http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-weschler-corruption-20111101,0,2370887.story
This op-ed piece was interesting and well written in the sense that it departed from the average "just facts" newspiece. The writer contrasted his trip to Uganda and his confrontation with police officers who hassled him for a bit of money because they are so underpaid to rich American campaign financers who seek to get richer. He notes that in some countries, corruption arises out of a need for money to live, but in America, it is the rich who are corrupt. The point is difficult to make, and it was mostly successful. The writer did a good job at connecting these two ideas, though it would be nice for readers who don't know him if he had answered which he thought was worse rather than just leave the reader without reassurance. Still, it was a decent Op-Ed piece.
Wednesday, November 2, 2011
My Fears
I am generally a cautious person. Perhaps it's because some of my fears are things that are a major part of life. I'm not scared of spiders - I know I'll probably never encounter a poisonous one. I'm not scared of heights in general, as long as I know I'm safe. What I am scared of is machinery and other human creations and their reliability to function properly in dangerous situations. I hate elevators, escalators, and carnival rides. I'm not a fan of cars - but that's a large part due to the people driving them more than cars themselves. For that reason, I prefer trains, boats, and planes. They all could go wrong - but I know there are experienced people who will try their best for that not to happen.
My fears are probably not the most rational or conventional, but they affect my life all the same.
My fears are probably not the most rational or conventional, but they affect my life all the same.
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
"Sound and Fury" Response
(I missed the beginning of the film, so do forgive me if I get the details wrong.)
In Sound and Fury, were introduced to a discourse that some are unware of its very existence: Deaf Culture. There are deaf schools, deaf communities, and deaf families and they take pride in their ability to live a fulfilling life with their handicap. But it is a handicap, and although it can be fixed, many of the people whose stories were told in this film felt it shouldn't be.
Were introduced to two families: one that is entirely deaf, and the other that is comprised of a deaf twin, but also hearing parents and a hearing twin. The parents of the hearing mother are deaf, and the parents of the deaf brother belonging to the deaf family and hearing brother belonging to the hearing family are hearing.
The deaf parents and grandparents have been deaf all of their lives and would likely never develop speech, but present technology has developed cochlear implants that could grant the ability to hear and speak to the deaf family's four-year-old daughter, and the hearing family's eleven-month-old son.
Surprisingly, there is uproar from the deaf side. Instead of being happy that the childrens' handicaps are more or less gone with the help of a cochlear implant, they are sad and scared that if people can be "cured" of deafness, deaf language, sign language, and even deaf people may go extinct all together.
The deaf people in the film believe that there is a deaf culture, and by a formerly deaf person suddenly being able to hear will remove them from the culture. This was difficult for me to understand personally, because surely you can still use sign language if you're able to hear, and thus be as much a part of deaf culture as you were before. Only know, you're multicultural; you are a part of the hearing culture that delights in music, the sounds of nature, and tones of voice, and you're part of the deaf culture in which body language and the other senses are likely much more important.
With criticism and arguments from both sides, the mostly-hearing family decides to go ahead with the cochlear implant and are delighted that their son can now hear. The deaf family decides to move to a more deaf-friendly community and not get a cochlear implant for their daughter. I personally believe the deaf parents are denying their daughter the best life she can have by not taking every action to make sure she doesn't suffer from a handicap. She can still communicate with them through the sign language she already knows and will likely continue to develop; they are denying her the opportunity to communicate with those who don't know sign language, and to pursue hobbies, friendships, and careers of which hearing is helpful or even required.
The hearing family seemed to make a much wiser choice in getting a cochlear implant for their son. Even if it was not his choice to have one, I am sure he will appreciate the fact that a hearing life is a much easier and possibly more fulfilling life. That's not to say deaf people don't lead fulfilling lives - I'm sure many do - but deafness is a handicap, and until we live in a world where every possible concession is made for those who are deaf, it makes life more difficult. However, not being a part of the Deaf Culture Discourse, I suppose it is impossible to truly know the full story and feelings of those who are a part of that specific discourse.
In Sound and Fury, were introduced to a discourse that some are unware of its very existence: Deaf Culture. There are deaf schools, deaf communities, and deaf families and they take pride in their ability to live a fulfilling life with their handicap. But it is a handicap, and although it can be fixed, many of the people whose stories were told in this film felt it shouldn't be.
Were introduced to two families: one that is entirely deaf, and the other that is comprised of a deaf twin, but also hearing parents and a hearing twin. The parents of the hearing mother are deaf, and the parents of the deaf brother belonging to the deaf family and hearing brother belonging to the hearing family are hearing.
The deaf parents and grandparents have been deaf all of their lives and would likely never develop speech, but present technology has developed cochlear implants that could grant the ability to hear and speak to the deaf family's four-year-old daughter, and the hearing family's eleven-month-old son.
Surprisingly, there is uproar from the deaf side. Instead of being happy that the childrens' handicaps are more or less gone with the help of a cochlear implant, they are sad and scared that if people can be "cured" of deafness, deaf language, sign language, and even deaf people may go extinct all together.
The deaf people in the film believe that there is a deaf culture, and by a formerly deaf person suddenly being able to hear will remove them from the culture. This was difficult for me to understand personally, because surely you can still use sign language if you're able to hear, and thus be as much a part of deaf culture as you were before. Only know, you're multicultural; you are a part of the hearing culture that delights in music, the sounds of nature, and tones of voice, and you're part of the deaf culture in which body language and the other senses are likely much more important.
With criticism and arguments from both sides, the mostly-hearing family decides to go ahead with the cochlear implant and are delighted that their son can now hear. The deaf family decides to move to a more deaf-friendly community and not get a cochlear implant for their daughter. I personally believe the deaf parents are denying their daughter the best life she can have by not taking every action to make sure she doesn't suffer from a handicap. She can still communicate with them through the sign language she already knows and will likely continue to develop; they are denying her the opportunity to communicate with those who don't know sign language, and to pursue hobbies, friendships, and careers of which hearing is helpful or even required.
The hearing family seemed to make a much wiser choice in getting a cochlear implant for their son. Even if it was not his choice to have one, I am sure he will appreciate the fact that a hearing life is a much easier and possibly more fulfilling life. That's not to say deaf people don't lead fulfilling lives - I'm sure many do - but deafness is a handicap, and until we live in a world where every possible concession is made for those who are deaf, it makes life more difficult. However, not being a part of the Deaf Culture Discourse, I suppose it is impossible to truly know the full story and feelings of those who are a part of that specific discourse.
Friday, September 16, 2011
America in Lyrics
Though this song, "Mr. President" by Janelle Monae, was written in 2007 in the middle of President Bush's second term and dealt with many of the issues of his presidency, many of the problems still exist in America today. This is a clear, relevant song about the trials of many Americans and issues that America as a nation faces to this day. Although clearly frustrated, the song seems ultimately hopeful, and is not sung too grumpily, which again, I believe, is a good representation of the typical feelings of the American people.
Hey, Mr. President
Tomorrow I'm paying my rent
My fuel is running low
And I've got places to go
Quit slowing me down
Can we talk about the education of our children?
A book is worth more than a bomb any day
And remember a mirror to Africa
Who will bring the cure before it’s too late?
Don’t you see the hurt in their eyes?
So much disappointment in many faces
Use your heart and not your pride
We can’t go on and keep pretending, oh
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
How I Write
The way I write isn't particularly interesting, creative, or philosophical, unfortunately. I think about what I want to write and then I sit down and write. I edit and add details as I go, and often read over and make many more changes. I think revision is a good technique to get the best out of writing.
I often handwrite my rough draft so I'm forced to edit the entire thing as I type it again. It makes it difficult to skim over sections that may benefit from different phrasing, or may even need a complete renovation.
I think about what I write a lot after I've written it. I think about things that I've learned from writing that particular work, and think about things I could have done differently. I think it's interesting how much we grow and change in our writing.
I believe practice, revision, and second opinions make perfect, so I try to uphold these practices in my writing.
I often handwrite my rough draft so I'm forced to edit the entire thing as I type it again. It makes it difficult to skim over sections that may benefit from different phrasing, or may even need a complete renovation.
I think about what I write a lot after I've written it. I think about things that I've learned from writing that particular work, and think about things I could have done differently. I think it's interesting how much we grow and change in our writing.
I believe practice, revision, and second opinions make perfect, so I try to uphold these practices in my writing.
Inauguration Speech Word Cloud
There were a lot of patterns and commonalities in the word clouds of the 44 presidents. I was really surprised and amazed, considering this also spans more than 200 years, a variety of political climates, and an ever-changing English language. Of course words like nation, government, and America were popular throughout, but I was also happily surprised to see peace and world so often in speeches from both parties.
This was an insight into the leaders of America, and very interesting to see how similar their speeches were at times despite the Presidents being so different.
This was an insight into the leaders of America, and very interesting to see how similar their speeches were at times despite the Presidents being so different.
Monday, August 29, 2011
"Blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking" by Malcolm Gladwell
Blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking explores a frustratingly inaccessible yet amazing and important phenomenon: the human subconscious. Malcolm Gladwell explains in the 254-page non-fiction book the powerful and important subconscious thought process. He explains how, although counter-intuitive, snap judgements can be more powerful than mountains of consciously-collected data and planning, and how they can change our thinking about entire situations, people, and ideas.
I had read an excerpt of Blink a while ago because it related to a musician I liked at the time, Kenna. Before that, when my mother read the book, she'd told me about Kenna. I'd proven the point Malcolm Gladwell makes in his story about Kenna: I didn't like the music at first, and neither did anyone else in market test groups, which prevented the artist from having the record company's confidence to be a success. However, continuing to prove Gladwell's point, when I listened to it after knowing more about the music and music in general (Kenna was similar to other artists I liked) I really enjoyed the music. I didn't read much more of Blink at that point, but after really enjoying Outliers by Malcolm Gladwell, I decided to give Blink another try.
Malcolm Gladwell greatest strength is his ability to tell stories about people, events, and phenomenons relating to his topic and connecting them. He does this brilliantly in the introduction, which is constantly referenced throughout the rest of the book. Gladwell tells the story of how the Metropolitan Museum of Art had acquired an expensive but exquisite statue, had run tests on it, and had believed it was real. That was until experts who had spent years looking at these statues all had an immediate, subconscious reaction that something about the statue just wasn't right. Gladwell's main point, that the subconscious can be extremely powerful despite being frustratingly uncontrollable, shines through from the beginning. The instant, subconscious reactions prevailed over huge amounts of research and tests: the statue was a fake.
Blink is about how powerful the behind-the-scenes subconscious is. Gladwell calls the subconscious first impression thin-slicing. " 'Thin-slicing' refers to the ability of our subconscious to find patterns in situations and behavior based on very narrow slices of experience," Gladwell explains. He does a very good job of defining the ideas he refers to throughout his book.
Gladwell also defines the "locked door" as he tells the story of a tennis expert frustrated to the point of insomnia trying to understand why his subconscious was so powerful in predicting double faults. The expert knew when it worked, but not why or how. Gladwell explains why and how our subconscious manipulates our lives, and how we can manipulate our subconscious, even when we are not aware that we are controlling it. This sounds horribly complex. Gladwell tells the reader about an experiment called an Implicit Association Test, and one of the most popular forms of it that tests race bias. Because of society's imprints on our subconscious, test takers find that they often lean towards a preference towards whites, even if they themselves are not racists or are not white. Gladwell explains how test takers, including himself, both inadvertently and purposefully manipulated their subconscious by reading about inspiring black people just before the test, such as Martin Luther King Jr. or a black Olympian. Gladwell shows the subconscious is constantly changing and we can control it to an extent through experience, expertise, and a conscious effort to change.
However, what makes Gladwell's books so enjoyable for me are the stories he tells and how he connects them to not only complex concepts, but also to each other. He is constantly referencing stories about military war games, and how collecting massive amounts of information was inferior to the opposition's snap judgements, when talking about how an ER ward deals with patients complaining of chest pain by gleaning only the simplest, most crucial information. He connects the election of Warren Harding, who was elected almost purely because he looked like he should be a president, to the success story of a popular car salesmen who refuses to prejudge his customers like his colleagues do. Gladwell's explainations help strengthen and prove his points about just how amazing the subconcious is.
Of course, his writing is superb also. His writing is witty and uncluttered. He describes food tasters and experts with humor and charisma: "Heylmun and Civille don't just taste food. They think about food. They dream about food. Having lunch with them is like going cello shopping with Yo-Yo Ma, or dropping in on Giorgio Armani one morning as he is deciding what to wear." Although he speaks about complex and intellectually challenging topics, it rarely seems as though he's talking down to the reader. He seems like he's sharing something very interesting in a casual conversation. This is not saying his writing is too sloppy or informal; he manages to reach the balance between being too casual or too arrogant. Very rarely, he will explain things a bit too much or not make the concepts clear enough, but it's not hard to see why this book is a bestseller.
I had read an excerpt of Blink a while ago because it related to a musician I liked at the time, Kenna. Before that, when my mother read the book, she'd told me about Kenna. I'd proven the point Malcolm Gladwell makes in his story about Kenna: I didn't like the music at first, and neither did anyone else in market test groups, which prevented the artist from having the record company's confidence to be a success. However, continuing to prove Gladwell's point, when I listened to it after knowing more about the music and music in general (Kenna was similar to other artists I liked) I really enjoyed the music. I didn't read much more of Blink at that point, but after really enjoying Outliers by Malcolm Gladwell, I decided to give Blink another try.
Malcolm Gladwell greatest strength is his ability to tell stories about people, events, and phenomenons relating to his topic and connecting them. He does this brilliantly in the introduction, which is constantly referenced throughout the rest of the book. Gladwell tells the story of how the Metropolitan Museum of Art had acquired an expensive but exquisite statue, had run tests on it, and had believed it was real. That was until experts who had spent years looking at these statues all had an immediate, subconscious reaction that something about the statue just wasn't right. Gladwell's main point, that the subconscious can be extremely powerful despite being frustratingly uncontrollable, shines through from the beginning. The instant, subconscious reactions prevailed over huge amounts of research and tests: the statue was a fake.
Blink is about how powerful the behind-the-scenes subconscious is. Gladwell calls the subconscious first impression thin-slicing. " 'Thin-slicing' refers to the ability of our subconscious to find patterns in situations and behavior based on very narrow slices of experience," Gladwell explains. He does a very good job of defining the ideas he refers to throughout his book.
Gladwell also defines the "locked door" as he tells the story of a tennis expert frustrated to the point of insomnia trying to understand why his subconscious was so powerful in predicting double faults. The expert knew when it worked, but not why or how. Gladwell explains why and how our subconscious manipulates our lives, and how we can manipulate our subconscious, even when we are not aware that we are controlling it. This sounds horribly complex. Gladwell tells the reader about an experiment called an Implicit Association Test, and one of the most popular forms of it that tests race bias. Because of society's imprints on our subconscious, test takers find that they often lean towards a preference towards whites, even if they themselves are not racists or are not white. Gladwell explains how test takers, including himself, both inadvertently and purposefully manipulated their subconscious by reading about inspiring black people just before the test, such as Martin Luther King Jr. or a black Olympian. Gladwell shows the subconscious is constantly changing and we can control it to an extent through experience, expertise, and a conscious effort to change.
However, what makes Gladwell's books so enjoyable for me are the stories he tells and how he connects them to not only complex concepts, but also to each other. He is constantly referencing stories about military war games, and how collecting massive amounts of information was inferior to the opposition's snap judgements, when talking about how an ER ward deals with patients complaining of chest pain by gleaning only the simplest, most crucial information. He connects the election of Warren Harding, who was elected almost purely because he looked like he should be a president, to the success story of a popular car salesmen who refuses to prejudge his customers like his colleagues do. Gladwell's explainations help strengthen and prove his points about just how amazing the subconcious is.
Of course, his writing is superb also. His writing is witty and uncluttered. He describes food tasters and experts with humor and charisma: "Heylmun and Civille don't just taste food. They think about food. They dream about food. Having lunch with them is like going cello shopping with Yo-Yo Ma, or dropping in on Giorgio Armani one morning as he is deciding what to wear." Although he speaks about complex and intellectually challenging topics, it rarely seems as though he's talking down to the reader. He seems like he's sharing something very interesting in a casual conversation. This is not saying his writing is too sloppy or informal; he manages to reach the balance between being too casual or too arrogant. Very rarely, he will explain things a bit too much or not make the concepts clear enough, but it's not hard to see why this book is a bestseller.
Friday, August 19, 2011
Mary Wollstonecraft's "A Vindication on the Rights of Woman"
Writing has changed hugely since the 18th century, but you never really realise it until you read something from that time period. Mary Wollstonecraft is an excellent example of how brilliant ideas of that time are more difficult to understand today due to the writing being muddled with manners, pleasantries, and above-average word choice that you don't find in current writing that is much more accessible to readers from all walks of life.
Wollstonecraft definitely has a voice. The manners and humility that progressively faded were distracting to the reader today, who is used to essays typically making their points more confidently. However, because of the language of this essay it was difficult to gather exactly the point she was making, but the reader I believe generally garnered the gist of it, that women were not as inferior as society and influencial philosophers like Rousseau generally believed them to be. I think Wollstonecraft believed women had more intelligence and virtues, but centuries-long prejudice and oppression kept them from reaching their intellectual potential.
Wollstonecraft is brave and revolutionary for writing about women's rights in her time. Though perhaps her greatest contribution of this essay is not the valid points she makes, but the very fact that she was this immense intellect and philosopher writing a hugely influential essay.
"I wish to speak the simple language of truth, and rather to address the head than the heart," claimed Wollstonecraft. She does this with grace and intelligence, and it lends even more to her credibility as she successfully attempts to prove with reason that women are not as inferior as believed in 18th century society. Almost all of the essay is well-mannered and respectful, only occasionally pointing out what is truly preposterous in the opinions of her opponents.
I believe Wollstonecraft would be proud of women's rights and equality today, as her prediction of women being the "friend...of man" is much closer to reality than in the 18th century. Even more proud she would be, I'm sure, of her role in feminism thanks to this influential essay.
Wollstonecraft definitely has a voice. The manners and humility that progressively faded were distracting to the reader today, who is used to essays typically making their points more confidently. However, because of the language of this essay it was difficult to gather exactly the point she was making, but the reader I believe generally garnered the gist of it, that women were not as inferior as society and influencial philosophers like Rousseau generally believed them to be. I think Wollstonecraft believed women had more intelligence and virtues, but centuries-long prejudice and oppression kept them from reaching their intellectual potential.
Wollstonecraft is brave and revolutionary for writing about women's rights in her time. Though perhaps her greatest contribution of this essay is not the valid points she makes, but the very fact that she was this immense intellect and philosopher writing a hugely influential essay.
"I wish to speak the simple language of truth, and rather to address the head than the heart," claimed Wollstonecraft. She does this with grace and intelligence, and it lends even more to her credibility as she successfully attempts to prove with reason that women are not as inferior as believed in 18th century society. Almost all of the essay is well-mannered and respectful, only occasionally pointing out what is truly preposterous in the opinions of her opponents.
I believe Wollstonecraft would be proud of women's rights and equality today, as her prediction of women being the "friend...of man" is much closer to reality than in the 18th century. Even more proud she would be, I'm sure, of her role in feminism thanks to this influential essay.
Thursday, August 4, 2011
Is Google Making Us Stupid? by Nicholas Carr
In "Is Google Making Us Stupid?" Nicholas Carr contemplates within the first page of his seven-page essay how he and many of his intelligent acquaintances can't read more than a brief two or three page article. I was miffed by this irony and, just as ironically, lost enthusiasm and interest in the article quickly.
However, when I did manage to find interest in the article, it turned out to be a very well-written and interesting essay and I found myself agreeing with many of the points Carr made in his essay about fears and predictions of what the plethora of information available through the internet will do to the human brain.
Unfortunately, the essay seemed to me to be unable to connect the main ideas and make a really compelling argument. They had opinions more than facts and research, when I'm quite sure there would have been research on the subject.
Also, the essay presented a few too many ideas - I personally didn't really understand how the story about Frederick Winslow Taylor's system really related much to other concepts in the essay, for example the idea that the Internet wants us to be easily distracted, or that there is so much information, but none of it very thorough or deep. I found the latter concepts to be much more interesting and less out-of-place than the idea of system efficiency over individual feelings and talents.
The one element the system idea connected well with was the reference to 2001: A Space Odyssey. It was an interesting comment on how it could happen that humans become machinelike due to technology, but I felt he should have written a separate essay on those ideas, and left this essay to propose how so much information and knowledge could actually make us only superficially intelligent.
Other than the essay being - again, ironically - a bit too much unrelated information, I thought it was interesting and well-written. The quotes were well chosen, and the stories and ideas were interesting. Carr seemed at times to be a bit insecure of his feelings on the matter, writing, "Maybe I'm a worrywort," but he shouldn't be. This well written essay sums up predictions and fears that everyone should think about: how much instant, superficial information is too much?
However, when I did manage to find interest in the article, it turned out to be a very well-written and interesting essay and I found myself agreeing with many of the points Carr made in his essay about fears and predictions of what the plethora of information available through the internet will do to the human brain.
Unfortunately, the essay seemed to me to be unable to connect the main ideas and make a really compelling argument. They had opinions more than facts and research, when I'm quite sure there would have been research on the subject.
Also, the essay presented a few too many ideas - I personally didn't really understand how the story about Frederick Winslow Taylor's system really related much to other concepts in the essay, for example the idea that the Internet wants us to be easily distracted, or that there is so much information, but none of it very thorough or deep. I found the latter concepts to be much more interesting and less out-of-place than the idea of system efficiency over individual feelings and talents.
The one element the system idea connected well with was the reference to 2001: A Space Odyssey. It was an interesting comment on how it could happen that humans become machinelike due to technology, but I felt he should have written a separate essay on those ideas, and left this essay to propose how so much information and knowledge could actually make us only superficially intelligent.
Other than the essay being - again, ironically - a bit too much unrelated information, I thought it was interesting and well-written. The quotes were well chosen, and the stories and ideas were interesting. Carr seemed at times to be a bit insecure of his feelings on the matter, writing, "Maybe I'm a worrywort," but he shouldn't be. This well written essay sums up predictions and fears that everyone should think about: how much instant, superficial information is too much?
Friday, July 22, 2011
Skunk Dreams by Louise Erdrich
Erdrich imagines she'd like to be a confident skunk, but I think a creative rabbit would be a better fit, considering how often Erdrich jumps around the entire essay, which, past the idiosyncrasies, is a well-written and imaginative example of writing.
Not only does she jump writing styles and genres, she jumps from one idea to the next and will move from one event or era of her life to the next without guiding the reader along. This leaves the reader confused as to where Erdrich is in her life, and why she is there. Why is she sleeping in a football field? What led her to teach poetry? It'd be nice to have at least some back story and reasons for the events of the story.
Another confusing element she introduced several times in the essay were her allusions to theories and ideas about dreams and obstacles from other writers and thinkers. I don't really understand why she did this as she mostly just agreed when she could have proposed a different and original idea that would leave audiences more impressed.
This piece of writing, at the worst of times is idiosyncratic and slightly pretentious, but at the best of times is descriptive and imaginative.
While extremely vague, the writing overall is decent. Erdrich's style isn't my favourite, but I can see her talent and how other readers would really It's easy to picture what exactly she is describing. One can image a skunk fast asleep next to Erdrich. The reader can picture the many described wonders of nature.
It's also easy to agree or at least to see her point when she describes such things as how nice it would be to be a skunk and the how "silly" the concept of hunting game is. Erdrich makes her feelings known, and this essay is very much centered around her feelings and discontent with her surroundings.
Overall, I didn't personally enjoy the essay because I did find it so vague. However, I'm sure some readers can see that Erdrich does have writing talent and does choose her words well in many instances. I imagine that for a friend or fan who knows the author's back story and idiosyncrasies, this would be a delightful example of writing. However, the rest of us are left with a scattered array of well-written ideas.
Not only does she jump writing styles and genres, she jumps from one idea to the next and will move from one event or era of her life to the next without guiding the reader along. This leaves the reader confused as to where Erdrich is in her life, and why she is there. Why is she sleeping in a football field? What led her to teach poetry? It'd be nice to have at least some back story and reasons for the events of the story.
Another confusing element she introduced several times in the essay were her allusions to theories and ideas about dreams and obstacles from other writers and thinkers. I don't really understand why she did this as she mostly just agreed when she could have proposed a different and original idea that would leave audiences more impressed.
This piece of writing, at the worst of times is idiosyncratic and slightly pretentious, but at the best of times is descriptive and imaginative.
While extremely vague, the writing overall is decent. Erdrich's style isn't my favourite, but I can see her talent and how other readers would really It's easy to picture what exactly she is describing. One can image a skunk fast asleep next to Erdrich. The reader can picture the many described wonders of nature.
It's also easy to agree or at least to see her point when she describes such things as how nice it would be to be a skunk and the how "silly" the concept of hunting game is. Erdrich makes her feelings known, and this essay is very much centered around her feelings and discontent with her surroundings.
Overall, I didn't personally enjoy the essay because I did find it so vague. However, I'm sure some readers can see that Erdrich does have writing talent and does choose her words well in many instances. I imagine that for a friend or fan who knows the author's back story and idiosyncrasies, this would be a delightful example of writing. However, the rest of us are left with a scattered array of well-written ideas.
Friday, July 8, 2011
Talk of the Town Essays
I liked the fact that both of these essays were so different. Not only did the authors possess entirely different viewpoints of the aftermath of the 9/11 tragedy, but there is a stark contrast between each writing style.
Of the two essays, I personally preferred the writing style of John Updike. I can see the reason I have heard him referenced and talked about and not Susan Sontag. His writing, while slightly scattered, is very creative and at times beautiful. He uses words very well to express ideas, and seems to be a very quotable writer. He took a patriotic stance in his essay, but I didn't feel like it was too overstated or excessively focused upon. He obviously takes pride in New York, and the reader can understand why to an extent. It would have been nicer for him to describe more about New York's resilience and glory. Overall, I thought this was a very good essay, mostly because of the excellent writing.
Susan Sontag got her opinion and reaction across more clearly than Updike, but didn't really leave the reader content with reading a well-written essay, like a reader would after reading the essay by Updike. Her essay was not very creative, original, or beautifully written. It was very forgettable, since the focus was not on creative writing or memorable quotes and phrases. It was an different viewpoint than the typical, but she didn't really offer any solutions or hypothetical situations like saying "The government should have reacted like this instead..." so it takes away from her credibility if she can only criticise and not improve things. It ended up being mostly a rant.
It was fascinating to read these two vastly different essays. Both have interesting narrative and writing styles, and it was helpful to read how two authors could react to the same topic and yet express themselves so differently.
Of the two essays, I personally preferred the writing style of John Updike. I can see the reason I have heard him referenced and talked about and not Susan Sontag. His writing, while slightly scattered, is very creative and at times beautiful. He uses words very well to express ideas, and seems to be a very quotable writer. He took a patriotic stance in his essay, but I didn't feel like it was too overstated or excessively focused upon. He obviously takes pride in New York, and the reader can understand why to an extent. It would have been nicer for him to describe more about New York's resilience and glory. Overall, I thought this was a very good essay, mostly because of the excellent writing.
Susan Sontag got her opinion and reaction across more clearly than Updike, but didn't really leave the reader content with reading a well-written essay, like a reader would after reading the essay by Updike. Her essay was not very creative, original, or beautifully written. It was very forgettable, since the focus was not on creative writing or memorable quotes and phrases. It was an different viewpoint than the typical, but she didn't really offer any solutions or hypothetical situations like saying "The government should have reacted like this instead..." so it takes away from her credibility if she can only criticise and not improve things. It ended up being mostly a rant.
It was fascinating to read these two vastly different essays. Both have interesting narrative and writing styles, and it was helpful to read how two authors could react to the same topic and yet express themselves so differently.
Sunday, June 19, 2011
First AP Comp Post: Introducing Me
Hi! I'm Laura, and this is my blog for AP Comp.
I am looking forward to the class partly because I would like to read more during the school year, and classes that make it mandatory seem to be the only way to prevent me from being too busy or distracted to finish books.
I do read several books in the summer. I haven't yet managed to finish any of his behemoth novels, but I really like Victor Hugo's work. I also like Malcolm Gladwell, Jane Austen, The Great Gatsby by F. Scott Fitzgerald, and The Color of Water by James McBride.
I love art, music, and movies. Some of my favourite painters include Vincent van Gogh, Claude Monet, Marc Chagall, Henri Matisse, Amadeo Modigliani, Salvador Dali, and Sandro Botticelli.
I am usually listening to music at any point of the day. Janelle Monaé, Ella Fitzgerald, the Beatles, Carmen by Georges Bizet, and Bohemian Rhapsody by Queen are amongst my personal favourites, but I listen to so many artists that fall in and out of favour constantly.
Some of my favourite movies include Evita, West Side Story, Stardust, and The Princess Bride. As for television, F.R.I.E.N.D.S is my favourite TV show by far and above.
That's enough about me, time for some AP Comp!
I am looking forward to the class partly because I would like to read more during the school year, and classes that make it mandatory seem to be the only way to prevent me from being too busy or distracted to finish books.
I do read several books in the summer. I haven't yet managed to finish any of his behemoth novels, but I really like Victor Hugo's work. I also like Malcolm Gladwell, Jane Austen, The Great Gatsby by F. Scott Fitzgerald, and The Color of Water by James McBride.
I love art, music, and movies. Some of my favourite painters include Vincent van Gogh, Claude Monet, Marc Chagall, Henri Matisse, Amadeo Modigliani, Salvador Dali, and Sandro Botticelli.
I am usually listening to music at any point of the day. Janelle Monaé, Ella Fitzgerald, the Beatles, Carmen by Georges Bizet, and Bohemian Rhapsody by Queen are amongst my personal favourites, but I listen to so many artists that fall in and out of favour constantly.
Some of my favourite movies include Evita, West Side Story, Stardust, and The Princess Bride. As for television, F.R.I.E.N.D.S is my favourite TV show by far and above.
That's enough about me, time for some AP Comp!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)