Wednesday, December 12, 2012
Wednesday, December 5, 2012
It Truly Is All a Lie
The social pyramid is something that has haunted societies since their creation. The desire to narrow the base and the fear of the pyramid collapsing should not seem alien to members of a society. Often, the social pyramid shows to be the ugly side of a society. This scenario is seen when Capote describes Garden City in In True Blood. As he begins to describe the city, Capote makes the town seem like a small but generally pleasant town. Capote is able to excel in introducing this idea to us via the use of quotations. One can read paragraph after paragraph of compliments and feel slightly convinced. On the other hand, one can read a line of quotation and be greatly impacted. There's just something about those two marks that encompass the sentence or phrase in each side that makes your brain highlight said sentence or phrase.
While reading this description, Capote saying that the city has "much to support the defensive boastings of the citizenry: a well-run public library, a competent daily newspaper, green-lawned and shady squares here and there" (33) and so on makes me think that Garden City is a rather nice town. However, a stranger who I don't know anything about saying that you can "'Look all over the world, and you won't find friendlier people or fresher air or sweeter drinking water,'" really convinces me that Garden City is a great city. Never mind the lack of evidence behind his overall weak argument, this guy's word is what really counts. Perhaps it's the appeal to popularity by showing that other people agree which adds this magical characteristic to quotations but they still accomplish their purpose of convincing me.
Anyways, the idea of the positivity of Garden City is something that Capote greatly enforces during the beginning of his description. However, Capote, being as thorough as he is, still has to bring up the negatives of the town. Turns out that Garden City lies in the middle of something referred to as the Bible Belt. This leads to religion being a big factor in social status. This is bad in itself, but it turns ugly as Capote goes into depth. The bottom half of the pyramid consists of Catholics, Baptists, and Methodists while the upper half consists of Presbyterians and Episcopalians. Turns out that Catholics, Baptists, and Methodists account for eighty percent of the populations. This leads to a pretty wide pyramid. What do the Garden Citians have to say about this?
"'No, sir. Nothing like that here. All equal, regardless of wealth, color, or creed. Everything the way it ought to be in a democracy; that's us.'"(34)
You won't fool me this time quotation. I can see right through your semicolon. You're full of lies! Capote shows us the denial that the Garden Citians have towards this fairly apparent fact showing light on an interesting idea. The people of Garden City think that they live in a type of utopia, and when asked about something negative, they simply shrug it off. It's like if they favored ignorance over tackling and actual problem. Perhaps they will have the same reaction towards a certain murder. *wink* *wink*
While reading this description, Capote saying that the city has "much to support the defensive boastings of the citizenry: a well-run public library, a competent daily newspaper, green-lawned and shady squares here and there" (33) and so on makes me think that Garden City is a rather nice town. However, a stranger who I don't know anything about saying that you can "'Look all over the world, and you won't find friendlier people or fresher air or sweeter drinking water,'" really convinces me that Garden City is a great city. Never mind the lack of evidence behind his overall weak argument, this guy's word is what really counts. Perhaps it's the appeal to popularity by showing that other people agree which adds this magical characteristic to quotations but they still accomplish their purpose of convincing me.
Anyways, the idea of the positivity of Garden City is something that Capote greatly enforces during the beginning of his description. However, Capote, being as thorough as he is, still has to bring up the negatives of the town. Turns out that Garden City lies in the middle of something referred to as the Bible Belt. This leads to religion being a big factor in social status. This is bad in itself, but it turns ugly as Capote goes into depth. The bottom half of the pyramid consists of Catholics, Baptists, and Methodists while the upper half consists of Presbyterians and Episcopalians. Turns out that Catholics, Baptists, and Methodists account for eighty percent of the populations. This leads to a pretty wide pyramid. What do the Garden Citians have to say about this?
"'No, sir. Nothing like that here. All equal, regardless of wealth, color, or creed. Everything the way it ought to be in a democracy; that's us.'"(34)
You won't fool me this time quotation. I can see right through your semicolon. You're full of lies! Capote shows us the denial that the Garden Citians have towards this fairly apparent fact showing light on an interesting idea. The people of Garden City think that they live in a type of utopia, and when asked about something negative, they simply shrug it off. It's like if they favored ignorance over tackling and actual problem. Perhaps they will have the same reaction towards a certain murder. *wink* *wink*
Tuesday, November 13, 2012
Jack Thompson...
If there is a general trend that I see with fallacies it is that they are mostly caused by people that think they know more than they actually do. Whether it is due to lack of knowledge or just wrong knowledge in general, people that commit fallacies never have a complete understanding of the topic, and what could be a better example of this than a sixty-year-old man from Ohio trying to talk about video games. I don't really like Jack Thompson so I'm gonna really enjoy tearing him appart right in the fallacies.
First of all, everything that Thompson says pretty much has false comparison written all over it. Shooting in a video game and shooting in real life might be somewhat similar but that doesn't mean that they are the same. This comparison is actually pretty ridiculous. Thompson is basically comparing shooting in real life with moving a dot around on a screen and occasionally pressing buttons. One can argue that there is the psychological factor since you are shooting people in both scenarios but that is still the same type of fallacy. Those things on the screen might look like people but they aren't people. They are simply a bunch of pixels and polygons put together in order to look human. You can't possibly compare this to a living, breathing human made of flesh and bones. However, the fallacies don't stop there.
Jack Thompson also suffers from the use of bad examples. The one that really stood out to me was Doom. Thompson is trying to convince us that this twenty-year-old game in which your only controls are moving forwards, moving backwards, turning, and shooting is teaching young adults how to shoot at people when in the game you spend most of the time shooting at brown and pink demons.
Who needs military training when you have Doom?
These bad examples are what end up luring Thompson in for a third type of fallacy: the fallacy of the complex cause. There are many other reasons behind these kids' behaviors during the shootings. Maybe they learned how to use an actual gun when they were younger? Maybe these kids are insane? I don't know about you but even after playing some Call of Duty, I would still be scared out of my mind by simply thinking of pointing a gun at someone. Of course Jack Thompson, being someone that probably has never held a controller in his hand, wouldn't know this. With this I repeat my initial idea. If you want to avoid fallacies, try to have complete knowledge of what you are talking about.
First of all, everything that Thompson says pretty much has false comparison written all over it. Shooting in a video game and shooting in real life might be somewhat similar but that doesn't mean that they are the same. This comparison is actually pretty ridiculous. Thompson is basically comparing shooting in real life with moving a dot around on a screen and occasionally pressing buttons. One can argue that there is the psychological factor since you are shooting people in both scenarios but that is still the same type of fallacy. Those things on the screen might look like people but they aren't people. They are simply a bunch of pixels and polygons put together in order to look human. You can't possibly compare this to a living, breathing human made of flesh and bones. However, the fallacies don't stop there.
Jack Thompson also suffers from the use of bad examples. The one that really stood out to me was Doom. Thompson is trying to convince us that this twenty-year-old game in which your only controls are moving forwards, moving backwards, turning, and shooting is teaching young adults how to shoot at people when in the game you spend most of the time shooting at brown and pink demons.
These bad examples are what end up luring Thompson in for a third type of fallacy: the fallacy of the complex cause. There are many other reasons behind these kids' behaviors during the shootings. Maybe they learned how to use an actual gun when they were younger? Maybe these kids are insane? I don't know about you but even after playing some Call of Duty, I would still be scared out of my mind by simply thinking of pointing a gun at someone. Of course Jack Thompson, being someone that probably has never held a controller in his hand, wouldn't know this. With this I repeat my initial idea. If you want to avoid fallacies, try to have complete knowledge of what you are talking about.
Sunday, October 28, 2012
Johan Cruyff's Chivas Project
Winter 2011, Club Deportiva Guadalajara has been knocked out of the title run by small team Queretaro FC leading to a disappointing end to a great season. Guadalajara, otherwise known a Chivas, needed someone to change their mentality, someone to lead them to victories again. Who could be put in charge of such an important task? None other than the Barcelona and Netherlands legend: Johan Cruyff. However, in order to be effective, he would first have to show that he has the qualities necessary for a leader. Cruyff is able to do this via practical wisdom, a topic that is gone into depth in the seventh chapter of Heinrichs's Thank You For Arguing, in which he divided it into three parts.
First, one must show off one's experience. This was probably the easiest part for Cruyff. Having won twenty-four titles as a player and fourteen titles as a manager, Cruyff has a lot of material to show off. The mere idea of a player that came second behind Pele in the World Player of the Century poll would come all the way to Mexico to help a team in the highly criticized Mexican football league would have any Chivas fanatic ecstatic. The man is already a legend. When it comes to showing off experience, Cruyff is basically set. It's the next two parts that require Cuyff's effort.
The second and last parts of practical wisdom are bending the rules and appearing to take the middle course. These two come into play in a decision Cruyff made recently, and by recently I mean yesterday. One of the biggest factors that define Chivas is the fact that the team is composed of only Mexicans. It is one of those traditions that should never be broken. However, this has posed a small problem for Chivas. With a more limited player pool to choose from, Chivas has recently suffered in keeping the level of the squad high despite the departure of most of the players that formed a part of the great team that played during the mid 2000s and were even crowned champions in 2006. As a result, Chivas has produced poor results in the recent years. Cruyff's response to this proved to be very controversial. Cruyff proposed that Chivas allow non Mexicans to join. What?! Cruyff had just decided to go against the tradition of the team! It was later clarified that Cruyff meant that players born outside of Mexico but of Mexican heritage would be able to join. By doing this, Cruyff is able to successfully fulfill the last two requirements of practical wisdom.
By altering the rules of the club, Cruyff is able to bend the rules and show that he has the willpower and desire to change the results of the club. Then, by not going to extremes in the changes that he does, Cruyff appears to take the middle course. This is able to fill all the Chivas supporters with hope, and allows the fanatics to believe in Cruyff.
First, one must show off one's experience. This was probably the easiest part for Cruyff. Having won twenty-four titles as a player and fourteen titles as a manager, Cruyff has a lot of material to show off. The mere idea of a player that came second behind Pele in the World Player of the Century poll would come all the way to Mexico to help a team in the highly criticized Mexican football league would have any Chivas fanatic ecstatic. The man is already a legend. When it comes to showing off experience, Cruyff is basically set. It's the next two parts that require Cuyff's effort.
The second and last parts of practical wisdom are bending the rules and appearing to take the middle course. These two come into play in a decision Cruyff made recently, and by recently I mean yesterday. One of the biggest factors that define Chivas is the fact that the team is composed of only Mexicans. It is one of those traditions that should never be broken. However, this has posed a small problem for Chivas. With a more limited player pool to choose from, Chivas has recently suffered in keeping the level of the squad high despite the departure of most of the players that formed a part of the great team that played during the mid 2000s and were even crowned champions in 2006. As a result, Chivas has produced poor results in the recent years. Cruyff's response to this proved to be very controversial. Cruyff proposed that Chivas allow non Mexicans to join. What?! Cruyff had just decided to go against the tradition of the team! It was later clarified that Cruyff meant that players born outside of Mexico but of Mexican heritage would be able to join. By doing this, Cruyff is able to successfully fulfill the last two requirements of practical wisdom.
By altering the rules of the club, Cruyff is able to bend the rules and show that he has the willpower and desire to change the results of the club. Then, by not going to extremes in the changes that he does, Cruyff appears to take the middle course. This is able to fill all the Chivas supporters with hope, and allows the fanatics to believe in Cruyff.
Wednesday, October 24, 2012
Oh Pitbull
Logos, pathos and ethos. These are those words that you can hear endless times in English class yet still have no idea what they mean. The one that is probably the biggest victim of this is ethos. Your teacher describes that ethos is the use of character. Ok, what does that mean and how do you do that? In the sixth chapter of Thank You for Arguing, Heinrichs attempts to answer these questions as clearly as he can, and he is able to succesfully do this with some examples that are really easy to understand. However, I want to show a different approach to the art of ethos. While Heinrichs shows how you should take advantage of ethos, I want to show you the opposite of ethos. In this entry you will learn about how to mess up in the use ethos through everyone's favourite baldy: Pitbull.
I want you to ask yourself something: do you like Pitbull? I'm not asking you about your trivial musical taste. I'm asking you if you like Pitbull as a person. This response is an effect of ethos. Personally, I don't really like Pitbull as a person.
Something about Pitbull makes me think that he didn't do too hot in his English classes. Maybe it is strange rhymes or how he always sings about the same things. Another possible reason is that he has no understanding of how to use ethos.
Two tools that Heinrichs gave us for the use of ethos are bragging and appealing to the values of the audience. When it comes to bragging, Pitbull seems to be a master. The amount of bragging that occurs in his songs get to a point where it is ridiculus. However, overusing the tool of bragging doesn't make you good at ethos. In the contrary, at extreems it actually hinders the success in terms of ethos. You can't really like a character who won't shut up about his money and how "Tiger Woods times Jesse James equals Pitbull all night long." In the other hand, when it comes to appealing to the audience's values, Pitbull is at the other extreme. Lyrics-wise, Pibull is only able to appeal to the values of people like him. Now, I am not going to judge people like Pitbull, but the use of lines such as "I got it locked up like Lindsay Lohan" and "Fo sho, flood the club like New Orleans" is pretty worrisome. If you do not think that these are brilliant lyrics and feel that they are offensive, then you have just experienced how it is to be in the recieving end of bad ethos. These lines don't make you like Pitbull. In fact, now you wouldn't actually want to hear what Pitbull wants to say. Such is the importance of ethos in rhetoric. Ethos is basically the door, the first step in succesfully convincing.
I want you to ask yourself something: do you like Pitbull? I'm not asking you about your trivial musical taste. I'm asking you if you like Pitbull as a person. This response is an effect of ethos. Personally, I don't really like Pitbull as a person.
Something about Pitbull makes me think that he didn't do too hot in his English classes. Maybe it is strange rhymes or how he always sings about the same things. Another possible reason is that he has no understanding of how to use ethos.
Two tools that Heinrichs gave us for the use of ethos are bragging and appealing to the values of the audience. When it comes to bragging, Pitbull seems to be a master. The amount of bragging that occurs in his songs get to a point where it is ridiculus. However, overusing the tool of bragging doesn't make you good at ethos. In the contrary, at extreems it actually hinders the success in terms of ethos. You can't really like a character who won't shut up about his money and how "Tiger Woods times Jesse James equals Pitbull all night long." In the other hand, when it comes to appealing to the audience's values, Pitbull is at the other extreme. Lyrics-wise, Pibull is only able to appeal to the values of people like him. Now, I am not going to judge people like Pitbull, but the use of lines such as "I got it locked up like Lindsay Lohan" and "Fo sho, flood the club like New Orleans" is pretty worrisome. If you do not think that these are brilliant lyrics and feel that they are offensive, then you have just experienced how it is to be in the recieving end of bad ethos. These lines don't make you like Pitbull. In fact, now you wouldn't actually want to hear what Pitbull wants to say. Such is the importance of ethos in rhetoric. Ethos is basically the door, the first step in succesfully convincing.
Hopefully, you were now able to actually learn something from Pitbull:
how not to use ethos. Pitbull should feel proud. Or he could just not care.
He's probably too busy counting his money in order to care about what some high
school kid has to say about his rhetorical skills.
Monday, October 22, 2012
Gary Johnson 2012
Every four years there is an event that shakes the world. People around the world gather around to presence and event that never fails to be memorable. No, it is not the FIFA World Cup. No, it is not the Olympics either. Why would you even consider the Winter Olympics? What I'm referring to is the elections for the President of the United States.
It is only just that an event of this magnitude gets to get all the attention it can. Because of this, the two main candidates of this election get to be on not one, not two, but three debates that are broadcasted across the world. I had the pleasure to witness the third and final debate before the elections next month and am happy to say that nothing was accomplished in those eighty minutes were the future of America was supposed to create an impact on the people. This is mostly due to how the two candidates greatly limited themselves in their use of rhetoric.
If I had to do a quick review of the entire debate, it would probably look like this:
Mitt Romney: Right now, America is at its worst condition it has ever been in every aspect. These last four years have been the worst four years of America's history. Vote for me.
Barack Obama: You have contradicted yourself in every statement. A few weeks ago, you said things completely different from what you are trying to say right now. I will now proceed to continue doing the same things that I have been doing for the last four years AKA accomplishing nothing.
In all actuality, the use of rhetoric showed to be incredibly unbalanced. The amount of blame that was used by the two candidates was so great that I was basically drowning in the forensic statements. They couldn't go two sentences without referring to something that the other did in the past. This proves to be a problem since America is currently in dire need of change, in other words, deliberative ideas. However, this need cannot be fulfilled if the people that are supposed to do this are too busy talking about the past to even give a complete idea of the future.
To give the candidates credit, they were able to make good use of ethos during the debate. When Romney started to talk about how his dad owned a car company when talking about how he supports the small companies, I couldn't help but imagine him in a pink polo with a popped collar. Too bad that this little image was quickly shattered since it was the same Mitt Romney that said that Detroit should go bankrupt.
There were also some slight glimmers of pathos when Romney said that the economy was on the "road to Greece" and when Obama identified soldiers as "young men and women" when attacking the use of the military. However, this was not able to save the debate. It was generally repetitive and uninteresting making me want Gary Johnson to be elected president.
It is only just that an event of this magnitude gets to get all the attention it can. Because of this, the two main candidates of this election get to be on not one, not two, but three debates that are broadcasted across the world. I had the pleasure to witness the third and final debate before the elections next month and am happy to say that nothing was accomplished in those eighty minutes were the future of America was supposed to create an impact on the people. This is mostly due to how the two candidates greatly limited themselves in their use of rhetoric.
If I had to do a quick review of the entire debate, it would probably look like this:
Mitt Romney: Right now, America is at its worst condition it has ever been in every aspect. These last four years have been the worst four years of America's history. Vote for me.
Barack Obama: You have contradicted yourself in every statement. A few weeks ago, you said things completely different from what you are trying to say right now. I will now proceed to continue doing the same things that I have been doing for the last four years AKA accomplishing nothing.
In all actuality, the use of rhetoric showed to be incredibly unbalanced. The amount of blame that was used by the two candidates was so great that I was basically drowning in the forensic statements. They couldn't go two sentences without referring to something that the other did in the past. This proves to be a problem since America is currently in dire need of change, in other words, deliberative ideas. However, this need cannot be fulfilled if the people that are supposed to do this are too busy talking about the past to even give a complete idea of the future.
To give the candidates credit, they were able to make good use of ethos during the debate. When Romney started to talk about how his dad owned a car company when talking about how he supports the small companies, I couldn't help but imagine him in a pink polo with a popped collar. Too bad that this little image was quickly shattered since it was the same Mitt Romney that said that Detroit should go bankrupt.
There were also some slight glimmers of pathos when Romney said that the economy was on the "road to Greece" and when Obama identified soldiers as "young men and women" when attacking the use of the military. However, this was not able to save the debate. It was generally repetitive and uninteresting making me want Gary Johnson to be elected president.
Thursday, October 18, 2012
Rhetorical Soccer
It is very common to find a person who thinks that arguing and fighting are basically the same. This person is wrong. This is what Jay Heinrichs tries to clarify in the second chapter of his text, Thank You for Arguing. Before describing the many methods of arguments, Heinrichs clarifies what arguments truly are and how they are different from fighting.
Heinrichs defines argument as the attempt to make someone to want to do what you want. In the other hand, fighting is the attempt to force someone into doing what you want. "You fight to win; you argue to achieve agreement" (17). A way in which I like to represent this is in international conflicts. If you try to solve the conflict with a treaty, both parties are generally happy with the result. This would represent the argument. In the contrary, if you decide to go in by force and invade the other party in the conflict, you might have a victory, but you will be in the risk of the other party fight back in the form of a revolt or revolution due to the built up anger against your methods. This would represent fighting. Sadly, this representation is very literal and very large scale making it seem like an unrelatable, uninteresting lecture. Because of this, I decided to make a much "cooler" representation. If you carefully analyze it, soccer can actually be used as an example of this contrast.
Soccer and language! Many athletes go to play in order to get away from classes such as English. Who could have possibly made a connection between these two polar opposites? This guy (points at self with both thumbs).
The method of victory in soccer, much like in most other sports (not golf), is getting the most points. Because of this, every player aims for his team to score many goals. There are two different ways for one to approach this goal (pun intended). The first one is the tactical approach. Whether it's the passing moves of Barcelona or the waiting for the counter attack of Chelsea, tactic shows to have a huge impact on the result, and tactic, in its core, is a form of argument and rhetoric. When you think up a tactic, it is impossible to avoid taking into consideration the behavior of the opponents since they are a fairly important part of the game. If you pass the ball around, you are trying to make the opponent's players run after the ball and get tired, making it easier to score. If you defend and look for the counter attack, you are trying to make the opponent's players spread out and leave behind a lot of space for an attack, making it easier to score. In both scenarios, the tactics are trying to make the opponents do what the teams want them to do: Heinrichs's definition of argument.
If tactic represents the arguments in soccer, what represents the fights? This part is actually quite literal. In soccer, fights are fouling the opponent. By making absurd tackles, you can injure the opponent's players, stop plays, and possibly make it easier for your team. However, fouls don't give you goals or points. In fact, fouls get your players sent off. Fouls are an option that is also a big risk. This is a characteristic shared with fighting. It has the possibility of working, but it leaves you open and at risk.
If you like to watch soccer, it is pretty obvious that tactic is preferable over fouling. In the same way, for people that know rhetoric, it is pretty obvious that argument is preferable over fighting. This goes to show how universal rhetoric is even if you are not aware of it.
Heinrichs defines argument as the attempt to make someone to want to do what you want. In the other hand, fighting is the attempt to force someone into doing what you want. "You fight to win; you argue to achieve agreement" (17). A way in which I like to represent this is in international conflicts. If you try to solve the conflict with a treaty, both parties are generally happy with the result. This would represent the argument. In the contrary, if you decide to go in by force and invade the other party in the conflict, you might have a victory, but you will be in the risk of the other party fight back in the form of a revolt or revolution due to the built up anger against your methods. This would represent fighting. Sadly, this representation is very literal and very large scale making it seem like an unrelatable, uninteresting lecture. Because of this, I decided to make a much "cooler" representation. If you carefully analyze it, soccer can actually be used as an example of this contrast.
Soccer and language! Many athletes go to play in order to get away from classes such as English. Who could have possibly made a connection between these two polar opposites? This guy (points at self with both thumbs).
The method of victory in soccer, much like in most other sports (not golf), is getting the most points. Because of this, every player aims for his team to score many goals. There are two different ways for one to approach this goal (pun intended). The first one is the tactical approach. Whether it's the passing moves of Barcelona or the waiting for the counter attack of Chelsea, tactic shows to have a huge impact on the result, and tactic, in its core, is a form of argument and rhetoric. When you think up a tactic, it is impossible to avoid taking into consideration the behavior of the opponents since they are a fairly important part of the game. If you pass the ball around, you are trying to make the opponent's players run after the ball and get tired, making it easier to score. If you defend and look for the counter attack, you are trying to make the opponent's players spread out and leave behind a lot of space for an attack, making it easier to score. In both scenarios, the tactics are trying to make the opponents do what the teams want them to do: Heinrichs's definition of argument.
If tactic represents the arguments in soccer, what represents the fights? This part is actually quite literal. In soccer, fights are fouling the opponent. By making absurd tackles, you can injure the opponent's players, stop plays, and possibly make it easier for your team. However, fouls don't give you goals or points. In fact, fouls get your players sent off. Fouls are an option that is also a big risk. This is a characteristic shared with fighting. It has the possibility of working, but it leaves you open and at risk.
If you like to watch soccer, it is pretty obvious that tactic is preferable over fouling. In the same way, for people that know rhetoric, it is pretty obvious that argument is preferable over fighting. This goes to show how universal rhetoric is even if you are not aware of it.
Thursday, October 4, 2012
Escaping the Body
As the story continues, we are able to learn more about the person of interest: Orhan Pamuk. This is most evident in the chapter appropriately named "Me" that mostly deals with his characteristics when he was a child. One aspect that I really like about Pamuk's writing is how comfortable he is with his readers. Not every writer would be comfortable writing about he incidents when his "bibi" goes hard from threatening to eat things and his brother's comics. Pamuk is completely open when it comes to his feelings and experiences giving the sensation that he might be writing this book not only for his readers but for himself as well.
In order to introduce himself to the reader, Pamuk starts out with the fact that when his brother started going to school, he found himself most of the time alone. This is a nice tool that Pamuk uses in order to bring the reader closer to himself since, while finding away from his brother for the first time, this is probably the time period in which Pamuk discovered himself too.
The focus of Pamuk's description is that of his separation from the real world. Whether he is talking to his bear or imagining himself killing people while he killed flies, Pamuk never shows much interest in the real world. In fact, Pamuk actually shows a little bit of hate towards the real world and real people being "thankful most of them belonged to the streets outside" (25). One possible reason as to why Pamuk shows such dislike towards the outside world is his lacking in physical qualities, more specifically his height. Pamuk hints at this by describing how his younger self had a sort of obsession towards giants. He would find pleasure in killing flies due to them being so small that they gave him the feeling of being big. As Pamuk describes his complaints on the real world, they mostly involve him being unable to see because he was too small. In the stadium, Pamuk wouldn't be able to see the game because the people in front of him would stand up, and while exiting the stadium, he would feel imprisoned between the many legs of people that were also exiting.
This shines a new light on the meaning behind the other Orhan. Pamuk states that within all his daydreaming was the dream of being able to leave his world by switching with the other Orhan. Orhan sees his life like an imprisonment both physically and spiritually. Daydreams are his method of escape. The idea of another Orhan is not one of another person or another life that he longs to live.
In order to introduce himself to the reader, Pamuk starts out with the fact that when his brother started going to school, he found himself most of the time alone. This is a nice tool that Pamuk uses in order to bring the reader closer to himself since, while finding away from his brother for the first time, this is probably the time period in which Pamuk discovered himself too.
The focus of Pamuk's description is that of his separation from the real world. Whether he is talking to his bear or imagining himself killing people while he killed flies, Pamuk never shows much interest in the real world. In fact, Pamuk actually shows a little bit of hate towards the real world and real people being "thankful most of them belonged to the streets outside" (25). One possible reason as to why Pamuk shows such dislike towards the outside world is his lacking in physical qualities, more specifically his height. Pamuk hints at this by describing how his younger self had a sort of obsession towards giants. He would find pleasure in killing flies due to them being so small that they gave him the feeling of being big. As Pamuk describes his complaints on the real world, they mostly involve him being unable to see because he was too small. In the stadium, Pamuk wouldn't be able to see the game because the people in front of him would stand up, and while exiting the stadium, he would feel imprisoned between the many legs of people that were also exiting.
This shines a new light on the meaning behind the other Orhan. Pamuk states that within all his daydreaming was the dream of being able to leave his world by switching with the other Orhan. Orhan sees his life like an imprisonment both physically and spiritually. Daydreams are his method of escape. The idea of another Orhan is not one of another person or another life that he longs to live.
Tuesday, October 2, 2012
The Edgy, Teenage Punk Side of Language
Language is a topic that can and will always be a topic of debate. Whether it's about its concreteness or the application of new rules, a discussion over language is never a rare finding. Precisely this is what is found in the New York Times in a debate between Robert Lane Greene and Bryan A. Garner. The two writers find themselves defending their position towards language.
In this article, writers are divided into two different groups: descriptivists and prescriptivists. Descriptivists define language as something that is completely relative and grows along with its writers. In the other hand, prescriptivists see language as something that must be kept under a set of rules. Greene defends the descriptivists and Garner defends the prescriptivists.
Personally, I prefer the prescriptivists. I think that language should be something that contains many rules that help keep it under control. If language doesn't have any definite rules, then all writing would only be a jumble of words that are only able to encapsulate chaos. One way that I like looking at this topic is in a political way. If language was a community, the prescriptivists would be those in favor of a government, and the descriptivists would be those who support anarchy. If all members of a community only had to follow the rules that one believed in, there would be a lack of control that would probably lead the community to ruins.
Another way that I approach this topic is by personifying the two different groups. They way that I saw this was like if the descriptivists were teenagers that want to rebel against their prescriptivist parents. One aspect of this article that led me to reach this image was Garner's manipulation of logos in his debating. In comparison to Greene's piece, Garner's contains a lot more references to other texts and a lot more focused making it seem like an overall better written piece. When Greene has to resort to describing prescriptivists as "'language cranks,' 'oddballs,' 'declinists,' 'self-appointed language guardians,' and 'scolds' who habitually fly into 'spittle-flecked fury,'" I can't help but draw the parallel to a child who doesn't know how to continue the argument and decides to call names instead. Descriptivists might think that they have reached a time period where they will be the strongest, but they must realize that if prescriptivists have survived up to this point, it's for a reason.
In this article, writers are divided into two different groups: descriptivists and prescriptivists. Descriptivists define language as something that is completely relative and grows along with its writers. In the other hand, prescriptivists see language as something that must be kept under a set of rules. Greene defends the descriptivists and Garner defends the prescriptivists.
Personally, I prefer the prescriptivists. I think that language should be something that contains many rules that help keep it under control. If language doesn't have any definite rules, then all writing would only be a jumble of words that are only able to encapsulate chaos. One way that I like looking at this topic is in a political way. If language was a community, the prescriptivists would be those in favor of a government, and the descriptivists would be those who support anarchy. If all members of a community only had to follow the rules that one believed in, there would be a lack of control that would probably lead the community to ruins.
Another way that I approach this topic is by personifying the two different groups. They way that I saw this was like if the descriptivists were teenagers that want to rebel against their prescriptivist parents. One aspect of this article that led me to reach this image was Garner's manipulation of logos in his debating. In comparison to Greene's piece, Garner's contains a lot more references to other texts and a lot more focused making it seem like an overall better written piece. When Greene has to resort to describing prescriptivists as "'language cranks,' 'oddballs,' 'declinists,' 'self-appointed language guardians,' and 'scolds' who habitually fly into 'spittle-flecked fury,'" I can't help but draw the parallel to a child who doesn't know how to continue the argument and decides to call names instead. Descriptivists might think that they have reached a time period where they will be the strongest, but they must realize that if prescriptivists have survived up to this point, it's for a reason.
Wednesday, September 26, 2012
A Picture Can Tell a Thousand Words?
When one has lived in a city for most of his life, one probably has many memories associated with said city. Orhan Pamuk decides to put these memories on paper in Istanbul. However, this isn't just a text to be read and entertained by, but one that makes you look back and reflect on your own memories after putting it down. This has to be one of the aspects that I most enjoy about this book. Despite I have lived a very different life from that of Pamuk, I can easily relate to him through the emotions that he portrays. He also shows a unique and interesting view on memories that might affect your way of thinking, and isn't that one of the factors of a truly great book? Around the world you can find endless amounts of books that can entertain you, but only a more restricted amount will actually make you think.
One way in which Pamuk is able to do this is through the clear focus on emotions that the city evokes instead of its physical aspects. Pamuk doesn't begin the story with a description of the city. Instead, he starts it off with a very personal story about an other kid who looks like him. In addition, Pamuk tells the story in an ambiguous manner that leaves it open for many interpretations. I personally think that this other kid isn't an actual person since Pamuk never physically meets him. This "other Orhan" might literally be another Pamuk in the form of a past or alternate self. Another form of evidence of this possibility is that Pamuk sees the other him in a photograph which is basically a past version of the person in the image.
Personally, I love stories that are up for interpretation. A group of people could be reading the same physical text, but each person could be getting a different story. It gives the reader a sense of importance in this writer-reader relationship that is formed through the book. With all the praise that I've given this book, one could guess that I probably really like this book. I do. However, it is not perfect.
One aspect of Istanbul that I don't really like is the inclusion of the photographs. With the great job that Pamuk did with descriptions and details, I found the pictures to be really unnecessary. I actually found them to be kind of a hassle. They seem out of place and just break the flow. They can also easily distract you from the wonderful text that you are reading becoming an annoyance to the reader.
Nevertheless, this doesn't stop Istanbul from being a great book in my eyes since the problem is mostly aesthetic. The text is still brilliant, and the story is still very interesting. I will really enjoy reading Istanbul.
One way in which Pamuk is able to do this is through the clear focus on emotions that the city evokes instead of its physical aspects. Pamuk doesn't begin the story with a description of the city. Instead, he starts it off with a very personal story about an other kid who looks like him. In addition, Pamuk tells the story in an ambiguous manner that leaves it open for many interpretations. I personally think that this other kid isn't an actual person since Pamuk never physically meets him. This "other Orhan" might literally be another Pamuk in the form of a past or alternate self. Another form of evidence of this possibility is that Pamuk sees the other him in a photograph which is basically a past version of the person in the image.
Personally, I love stories that are up for interpretation. A group of people could be reading the same physical text, but each person could be getting a different story. It gives the reader a sense of importance in this writer-reader relationship that is formed through the book. With all the praise that I've given this book, one could guess that I probably really like this book. I do. However, it is not perfect.
One aspect of Istanbul that I don't really like is the inclusion of the photographs. With the great job that Pamuk did with descriptions and details, I found the pictures to be really unnecessary. I actually found them to be kind of a hassle. They seem out of place and just break the flow. They can also easily distract you from the wonderful text that you are reading becoming an annoyance to the reader.
Nevertheless, this doesn't stop Istanbul from being a great book in my eyes since the problem is mostly aesthetic. The text is still brilliant, and the story is still very interesting. I will really enjoy reading Istanbul.
Monday, September 24, 2012
Listen to the English Teacher
Today, September 24th, is national punctuation day, and what better way to celebrate than to take a look at the origins of said punctuation. In Survival of the Fittest, Nicholson Baker makes a detailed and somewhat humorous approach to the history of punctuation and its changing nature. As the title implies, Baker is viewing punctuation's history as a type of evolution with the allusion do Charles Darwin and his controversial statements.
Baker introduces the topic in a tangible manner by starting out with common terms such as the comma, space and capital letter. By doing this, Baker makes us put our image of punctuation in our head. This helps Baker's ideas of punctuation's change easier to understand since the reader simply has to compare the image that he already has in his head with the image that Baker is going to impose.
Baker begins the comparison in a simple manner by picking the most recent mark first: the semicolon. Since it is the newest, it has the least history. In fact, most of the history isn't even about the semicolon itself but previous symbols that looked similar. A relationship based mostly on appearance helps the reader by giving him an easy comparison while he develops the mentality necessary for what is to come.
Another tool used by Baker is comedy. By inserting small, humorous segments in his writing such as the emoticon rant and the describing of legal punctuation as fashionable, Baker becomes more likable to the reader, and by gaining the favour of his readers, Baker facilitates the understanding of his teachings. People are generally more interested in what people they like say, and by paying more attention, they learn better.
The third tool that Baker uses is examples. Baker never delivers a point without evidnece to proove it. Whether it is the use of the "that-comma" or the irritating simleys, Baker always has an example up his sleeve. This gives Baker great credibility, another quality that most people look for in a teacher.
With this complete arsenal, Baker is able to easily proceed to destroy any idea that you had over punctuation being something concrete making you doubt your own language. What are the actual standards of punctuation? Will these change in the future? What about the Oxford comma? Will there be someone who will calm all this chaos? Not likely. Baker has proven that this is a quite difficult task since "a full explanation would have to include everything -- Gustav Stickley, Henry Ford, Herbert Read, Gertrude Stein, Norbert Weiner, Harold Geneen, James Watson, Saint Strunk, and especially The New Yorker's Miss Elanor Gould"(15), and with that evidence, Baker's argument is going to be pretty tough to beat.
Baker introduces the topic in a tangible manner by starting out with common terms such as the comma, space and capital letter. By doing this, Baker makes us put our image of punctuation in our head. This helps Baker's ideas of punctuation's change easier to understand since the reader simply has to compare the image that he already has in his head with the image that Baker is going to impose.
Baker begins the comparison in a simple manner by picking the most recent mark first: the semicolon. Since it is the newest, it has the least history. In fact, most of the history isn't even about the semicolon itself but previous symbols that looked similar. A relationship based mostly on appearance helps the reader by giving him an easy comparison while he develops the mentality necessary for what is to come.
Another tool used by Baker is comedy. By inserting small, humorous segments in his writing such as the emoticon rant and the describing of legal punctuation as fashionable, Baker becomes more likable to the reader, and by gaining the favour of his readers, Baker facilitates the understanding of his teachings. People are generally more interested in what people they like say, and by paying more attention, they learn better.
The third tool that Baker uses is examples. Baker never delivers a point without evidnece to proove it. Whether it is the use of the "that-comma" or the irritating simleys, Baker always has an example up his sleeve. This gives Baker great credibility, another quality that most people look for in a teacher.
With this complete arsenal, Baker is able to easily proceed to destroy any idea that you had over punctuation being something concrete making you doubt your own language. What are the actual standards of punctuation? Will these change in the future? What about the Oxford comma? Will there be someone who will calm all this chaos? Not likely. Baker has proven that this is a quite difficult task since "a full explanation would have to include everything -- Gustav Stickley, Henry Ford, Herbert Read, Gertrude Stein, Norbert Weiner, Harold Geneen, James Watson, Saint Strunk, and especially The New Yorker's Miss Elanor Gould"(15), and with that evidence, Baker's argument is going to be pretty tough to beat.
Sunday, September 16, 2012
Cover Up
If there is an experience that all of us surely have shared is that of the internal conflict. We've all had that moment where we can't really determine whether we like something or not. We can't exactly label something as good or bad without some doubts. After being taken out of the intensive care unit, Brent fases the exact same problem. This happens during the telethon that is held in the hospital that he is staying in. Brent decides to stay in his room due to fear of being asked what happened, but his parents decided to go down anyways. Brent turns on the TV and sees his parents being interviewed and witnesses the words that would end up greatly troubling him.
The interview is pretty basic with the interviewer asking Bren't parents about their son's treatment and time spent in the hospital, but things start getting messy for Brent when the interviewer asks his parents how their son got burned. They answered by saying that he was burned in an accidental house fire a few months ago. This lie made Brent have the reaction of "Right. Okay. Okay. We can say that. We don't have to tell anyone what really happened. ... Why did they lie? I mean, I don't blame them, but id they have to? But I'm glad they didn't say the truth. I don't know." (121) Brent isn't sure whether his parent's lie was a good thing. This is due to the conflict between his old, naive nature and his new, mature nature. His naive nature is one that involves not wanting to discuss feelings and reasons behind actions. Brent used to preffer leaving questions unanswered. In the other hand, his new, mature nature shows to be a lot more approachable with a desire to let out the truth. Brent himself has become curious of his own feelings and has to open up in order to satisfy his new desires. This conflict over his parent's lie shows that these two natures are balance as none seems to have a dominance over Brent. The pull of the old nature towards the lie being good and the pull of the new nature towards the lie being bad are equal at the moment when Brent sees the interview. However, shortly afterwards, a slight upper hand is shown.
When a woman came to visit Brent in order to convince him to buy the products of a cosmetic company, Brent shows his choice of the two natures. The woman shows Brent a girl that had suffered from burns but now looks healthy thanks to the base that she is selling. It's supposed to raise self esteem through better appearance and seems pretty effective. However, Brent seems decided when he chooses to deny the offer. His reasoning is "I'm not going to cover anything up. This is me." (121) Brent has decided to stop running away from himself and has accepted his new, mature nature. He wants to know who he really is and has oppened up in order to achieve this. There will be no more lies and secrets in Brent's life leading to a possible closure between Brent and himself.
The interview is pretty basic with the interviewer asking Bren't parents about their son's treatment and time spent in the hospital, but things start getting messy for Brent when the interviewer asks his parents how their son got burned. They answered by saying that he was burned in an accidental house fire a few months ago. This lie made Brent have the reaction of "Right. Okay. Okay. We can say that. We don't have to tell anyone what really happened. ... Why did they lie? I mean, I don't blame them, but id they have to? But I'm glad they didn't say the truth. I don't know." (121) Brent isn't sure whether his parent's lie was a good thing. This is due to the conflict between his old, naive nature and his new, mature nature. His naive nature is one that involves not wanting to discuss feelings and reasons behind actions. Brent used to preffer leaving questions unanswered. In the other hand, his new, mature nature shows to be a lot more approachable with a desire to let out the truth. Brent himself has become curious of his own feelings and has to open up in order to satisfy his new desires. This conflict over his parent's lie shows that these two natures are balance as none seems to have a dominance over Brent. The pull of the old nature towards the lie being good and the pull of the new nature towards the lie being bad are equal at the moment when Brent sees the interview. However, shortly afterwards, a slight upper hand is shown.
When a woman came to visit Brent in order to convince him to buy the products of a cosmetic company, Brent shows his choice of the two natures. The woman shows Brent a girl that had suffered from burns but now looks healthy thanks to the base that she is selling. It's supposed to raise self esteem through better appearance and seems pretty effective. However, Brent seems decided when he chooses to deny the offer. His reasoning is "I'm not going to cover anything up. This is me." (121) Brent has decided to stop running away from himself and has accepted his new, mature nature. He wants to know who he really is and has oppened up in order to achieve this. There will be no more lies and secrets in Brent's life leading to a possible closure between Brent and himself.
Regret
One of the wonders of the mind is how it can wander off while the body stays put. This can end up growing as a necesity if there is a lack of liberty for the body. You can be stuck in a room, but your mind can go anywhere imaginable. This helps Brent during his stay at the hospital since there isn't that much to describe and think about in a hospital room. He runs out of ways to connect himself to his surroundings and decides to let his mind free. Brent chooses to do this in a way that is strictly towards the past. While in his hospital bed, Brent remember past events and reacts upon them in order to keep himself occupied. Brent remembers many things such as dreams and cruises, but he does something interesting after some time.
Three months after his accident, Brent finally brings the topic up again and shows his reaction to it. Brent has finally decided to delve into the memories of his attempted suicide and tried to make sense of it. This shows a drastic change from his previous approaches involving quick distractions or the act of completely ignoring.
As Brent recalls the accident, he shows the first signs of something else: regret. For the first time, Brent regrets the actions that he has made. Brent remembers when had the gas can and the matches as he sat on the toilet and thinks, "That's when I should've realized how stupid I was being. That's when I should've stopped it." (105) Brent has seen how naive he has been, and, in order to realize naiveness, one has to have matured. Brent has grown and is able to see his previous predicament with new eyes. He sees how things would have changed had he not set himself on fire and how it wouldn't have been terribly bad. Brent thinks of how if he hadn't done it and told Craig instead, "He would've gotten me help and made sure Mom and Dad weren't mad at me." (105) This is drastically different from his initial approach where he saw the expulsion as the end of the world and reacted accordingly.
Brent even thinks of ways he could've gone through with the burning in a different way. An alternative that he thinks of is burning part of himself as a test of whether he should burn his entire body or not. He would've realized that it was a terrible idea, still met all the people in the hospital, and gone back to school in just a week. This proves to be a much more mature approach compared to the emotional teenager who decided to burn himself whole without any second thoughts. These second thoughts would appear later though, as Brent now looks back on the event thinking, "I wish, I wish, I wish, I wish, I wish, I wish, I wish, I wish, I wish. I wish I'd stopped. But I didn't."(106) Runyon uses repetition to show just how strong Brent's regret is and how much he's grown to hate his previous, younger self.
Three months after his accident, Brent finally brings the topic up again and shows his reaction to it. Brent has finally decided to delve into the memories of his attempted suicide and tried to make sense of it. This shows a drastic change from his previous approaches involving quick distractions or the act of completely ignoring.
As Brent recalls the accident, he shows the first signs of something else: regret. For the first time, Brent regrets the actions that he has made. Brent remembers when had the gas can and the matches as he sat on the toilet and thinks, "That's when I should've realized how stupid I was being. That's when I should've stopped it." (105) Brent has seen how naive he has been, and, in order to realize naiveness, one has to have matured. Brent has grown and is able to see his previous predicament with new eyes. He sees how things would have changed had he not set himself on fire and how it wouldn't have been terribly bad. Brent thinks of how if he hadn't done it and told Craig instead, "He would've gotten me help and made sure Mom and Dad weren't mad at me." (105) This is drastically different from his initial approach where he saw the expulsion as the end of the world and reacted accordingly.
Brent even thinks of ways he could've gone through with the burning in a different way. An alternative that he thinks of is burning part of himself as a test of whether he should burn his entire body or not. He would've realized that it was a terrible idea, still met all the people in the hospital, and gone back to school in just a week. This proves to be a much more mature approach compared to the emotional teenager who decided to burn himself whole without any second thoughts. These second thoughts would appear later though, as Brent now looks back on the event thinking, "I wish, I wish, I wish, I wish, I wish, I wish, I wish, I wish, I wish. I wish I'd stopped. But I didn't."(106) Runyon uses repetition to show just how strong Brent's regret is and how much he's grown to hate his previous, younger self.
Monday, September 10, 2012
The Bath
As the story progresses, the idea of denial and avoidance becomes more apparent by the greater amount of examples that Runyon chooses to reveal. This provides the reader with an easier understanding of Brent's character by taking the conflict from something complex and abstract such as the mind and adapting it to a simpler and more relatable situation. In this post, I'm going to be focusing on the bath that Calvin makes Brent have.
When the scene starts, Brent is watching Cops without a care in the world when Calvin comes in to tell Brent that he has to go take a bath. Brent asks Calvin for permission to finish the episode of Cops before taking a bath, but Calvin, annoyed, insists. Now, this could be seen as a completely normal scene that is not special at all, but then there would be no reason for Runyon to include it in the book. In fact, every scene has its own importance and meaning. I'm just focusing on those scenes in which I find the most significance. In order to find the true meaning behind this, one has to stray from the literal. A typical reader could simply see a kid that doesn't want to bathe. I see a kid trying to distract himself from something necessary and important. Brent knows that he has to bathe for his own good but he would rather spend his time watching a tv show. This forms a parallel with his internal problems as he too wants to avoid these and uses distraction as a tool to do so. This would explain his strange behavior in the past as he is simply trying to distract himself from the conflict that he has to face at some point. What was once wearing all black and appearing to worship a card is now the simple task of watching a tv show. However, as the scene unfolds, Brent shows a change in character.
After talking with Calvin, Brent finally decides to take the bath but is immediately faced by another problem. The water stings. The conflict that Brent has to face won't be easy. Whether it is the emotional pain of his personal conflicts or the physical pain of his body's problems, Brent will have to suffer in order to surpass it. Because of this, Brent decides "No. I can't go in there--it hurts too much."(95) Now, if this was the Brent of the beginning of the story, this scene would've ended here. However, as mentioned before, Brent's character has changed. Brent seems to have matured during his stay in the hospital as he is convinced by Calvin to go through with the bath and take the pain like a man. This is not a smooth cruise as Brent crudely overuses the word "fuck." Nonetheless, he goes through with it and apologizes for his swearing. This gives the slight possibility of Brent doing the same with his more personal problems. Hopefully, Brent will learn from this and face Dr. Rubinstein (now known as Dr. Bitchenstein) in the same manner. Brent must learn that the pain he will face is only temporal and necessary for his own good.
When the scene starts, Brent is watching Cops without a care in the world when Calvin comes in to tell Brent that he has to go take a bath. Brent asks Calvin for permission to finish the episode of Cops before taking a bath, but Calvin, annoyed, insists. Now, this could be seen as a completely normal scene that is not special at all, but then there would be no reason for Runyon to include it in the book. In fact, every scene has its own importance and meaning. I'm just focusing on those scenes in which I find the most significance. In order to find the true meaning behind this, one has to stray from the literal. A typical reader could simply see a kid that doesn't want to bathe. I see a kid trying to distract himself from something necessary and important. Brent knows that he has to bathe for his own good but he would rather spend his time watching a tv show. This forms a parallel with his internal problems as he too wants to avoid these and uses distraction as a tool to do so. This would explain his strange behavior in the past as he is simply trying to distract himself from the conflict that he has to face at some point. What was once wearing all black and appearing to worship a card is now the simple task of watching a tv show. However, as the scene unfolds, Brent shows a change in character.
After talking with Calvin, Brent finally decides to take the bath but is immediately faced by another problem. The water stings. The conflict that Brent has to face won't be easy. Whether it is the emotional pain of his personal conflicts or the physical pain of his body's problems, Brent will have to suffer in order to surpass it. Because of this, Brent decides "No. I can't go in there--it hurts too much."(95) Now, if this was the Brent of the beginning of the story, this scene would've ended here. However, as mentioned before, Brent's character has changed. Brent seems to have matured during his stay in the hospital as he is convinced by Calvin to go through with the bath and take the pain like a man. This is not a smooth cruise as Brent crudely overuses the word "fuck." Nonetheless, he goes through with it and apologizes for his swearing. This gives the slight possibility of Brent doing the same with his more personal problems. Hopefully, Brent will learn from this and face Dr. Rubinstein (now known as Dr. Bitchenstein) in the same manner. Brent must learn that the pain he will face is only temporal and necessary for his own good.
Tuesday, September 4, 2012
Flashback
Brent has previously shown that he prefers to ignore his problems and simply look away. As the story progresses, this starts becoming more literal through what Brent reveals. It all starts as Brent is taken into the OR for a surgery that takes the skin from his stomach and hips and places it on his back. While Brent is in the waiting room, he starts showing great fear of the possibility of waking up in the middle of the surgery and that if it happens he is screwed.
As he tries to remind himself to not wake up during the surgery, Brent says that "I've got to remember not to wake up this time, not that I've ever woken up before in the middle of a surgery, but really, wouldn't that just be the worst?"(78-79) What Brent doesn't realize is that he has waken up in the middle of something in the past. However, it wasn't a surgery but something that is similarly scary for him.
Soon after the surgery, Brent recalls an event that happened to him when he was younger. Brent remembers the brown wallpaper of his room when he was younger and a nightmare that he once had. In this nightmare there were some olive green silhouettes against a brown background: one big, one medium-sized and one small. The big one had a voice similar to that of his father, and the medium-sized one had a voice like his mother's. The two silhouettes would talk and progressively get louder and angrier. At times the little one would try to interrupt but the other silhouettes would just continue talking. This shouting would get to a point where it would scare Brent and wake him up, but "the voices would still be there."(81) Brent could try and go to sleep to run away, but there was no way to avoid the fact that his parents were fighting. Perhaps Brent was paranoid about waking up in the middle of the surgery because he had previously woken up during scary times and had possibly been traumatized by that. This could be another possible reason behind Brent's strange behavior.
Another hint to a possible family problem is when Brent is preparing the surprise for his mother in her birthday. His dad helps him prepare it and thanks him by addressing him as DF which stands for designated father. Despite the mere mention of the title is strange, Brent's reaction gives away his true thoughts. Brent realizes that his father is probably going to tell Dr. Rubinstein and gets angry. Since Dr. Rubinstein represents the part of him that he has to face, this reaction is Brent realizing that his family is also part of his emotional problems. He gets angry because he doesn't want to confront this but at least he realizes what is the problem making a little process in the trial of overcoming his inner self.
As he tries to remind himself to not wake up during the surgery, Brent says that "I've got to remember not to wake up this time, not that I've ever woken up before in the middle of a surgery, but really, wouldn't that just be the worst?"(78-79) What Brent doesn't realize is that he has waken up in the middle of something in the past. However, it wasn't a surgery but something that is similarly scary for him.
Soon after the surgery, Brent recalls an event that happened to him when he was younger. Brent remembers the brown wallpaper of his room when he was younger and a nightmare that he once had. In this nightmare there were some olive green silhouettes against a brown background: one big, one medium-sized and one small. The big one had a voice similar to that of his father, and the medium-sized one had a voice like his mother's. The two silhouettes would talk and progressively get louder and angrier. At times the little one would try to interrupt but the other silhouettes would just continue talking. This shouting would get to a point where it would scare Brent and wake him up, but "the voices would still be there."(81) Brent could try and go to sleep to run away, but there was no way to avoid the fact that his parents were fighting. Perhaps Brent was paranoid about waking up in the middle of the surgery because he had previously woken up during scary times and had possibly been traumatized by that. This could be another possible reason behind Brent's strange behavior.
Another hint to a possible family problem is when Brent is preparing the surprise for his mother in her birthday. His dad helps him prepare it and thanks him by addressing him as DF which stands for designated father. Despite the mere mention of the title is strange, Brent's reaction gives away his true thoughts. Brent realizes that his father is probably going to tell Dr. Rubinstein and gets angry. Since Dr. Rubinstein represents the part of him that he has to face, this reaction is Brent realizing that his family is also part of his emotional problems. He gets angry because he doesn't want to confront this but at least he realizes what is the problem making a little process in the trial of overcoming his inner self.
Wednesday, August 29, 2012
In the Hospital
There are many tools that a writer can use to strengthen the bond between a character and the reader. One of these, the most effective in my opinion, is the manipulation of syntax. You can make someone read a continuous flow of details and ideas, but that does not guarantee that there's going to be a budge in the reader's mind. A reason why I think that the manipulation of syntax is the better way to go is because it makes the reader change the way he reads. This not only provides the reader with a clear turning point in the story but also changes how the reader thinks and feels. Evoking feelings shows to be easier and more effective by changing how the story is being said as opposed to what is being said. I think this is due to how the physical text is the only link that the world created by the author has with the real world. Altering the syntax is like changing the blinds of a house's window. You are still looking into the same house but your perspective and what you conclude of it is different. You'll be seeing things that you might not have been able to see before while still being in the same place.
Runyon makes great use of this tool to show a drastic change in his memoir The Burn Journals when Brent is taken into the hospital after attempting to kill himself through a fire. The reader quickly realizes that something is wrong as the writing suddenly changes. What was once page after page of talking has become short phrases in each page. These short phrases are the faint ideas that Brent has in the hospital right after his suicide attempt. By having one thought per page, the reader shares Brent's confusion, fear and desperation. One has to piece information together to make sense of what is happening in the same way that Brent has to forming a link between reader and character. As the story advances and Brent starts recovering, the text starts forming into larger paragraphs while still being far from what it used to be. By making a parallel between Brent and the syntax, the reader can share Brent's feeling of recovery as the text recovers as well. However, one must not forget an important part of the previous portion of the book: the tone.
The tone is what defined Brent's character. Despite this being outshone by Brent's feelings
presented in the form of syntax, his feelings start calming down and glimpses of his character start popping up again. This shows how feelings can tear down one's character, and one must rise from the ashes (literally in this case). The recovery takes its time but we are finally able to see Brent thinking about girls again. However, a darker side of Brent's character is revealed as well during the recovery. Brent seems to be quite competitive in very sinister ways to the point where it could be considered a complex. It is not typical for a person who was close to death to see recovery as a kind of race where other patients are the other competitors. In this way, Brent proves that he is not a typical person by forming a type of race with Maggie, another patient who was in an accident in the same day as him. His reaction to his mother telling him that she is too sick for surgery is "That's good. I'm winning."(30). When Maggie gets off the respirator, Brent feels like he is obliged to get off the respirator to not be left behind. However, this race gets cut short before we can learn more about Brent as Maggie dies while still in the hospital.
Runyon makes great use of this tool to show a drastic change in his memoir The Burn Journals when Brent is taken into the hospital after attempting to kill himself through a fire. The reader quickly realizes that something is wrong as the writing suddenly changes. What was once page after page of talking has become short phrases in each page. These short phrases are the faint ideas that Brent has in the hospital right after his suicide attempt. By having one thought per page, the reader shares Brent's confusion, fear and desperation. One has to piece information together to make sense of what is happening in the same way that Brent has to forming a link between reader and character. As the story advances and Brent starts recovering, the text starts forming into larger paragraphs while still being far from what it used to be. By making a parallel between Brent and the syntax, the reader can share Brent's feeling of recovery as the text recovers as well. However, one must not forget an important part of the previous portion of the book: the tone.
The tone is what defined Brent's character. Despite this being outshone by Brent's feelings
presented in the form of syntax, his feelings start calming down and glimpses of his character start popping up again. This shows how feelings can tear down one's character, and one must rise from the ashes (literally in this case). The recovery takes its time but we are finally able to see Brent thinking about girls again. However, a darker side of Brent's character is revealed as well during the recovery. Brent seems to be quite competitive in very sinister ways to the point where it could be considered a complex. It is not typical for a person who was close to death to see recovery as a kind of race where other patients are the other competitors. In this way, Brent proves that he is not a typical person by forming a type of race with Maggie, another patient who was in an accident in the same day as him. His reaction to his mother telling him that she is too sick for surgery is "That's good. I'm winning."(30). When Maggie gets off the respirator, Brent feels like he is obliged to get off the respirator to not be left behind. However, this race gets cut short before we can learn more about Brent as Maggie dies while still in the hospital.
Monday, August 27, 2012
Oh Middle School...
The mind is known for having a complete arsenal of ways in which to make one feel terrible. One of the most common ones is that of guilt. The mind has an ability to make one realize when one has really screwed up and pull one down based on this to the point where one just wishes that ground would open up and swallow you.
At first sight, it would seem that Brent from The Burn Journals is simply suffering from a rush of emotions, in this case guilt, that is common in teenagers his age. This seems logical as the story presents an action (the burning of matches and shirt in the locker) that greatly impacts and, in a way, haunts the main character. However, there seems to be a lot more to it that there seems.
In order to truly know what Brent's major conflict is, one must first understand the character. This proves to be difficult with the little information given at the beginning of the story since there are few facts. This forces us to look deeper into the writing and analyze the tone of Brent's narration. I found the Brent's tone to be immature and somewhat whiny, typical for teenagers his age. His tone actually reminded me of the tone of Holden in The Catcher in the Rye, a book that is mentioned in the text. However, I did find Brent a bit more childish than Holden as is shown when he says his interest in reading The Catcher in the Rye is "I like books about baseball"(6) and immediately switches to talking about girls. Despite this, there is more to Brent's character than simple immaturity.
Brent tells about how he used to be an incredible student but hated the people he had to be around with because of this. Now, Brent is a below average student who looks down on the life he used to live. This leaves a drastic change that certainly needs a reason. One idea that I have is that he lowered his grades in order to fit in. When Brent looks back at his gifted days, he complains about how he wasn't allowed to meet with many people, something he needed since he had just moved. This presents another possibility of a reason. Brent never goes into details into his life before moving possibly hiding something. Perhaps is could be something related to his father whom he mentions when Brent expects him to be somewhere but remembers that he is in a buisiness trip that he doesn't know the details of. This could be hiding a complicated relationship with his father or a particular event with his father that he is trying to block out of his mind. In anyway, there has to be a reason to his attempted suicides and love of wearing black and simply saying that he's in his awkward teen years is not enough.
At first sight, it would seem that Brent from The Burn Journals is simply suffering from a rush of emotions, in this case guilt, that is common in teenagers his age. This seems logical as the story presents an action (the burning of matches and shirt in the locker) that greatly impacts and, in a way, haunts the main character. However, there seems to be a lot more to it that there seems.
In order to truly know what Brent's major conflict is, one must first understand the character. This proves to be difficult with the little information given at the beginning of the story since there are few facts. This forces us to look deeper into the writing and analyze the tone of Brent's narration. I found the Brent's tone to be immature and somewhat whiny, typical for teenagers his age. His tone actually reminded me of the tone of Holden in The Catcher in the Rye, a book that is mentioned in the text. However, I did find Brent a bit more childish than Holden as is shown when he says his interest in reading The Catcher in the Rye is "I like books about baseball"(6) and immediately switches to talking about girls. Despite this, there is more to Brent's character than simple immaturity.
Brent tells about how he used to be an incredible student but hated the people he had to be around with because of this. Now, Brent is a below average student who looks down on the life he used to live. This leaves a drastic change that certainly needs a reason. One idea that I have is that he lowered his grades in order to fit in. When Brent looks back at his gifted days, he complains about how he wasn't allowed to meet with many people, something he needed since he had just moved. This presents another possibility of a reason. Brent never goes into details into his life before moving possibly hiding something. Perhaps is could be something related to his father whom he mentions when Brent expects him to be somewhere but remembers that he is in a buisiness trip that he doesn't know the details of. This could be hiding a complicated relationship with his father or a particular event with his father that he is trying to block out of his mind. In anyway, there has to be a reason to his attempted suicides and love of wearing black and simply saying that he's in his awkward teen years is not enough.
Tuesday, August 21, 2012
Augustine Confessions Vocabulary
Bier – a movable frame on which a coffin or a corpse is placed before a burial or cremation or on which it is carried to the grave
Tepid- Only slightly warm
Bayed- Shout loudly, typically to demand something
Bemoan- express discontent or sorrow over
something
Veneer- an attractive appearance that covers or
disguises someone or something’s true nature or feelings
Stultified- caused to lose enthusiasm and initiative
Repudiated- refused to accept or be associated
with
Surmises- suppositions that something may be
true, even though there is no evidence to confirm it
Contrition- the state of feeling remorseful and
penitent
Obtrude- become noticeable in an unwelcome or
intrusive way
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)