneling, and painting. It was extremely hot, and the house did not have any air conditioning and also had very poor air circulation. By the end of the week, I was extremely relieved to be going home.
Wednesday, September 1, 2010
Journal #3: Hostage Situation
If I were in a hostage situation, I have a feeling that I would not be taking it very well.
First, I am guessing that the shock and disbelief would set in. I would probably just be sitting around wherever I am being imprisoned and stare off into space. After a little while, the initial hysteria would most likely occur. I am guessing there would be a lot of screaming and crying and I would probably be dropping a lot of expletives. After all of that, the emotion I'd be feeling would most likely just be hopelessness.
Usually when a person is in a tough situation, 'fight or flight' kicks in. And my instinct would most likely be 'flight'. I would probably do anything possible to get away. There would be a lot of crying and bargaining and whatnot, and if that did not work out for me I would just mope. I'm sure if I were in the situation for long enough,like if it had been months or years, I would eventually come up with a plan to escape my captor or captors.
But honestly, most people in situations like these are usually scared or threatened, and even if they do have some kind of escape plan, there's a pretty small chance that it would actually work out unless you are extremely resourceful or your captors are just really bad at keeping people hostage. I guess I would just be a mopey little hostage and try not to have anymore complete panic attacks before I either die, escape, or get rescued.
If I were in a situation identical to the one that Mary Rowlandson, I would probably just try and wait things out and trust that somehow, I would be rescued, just like she did. Even though hostage situations are much different than how they were back in those times, the fear and uncertainty that the hostage experiences is still very much the same.
First, I am guessing that the shock and disbelief would set in. I would probably just be sitting around wherever I am being imprisoned and stare off into space. After a little while, the initial hysteria would most likely occur. I am guessing there would be a lot of screaming and crying and I would probably be dropping a lot of expletives. After all of that, the emotion I'd be feeling would most likely just be hopelessness.
Usually when a person is in a tough situation, 'fight or flight' kicks in. And my instinct would most likely be 'flight'. I would probably do anything possible to get away. There would be a lot of crying and bargaining and whatnot, and if that did not work out for me I would just mope. I'm sure if I were in the situation for long enough,like if it had been months or years, I would eventually come up with a plan to escape my captor or captors.
But honestly, most people in situations like these are usually scared or threatened, and even if they do have some kind of escape plan, there's a pretty small chance that it would actually work out unless you are extremely resourceful or your captors are just really bad at keeping people hostage. I guess I would just be a mopey little hostage and try not to have anymore complete panic attacks before I either die, escape, or get rescued.
If I were in a situation identical to the one that Mary Rowlandson, I would probably just try and wait things out and trust that somehow, I would be rescued, just like she did. Even though hostage situations are much different than how they were back in those times, the fear and uncertainty that the hostage experiences is still very much the same.
Monday, August 30, 2010
Journal #2: Manners
Once upon a time, there was a hedgehog named Hank. Hank was an adventurer, backpacking through the wilderness of Cleveland. One day while out in the forest, Hank stumbled across a wild blackberry patch. Because he was living off of cheap diner food and saltines, Hank decided that he would pick blackberries and eat them.
While he picked his blackberries, Hank noticed that the forest had gone eerily quiet. He thought nothing of it, and just continued to pick berries. But then, he heard a loud growling noise and turned around. Standing in front of him was a huge black bear named Burt. The blackberry bushes belonged to Burt, and he was very angry to find Hank the hedgehog stealing the berries. But Hank did not know the bushes belonged to Burt, so he was very confused and scared.
Burt continued to growl and roar, so Hank just took off and ran like the wind. Now, when you're a scrawny little hedgehog like Hank, it is very hard to run like the wind. Not long after he started to run for his life, Hank became very tired. He knew that Burt was probably right on his heels, but he was just seconds away from giving up and facing the wrath that Burt would bring down on him.
Just as Hank was about to slow down, there was suddenly an even louder commotion behind him. Still running, Hank looked over his shoulder and was stunned to see that Burt had stopped chasing him, and was having an extremely heated discussion with a moose who looked very angry. Finally slowing to a stop and taking a breath, Hank turned around and moved a little closer to the arguing bear and moose, forgetting about his safety and just focusing on what in the world was happening between the other two.
Upon coming closer, Hank was delighted to hear that Burt was being chastised by the moose, who's name was Mauve. When Hank came even closer, Burt turned around, and Hank froze. But Burt did not attack Hank. The moose gave Burt a pointed look, and Burt grudgingly apologized to Hank, telling him that he could continue to pick blackberries so that he would have food to eat.
Then Burt bumbled away, looking very ashamed and put off. Hank began thanking Mauve profusely, and Mauve simply said 'you're welcome', and headed off on her own way, having accomplished what needed to be done.
While he picked his blackberries, Hank noticed that the forest had gone eerily quiet. He thought nothing of it, and just continued to pick berries. But then, he heard a loud growling noise and turned around. Standing in front of him was a huge black bear named Burt. The blackberry bushes belonged to Burt, and he was very angry to find Hank the hedgehog stealing the berries. But Hank did not know the bushes belonged to Burt, so he was very confused and scared.
Burt continued to growl and roar, so Hank just took off and ran like the wind. Now, when you're a scrawny little hedgehog like Hank, it is very hard to run like the wind. Not long after he started to run for his life, Hank became very tired. He knew that Burt was probably right on his heels, but he was just seconds away from giving up and facing the wrath that Burt would bring down on him.
Just as Hank was about to slow down, there was suddenly an even louder commotion behind him. Still running, Hank looked over his shoulder and was stunned to see that Burt had stopped chasing him, and was having an extremely heated discussion with a moose who looked very angry. Finally slowing to a stop and taking a breath, Hank turned around and moved a little closer to the arguing bear and moose, forgetting about his safety and just focusing on what in the world was happening between the other two.
Upon coming closer, Hank was delighted to hear that Burt was being chastised by the moose, who's name was Mauve. When Hank came even closer, Burt turned around, and Hank froze. But Burt did not attack Hank. The moose gave Burt a pointed look, and Burt grudgingly apologized to Hank, telling him that he could continue to pick blackberries so that he would have food to eat.
Then Burt bumbled away, looking very ashamed and put off. Hank began thanking Mauve profusely, and Mauve simply said 'you're welcome', and headed off on her own way, having accomplished what needed to be done.
Thursday, August 26, 2010
Journal #1 Native American Culture
I do not know very much about Native American culture. I know that some of them lived in tepee's and some of them lived in longhouses. Thanks to my love of Pocahontas, I also know that some tribes in certain areas grew crops, like corn, and hunted to get their food. When the Native Americans hunted, they very rarely let any part of the dead animal go to waste. They used animal skin for clothing and tepee's, they used animal bones for weapons and tools, and they used animal meat for food. The other parts of the animal were used for various things that they needed.
Native American tribes usually had chiefs who were in charge of everything. While men were the hunters and leaders, women also held some standing in their society. They controlled their homes and were often shown respect within the communities.
Many Native Americans had strong spiritual beliefs. Different tribes believed in different spirits, and they often had legends to go along with the spirits. One tribe, which I cannot remember the name of, worshiped the sun god because at night, they were afraid the sun would not come up in the morning, and they knew that would lead to their downfall. Many other tribes believed in the sun god, but they all had slightly different beliefs surrounding this sun god. Some tribes, like the Aztecs, believed the best way to pay homage to the gods was to have lots of sacrifices- human sacrifices. They sacrificed people, most of the time their prisoners, to the gods in violent ceremonies, such as one called 'The Watering of the Graves'. The Aztecs would take their prisoners and dress them up, and would then drop them on top of the graves of their ancestors. Then they would proceed to beat and kill the prisoners on top of the graves as a homage to their ancestors.
I apparently do know a little bit about Native American culture, but it still isn't very much.
Native American tribes usually had chiefs who were in charge of everything. While men were the hunters and leaders, women also held some standing in their society. They controlled their homes and were often shown respect within the communities.
Many Native Americans had strong spiritual beliefs. Different tribes believed in different spirits, and they often had legends to go along with the spirits. One tribe, which I cannot remember the name of, worshiped the sun god because at night, they were afraid the sun would not come up in the morning, and they knew that would lead to their downfall. Many other tribes believed in the sun god, but they all had slightly different beliefs surrounding this sun god. Some tribes, like the Aztecs, believed the best way to pay homage to the gods was to have lots of sacrifices- human sacrifices. They sacrificed people, most of the time their prisoners, to the gods in violent ceremonies, such as one called 'The Watering of the Graves'. The Aztecs would take their prisoners and dress them up, and would then drop them on top of the graves of their ancestors. Then they would proceed to beat and kill the prisoners on top of the graves as a homage to their ancestors.
I apparently do know a little bit about Native American culture, but it still isn't very much.
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
Journal: Symbolism
The symbolism found in Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury ranges from fire and heat to "The Hearth and the Salamander".
As the reader can expect from a novel about burning books, Fahrenheit 451 has a lot to do with fire. In the novel, fire seems to mean different things at different moments. Beatty and the other firemen use fire as a form of destruction, but at the end of the novel, Montag discovers an alternate use to fire- for warmth. Like the cycle of life, fire is a symbol of repeated destruction and rebirth.
Bradbury uses "The Hearth and the Salamander" as a conjunctive symbol. The hearth, or fireplace, is a traditional symbol of 'home', while the salamander is a symbol for the firemen. Both of these images have a connection with fire- the hearth contains the fire that warms a home, and the salamander because of the ancient beliefs that the salamander can live in fire and be unaffected by it.
As the reader can expect from a novel about burning books, Fahrenheit 451 has a lot to do with fire. In the novel, fire seems to mean different things at different moments. Beatty and the other firemen use fire as a form of destruction, but at the end of the novel, Montag discovers an alternate use to fire- for warmth. Like the cycle of life, fire is a symbol of repeated destruction and rebirth.
Bradbury uses "The Hearth and the Salamander" as a conjunctive symbol. The hearth, or fireplace, is a traditional symbol of 'home', while the salamander is a symbol for the firemen. Both of these images have a connection with fire- the hearth contains the fire that warms a home, and the salamander because of the ancient beliefs that the salamander can live in fire and be unaffected by it.
Sunday, August 22, 2010
Final Thoughts
Out of all of the summer books I read for the blogs, The Catcher and the Rye by J.D. Salinger was by far my favorite and was the one that I thought was best. I thought it had a better storyline than the others, and I thought that is was easier to read and understand than the other two. Holden Caulfield was not a reliable narrator and was not always a good person, but I found him easy to relate to on some levels because there is no one in the world that is perfect. Holden may not always acknowledge it, but he is the perfect example of regular, totally normal imperfection. Holden tries to do the right thing but sometimes ends up being completely wrong, and I understand that and think a lot of people would be able to relate to that aspect of Holden's character.
My least favorite summer reading book was The Old Man and the Sea by Ernest Hemingway. I found the author's writing extremely boring and nearly impossible to get through, and while I did sympathize with the main character, I did not find the book at all interesting or even remotely good. I thought it was a terrible book, not just for the writing, but also for the story that was told. It was very boring even during the high point, and the resolution of the conflict was totally unsatisfying. I also felt like it was harder to understand the situations and the characters because of the way that the dialogue was written and even the way the rest of the novel was written.
I did not think The Grapes of Wrath by John Steinbeck was bad, but it was not a story that particularly interested me. I thought the writing was good and a lot of the characters were easy to understand to relate to, but I did not really enjoy the storyline. I like history, but the time period was not one that interested me, and as a result it was harder for me to get through the novel and understand everything that was going on in the story and with all of the characters.
My least favorite summer reading book was The Old Man and the Sea by Ernest Hemingway. I found the author's writing extremely boring and nearly impossible to get through, and while I did sympathize with the main character, I did not find the book at all interesting or even remotely good. I thought it was a terrible book, not just for the writing, but also for the story that was told. It was very boring even during the high point, and the resolution of the conflict was totally unsatisfying. I also felt like it was harder to understand the situations and the characters because of the way that the dialogue was written and even the way the rest of the novel was written.
I did not think The Grapes of Wrath by John Steinbeck was bad, but it was not a story that particularly interested me. I thought the writing was good and a lot of the characters were easy to understand to relate to, but I did not really enjoy the storyline. I like history, but the time period was not one that interested me, and as a result it was harder for me to get through the novel and understand everything that was going on in the story and with all of the characters.
"Friendship" Quotes
The friendship between the old man and the boy is a big part of the novel. They both try to take care of each other and enjoy having a companion, and they each want the best for the other. There are a lot of quotes in The Old Man and the Sea that explain the slightly unconventional relationship between the old man and the boy:
"..."Santiago," the boy said to him as they climbed the bank from where the skiff was hauled up. "I could go with you again. We've made some money."..." -Day One
The boy (Manolin) enjoys spending time with the old man (Santiago). The old man was the one who taught the boy to fish, and as a result the old man is kind of an important role model for the boy. Even though the old man has not been successful and revered for a very long time, the boy knows how much skill the old man has.
"The old man taught the boy to fish and the boy loved him." -Day One
Because of their common bond of fishing, the old man and they boy developed a very important relationship before the novel even started. The old man shared his skills and love of fishing with the boy, and in return the boy remained loyal to him and cared for him like he was his own father or grandfather.
The old man and the boy's friendship is based on mutual respect. They trust each other and greatly respect each other for just who they are, and that results in understanding and friendship. They find themselves lonely without the company of each other, and the old man often wishes that the boy was with him while he was out at sea battling against the marlin. The old man also first liked the boy because of his helpfulness and assistance, especially when the boy was young and the two first went fishing together.
"..."Santiago," the boy said to him as they climbed the bank from where the skiff was hauled up. "I could go with you again. We've made some money."..." -Day One
The boy (Manolin) enjoys spending time with the old man (Santiago). The old man was the one who taught the boy to fish, and as a result the old man is kind of an important role model for the boy. Even though the old man has not been successful and revered for a very long time, the boy knows how much skill the old man has.
"The old man taught the boy to fish and the boy loved him." -Day One
Because of their common bond of fishing, the old man and they boy developed a very important relationship before the novel even started. The old man shared his skills and love of fishing with the boy, and in return the boy remained loyal to him and cared for him like he was his own father or grandfather.
The old man and the boy's friendship is based on mutual respect. They trust each other and greatly respect each other for just who they are, and that results in understanding and friendship. They find themselves lonely without the company of each other, and the old man often wishes that the boy was with him while he was out at sea battling against the marlin. The old man also first liked the boy because of his helpfulness and assistance, especially when the boy was young and the two first went fishing together.
Conflict
The main conflict in The Old Man and the Sea by Ernest Hemingway is very simple and straightforward. It is external, man vs. man- the old man vs. the giant marlin. The conflict is carried over a period of several days, and then after the falling action, the reader can almost feel the effects that the conflict has had on the old man.
The old man has not caught a fish in eighty four days, and he is starting to become a disgrace. He used to be so skilled and competent, and now it seems that he is not. But things start to look up for the old man when he goes out to sea alone one day and finally manages to snag a giant fish on his line. It is a marlin, longer than the old man's boat and purple in color. The old man knows that he needs to catch this fish- his reputation depends on it and he can finally feel like a successful fishermen again.
But even after he has captured the fish, the conflict is not over. Now he has to fight the fish. Man and fish are both holding on tight, neither wanting to let go and lose. And this carries on for hours and hours and hours. Neither of them are willing to give up, and both the old man and the marlin seem willing to hold on until death.
Finally after a lot of pain and trouble and weakening, the old man manages to kill the marlin with a harpoon. But still, the conflict is not over. The old man still has to bring the fish back to land, and when he starts to do so, a shark is attracted to the marlin. The old man has no choice other than to kill the shark, but the blood in the water attracts even more sharks and there is nothing the old man can do as the sharks devour the entire marlin and he has to go back to his fishing village with nothing at all to show for his great conflict. It is resolved, but definitely does not have a happy ending for either of the two involved.
The old man has not caught a fish in eighty four days, and he is starting to become a disgrace. He used to be so skilled and competent, and now it seems that he is not. But things start to look up for the old man when he goes out to sea alone one day and finally manages to snag a giant fish on his line. It is a marlin, longer than the old man's boat and purple in color. The old man knows that he needs to catch this fish- his reputation depends on it and he can finally feel like a successful fishermen again.
But even after he has captured the fish, the conflict is not over. Now he has to fight the fish. Man and fish are both holding on tight, neither wanting to let go and lose. And this carries on for hours and hours and hours. Neither of them are willing to give up, and both the old man and the marlin seem willing to hold on until death.
Finally after a lot of pain and trouble and weakening, the old man manages to kill the marlin with a harpoon. But still, the conflict is not over. The old man still has to bring the fish back to land, and when he starts to do so, a shark is attracted to the marlin. The old man has no choice other than to kill the shark, but the blood in the water attracts even more sharks and there is nothing the old man can do as the sharks devour the entire marlin and he has to go back to his fishing village with nothing at all to show for his great conflict. It is resolved, but definitely does not have a happy ending for either of the two involved.
"Skill" Quotes
The theme of skill is present in the novel because of the great fishing skill that the old man possesses. He may not be able to show all of his skill and prowess because of his old age, but it is skill there within him and will always will be. Because of this, there are several quotes in the novel that show the importance of the theme of 'skill':
"..."But are you strong enough for a truly big fish?"..."I think so. And there are many tricks."..." -Day One
"I may not be as strong as I think." The old man said. "But I know many tricks and I have resolution." -Day One
When asked about his abilities, the old man knows that he is no longer as strong as he was back when he was known as the best fisherman around and the 'El Campeon'. But he no longer relies on the strength of his aging body- he choices to instead rely on the skill that he still has left.
"He was rowing steadily and it was no effort for him...he was letting the current do a third of the work and as it started to be light he saw that he was already further out than he had hoped to be at this hour." -Day Two
The old man knows many tricks of the sea, and uses these little tidbits of knowledge to give him small advantages. Instead of wearing himself out by just getting out to sea, he allows the current to carry him part of the way and manages to conserve some of the energy that he will need to fish.
"The old man held the line delicately, and softly, with his left hand, unleashed it from the stick." -Day Two
It is clear how at ease and comfortable the old man feels while he does his job, and the skills he has acquired over the years allow him to do this.
"..."But are you strong enough for a truly big fish?"..."I think so. And there are many tricks."..." -Day One
"I may not be as strong as I think." The old man said. "But I know many tricks and I have resolution." -Day One
When asked about his abilities, the old man knows that he is no longer as strong as he was back when he was known as the best fisherman around and the 'El Campeon'. But he no longer relies on the strength of his aging body- he choices to instead rely on the skill that he still has left.
"He was rowing steadily and it was no effort for him...he was letting the current do a third of the work and as it started to be light he saw that he was already further out than he had hoped to be at this hour." -Day Two
The old man knows many tricks of the sea, and uses these little tidbits of knowledge to give him small advantages. Instead of wearing himself out by just getting out to sea, he allows the current to carry him part of the way and manages to conserve some of the energy that he will need to fish.
"The old man held the line delicately, and softly, with his left hand, unleashed it from the stick." -Day Two
It is clear how at ease and comfortable the old man feels while he does his job, and the skills he has acquired over the years allow him to do this.
Writing Style
There is definitely no argument that Ernest Hemingway is a great classic writer. However, it is also very obvious just how classic he is. Hemingway writes The Old Man and the Sea in an extremely unique way. Most authors tend to try and style away from too many choppy, simple sentences, but not Hemingway. He embraces this style of writing and takes off with it, making parts of The Old Man and the Sea hard to get through and very choppy.
The sentences in The Old Man and the Sea are very simple. Not all of them run together very well. Even when describing things the sentences are kept choppy and short. Sometimes the simple sentences are even drawn out too far.
But Hemingway is famous for his style- his factual, short sentences and declarative sentences. He uses an abundance of prepositional phrases, as well. Even though his writing can be very dreary, it is his own classic style and it is simply the way that he wrote. A lot of people in this time period wrote in the same way as Hemingway, but he put a slightly different spin on the small, short, and choppy sentences and slightly flat words and made the style his own, distinct and recognizable.
The Old Man and the Sea is not really a novel, it is a novella. And Hemingway made everything about this piece of fiction short. The story. The sentences. The captivation for the reader. Hemingway is definitely a great writer, an iconic one, but some of the writing in The Old Man and the Sea is just too hard to get into because of the way the sentences are formed. But given the writing of today, when authors and writers are encouraged to use compound sentences, simple sentences, and complex-compound sentences within a piece of work, Hemingway did well with the kind of writing style that he used in his works of literature.
The sentences in The Old Man and the Sea are very simple. Not all of them run together very well. Even when describing things the sentences are kept choppy and short. Sometimes the simple sentences are even drawn out too far.
But Hemingway is famous for his style- his factual, short sentences and declarative sentences. He uses an abundance of prepositional phrases, as well. Even though his writing can be very dreary, it is his own classic style and it is simply the way that he wrote. A lot of people in this time period wrote in the same way as Hemingway, but he put a slightly different spin on the small, short, and choppy sentences and slightly flat words and made the style his own, distinct and recognizable.
The Old Man and the Sea is not really a novel, it is a novella. And Hemingway made everything about this piece of fiction short. The story. The sentences. The captivation for the reader. Hemingway is definitely a great writer, an iconic one, but some of the writing in The Old Man and the Sea is just too hard to get into because of the way the sentences are formed. But given the writing of today, when authors and writers are encouraged to use compound sentences, simple sentences, and complex-compound sentences within a piece of work, Hemingway did well with the kind of writing style that he used in his works of literature.
Setting
The setting of the old man in the sea is pretty simple. The novel takes place in Cuba, somewhere near Havana, taking place time wise sometime during the 1940's. But most of the novel takes place out at sea (mostly the waters of the Gulf of Mexico), hence the very fitting title of The Old Man and the Sea. The important part of the novel does not take place in the fishing village or in the old man's hut, but out at sea while the old man has the fishing battle of his life with the giant purple marlin.
During the novel the old man does not just battle the big marlin fish, though, he also has mini battles with the elements of the environment while he is out at sea. The bright sun hurts his eyes, and the sharp, bitter chill of the night air is too cold for comfort. The old man is also very in tune with certain parts of his environment. He tends to interact with the environment around him, commenting on and admiring the sun and the moon and the stars during the night. The old man appreciates things like the stars and moon and sun while he is out at sea, even though the sun continues to hurt his eyes and the moon is sometimes too bright for his liking.
Santiago spends the majority of his time and most of the novel sitting in his little skiff out at sea fishing. The old man feels comfortable there- he is used to fishing and was once an extremely great fishermen. Although his mind and body have both aged, the old man still has those fishing skills somewhere inside of them, and a part of the sea brings out the younger side of him. The old man is not as comfortable on land, because I think that over his many years of fishing, the sea kind of became a part of him.
During the novel the old man does not just battle the big marlin fish, though, he also has mini battles with the elements of the environment while he is out at sea. The bright sun hurts his eyes, and the sharp, bitter chill of the night air is too cold for comfort. The old man is also very in tune with certain parts of his environment. He tends to interact with the environment around him, commenting on and admiring the sun and the moon and the stars during the night. The old man appreciates things like the stars and moon and sun while he is out at sea, even though the sun continues to hurt his eyes and the moon is sometimes too bright for his liking.
Santiago spends the majority of his time and most of the novel sitting in his little skiff out at sea fishing. The old man feels comfortable there- he is used to fishing and was once an extremely great fishermen. Although his mind and body have both aged, the old man still has those fishing skills somewhere inside of them, and a part of the sea brings out the younger side of him. The old man is not as comfortable on land, because I think that over his many years of fishing, the sea kind of became a part of him.
"Defeat" Quotes
In the novel The Old Man and the Sea by Ernest Hemingway, the protagonist and main character, Santiago, faces a lot of defeat in a relatively short ammout of time. First, he has not caught a fish for eighty four days, as he states as the novel begins. Then, after wrestling with a giant marlin and finally being able to catch and kill it, the old man faces an even bigger defeat as sharks eat all the meat off of the marlin before he can get the fish back home. There is a great deal of defeat in the novel, and there are also a lot of quotes that go along with the theme:
"But a man is not made for defeat." He said. "A man can be destroyed but not defeated." -Day Four
The old man is not really clear if he is eve truly defeated. For all the reader knows, he can just be destroyed. But either one sounds not very pleasant, and it is true that the old man has been shut down while trying to do several things.
"Now they have beaten me, he thought. I am too old to club the sharks to death. But I will try it as long as I have the oars and the short club and the tiller." -Day Four
This is the point when the old man is basically admitting defeat, even though he does not say it straight out. The old man does not want to acknowledge that he has been defeated, at least not at that point when he is still battling with the sharks even though he knows he probably will not be able to fight them off.
"I know how to care for them. In the night I spat something strange and felt something in my chest was broken." -Day Five
Even though the old man will probably not admit complete defeat, he cannot deny that he is physically defeated, at least. His body was too old to do what he did while out at sea fighting the marlin and the sharks, so his body is going to have to pay for it and suffer.
"But a man is not made for defeat." He said. "A man can be destroyed but not defeated." -Day Four
The old man is not really clear if he is eve truly defeated. For all the reader knows, he can just be destroyed. But either one sounds not very pleasant, and it is true that the old man has been shut down while trying to do several things.
"Now they have beaten me, he thought. I am too old to club the sharks to death. But I will try it as long as I have the oars and the short club and the tiller." -Day Four
This is the point when the old man is basically admitting defeat, even though he does not say it straight out. The old man does not want to acknowledge that he has been defeated, at least not at that point when he is still battling with the sharks even though he knows he probably will not be able to fight them off.
"I know how to care for them. In the night I spat something strange and felt something in my chest was broken." -Day Five
Even though the old man will probably not admit complete defeat, he cannot deny that he is physically defeated, at least. His body was too old to do what he did while out at sea fighting the marlin and the sharks, so his body is going to have to pay for it and suffer.
"Pride" Quotes
The old man is character in The Old Man and the Sea that has a lot of pride to his name. He is proud even when he does not really have anything to be proud of, and the old man is proud of his past. Pride is a present theme in the novel, and there are some quotes that show its importance:
"No. I know others better." -Day One
When the old man is complimented and called the best fisherman, he is humble but still proud that he is among the best, or that he used to be. The old man has both pride and humbleness, two characteristics that can do well when brought together.
"I wish he'd sleep and I could see and dream about the lions, he thought. Why are the lions the main thing that is left?" -Day Three
The old man dreams about lions often, and he seems to like lions. One thing he admires about them is their pride. The old man is not the only proud thing in the novel- the lions in his dreams are proud as well.
"He took all his pain and what was left of strength and his long gone pride and he put it into the fish's agony." -Day Four
Although the reader first thinks that the old man 'has no loss of pride', he says himself that his pride is gone when he loses the marlin to the sharks in the water on his way back home. This is a breaking point for the old man, when things really start weighing down on him and causing him all kinds of pain. However, once he gets to recuperate a little, the old man gets his pride back and returns to his normal character.
"Nothing." He said aloud. "I went out too far." -Day Five
The old man acknowledges that losing the huge marlin to the sharks was his fault for going out too far, and he is still sure of himself and of his skills and abilities, even if those skills and abilities have to stay in the past. The old man should also be proud because he admitted that his loss was his own fault. He did not whine or complain, he simply took the blame.
"No. I know others better." -Day One
When the old man is complimented and called the best fisherman, he is humble but still proud that he is among the best, or that he used to be. The old man has both pride and humbleness, two characteristics that can do well when brought together.
"I wish he'd sleep and I could see and dream about the lions, he thought. Why are the lions the main thing that is left?" -Day Three
The old man dreams about lions often, and he seems to like lions. One thing he admires about them is their pride. The old man is not the only proud thing in the novel- the lions in his dreams are proud as well.
"He took all his pain and what was left of strength and his long gone pride and he put it into the fish's agony." -Day Four
Although the reader first thinks that the old man 'has no loss of pride', he says himself that his pride is gone when he loses the marlin to the sharks in the water on his way back home. This is a breaking point for the old man, when things really start weighing down on him and causing him all kinds of pain. However, once he gets to recuperate a little, the old man gets his pride back and returns to his normal character.
"Nothing." He said aloud. "I went out too far." -Day Five
The old man acknowledges that losing the huge marlin to the sharks was his fault for going out too far, and he is still sure of himself and of his skills and abilities, even if those skills and abilities have to stay in the past. The old man should also be proud because he admitted that his loss was his own fault. He did not whine or complain, he simply took the blame.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)