The Snow Man Poetry Response

I actually kind of like this poem. It took me a couple times reading it to understand what it was trying to say. What i got from this poem is more of a negative outlook on winter - not necessarily negative, but a darker feeling of winter. I believe that at the begining, it starts by saying that one must really know the cold and have been cold a long time to look at all the frozen plants and trees, the "distant" glitter, and all the frost, and not to think of misery. the author is clearly saying that how could you not think of winter as associated with misery? especially when hearing the sound of the few leaves being blown by a full wind. yet the full wind is being blown through a bare land. it is very interesting. there is a deep sense of imagery - i get a complete picture in my mind of white and grey and frost and the cold. The author does  not include any associations to warmth or happiness. the only word of feeling she says is misery, and all the nature she describes results in desolation. she definitely creates a darker sober feeling for the poem. Also, the poem is named the Snow Man. The author definitely uses personification by acting as if this coldness and darkness is a spirit, or a force - which makes the meaning even more complex and deeper - as if someone is putting this cold blanket over the earth - leaving misery. And this misery is there until the SNOW MAN decides to go. I like it for the most part. It is interesting. Makes sense. 

Poetry Response: The Gift

This poem was very simple. It kept my attention. I of course picked one of the shorter ones, the long ones bore me. But this poem focused around such a simple problem in life - getting a splinter. While her father was pulling her splinter out, he was telling her a story in a calm low voice to distract her from the pain. In the middle of the story, he removed the blade that the author thought they would die from. This poem could easily be a metaphor. Obviously ( i assume the author is a girl) this girl was experiencing pain and she thought she was in serious harm from it, but her father, or it even could be a representation of a dream or hope, distracted from this pain and eventually lifted it. Looking back on the experience, she doesnt even remember the pain from the splinter. She remembers her father's low voice telling that tale. Ending the passage by saying "a well." She couldve meant that his voice had a deep sense of depth and meaning. It was never ending - always growing - always going deeper. i just realized that the title of the poem is "a gift." This poem could also just be a commemoration to her father. Her father made even the most painful situations a gift, because of his compassion and the depth that he shared with her. 

Awakening Blog 5

Chopin’s character choice for this novel is quite interesting. While Edna deals with her own struggles, Chopin creates charactors the resemble the polar opposites of what Edna is dealing with. Adele, who embraces the mother role and lives exactly the way she should and then Mademoiselle Reis who is not married, does not care of the opinions of others, and lives for what she is passionate about – music. Throughout the beginning of the novel, Edna is much more like Adele, who is serving her societal expectations. As the novel carries on and when we get to Chapter 13 I believe, we see the strong similarities between Mademoiselle and Edna. They understand one another and their ideas about life. Mademoiselle even gives Edna the letter that Robert wrote about her. Those two women together do not care what society thinks about them. However, I think that Mademoiselle also serves as an example for Edna in a way that has self control and respectful of the traditions of the society. Edna is still filled with the passion of women independence and living the way she wants, while Mademoiselle lives the way she wants but in an acceptable manner, for lack of better way to put it. 

Awakening Blog 4

I am beginning to see a pretty large difference between Robert and Edna. If Edna could have it her way, I feel like without saying anything to anyone she would run away with Robert and never speak to anyone from the past. Her desires and wants are so present within her that she is willing to just fulfill them all immediately! However, we can see that when Robert spontaneously left to Mexico, his manner is completely different. He tries to stay polite and short and still be the “man he is supposed to be.” Robert simply just has feelings for Edna, but cannot show them. He is not necessarily trying to break out of his society norm like Edna is. Edna is willing to cross those boundaries. She grabs his hand and asks him to write to her, saying this with complete passion. He left, for no specific reason yet, but maybe because he knew it was going too far. Yet she was willing to carry this romance on farther and father. They certainly both want one another, but they are different in how they handle it. 

Awakening Blog 3

Chapter ten is incredibly significant I feel like. Here, I can truly FEEL so the first time the desire between Robert and Edna. I can sense the games that each one plays with eahcother, promiarily Edna to Robert. After Edna attempts to swim, Robert walks her home. Yet, Edna’s husband isn’t back yet. And both of them want to spend as much time together. Once they get home, it is like there is an excuse for them to stay together – to wait until they can hear the others walking along the beach. Yet here they sit in complete silence, edna still being lady – like yet in a sense, rebellious, where the loudest noise between them was their silent desire for one another. It truly feels like the beginning of what is going to be an affair. I mean, duh, we know it happens, but in their lives, they don’t know. And something is growing between them. I am trying to go in depth somewhere in here but I cant exactly find a way. So hopefully this is good enough. Because this is quite significant in the plot of the story. 

Poetry Response.

Like most poems in this set of poems, this one was sort of weird, only once you’ve reached the ending. I think the poet is saying that if he didn’t speak for a year, had no one to impress or no words to confuse himself or say lies, would he begin to get well? It makes me think of what we talked about for the Heart of Darkness. “the human condition.” Would he get well? I don’t think it is a matter of sickness. Here the poet is AGAIN analyzing himself in a small dark room by himself. “performing brain surgery on himself,” he says. Small dark rooms alone is place with heavy thought. Where he is forced to look at himself. It is interesting how he says that all the floors and the ceilings like are all like mirrors. It gives us this image of where he is seriously looking at himself, all around, raising the question, who am i? and he says, what a mess. Right after this part is where I get lost. Where the question is raised why? And he sits together ith the mountain li po? Huh? i know that he is in deep thought – and now is he brining in unity with nature? This is now the “beginning again.” Where after he looks at himself, he has an epiphany, and he “begins again” – one with nature. I don’t know. It is hard to understand right at the end. It is like some Chinese poem or something. 

Poetry Response.

The Awakening #2

i just want to talk briefly about what i was thinking about in class today in terms of the symbolism of Adele always wearing white or being associated to something white. As we know, Adele is just an average woman in the Creole society. She cares for her children imaginably, dresses and acts just as a Creole woman should, and lives out the expectations and mannerisms that are acceptable in society. Outwardly, she is a "good" woman. she does exactly what she needs to do. She is surely innocent and pure. this is why she wears white all the time, one would think. but i think that there is more underneath that, particularly for the reason that Chopin wrote this novel from an edgy somewhat (for lack of better word) bitter point of view. i think that Adele surely is ignorant and pure - in terms of that society. However, i think that whiteness is kind of an opposite form of symbolism, or there is some form of irony in it, because it is pure in that society - but is that society necessarily pure? are the expectations and traditions of that society necessarily right or "the way things should be." that's why i think the white symbolism is not necessarily a direct association to innocence. Adele is certainly living the way she should be, living as good woman, by the way that she knows it, but she is ignorant. ignorant to what more is out there. this may be true, yet i dontknow if she necessarily cares anyway, for from an outward point of view she seems to be a content and happy woman. this is the way she was raised. 

The Awakening #1

These opening chapters are quite interesting. they certainly set the stage and the setting for the novel, which is naturally the element of the novel that allows the main theme and reoccuring message. this society on the Grand Isle is certainly of high class. both the men and the women have their own customs, and if one does not follow those customs, they are looked down upon and cast out. The readers become aware by the first couple chapters of the type of women that Edna is. She is unlike the other "Creoles," for she does not think the same as them nor does she act the same as them. She, in a sense, is not as ignorant as the other women. she has seen more of the world and more of the opportunities of life that are out there, besides this sort of life in Creole. it sort of reminds me of Heart of Darkness when Marlow goes back to Brussels after his journey to the Congo, though at this point of the novel Marlow is ending his journey, while in The Awakening, Edna is just beginning. Marlow goes back to Brussels, and because he has been more places, and seen more of the world and more of what life is like, he feels different than other people. yes, he goes along his ways and does what he needs to do there in society still, but he is different. he cannot live in peace living the way the people of Brussels do. just like Edna. we do not know necessarily much of the experience Edna has had, but we surely know that she is not ignorant and she is strongwilled and somewhat independent, atleast by her personality and mind. she does not succumb and do whatever her husband or children want her to do. im anxious to learn more of what happens with Edna and the choices she will make later in the novel. 

Poetry Response: Lilacs in September.

This poem was quite interesting. What i interpreted from this poem is that a hurricane came that september, and shocked many of the lilac flowers. Something that used to be so beautiful, but when this storm comes, they are "shocked to the root" in "a vacant lot." this vacant lot could be a representation of everything that got washed away from the storm, and these ashy dreary lilacs are all that is left. The poet decides to use a lot of heavy dense words in this short poem, i think to grasp the depth and the feeling behind it, trying to describe each part of this hurt lilac, and everything around it. how it hurts, how the branches are breaking and falling apart. how it has fallen to scant ash. and yet all around, the colored blossoms, the lively blossoms, on just your average day i assume, call out to passerbys to ask them, what will unleash itself in you when your storm comes? this is quite a heavy question. i was not expecting the ending of the poem to be like that. what will happen in me when everything is falling apart around me. what will be the ashy lilac? it poses a question that at the moment i do not know the answer. i think i interpreted this right. but i dont know if i like the poem or not, but i respect it. because it caused a reaction. i can appreciate the poet's thought and the depth of it. well done. 

Wallflowers- Poetry Response

this poem was kind of interesting. it was just straight up weird though. 

so yes - it is about how this poet views words- new words particularly. she loves words so much that she speaks of them like children, or like little babies that need to be "loved" or "taken care of." she certainly uses personification in this poem towards words, as if when people do not speak or write them, they either wait bitterly longing for someone to say them or patiently and shy. it is apparent that this poet loves writing, she loves new words and learning new ways of speaking - so much that she wants to write a somewhat silly poem and gently giggle about it. the poem was just straight up weird. i mean, the tone was light and somewhat edgy. However, the edginess is just kind of annoying. Maybe because i dont see unsaid words as a serious ordeal. It is interesting though to hear a poet's perspective on it. she certainly has an open heart and a great deal of love in her heart you can tell - for she wants to make room for all the words and have them come out and play with her. muahaha

but i wasnt so much of a fan of the poem myself

Heart of Darkness Blog #5

so this blog is pretty late obviously. BUT here i am. 

I think it is really interesting at the end of the novel how Marlow is set apart from everyone in his story. i mean, when he comes back from Africa to Europe. After he has seen this destruction that Europe has breeded in Africa - the slavery, the insanity, the inhumanity - his perception on life is incredibly different. Unlike his light mindset to go to Africa to see the "blank spaces" and fulfill his adventuresome desires, he feels heavy - he knows more - he is not as ignorant. he has seen more pain and inhumanity in the world than he has ever wanted to see, and it had allowed him to have more knowledge on life. so when he comes back to Europe, it bothers him so much- eats him at the core- when he sees these people go about their own business living their lives. they did not understand the world - understand what was going on to the land and to the people. it ate Marlow at the core. With this, there surely was an inner change in him throughout the novel. and i think that makes the novel very successful and profound when there is that sort of growth. 

whoops

that one under there is supposed to be Heart of darkness Blog #4

Heart of Darkness Blog #3

Marlow is changing and he doesnt even know it yet. i talked about in one my blogs i think that marlow is already willing to lie now for kurtz because of the brickmaker. but when marlow thinks that kurtz is dead, both marlow and the readers get this whole new surprise of what is inside him. it is like he lost almost all of his purpose. "There was a sense of emtreme disappointment, as though i had found out that i had been striving after something altogether without a substance. i couldnt have been more disgusted if i had traveled all this way for the sole purpose of talking with mr. kurtz.....now i will never hear him." In a way, kurtz has come to represent the importance of his mission. At teh beginning of the story - he was seeking out adventure - new places, etc. but now...it is as if his purpose has only become part of africa. as if the darkness controls it. this is so random but it reminds me of when people get so immersed in highschool drama - that its all they think about. they forget about the bigger picture in life - and it is like kurtz has been listening to so many people and been surrounded by such new things that it is influencing him. it seems that what should be important to marlow is not. like the "animals" that he describes, the "less valuable animals, the natives, etc" the suffering that they are having to hold. But no, these issues go way over his head. even his job goes over his head. he is being sucked into the darkness. 

Heart of Darkness Blog #3

Much of this reading is just going way over my head. its very very dense. i did think a very prominent theme in part two though was the talk of the land - of Africa, of the jungle. Conrad uses personification in a way that portrays the jungle to have a mind or a force of its own. a force that takes hold of the people living in it and changes their souls. He says, "We are accustomed to look upon the shacked form of a conquered monster, but there - there you could look at a thing monstrous and free. It was unearthly, and the men were - no they were not inhuman. " Unlike Europe which is controlled and conquered by man - this dark land controls the people instead. THe land is not shackled. it is monstrous and free. It is like he will stop in the middle of the story in a way just to describe the outside environment and add the aspect of the heaviness of the earth around Marlow and everyone else. Not only are bad things happening to the people -to the natives - to the souls of everyone there but there is this immense power that constantly surrounds them and isolates them from the rest of the world - the civilization - the light. "Trees, trees, millions of trees, massive, immense, running up high; and at their foot, hugging the bank against the stream, crept the little begrimed steamboat, like a sluggish beetle crawling on the floor of a lofty portico. It made you feel very small, very lost, and yet it was not altogether depressing, that feeling."  And it seems that the people in the "darkness," do not notice the power of the land as much. Yes they may feel small - but it is not as if it depresses them. it just subconciously changes them into something else. something darker. as if the "immense trees" swallow them up. 

Blog #2 - Heart of Darkness

i thought it was very interesting that near the beginning of the book, there is definitely forshadowing that once people step into this area of Africa - they slowly change. the doctor hinted this when he creepily talked about how the changes that come from this part of the land are usually inward - and it didnt sound like a good thing. as well as saying that most people dont come back. after marlow meets the brick maker and immediately didnt like him, he talks about how he HATES lies - he said it is EXACTLY what he hates and detests in the world. there is a flavor of mortality in them. yet he said he would lie for Kurtz against the brick maker. he would sacrifice his morals. what he believes in already. ALREADY something is changing in him and he doesnt even realize it. something in the darkness is getting to him where he would change what he believes is right... what could happen next, for he is not even IN the darkness yet....

Blog #1 - Heart of Darkness

This book is very confusing so far. It certainly is dense. 

The key point i want to talk about though in this first blog is Marlow's ignorance. He has experienced a good deal in this novel so far- traveling to his new job, meeting new people, becoming introduced to this new land. However, his ignorance is very present. i dont know what the "darkness" truly is yet, for i dont know what is going to happen in the book. But Marlow is on this journey for adventure. he just wants to see more of the world - work his new job - but most of all experience this new "adventure." Obviously though, he is not a man who has seen much - i mean maybe, but not really seen other parts of the world - because immediately, in his first couple sightings of seeing black slaves - he calls them creatures. animals. crawling on "all fours." drinking water from the river. the first time he sees the natives' suffering in the forest - near the very beginning of his arrival in Africa, he completely distances himself. he looks at them and describes them with animal characteristics. they are not human in his eyes. the reason why i write about this is that i am just interested to see marlows change in perception throughout the novel, because as we get more into the novel, the more we travel into the "heart of darkness." or in other words - truly the heart of this suffering- of what he saw in the forest, and worse. will marlow eventually recognize these natives as humans? will he understand and empathize with them? or will the darkness distort his thinking and his mind as it supposedly does most people, and distance him even more to the fact that these are human beings. 

Eveline

This story is about a girl named Eveline who was raised in a family with an abusive father and a mother who passed away when she was young. During this story, she is basically deciding to leave this family - leave her father - leave this abusive setting. and go live with a man named frank and start a new life. and she finally has the chance that she is waiting for - but suddenly - she changes her mind.
level 1 - why does eveline want to leave?
level 2 - why does eveline strive for life more than love?
level 3- why did eveline not leave with Frank? what happened?
i thought this was a pretty good story - well written i thought. it flowed. it wasnt confusing, like some of the other stories have been. i dont know really what to say about it either tho. it felt sort of dry to me. i mean yes, here is this girl - she is tired and worn out and she is reflecting on her past - on the good times. she is sitting in reflection because she is about to move on to a new life. this reflection helps the reader understand her story and what is taking place in this girls life.
we learn that there used to be "good times," when her brothers and her would play in the field - when her mom was still alive. but then after her mom passed away - her dad became really abusive to the family - made her give him her money that she worked for - do ridiculous things. she was so unhappy and he made her feel like she cant deserve happiness.
but here - she is saying that she does. and she is going to live this life - that this man Frank, who she may not even love at all, will give her a life, a house, etc. he wants her. and she goes on and on in this story abotu how she doesnt care that she is leaving this town, this family. and how she is so excited etc. etc. she deserves this. yet right at the end of the story - her body shuts down. she cannot go. does she really believe those things she was saying. she obviously is not strong enough to move on with her life. yes, she was hurt. but really? are u really going to stay. i just think the ending is dumb. like - the girl needs to get over herself. and stop justifying every thing in her life - cuz obviously she is justifying the fact that she has an abusive father - but sometimes he can be nice. i dont care anymore. it was a good story. i thought. i liked it. just the charactor didnt make me too happy. but since the author got a reaction out of me means that it was a well written story.

A good man is hard to find blog

eek. well. creeper creeper is right. actually i didnt so much get the creeper impression - just weird. like i feel like i missed something.
so this story was about how this family was taking a road trip down to florida - a grandmother, her son, her daughter in law, and her two grand children. and along the way - they come to a car crash. From this crash they come into contact with this serial killer on the loose - that being The Misfit.
level 1: why was the grandmother hesitant about going on this trip
level 2: what caused the car crash in the first place?
level 3: did the Misfit really kill his father? What caused the Misfit to be this way?
so this story - lets just say the grandmother got on my nerves a whole hell of a lot. i liked the story though - it wasnt boring, it didnt ramble on - the charactors were individuals and certainly Bailey and the grandmother were round charactors - made the story much more interesting. plus, it was suspenseful. and it gave an inside look on what was going on inside the charactors head a bit - particularly the grandmother - gave us an inside perspective on the story, and helped us be with them more in the moment. i dont know though - the correlation and long talk about Jesus and what not confused me - i just dont get truly the purpose. Was the Misfit right in the head? What was the purpose of the last line. he acted like, by talking to the grandmother, that having no morals and no values and whatever and killing people is pleasurable. he enjoys it - the revenge, burning peoples houses down etc, but at the end of the story - when bobby lee laughed and said oh fun! when the misfit said the grandmother shouldve been shot every day of her life - the misfit was saying that is no pleasure. was what he was putting off to the grandmother a front? was the misfit actually unhappy - what was his deal. i really dont have the answers. it was confusing. was the grandmother out of her mind. of course, we all know that everyone was killed - that is a given though.

Rocking Horse Winner Blog

this story was about a very poor family, and a boy who wanted so much to have money for his family, or what his mom called "luck." so this boy would ride his lucky rocking horse - and the rocking horse would basically tell him the winner of the derby - and the boy would win so much money.
level 1 what showed that something was wrong wtih the christmas mentioned in the story?
level 2 why was the mom not so happy that she recieved a thousand pounds for her birthday?
level 3 why did the boy die at the end of the story? what was the moral of the story?
i didnt like this story at all. it was completely uninteresting and just carried on and on. it was also confusing. the way the story started was interesting though - i didnt like it so much because it started out really simple - there was a woman. blah blah. and then it switched to there was a boy yadada. right after that i did not know the boy and the woman were related - and then the style of the whole story changed. it wasnt as simple and concrete as the first few paragraphs.
it was just an interesting choice of story - like charactors of the boy and the mom remained constant for the most part - but there were so many other names it felt like - Oscar, Bansha (i forget what it was), the uncle, Daffodil- all these different horses and the boys "partners." And then all of a sudden at the end of the story he died. like what? i mean yea, he won all this money for his mom and still, she did not appreciate it. even if she doesnt know its from him - she does not appreciate the money - the whispers dont go away. and the boy gets so into these races and winning this money that he must have exhausted himself to the point of him dying - the moral of the story being that money isnt everything? that one should not care so much about money? idk i didnt really get it, nor did i like it.

I Stand Here Ironing

This short story was a sad account from a mother about her oldest daughter, Emily. The story from the time Emily was born until now - primarily the regrets and the heaviness that the mother still holds over Emily's life. 

Level 1 - How was Emily different than the other children?

Level 2 - Why does Emily need help?

Level 3 - What was the "cost of Emily's goodness?

i actually really liked this piece. i feel that it was brutally honest. the piece starts off with a crisp introduction " i stand here ironing" - a repetitive somber motion, that when one is ironing, they are often lost in a daze - lost in their thoughts inside this tedious action. 

whoever says this to the mother - someone that knows emily - tells the mother that she would manage time to come in and take about her daughter with them so that this unknown person can help her. 

However, the mom backs away from this question. she immediately refers to herself as not being able to understand her daughter - not being a good thing for her.

this piece demonstrates the guilt that the mother feels about emily's childhood. she sums it up completely in the last paragraph - especially when she says "she is a child of her age, of depression, of war, of fear" - all these things that "sum up" different areas of her childhood that the mother affected and feels regretful towards. 

the mother indirectly is saying that she couldve done something different for emily. while emily was struggling with her age, with her body - she couldve been there more. while the mother was young and taking care of other children, she couldve not sent emily away. she couldve been there. while emily was away and losing weight, the mother couldve been there.

but now the mother sits here - and "stands here ironing" - lost in her guilt, in her depression. it is a long self pity because now she truly believes that emily will not be able to live life to its fullest because the effect that the mother had on her. there is not much choice or hope left for emily in her mothers eyes. just that she does not want her to lead down the same life she did. 

The Lesson Response

So the lesson was about a detailed story about a girl who lived in a poor area of town, and had to be taught by this hated black lady named Miss Moore. The story particularly focuses on an afternoon when the main charactor goes to the rich side of town with a few of her "friends" and Miss Moore for a lesson. It was an interesting piece. i dont think i liked it very much. 

Level 1 question: Where did the group go for the lesson?

level 2 question: who were the charactors and what role did each of them play in the short story?

level 3 question: Why did miss moore teach these children and put in an effort for them? 

yea i didnt like it very much. the story carried on and on, and just by the middle of the piece we understood how bitter and strong headed the main charactor was. She looked down upon almost everyone she was around, including her teacher and her aunt. i think this piece was a good example of a culture being introduced - a mindset - these kids all hung out, all were taught together, all knew eachother, and they attempted to be themselves and speak their mind - however, each one would shoot down the other. but it seemed this is how it worked - this is how their relationships were. they did not respect authority or people seemingly above them (aka rich people, referred to as white people). whatever was not in their comfort zone or their own natural, they criticized or commented on it. and they were brought up it seems to speak. to live their lives and say what they want to say. the culture aspect is quite interesting though in the piece it kind of carries on - each new situation to the next. and even miss moore was not shut down by their words - she continued to teach and test them. in a way, they were all very similar. 

and i love how it ends - "But ain't nobody gonna beat me at nothin" 

i think its perfect and sums up in a way the theme of the short story. the mindset of the charactors and of the culture. 

What does Joe realize at the end of the book? Who is he pointing the gun at?

joe realizes that he is the future. what has happened to his body, to his soul, is the future. it is what the masters of war want - the authority in society. the authority that is leading our country to more and more fighting. the authoritative people who keep these wars going on, one after the other. because joe knows that WWI, this war is not the end. it is only an example. and he knows that the hospital will not go with what he desires - to show people the threats of war, the devastation and the terror- they wont do it because of the very reason that joe wants to show people. the hospital wont show people Joe, they wont show them his warning of the future. because they need people in those wars. the masters of wars need people to fight. and joe knows the future - he has seen the airplanes, he has seen the wars, hes seen romance and dreams turn to horror and darkness, to screaming boys and crippled fathers, hes seen starving mothers, headless babies, dead mass silence from the amount of innocent deaths. and the masters of war, the people that enforce those regulations, keep joe a secret because they need these realities to be secret. because if they werent, people wouldnt fight. they need people to fight. and he realizes that it really is the little people vs the big people. the soldiers, the civilians, the people of the world against those who enforce evil, who promote it. who continue these awful devastations for their own gain. but joe goes into taking the voice of the people as one - for he goes against these masters of war - he declares their injustice, their root of the problem - how they are the ones who force those who wants only to live to kill others who only want to live. and how they use the people, use the men of peace, throw their slogans at them, their lies. and joe says yes, do that all you want. and we will follow you and do waht you say - but the guns will be pointed at you. the guns will be pointed at the masters of war. the people against the authority. authority/war vs. peace, people. that is the future. that mess is the future.

i hope i understood this right. lol

Do you agree with Joe's desires? Would that be what you wanted in a similar situation?

Joe desires to die. to end this close to death life that he "lives" anyways. i dont blame him for wanting to die. i cant even imagine what kind of life that is anyhow, how bored, how drained, how lonely, confusing, and lost i may feel. how distant, how crazy. like joe says, his knowledge isnt enough. having me just in my own body is not enough. at all. if joe continues to live secluded from the world, in his own mind, his own dreams/reality, i honestly can understand joe and his desires to die. but there is another option, because when joe finally comes into contact with the outside world, and works with himself to be in communication - to have some purpose in his life beyond all of his calculations and thoughts - when he feels the sunrise, he feels vibrations, he taps, he feels, he begins to be somewhat connected to people - i dont agree with him desiring to die. because when he is in connection with people - not only wiht people, but with simply the world and the reality around him - that is a life worth living. that is life. life is not just a secluded world inside your head like the one he lives in during the first half of the book. there is life when there are connections. 

What does Joe want? Why does he want it? Why is it against regulations?

Joe wants out. he wants out of the hospital and out of this isolation. he wants connection with people - he wants to affect people with what happened to him and his state. he is tired of living this life, more so living a life that is more compatible to death, where he is complete alone. he wants to travel, to influence and show people the effects of war. he wants to be taken in a glass box to show people. he uses morse code to tell the nurses this. he wants to be an exibit to show how cruel war is, the horrors of war. but the regulations of the hospital are that they dont want people to see the horrors of war - if they did, people wont fight and support their country - they wont join the army. people will see the future - what will happen to them, to people all over the world. and they will be scared of their government, of their country, of fighting for their country. the hospital wants to keep joe a secret because of the tragicness of his life. it is awful. these regulations keep joe from being truly connected to people - to influence people. he is forced to continue to live a life in isolation, in the stream of his thoughts, memories, yet personal growth and understanding. 

How injured is Joe? How much does it matter?

well. joe is more than injured. he doesnt have arms or legs. he is deaf. he doesnt even have a face. he is beyond injured. he is like incapable of every physical action - he is fed through his stomach. he compares it to being in the womb once again. i dont even really like this question, i think its kind of a hard question to answer, because like i said, he is more than injured. he is half alive, barely alive. he is closest to death than every other human being. so really to him, his body is barely there - he can not truly feel it or move it. he simply just breathes, and his body allows his conscience to go on and continue working. his conscience is all he has left. his conscience and the darkness and loneliness and suffering all around him. he is distant from everyone. so the fact that he is injured like this does matter. its matters to everything. because it keeps him away from everything, from everyone. having him only be drowning in his concious and unconcious self keeps him from even knowing what is real and what is a dream. only when the nurse comes is he once again connected to reality, to people, in a very distant way. but this matters. the fact that he is so lonely, in such darkness, andfilled with such thoughts make this life that he is living closer to death than ever. 

Gender Roles Extra Credit

i thought the gender roles were very interesting in the play. and oh yes - the play was wonderful!! so funny. good job everyone. 

the most obvious gender role in the play was of the queen. instead of being the "inferior degraded weak woman," she was quite the opposite. she was the dominant, much more powerful extravagant woman, and incredibly controlling. she is like the stereotypical controlling wife, who has power over her husband, speaks for him, thinks for him, etc. and it is obvious that the wife is insecure - therefore hungry for power. and meanwhile, then the king is the stereotypical cynical husband who somewhat succumbs to what his wife has to say and what the queen tells him to do. 

though this scenario clearly shows the dominance of woman, obviously, it in a way doesnt. because the people don't like the queen at all - everyone thinks shes ridiculous. and the king even makes fun of her behind her back and still has "the dominance" in a way. and this is clearly shown once he gets his voice back - when he starts yelling at her. like the male dominance has been "restored." because obviously the people/the crowd really liked the queen. boo ya. i think i got it. 

Girls

this is how you appear to be very pleasant to everyone around you. this is how you should act towards my friends. this is how you must eat when guests are around. never chew with your mouth open. this is how you live a good life. this is how you a successful. this is how you be the best christian possible. this is how you wont end up in hell, you dont want to end up in hell do you? this is how you can be trusted by us. this is how you will be a good child. this is how you wont get grounded. this is how you wont get sent away again. and how we wont be worried about you anymore. this is how to be a good girl, mallory! this is how to be a respectful woman. a good respectable christian woman. and thats how to not be trusted, and thats not what not do. but this is how you shoudl think. this is how you should be sympathetic and nice to others. this is how you should treat your sister and this is how you should feel when you do something wrong. you better feel that way when you do something wrong! this is what happens when you mess up. this is how you disappoint us.

i dont know if i did this right - not specifically related to gender. but more towardsmy family - though it does have to do with gender, compared to the way my brothers were taught and were treated. there was definately more focus on me - and my respect as a woman. i think my parents assumed that boys would more go their own way - find their path, but for me they feel the necessary to be hunched over my life, watching me and my moves and making sure i am staying out of trouble - just in case. my brother got engaged when he was 16. if i ever did that they would never trust me again. they would be so disappointed. but maybe since my brother is a boy - he was trusted more - his decisions and his independence. 

appearances - question 2

vazquez waits a while to disclose that brian and mickey are actually straight, but she does disclose this fact. i think she waits because as most peopleknow, there is already tons of prejudices and judgments towards homosexuals. so a story like this, as brutal as it is, isnt THAT surprising, because we know that many people have negative viewpoints on them. but i think she does this to demonstrate how important how appearance is - what it does and what it makes people percieve. that even us, the readers can be decieved. andi think she eventually discloses it to show us that even just this man's appearance that could associate him to being gay affects him greatly - affects him to the point that he almost died. and does the anigay violence change in any way when we recognize that sometimes its victims are heterosexual? honestly, to society i think it changes more. all together i dont think so - violence is violence. just like in the 60s and the civil rights movement - when there was plenty of prejudice against blacks - it is awful. there is no excuse for any person to be treated like this - but i think itmakes it more noticable to society when one realizes that the victims are heterosexual, because then they "recognize" that the victims are "innocent," that maybe this is going too far and that there may be much much more under the appearance. but in reality, gay people experience this all the time - they are the victims and these sort of situations need to be empathized with and dealt with when they are happening - not when straights start getting victimized. 

Dr Wades Airplane Metaphor

i understand the metaphor he is trying to make, though i dont necessarily agree or think it is used in the right context. he talks about how there are two airplanes, and one airplane nearly always gets you to your destination safely - this he is referring to a two parent home, a heterosexual home. and the other airplane gets you there most of the time - but significantly less than the first - this being a single parent home. well of course, i think that most of the time it is much healthier for a child to have two parents, and that having both a mother and father who are loving affects the child positively in a great way. and though a single parent can provide a lot of love and support, it most likely may have some negative effect on the child not having that mother/father there. but i do think this is so relative to say, and i think discussing the success of a single parent home is a separate issue from having a same sex marriage. dr wade does not give any statistical evidence of the success of a same sex household - let alone if the household is loving or not too. he is giving statistics to a issue that is entirely separate. and i do agree with his metaphor, due to the fact that a two parent home is primarily more successful than a single parent household - especially with the evidence of the statistics. but i just think it is entirely unrelated to a same sex marriage and the effects that has on a child. 

do the masculine man and the sensitive man coincide?

this is a hard one. i honestly think the easier answer would be that they do not coincide. that would be my more bitter answer i guess. because from experience, i have been more attracted the masculine man- they stand out, they are "brave, courageous, strong" etc, and these men show chivalry and what not, but because their duty is to protect and support in that way. but many times i have found out that the masculine man turns out to be the less sensitive of them all. and then i meet such sensitive men/boys who "make themselves equal to women" and put themselves on the same level, however, the qualities of the masculine man are not there - i do not get the feeling very often of protection or support. i have met both these kinds of men. i do think the masculine man and the sensitive man exists though. yes, like the author of this article pointed out, there does exist extremes. however, i have met few boys in my day that hold both sensitivity and manliness, and i believe there are much more out there. just because men are men and they have different brains than women, doesnt mean they cant comprehend emotions and be sensitive while also having qualities such as strong, brave, curtious. i believe they exist somewhere. did i answer this blog right? lol

Gilbert's idea of the Last American Man

Gilbert's idea of the last American Man. Well, we talked in class about how the american man is defined by a man of expansion, one who goes out to prove himself in the frontier. who works and builds his spirit and himself into a man by living among the frontier, and the forest, supporting himself in the wild. and to an extent i think all these things are true about the last american man, but from this reading, i took that it was more about the state of a man's spirit. of course, expanding himself to the frontier, living off the bare essentials, and "succeeding" in the wild are all essential for being the last American man, his soul must be in a certain state. his idea about life. his idea about freedom. the last american man lives off of nature - he is connected to the earth, he appreciates the nature of life. he is not filled up by society, by electronics, by inventions, industrialization, superficiality. the last american man is always striving for spiritual freedom. he yearns to live by the purest way of life. for example, the way eustace does in his tee pee, his food, his fight with the deer - he simply continues on the "circle" of life, and incorporates himself in the cycle and nature of life. with that spirit comes the physical aspect - the aspect of living on the frontier, proving his masculinity in the forest, proving his masculinity through working and fulfilling his role in the circular motion of life. 

beauty and the beast

well i loved beauty in the beast very much. specifically belle. i thought she was beautiful. in this disney classic, i was taught simply how beautiful Belle was, how beautiful princesses and girls were, and how i wanted to be exactly like them and dance around and be beautiful. i even got the pretty yellow dress that she wears. this movie also taught me that if you fall in love with someone ugly, they will eventually turn into a handsome prince. and that life is the most exciting and happy when there is beauty involved - like in the end, when the beast is turned back into a handsome prince and belle is once again so beautiful. this movie, also, like every other disney movie, taught me how love is the most important thing - and it like all the other movies made me so excited to fall in love and get married. and that i cant wait for that perfect boy to come into my life. 

the spirit of infancy

"The lover of nature is he who's inward and outward senses are still truly adjusted to eachother; who has retained the spirit of infancy even into the era of manhood. His intercourse with heaven and earth, becomes part of his daily food." 

i think this is a fabulous sentence. he states nearly the beginning of his passage about nature that the majority of men don't really see the sun - they see it only in a superficial way. where the sun is only to illuminate their ways. but one who truly loves nature is someone whos eyes are illuminated, but also their heart. that through their sorrows and all their deepest pains (as he says later), one can find peace through nature - for it is the most pure form of life. it is life, it holds life together, nature gives birth to life, it continues the cycle of creation and life. therefore, we, as humans, are connected to the earth. we are a part of it - we are connected from the soul. it fills us up like food. it goes beyond our physical needs, for no matter what this world does to us, there was a point in the beginning that still exists when all there was was life, peace, and nature - that obviously being our infancy. but blessed is the man who can contain that spirit that he holds when he is an infant - one that is free and revived by the mere life around him - the spirit of nature that created him - and carry it onward to manhood. for he is not living among the superficiality of the world, he is not turned upside down and deeply affect by the superficial things in the world, even sorrows and pain, for he has the spirit of the world. of nature - the thing that binds all life together - that allowed him to be created. and that force is much larger than anything else in the world.

sorry if this is really confusing! i was just rambling. 

Geurnica- Pablo Picasso

so i studied geurnica in my art history class way back - i think it is fascinating. pablo picasso is one of my favorite artists first off. so geurnica was made in 1937 while the spanish civil war was taking place. i believe geurnica was one of the first terrorist bombings ever that was placed conciously on innocent civilians during war time - very scary for people. it was during the mussolini and hitler rise up. and the german nazi party was the group that convicted this crime. in this abstract piece of art and cubist style, picasso captures the pain and the grief and the chaos from the bombing of this city. im sure at this point, the world doesnt make much sense, especially considering there were never really bombings of innocent people like this, where people dont know what to do, theres pain everywhere, especially immediately after the bombing. picasso uses black and white paint as well - stays away from bright colors for a reason. the black and white captures the drearyness, the intensity, the darkness of this event. more so, the world. the black and white was also used to represent the newspapers (along with the mini writing in some places of the painting - how there were headlines everywhere while this war was going on, headlines of more people getting killed, more pain. the facial expressions on these figures, on the horse, they are present the grief and the pain. there is a cubist depiction of a woman locked inside a burning house - reaching for the window, but is trapped. this piece is also HUGE. it is like a giant mural. picasso shows the immensity - how this is the world, it affects the world - it is more than just an event, a small picture, but a huge mural, a huge representation of the pain, the sorrow, that is taking place in this confusing world. picasso's cubist style - the jagged edges, the abstract forms - just shows how misplaced this world is- how confusing and turmoiled. it is not as beautiful as the paintings from years before during the victorian age. now it is dark. it is crazy. pablo piccaso is a genius. 

Guernica - Pablo Picasso

What is Wright’s realization at the end of the novel? Do you agree with it?

this is a powerful ending. at the end wright realizes his loneliness to a depth that he never has before. during this rally, he goes through this experience of deep thought - he remembers his past, he asks about their meaning, he realizes that his whole life he has been so hungry for a new way of life. and he knows he cannot go outside of the world and try to fix it, he knows he cannot go out and simply fill himself up, or go amongst people try to understand it anymore. this is his issue. this is him, in this room, in this very moment - and he yearns for life - he yearns for true human life, he yearns for the unity of the world by everything within human life. every suffering, every fear, every joy, every meaning - he is so hungry for that unity with people. for that feeling of life. and he understands at the end of the book that everyone is united, even blacks and whites. so much is going on in the world at this point - a huge war is about to break out over the world, and even whites are suffering just as much as the blacks. in this moment, he sees the world and every human being, he hears the world outside of his bedroom. and within his loneliness - within his understanding of the world's unity, all he wants is just to express. he wants to connect with the world in some way - he wants to revive that unity. and the largest way he knows how to do this is his words. his writings. and he will write- because he knows that is where he can meet people, that is where he yearns to meet people - through those artistic ideas, through thought, through emotional and intellectual freedom, through understanding of actual human life. and he will do this, he will strive for this, and he will tell and respond to anyone who even gives any sort of response to him, even if it is just a small echo, a minimal response. he will fight and strive to banish the petty american hunger for things that are not real, the hunger that is only blind and ignorant to the life and thoughts around them. he will strive to awaken people to a hunger for life - for truth, for purity, for every kind of freedom - a hunger for the unity of all mankind through their freedom of life. 

Do you agree with Wright’s theory that artists and politicians stand at opposite poles?

im sure sure if the two professions can be qualified so exact - that they are necessarily opposites. but i think the point that wright is trying to make is the general belief of the artist or of the writer - that they are expresses. they YEARN to express. they yearn to inspire, to release. they have ideas in their minds that they want to make happen, that they want to write, that they want to paint. it comes from their passion. just as Wright, when he is in his sort of intellectual, expressive moods, when he has his realizations, he is passionate for life. he yearns for this ideal image that he has, for honesty, for truth. for pure human life. versus politics, which in wright's eyes, they are corrupt. the mind of the artist, which i believe this sort of mind exists even in the smallest bit in every human, is lost through politics. wright joined the communist party - because of his artistic views. he joined it because of its passion - but these politics, the complications, the corruption, the betrayal, and the deceit - they all existed. the pure passion of the heart, the passion for the unity of human life that wright yearns for is hidden within all the fear that is held in politics. within that fear, those ideals cannot be accomplished. wright believes in communism - he does, he believes that the world would be astounded once it was settled in a region. but he knows that through politics - it probably will never happen. those ideas are lost, and it becomes more about power and about fear rather than the original aim. 

the problem of humanity

in this chapter, particularly in this passage, Wright is incredibly insightful. he goes beyond what has been said in this book so far - he goes beyond all that race holds between people - all the negativity and suffering and distance it causes this world. he goes beyond that. wright states " i know that not race alone, not color alone, but the daily values that give meaning to life stood between me and those white girls with whom I worked. Their constant outward - looking, their mania for radios, cars, and a thousand other trinkets made them dream and fix their eyes upon the trash of life." so all that has been said up until now in this book has more or less been about how race effects the world. but there is much greater problem of humanity. what sets people apart are their daily values, are their purposes in life, of their hopes. for so much of America is hungry for, they put their eyes upon trash. they put their eyes upon things, upon immoral ideas. and things that wright values - real things, emotions, simple natural movements of the world - other people dont see. and these other people push him down at the same time and make him less than them. americans are hungry for the wrong things - sex, drugs, radios, cars, electronics, and trinkets of all sorts. and they miss all that wright speaks of - what is real. they miss meaning. that is the problem of humanity. 

the move to chicago. right now. is it beuno?

for nearly five years of his life, wright has been dreaming of going to the north. for years, it is has been his purpose for working and for really enduring the south. memphis was certainly different than jackson - a much bigger city, much different dynamic. but still the racial prejudices remained. wright was working and he was saving his money in memphis, he was being tricked and used by his boss and other whites, he was starving himself in order to save money, and he still was naturally forced to make himself inferior, to step aside for whites, to degrade and lessen who he was because of his environment. in living there, he also KNEW what he was doing - he knew the pain he was suffering. he knew the creulty he was living. and all he knew was suffering. he had had this idea in his head for too long. he had enough money and he knew it. when was he going to act? it was now or never. he had to force himself to just go or he never would. his mind, his fears, his thoughts would stop him. so yes. this is good. finally - he is acting. doing something - risking everything. but for the good. he is not stopped by his environment or his own self. 

is he justified in doing what he does? does he have a moral standard for stealing?

i dont know if wright necessarily had a standard for stealing - whether it was right or wrong. i believe he knew it was wrong - but the reason that he did not do it for so long i think was beyond it being his morals. especially later in the story, he didnt steal because he didnt want to be what the whites expected him too. he had been raised not to steal - it had been ingrained in him, but later in the story - he chooses not to because it is like whites want blacks to steal, they expect them to. and that just gives whites another excuse to justify blacks being bad. but after awhile, wright realizes that he really is not going to be able to survive in the south very much longer unless he steals. unless he gets money quicker in order to get out of the south. is he justified? i dont know if it is that black or white - obviously stealing is wrong. but the way that he is treated, and that huge fear of his - thats wrong as well. so what is more important? getting out of the south or abiding by general moral standing? getting out of the south is more important to him. in order to save his life, then technically he is justified. at this point in life - with all these societal struggles, it is so hard to determine in a black and white way what is right and wrong and is it okay to cheat whites out because they eventually will kill you. 

What does Grigg mean by "learn to live in the South?"

he means that the way Wright is living now, he is doomed to die or get killed. he loses job after job because he does not degrade himself to be lower than whites - both inwardly and outwardly. and now he is looking for a job, and griggs tells him he wont be able to get a job, let alone keep one, let alone have enough money for food to survive, unless he sells out to the white system - the system of the south. Griggs means that Wright needs to act BLACK. he needs to act like he knows he is less than all whites, that he needs to get out of their way. he doesn't have to believe it - but he needs to live in a way where he is inferior, where he doesn't question white people - and he treats them like every other black person treats them. if he doesnt keep his mouth shut, he will get killed, no question. 

Is Wright justified in refusing to say the speech?

i definitely think Wright is justified in refusing to say the speech. a major theme right now in this book is authority vs. what is right. basically a translation of the question that i am answering - is it right for Wright to sell out to the system of the inferiority that whites put on blacks? is it right for wright to sell out to the white system along with many of the other students and this principal? wright is being threatened whether he graduates or not to say this speech. but what is more important to him, his dignity or his safety/protection/image of the school. wright refuses to be inferior, to dehuminize himself in order to physically survive, to make himself less than he is because the white dominated world around him wants him to. he is justified. because though his external world is threatened, the dignity within him remains - he knows he is nothing but who he is inside. his morals, his values remain. 

Why was Wright so angry at Uncle Tom?

Since Wright is getting older and older, at this age, it seems that he is now able to understand more of what he deserves and what he doesnt deserve, justice vs. injustice. In the first chapter of black boy, Wright is hiding under the house terrified of getting a beating because he know he deserves it - he knows that what he did results in a punishment. But as he grows up and learns to defend himself and becomes more aware of the outside world, he realizes that certain instances are not his fault and he must defend himself. in chapter 6, as Wright is scouting for jobs and going into white people's homes, he is introduced into another world. the first home the white lady told him basically that he will never amount to anything and will never become a writer. she fed him moldy mollasses. in the second home, he was called such ill names and treated with such little respect, while the white spoiled family ate their bacon and eggs. immediately after those two encounters wright left those homes, knowing that he will not be treated that way. he does not deserve it. and so when this situation with uncle tom comes up, and wright was only just being himself, answering to toms question as he always would - he knows that he did not say or do anything that deserves an awful whipping. uncle tom does not live with him, he does not know wright, he is only angry. and instead of taking the whipping, wright will not stand for something he doesnt deserve. through his anger out of uncle tom's injustice, he is willing to fight.

Why was Wright so angry at Uncle Tom?

Why does Wright feel gratified after sharing his writing?

he feels gratified because it seems that it is a reoccurence in wrights life that he is inferior, he doesnt understand, or he works to understand the ways of the world and other people by learning. now in this situation, where Wright uses the natural knowledge in him to write a story, he knows more about this than anyone. he has something unique - something he created, some that is all his. where to this girl, she has no idea why he would do such a thing, or what point this story had. but he knows - he is superior. superior in knowledge and superior in understanding. for this, he feels happy. he has accomplished something. 

Wright says it was his ‘cultural heritage’ to dislike Jews. Relate that to his own experiences.

this is a hard one.

wright has grown up receiving different messages his whole life from the environment that he lives in. all affecting the way that he views the world. the short few pages where Wright describes the jews is just an example of one of those views that has been imbedded in him since he was a child. No matter to what extent of how religious the people were - whether it was his Granny or his mom, the majority of people back then were christians. since jews allegedly killed Christ, many people held prejudices against jews. it wasnt that wright had chose to not like jews, that he really hated them for killing christ, but he had been taught even by his mother who throughout the story doesnt seem to be racist, he had been taught by her to not dislike them. to antagonize them and distrust jews was something they were bred from childhood. most parents "generally approved, actively or passively." it was still around this age when Wright had a question, he would askhis mother, or someone close to him to learn the answer. therefore, he being surrounded by this way of distrusting jews, this prejudice, that seemed "the answer." 

Explain Wright's response to his mother's paralysis.

Wright basically goes numb. he shuts down. he doesn't understand to what is going on with her - being what, 10, and seeing his mother nearly dead, not understanding why she cant speak or move. the one constant in his life up until this point in the story is his mother. though he may despise her at times, she has always been there no matter what to care about him and his wellbeing and his morals and to help feed him clothe him shelter him and bath him. he has always had that sense of just a bit of familiarity and family and warmth. but when his mother is nearly dead, when her presence of her challenging him, beating him, teaching him, and taking care of him is not there, part of that warmth is lost. he is more alone than he has ever been. there is a large turning point in the development of Wright - he says in the story "I went through the days with a stunned consciousness, unable to believe what had happened...The utter loneliness was now terrifying.i had been suddenly thrown emotionally upon my own. within an hour the half- friendly world that i had known had turned cold and hostile. i was too frightened to weep...Though i was a child,i could no longer feel as a child, could no longer react as a child. The desire for play was gone and i brooded." something has died in him - and later we see that once he moves in and is surrounded by his family, particularly in Jackson, he is alone. these people dont understand him. and he is able to in some ways fill that gap of his mother with boys his own age - with loyalty and gangs that imbed racial tension. 

Why was Wright so hungry?

Well, this question can be answered in both a very literal sense and a metaphorical sense. in a literal sense, Wright was naturally hungry because of his fathers leaving the household. and since his father was the one to bring home the money therefore the food, he no longer has food. his mother consistently worked long hours just to put food on the table, but being a black cook in a white household during that time period does earn much, let alone to feed three children. wright was hungry - always hungry. hungry after his father left, hungry at the orphanage, hungry on the streets. it seems that since the beginning of the book, wright has always been unsatisfied in some way, like there is a part of him that has always been imprisoned due to the response of his surroundings. hiding under the burning house, he just yearns to run away or never be found again terrified of being beaten. he yearns for freedom. once moving into the city, we see that he just yearns to be on the same level as his father, to "show him." he yearns to have all the knowledge of the city. he yearns to run away from the orphanage - he wants freedom, he wants food, he wants to be fulfilled. all of those yearnings i think can just be a parallel to the emptiness in his stomach. The world around him, his surroundings and his environment - has caused him to feel discontentment in his life that he longs to fill. all the while, he is starving.

What extent do you agree that we don't really need to go to school?

there is an extent that i believe we dont really need to go to school- a lot because i think a lot of the work we do is like gatto said, out of boredom, and a lot of the work that we are given is just busy work or work that requires cramming. and when i cram, i forget. for instance, i have studied so many dates for US history, or so many formulas for pre-calc. i am sure i have forgotten the majority of them, because the reason i memorize them are for the class or that specific test. how many times have we heard the question, when am i EVER going to use this stuff in the real world. though i do believe that at school, by broadening our perspectives, we find out our direction and what we like and what we want to do in school. but i think a lot of the work that is done is out of boredom and what teachers believe they have to do - or what the government thinks kids should know. i learn a lot more in classes like AP english were i get to really talk or listen about things that matter, and hear other peoples perspectives and hear people engaging rather than just bored and doing only to what is expected. in terms of socially, i think school can be both good and bad. i think it is great to meet different kinds of people, and forcing yourself (like in public schools) to be around people that you may not like, have different opinions than you, and who are just completely different people helps understand more of the world, more perspectives, it can also help social awkwardness to have people get used to be around people. but i also think that being forced to be around people can get people in the wrong crowd, or cause people who dont realy know where they fit to sell out or get lost in the social world vs. the academic world. that is exactly how zionsville - my old school seemed to be. that school just seems to be filled with all sorts of social drama and everything is about the social part of school. rarely do i/did i hear about students prime academic focus. homeschooling, i believe can give people maybe a bit more direction and have them focus more on what they want to do and what they like. though it often could cause social awkwardness. just a thought. 

Do you value the nonacademic education you are receiving?

Yes, i believe i do value my nonacademic education - or the nonacademic education i have received since i began school at the Gingerbread pre - school. i value my academic education as well - but that kind of education, for the most part, is just annoying. with that kind of education i certainly have to work and apply myself. i definitely value my academic education, but on a more surface level. on a level where my primary concern is "succeeding" in the real world - getting a good job and making a lot of money. i value my nonacademic education much more. and up until now, i havent even really thought about the "nonacademic" education i have consistently received throughout my school years. such as in the media unit we just studied - we were asked to think and observe the world around us. it wasnt so much academic, but more where we became less ignorant and discovered a lot more insight within ourself about the outside world. like mann said, from an early age i have been conditioned through school systems to have morals similar to ones in religion. dont steal. be nice to one another. do your best in school. etc. all of those are conditioned in me. i think the part i like most about school isnt the academic work - i love art and photography and sometimes math - but not because they are academics, but because it requires me to think and interpret and see different perspectives. it allows me to, as Maggie Dooley said, "find my purpose," or what i like. i have learned i like discussions in class- expressing opinions, developing  opinions. i have learned that i HATE writing papers - therefore, i know i wont become a journalist or anything of the sort. so yes, i do value my nonacademic education much more than the actual academic part of it. 

fashion mall vs. castleton

i thought the point that ethan made about the structure, architecture, and the tone of the fashion mall is very interesting. i had never really looked at it that way before or attempted to see the rhetorical message. like ethan said, the fashion mall is a very soft and white toned mall. half of the ceiling are windows allowing the mall to be lit by mostly sunlight instead of florescent overhead lights. the fashion mall also carries really nice stores - and nicer ones just keep coming in. i remember when the mall used to have Claires - which is just a regular cheap jewelry/hair stuff shop. but for some reason, they took Claires out of the mall and now just recently they are/ already have put in Anthropology, Nordstroms, and an Arts Theaters. all these stores, and even an arts theater can typically appeal to the more wealthy type of people. the type of people who go to arts movies and like a quiet atmosphere. the type of people who would rather eat from le petit bistro, panda express, or have frozen yogurt. while castleton mall has much wider hallways to fit a lot more people - more people equals more noise. castleton mall is much bigger and holds much more traditional department stores such as Sears and JCPenny vs. the fashion mall that just got a Sacs 5th Avenue. though castleton and keystone hold a lot of the same stores, castleton does sells a more random, cheaper priced stores. like forever 21, jewelry stores, build a bear, etc. 

response to kendal's presentation - village of west clay baby

well, i thought it was really interesting that Kendal brought up the village of West Clay in her presentation. i had never really thought about the rhetoric message before of this small community. my dad lives in the village of west clay, so i have hands on experience. i remember when the village of west clay was first built - it was completely flat and barren land and then these huge colonial looking houses. and i remember everyone was like, what the hell is going on with this neighborhood? the neighborhood has greatly expanded since then in all directions "spreading this community like tone." like kendal said, the village of west clay attempts to bring you back to how indiana used to be during the colonial ages - the large plantation looking houses really close together. you can just take a walk down the street to go to your dentist, or even your local modeling agency. however, this village of west clay sends the obvious message that this neighborhood isnt just for anyone. it almost seems like if you are a part of this community then you are and you get to share the "warmth" that is attempted to have been created, but if you are not, and if you not elite or appear prestigious and classy, then the village of west clay is not for you. it is obvious that the houses, especially in the front of the neighborhood, are very expensive. it sends the message that they want a certain look - like the brick on super target in carmel. 

Are we de-evolving as human beings?

i have read both Brave New World and 1984. i have also written papers about how the governments in those two societies use pain and hatred vs. happiness and superficial love to control the minds of their population. Though, i have never written a paper about the parallel to our own society. i believe, as Niel Postman and Aldous Huxley do as well, that our society is very much a parallel to that of Brave New World - controlled by technology and manmade inventions and tools to keep everyone filled. just the other night i was out to dinner with a bunch of girls - and i had this moment when i looked at the table and 9 out of the 10 girls had their phone out at the table and were texting someone else in the world. meanwhile, they are all talking and carrying on with their conversation with eachother, but i doubt what they were talking about held very much depth or meaning. i was just at the mall, and i was looking around to see that about half the people in my sight were on cell phones. i dont think cell phones are bad, but the concept of holding a device to your ear talking to someone far away while you are away, conciously distracting yourself from where you actually are and your life in that very moment is pretty interesting. at a click of a button, you are talking to someone in colorado. a click on the television, and you are given a hundred images and briefly updated about the new genocide in Africa. where is the work? it seems that a sense of depth and meaning and thought is slowly being drifted from our world in my opinion. rarely do people sit down and write with their own personal handwriting, their own personal style, and write words to a friend. rarely to people sit down and read or think about what is going in Darfur - only images. rarely is our society challenged anymore. everything is at a click of a button, and immediately a human being's natural emptiness can temporarily be filled. and i am guilty of this as well considering i am attached to my cell phone and i love texting and constantly being entertained or filled up by my phones activity. i feel naked without my phone around me. shouldnt i be okay without any technology like that? that's how it was in the past - where men and women could just walk around, go in nature, go fishing - without any connection to the world besides locally or through words and letters. i believe there is much more thought and depth in that sort of lifestyle. it requires patience and self-control. it requires the patience to sit and learn as well, to understand. so yes, i do think that we are de-evolving as human beings. 

advertisement commercials!!!

i thought that the commercial for the iBall was highly entertaining and effective. i liked the "infomercialish" aspect of it combined with Brittany's hilarious enthusiasm. This group was very creative in terms of the name of their product - the iBall and even what their product was. This commercial did a great job with demonstrating that no matter how ridiculous the product is that they are selling (because obviously the iBall cannot REALLY make people look awake when they are asleep because it doesnt look like their real eyes obviously), they can still make a great commercial and make the consumers actually want to buy it. A bunch of different scenarios were portrayed to the audience of when this product could be used - whether you're in class bored, with you're friends, needing to act like you're reading a book - anytime, you can use this product. the humor of the commercial made it really entertaining and interesting - kept me engaged. Maggie was really funny wearing the iBall but really acting asleep. i just thought it was really well-thought out and used a lot of "commercial" aspects to sell their product, even if it is completely ridiculous. good job!

Pottery Barn Article Response

After reading this article about Pottery Barn, I am fascinated. I now realize how much thought and how many components are put into the message that Pottery Barn wants to send. What's cool about reading this article is that it makes sense of my world and my view of this store, because I have always loved it and been incredibly envious of all the super cool stuff in the magazines. And this article has truth: Pottery Barn does sell a lifestyle. It appeals greatly to the emotion of the consumer. Yes, there is an incredible amount of logic behind their advertising and the convenient household objects/furniture that they design. But i think the most important thing they do is appeal to the emotion. Pottery Barn rhetorically sells comfort, it sells ease and a simple lifestyle, it sells style but also home. I believe Tejada said they focus on five things - it has to look good, and not be too cutting edge. it has to look directional - like it is new and clean cut. the texture has to be fitting and good. it must be high quality, and it must be durable. pottery barn is expensive, but what the style that they sell can often look much more expensive than it is. They just came out with this new catalog that is sitting on my kitchen counter with the theme of green. and somehow, they still have more and more new and inspirational ideas. and i was getting so jealous - i just wanted to live in a house like that. the organization, the soothing color mixtures, the simplicity and comfort - i wanted it all. everything looks homey yet directional. my point is in this blog is to convey that pottery barn grasps emotion. the company seems to understand their consumers and relate to them. that way they can create something that they know another human being would want. and they totally wrapped me into all of that!

Abercrombie and Fitch

Explain the way in which the environment of a store you frequent tries to influence you.

When i was in middle school and early highschool, i was obsessed with Abercrombie and Fitch. My parents hated that store though because of the way they advertised as well as the really loud music they play in the store. The store itself is set in blue or dark tones, which are colors that set a "chill" or cool tone. On the walls are black and white pictures of half naked teens. Most of these half -naked teens have perfectly sculpted bodies and are highly attractive. The way young men or women are portrayed in Abercrombie advertisements can certainly be a reference for Kilbourne's article. I believe it was winter of a couple years ago (they may actually still do this) when everyday around the Christmas season, a male Abercrombie model would stand just in the door way of Abercrombie and Fitch in just Christmas boxers. And of course, he had a perfectly toned body. It sounds ridiculous typing it out, but it is a clear clear example of what Kilbourne was talking about. How does this influence consumers to buy their product? First of all, it would most likely draw the attention to especially young teen girls, who this form of advertisement is appealing to anyways. The shock value is high. But more than that, Abercrombie and Fitch seems to always, without saying it, sells attraction. If you wear Abercrombie, you are attractive. You are cool. I have also heard rumors that Abercrombie does  not hire employees who are unattractive, or who do not sell "cool." Well who says what is cool? I am not sure exactly how to answer that. It evidently has to do with the way society transitions from decade to decade, and what as a whole is defined as cool. Loud music, as Abercrombie consistently plays, is often seen as being hardcore or cool. When I am in the mall, I can always hear music from Abercrombie like five stores down. Loud music is also often associated with teens. And teens are exactly who Abercrombie and Fitch is trying to attract. The blues, browns, and dark tones sell the cool chill feeling. But i believe that sex is a key way for Abercrombie and Fitch to influence their consumers. Sex, looks, attraction -> the store is filled with that. and it makes the consumer want to look and feel like that. And how can they do that? Well, they buy Abercrombie and Fitch merchandise, of course!

wednesday class discussion

on tuesday night, my english book had not come yet, so i did not read the article by Kilbourne. but that didnt stop me from participating in the discussion! so, basically the discussion was about the effect that ads have on society, particularly ads of objectifying women, whether it is right or not, and if there could be a solution to this problem. a lot of people talked about if they dont believe the ad is right, then they wont buy their product, but another point that was brought up, which i believe in as well, that the problem really cant be solved just by one person unfortunately. the problem is in society today - that it is okay to sell yourself through ads, to in particular make women sex objects in order to sell a product. not saying that sex is bad by any means, but the way that ads portray women affects the way that society views women. meaning that in regular society - women are often viewed as inferior or sex objects to men. the issue came up in the class that this happens to men as well, which is entirely true that men are often objectified the same way women are in ads. but in truth, this happens to women much more, plus the topic of the article was more about women. but i thought the discussion was really interesting and there could be plenty of opinions, but sadly, there really was no solution to this problem, just like there was really no solution in kilbourne's article.