TTTC

I think my overall reaction to this book was quite different from most people's, based on the posts and comments I have been reading. So far, I have a bit of a mixed opinion on this book. Some parts are very interesting and well written. For example, one of my favorite parts was when he couldn't decide between going to war, or going to Canada. I really liked how he created such a vivid image. The audience watching him made the story that much more dramatic. That was one of the best parts of the book, in my opinion.

But there were parts of the book that I didn't like. I think I am going to talk about this more, since most people have mainly positive things to say about it.

I don't really like war books in general. I'm also very sensitive to gore, cruelty, and violence. I can barely watch scary movies, and it makes it that much worse when what I am reading is real. Also, Tim O'Brien's style of writing is a little bit jumpy and fragmented for me. Don't get me wrong, I think he has some very original ideas, and certain parts worked out great, but not all of it worked for me.

The repetition of the different weights and lists of items at the beginning got redundant after the first few pages. I think he went a little bit overboard on that. Also, his writing style is more fractured than I'm used to, so maybe I am just not really adjusting to that.

Another thing I thought that didn't really work for me was the unnecessarily detailed description of the water buffalo. I didn't really find that effective in proving his point. Sure, it had some shock value, and it was disturbing, but what is the point of those vivid descriptions? How did it improve the story? Some may think that it emphasized the way we look at animal cruelty vs. human cruelty, and it did on some levels, but I personally think that I wasn't right, or worth it to include this.

When I heard that there was the possibility that the buffalo story wasn't even real, I felt kind of cheated. Did he just make the whole thing up? What parts are true, if any?

I keep asking myself these same questions about the rest of the stories in the book. What is true? What is fiction? It's so difficult to decide. Perhaps no one will ever know.

Response to Lambert Smith: Times have changed for student protesters

I think this article started off really well. The "problems" that students are having today concerning protesting was very suprising to me. I never would have guessed that students care more about watching TV than doing good for their world, and standing up for what they believe in. I actually found it pretty dispicable that students barely even care what about what is happening around them.
But, on the other hand, students may have reasons why they aren't so strongly against the war in Afghanistan. First of all, there isn't a draft. So many don't feel the need to get involved if it doesn't involve them directly. I find this kind of sad, that people only care about things that revolve around them. I think the author was right when he said how "everyone is cocooned in their own little worlds." This is so true. The society and culture that we have today isn't as involved as it used to be.
I think that needs to change. People need to start caring about the rest of the world, and thinking outside the box. I am sure a great number of people already do this, but there are too many who have become unaware and shut down from the rest of the world. Lambert Smith proves this by stating simply that people won't bother to protest because their favourite TV show was on that night. The day of the meeting actually had to be changed so people would even attend.
This is why our culture and society needs to change--drastically. Little changes are happening everyday, and that is great, but we need to do even more.
To start, just telling other people about this topic, or other worldly events that get society more involved and aware, would be extremely helpful. There are many things like this that people can do. They may seem small, but every little bit counts.
I didn't really catch what the conclusion of the article was trying to point out. After protesting, a student asked for a plastic bag to clean up after themselves. Was this meant to be a bad thing? Smith said in his concluding sentence that the times have "most certainly change." The whole argument he was making throughout the writing kind of clashed with this last part. How did practicing cleanliness and being polite strengthen his argument that students aren't as envolved anymore. It seemed a bit off topic to me.
I liked the rest of the article though. It was defianately the shocking facts that got me interested in this article. That is what is so great about reading. You have a different experience each time, and although it may not always be a positive one, you always learn something new.

MLK's Letter from Birmingham Jail

As I began to read this article, I was immediately drawn in. The combination of superb word choice, and the impressive quantity of persuasive techniques astounded me. Just the argument alone was enough to get me interested, but the way MLK wrote it was really what got me to read the article so closely. I am pretty sure that this article was the one I spent the most time reading each word. Because I took so much time to understand it, I really got the whole meaning of the letter. There is no doubt that this is my favourite article from our course-reader, for several reasons.

First of all, I really liked MLK's writing style, particulary the persuasive aspect of it. The respect that he showed in his writing towards his opponents took his argument to a whole new level. It really proved just how accepting and wise he really was. It is so easy to get caught up when writing persuasively, and start insulting the opponent in attempt to strengthen the argument, but MLK stayed away from all of that. Just that simple act shaped his letter into one of the great pieces of writing in history, in my opinion.

Another reason why I liked this letter was because of the persuasive techniques used. There are so many that I will not name all of them, but I will mention I few that really stood out for me, and had a lasting impression. He used great examples and references to support his argument. Bringing in such historical figures such as Jesus, Socrates, and Hitler to compare and contrast them to the points he was making was a great idea. And the way he blended in these references to his writing was exceptional.

Yet another rhetorical strategy that really made an impression on me was the use of repetition in a subtle yet effective way. Just one example of this was the paragraph-long sentence just after his "horse and buggy pace" line. The way he squeezes in so many examples in a repetitive manner all in one sentence might appear exhausting and daunting, but it actually worked perfectly.

MLK's letter was outstanding in every detail and aspect. In addition to being my favorite article, "Letter from Birmingham Jail" was also the only writing that I could find no fault in. If anyone could find something wrong with the essay I would like to hear about it because I could not find even one.

Arguments of Definition

I thought this article brought up some very interesting points, although some parts were a little dull for me. For example I didn't really like how the author had six examples in a row as the intro to the chapter. This seemed a little bit redundant to me, especially since this is how the other chapter started out. It didn't really work for me the first time, so I thought that was one area the chapter could have changed.

What I did like about the writing was the points that were brought up. For example, I really liked what the author said about the first great English dictionary. I never thought about how "dictionaries reflect the prejudices of their makers". Before reading this I assumed that dictionaries gave unbiased, logical and scientific definitions. But I was proved wrong. If you didn't read the chapter, or don't remember this particular part, the dictionary writer, Samuel Johnson, described oats in a close minded, prejudiced manner. "Johnson defined oats as "a grain which in England is generally given to horses, but in Scotland supports the people." This really helped me see that actual people write dictionaries and definitions. They aren't always correct.

It takes a number of people and point of views to make a definition whole and accurate. I liked the example that was given about the wetland, and how there were a number of definitions for it. "The definitions, taken together, do help distinguish the conditions that are essential and sufficient for determining wetlands." I like how this was described, and it makes sense that "Essential conditions are those elements that must be part of a definition but that--in themselves--aren't enough to define the term."

The chapter was interesting, but at the same time a little boring. I liked parts of it, but not others. Repetition and too much structure is what bored me. It was the viewpoint of the author, and the ideas that caught my attention. In writing, what stands out most are the ideas that the author puts forth. That's why I believe this piece of writing has value and purpose to it.

The Truths and Riddles Behind the N Word and American History

There is so much behind a word. What it means, where it originated, how it's used, and how society interprets it. Take the word "history", for example. Most would say it simply means the past, or events that occurred in the past. Usually there is some kind of connection you make with words. When I think of history, I think of how much it still affects us today, and of events in American and world history. But how many people would know that the word "history" comes from the greek word historia, which actually means "inquiry, knowledge acquired by investigation".

It wasn't until 1390 that this word became part of the English Language, and obtained a new definition: "relation of incidents, story". The definition changed again, to simply "story", and then again, to "record of past events." (If you were wondering where I got my sources from, I will admit it was from wikipedia, even though you aren't supposed to use it, particularly when writing in school, I still use it for getting random information).

Anyway, my point is that people create words, and with them meaning and denotations. Every word has its own unique meaning and story behind it. I used to find this absolutely fascinating when I was about six or seven. I used to just focus on some random, everyday word, and try and grasp its true meaning--why it sounded like that, how it was spelled, and who came up with it. Okay I just realized that I'm getting a bit off topic, so I will get back to the idea I originally started out writing this post with.

The N Word. It's not that I am scared of saying it, I just don't like it. I think what the student in the article was saying about how not saying a word gives it more power was right. But I also believe that this word has had so much power and negative meaning throughout history, that there is no point in saying it in order to prove a point.

Since the day the first African American person was taken captive, and sent to America to be a slave, this word has been gathering meaning. Definition. Although it depends on who says it to

who, and in what way it is said, I believe that it is history that has shaped this word. There is no going back. This word has power and control because of its history. The N-word and the word “history” have so much in common simply because they define each other.

This post didn’t turn out how I had originally intended. But that is okay. I like how I can begin writing and by the end of the last sentence I am surprised with what I came up with. My writing is always changing and growing, just like me.

What Scares Me

I used to never think about it. I just blocked it out. Before I moved house, I didn't even realize just how much they scared me. Their multiple sets of legs, their astounding speed, and their disgusting, writhing bodies. All of it grossed me out, but it was the pincers that really got me. I shudder at the thought of the two sharp, curved daggers, held high in the air, ready to strike.

Earwigs. I can't stand them. I don't like bugs in general, but earwigs scare me more than anything else. I guess this fear might be somehow related to two extremely unpleasant experiences I had involving them. It all began at my new house, which, unfortunately, was a haven to countless numbers and types of bugs.

The first encounter I had was right as I was getting into bed to go to sleep. I was just about to lay down, when my eyes caught a flicker of movement on my pillow. There, just inches from my face, was an earwig. It was sitting there, pincers pointed towards me, ready to assail at any given moment. I screamed. Running from my room, I asked my sister to help me out, and get rid of it. She grudgingly agreed, but when we went back in the room, it was gone. My insides started to squirm. Then the unthinkable happened. There was another, crawling on my sheets. The first earwig appeared from under my pillow. I backed away from the bed, only to be confronted with a third earwig on the wall. It was too much. After my bed was cleared of earwigs, and the one on the wall was squished, I still couldn't sleep. I kept imaging dozens of them crawling all over me. I was in panic. I couldn't shake the horrible feeling of pure terror that was looming in the back of my mind. But somehow, I got through it.

Over the next few days I had miraculously managed to forget about the earwig incident. Until, one night, when I was kneeling to pick up books on the floor, I was abruptly reminded in the worse way possible. I felt a sting on my foot, and guessing it was a mosquito, I tried to swat it away. But I was wrong. It was a repulsive earwig, viciously pinching me between the toes, unprovoked and malicious. I shrieked in fright, and the horrible memories all came flooding back.

Now, I try to avoid earwigs at all costs. I recoil at the memory of those upsetting and sinister events, hoping that I will never have to go through something like that again.

What I thought of "The Courthouse Ring"

This critical analysis of To Kill A Mockingbird was very well written, but I didn't always agree with what the author, Malcolm, Gladwell, was saying. He had a very strong opinion that he consistantly backed up with evidence and specific examples, but he didn't always have an open perspective. 

That is one thing that is incredibly important in writing to me. If someone can't keep an open mind, or in other words, "a mind that does not stick" the writing becomes far too one-sided, and the writing looses both credibility and meaning. Although "The Courthouse Ring" did include some facts about the good things Atticus Finch and Jim Folsom did, Gladwell focused mainly on the negative effects of both figures. For example, Gladwell mentions how Atticus "enourages them to swap one of their prejudices for another". Gladwell's article is based on the negative aspects of Folsom and Atticus, while it should be focusing on not only the negative, but also the positive. 

Even though it is a critical review, having a balanced view when you are writing, especially when it is opinionated is vital. I like to write looking at both sides of the story, and comparing them. Most likely one will be more convincing or worthwhile than the other, but just opening up your mind to all of the possibilities is intriguing. It makes it more interesting for me, and hopefully also the reader. Some writers may prefer focusing on one idea, but I generally like to look at the big picture, and then also at details. 

In a way I think in the way Atticus does this to a certain extent, but in a different context. Atticus looks at the big picture of things, and tries to understand how people are feeling and why. He then pieces all those details together like a puzzle, trying to make sense of situations and people. What he lacks sometimes is to look at more than just Maycomb. There's an entire world that you are missing out on if you focus to much on one small place, person, or point in time. Atticus has the right ideas, he just needs to increase his perspective on some aspects of life.