HL English: 2010

Friday, December 10, 2010

BLOG PORTFOLIO 2

24: Harming National Security?

For my wild card I decided to blog about the TV show 24 and its potential harm to national security. To give you background information 24 is a show that occurs in real time and every season revolves around a terrorist plot against the United States. The main character, Jack Bauer (played by Kiefer Sutherland), has 24 hours to stop a terrorist attack against his country. He is part of a fictional anti-terrorist agency called CTU (counter terrorist unit) who is in charge of all terrorist threats and report directly to the White House. 24 is one my favorite shows and one of the biggest hits in the U.S as well as other countries. In fact, at the conclusion of its eighth and final season, 24 became the longest-running espionage-themed television drama in history. In order to make the show such a hit the directors had to make everything very realistic and accurate. However, their fame comes at a price, they have been sued multiple times as many countries including the U.S have said that 24 harms their national security.

Firstly, 24 is speculated to harm anti-terrorist agencies as they give too much information about how to attack countries, it is told that their show is actually facilitating terrorist who want to attack the U.S. Furthermore, the show focuses for the most part on what Jack Bauer and CTU are doing to stop the terrorists and catch them alive. A lot of the methods that the show is portraying are too close to the reality. Examples of this are: not being able to hack a scrambled phone, using drones to monitor activity, creating fake profiles for undercover agents, as well as security protocols.

Secondly, the show has brought attention to an Anti-terrorist agency that tried to stay under the radar. NCTC (National Counterterrorism Center) which if often represented as the real-life CTU is incredibly similar to it. They are the head agency for the anti-terrorism in the U.S and they report directly to the pentagon and the White House. The NCTC (http://www.nctc.gov/about_us/about_nctc.html) website states: “By law, NCTC serves as the primary organization in the United States Government (USG) for integrating and analyzing all intelligence pertaining to counterterrorism”. Moreover, in 24, when CTU finds out about a possible terrorist attack they don’t say anything to the public. In fact, even when they are sure that a bomb is going to go off they don’t inform the public in order to not have ‘mass chaos and panic’. If the Jack Bauer and CTU are able to stop an attack without arising any suspicion they never tell the public that they were in harms way. This is a scary thought for a great deal of the public as 24 presents a great deal of its information accurately; how can the people in the U.S be sure that NCTC or the President for that matter aren't keeping vital information about the public’s safety from them? 24 may be a great show but it’s making the public paranoid and causing some trouble for anti-terrorist agencies.

Lastly, in order to stop terrorist attacks, Jack Bauer does whatever he deems necessary to stop them. The problem with the ‘ends justify the means’ approach is that throughout the show Jack Bauer uses torture to extract information from the terrorists. The show began a month after 9/11 and at that point Bush’s administration was in favor of torture. However, once Obama came into office 24 was sued and CTU was dismantled in the show as torture is no longer accepted by the government. However, in season 8 CTU came back and was told not to use torture as a method of information extraction. What’s surprising is that in the show torture still goes on, the only difference is that the government tries to make sure it can’t be traced back to the President. Furthermore, because torture had stopped for the most part, the President in 24 would give a terrorist full immunity in exchange for the bomb itself or crucial information about the hit. Of course, the public would never find out about any of these deals. One may question whether this actually goes on in ‘real life’.

There is no doubt that 24 is an amazing show and full of suspense. However, are they too accurate? By making such a believable show have they actually caused a problem for the President and Anti-terrorist agencies? Well, these are all great questions but for the most part the answers will be baseless and simply opinions. It makes me wonder, out of everything that happens in terms of terrorism, how much does the public actually know about?

NCTC LOGO

CTU LOGO

Wednesday, December 8, 2010

The Road: Movie vs. Book

The Road by McCarthy was a suspenseful and interesting read. As we know Hollywood love’s to make Bestsellers into movies, and more times than not they ruin the story. In this case, the choice to make this movie may have not been such a bad decision. There is no doubt that the book is a lot more interesting and relates to you on a personal level, but in terms of being able to state the story just like in the book, the movie did a decent job. Whilst reading the book the little boy breaks your heart as you can see his conflict and his confusion in this new world. Being able to write such a character is a hard job, but being able to find an 11-year-old actor that can portray the little boy in the book is even harder. Fortunately, for the movie, they found an outstanding actor that conveyed a very believable portrayal of the kid in the book. People have to take in account that you CANNOT compare a movie and a book. A book can be read for days, while a movie only lasts 2 hours. A novel can be a lot more descriptive on vital scenes as they have no worry about the page length; where as a movie must know exactly how much time they can spend on a scene before shooting it. Viggo Mortensen, the actor who plays the boy’s father, stated, “But Kodi was unflappable, as usual. I don’t even think of him as a kid. There are things he’s done on this movie that I’ve never seen anybody do before. And there are many adult actors who never have a moment like he has every day. I can’t say I’ve ever worked with a better partner.” One of the main reasons why the film did so well was because of the amazingly talented actors that portrayed the characters.

Saturday, November 27, 2010

How Would YOU Feel?

In James Wood’s How Fiction Works he is greatly in favor of an author exercising the “free indirect style.” His perception of how an author should write a book is in correlation with McCarthy’s approach in The Road. The entire book is written in third person; in fact, it never even mentions the names of the main characters. McCarthy never tells us what emotion the dialogues are spoken in or the emotion that it is conveyed in. One must take into account the setting and structure of the scene to make an educated guess about how the characters are feeling. The Road leaves a great deal of room for the reader to use their imagination and further build the characters for themselves.

It is true that in any book numerous readers will see the characters differently; however, with McCarthy’s approach the readers could have such distinctive thoughts about the character that they are unrecognizable to one another. Saumya said in her blog, “Throughout the book as a reader I never felt fully connected to the Man or Boy because I was not always completely sure of what they were feeling, a lot of the assumptions had to be made by me from what I think they would have reacted. McCarthy even during conversations always kept it simple, and never added a “happily said” , etc. I think he wanted to leave lots of room for the reader to decide.” (http://saumya22.wordpress.com/)

I completely agree with what she says, whilst reading the book I was never sure of how the characters felt. Moreover, I think this style of writing is what made The Road such a delightful read. By leaving so much room for interpretation up to the reader, one can decided for themselves how they would’ve felt under The Man and The boys situation. This book touches the reader at a personal level; it employs them to put themselves in The Man’s shoes and imagine their reaction under the same circumstances.

As long as you don’t get carried away with “Free indirect style” it can be used to great advantage and force the reader to develop the characters themselves.

Sunday, November 21, 2010

Practice Commentary

At this point in the book Offred has begun to meet the commander during late nights and discuss subjects she is meant to have no knowledge of. For a woman who has no rights and no voice, the ability to share stories and express one’s self is amazing. As Offred starts getting more comfortable with the Commander, Atwood exercises diction and the vivid descriptions of love to express the fact that woman live an awful life with no power whatsoever.

By the way that Atwood decides to convey the story, one can see that women fall in love to soon realize that they become powerless. As women fall in love, they start to undoubtedly trust their partner and as a result of that they are left vulnerable to pain and disappointment. In the beginning she says, ‘I don’t want to be telling this story.’ This portrays the fact that Offred was ashamed of how love took her over, yet, at the same time that feeling was so wonderful that she feels obliged to tell the story. Atwood writes, “If it never happened to you, not ever, you would be like a mutant, a creature from outer space.” She’s articulating that love is a feeling that everyone must feel, in fact, if you haven’t you aren’t human. Yet, at the same time this passage shows that women get hurt and lose even more power if they fall in love. She expresses these two opinions and doesn’t feel that it’s the least bit contradictory? Perhaps, it’s because women were doomed to such a life, where they must feel a feeling that will seem great only to find out it’s the reason of their downfall.

Atwood describes love in such a manner, that one understands exactly why the feeling fools everyone. She says, “… this downward motion so lovely, like flying, and yet at the same time so dire, so extreme, so unlikely.” Falling in love is a feeling that every woman wants to experience. It is unfortunate, as the feeling itself is extraordinary, but the betrayal that comes with it is excruciating. Woman are cursed in this sense for the feeling that will bring them the most joy is also the one that will bring them the most pain. Atwood ends the passage by saying, “What if he doesn’t love me?” As a man begins to toy with a woman’s feelings she starts to question his loyalty. If that happens, then the woman has already lost all her power in society or on the man. For if he is lying to her then she will drown from an agonizing pain, slowly making her ‘mad’. And if he is not lying to her, once you have had a suspicion it never completely goes away. One will keep on asking themselves questions until one goes mad and can no longer tell whether the questions being posed are sane or not. Either way, women lose their power and rationality.

It is sad really, that women are forced to encounter a feeling that will most certainly lead to their downfall. Atwood states the fact that if you haven’t felt love then you are not human. So, women linger for the day when they will find love, and once they do get it they realize they couldn’t have been happier. Until one day when everything is taken from them and all they have left to do is blame themselves. This society is accustomed to bringing women down.

Wednesday, November 17, 2010

Enough With The Whining!

There’s no doubt that women used to be unfairly treated, but that time is behind us. This article, The Beauty Myth, is absolutely useless and it presents no valid points. Women got what they wanted, but this article suggests that what they got was a lie. It is an undeniable fact that both men and woman will always face problems, but that isn’t a sign of discrimination.

In the article it says, “The affluent, educated, liberated women of the First World, who can enjoy freedoms unavailable to any women before, do not feel as free as they want to.” This article agrees with the fact that women are fully liberated and that they can now pursue the highest of educations. Yet, Naomi Wolf, the author, doesn’t find it the least bit contradictory to present this statement. The matter of the fact is that, it is contradictory. Wolf goes on to say, “American women told researchers that they would rather lose ten to fifteen pounds than achieve any other goal.” It is sad? Yes, of course it is, but it is most definitely not a result of discrimination towards women. In fact, men face the same problem, there’s no doubt in my mind that a man would rather look strong and impressive than anything else. Shall we now write an article about how men are being discriminated? No, of course not, that would preposterous just like this article’s baseless accusations.

This article makes a joke out of the struggle that women have faced previously. However, if the accusation of discrimination would’ve been brought in a book like The Handmaid’s Tale then it is absolutely justified. The women in the book had absolutely no rights; handmaid’s weren’t even taught how read or write. They couldn’t express their opinions or thoughts at any given time. Accusing men of not letting women be free because of looks is a far-fetched and ridiculous claim. We live in a society that has made its people accustomed to the idea of looking ‘good.’ This pressure is not only felt by women, but by men as well. However, we learn to live with it because we know that complaining isn’t going to change the public’s state of mind. No matter how much you protest people will always judge you by your looks and you will only be called ‘pretty’ by the society if you wear nice clothes, have nice hair, and an appealing body.

There’s no use in complaining, the world functions this way, women are meant to be slim and pretty; and men are meant to be strong and handsome. Women should be grateful and proud of how far they have gotten, and in my opinion, they are now equal to men. Men were wrong in the past to discriminate against women, but that world no longer exists. Accept the way society functions, and live a happy life knowing that women have achieved a great deal of things in the past 30 to 40 years.

Tuesday, November 16, 2010

Society Says: You're Never Too Young To Worry About Looks

Klaus Barbie, and other dolls I’d like to see is a very interesting article because it shows how a small little toy can manipulate the minds of so many young and older girls. Everyone wants to look beautiful, be a princess, and a bride just like Barbie! This hype over Barbie causes a lot of misjudging, kids will see a girl and decide whether she is likable or not by the way she looks; the more like Barbie the better. Personalities don’t matter anymore it’s all about looks.

It is sad that kids let themselves be influenced by the Barbie and as a result their self-esteem goes down significantly. Susan Gilman, the author of Klaus Barbie, and other dolls I’d like to see, states, “Somewhere, somehow, a message stepped into our consciousness telling us that we weren’t good enough to be a bride or a model or a queen or anything because we weren’t pretty enough. And this translated into not smart enough or likable enough, either. The thought that kids start feeling bad about themselves at an early age because of a ‘pretty’ doll is quite depressing. The problem is that small girls are vulnerable and when you’re exposed to a society that strives its people to look ‘gorgeous’ it will obviously have a negative affect. Moreover, because all girls want to be like Barbie they are destroying their own personality and following that of a plastic toy. It is the parent’s job to tell their kids that they are beautiful just the way they are and if somebody wants to judge them because they don’t look like Barbie, then they are better off without that person.

Reading this article does show me that boys have a lot less pressure when it comes to this subject. Boys don’t really have a doll that they must look like. Sure, they have toys that everyone thinks are cool like G.I Joe, but we are not judged if we don’t look like him. In fact, people might think it’s weird if we dress like them.

This idea of Barbie and looks taking over the lives of little girls does make me look at The Handmaid’s Tale in a new fashion. In the book all handmaid’s have to wear a red dress; every group of people have their strict dress code and everybody must abide by those dress codes. This method does take away the entire jealousy factor and the tempting need to look like somebody you are not. However, I’m not sure I can say this is system is any better than the Barbie society because as far as I know women LOVE shopping and dressing up. So, by taking that away you might also be taking away a trait that is often found in women. The answer to which system is better can only be answered by a women.

We live in a society that urges its people to look beautiful and be slim, but by doing so they damage the growing up of young girls. Girls become more obsessed with how they look and don’t give themselves time to decide which looks they like, they just follow what Barbie is doing. The other option is to follow the system that is used in The Handmaid’s Tale. In my opinion, that is a horrible system and should never be allowed to see the light of day. We just have to accept that we live in a society that pressurizes kids into looks at an early age. This also becomes a test of personality, which girls will fall into the deep black hole and become just like everybody else and which one’s will be able discover who they are without the influence of Barbie.

Thank You For This Assignment

Taking Back and The handmaid’s tale is an awakening that shows us how fortunate we are to be able to express ourselves. Although I am man and these pieces of writing are based on woman, it’s not hard to imagine how horrifying life would be without the ability to express our feelings and thoughts.

One can just imagine the thousands of things we take for granted that some people desperately want. For example, I am writing this blog because it was assigned to me in English class. The people in The Handmaid’s Tale and Bell Hooks fantasize about being able to express themselves through a blog, where you simply just write what comes to your mind.

Bell Hooks states, “To make yourself hear if you were a child was to invite punishment.” A world like that would be nothing short of a disaster. Everybody should have the right to express themselves no matter what the situation. Moreover, if you are forbidden to talk then you cannot possibly develop your own possibility because all you hear is everybody else’s thoughts. In fact, in The Handmaid’s Tale the situation is even more out of hand, if you can believe that. The women living in the republic of Gilead are not even thought how to read or write. The women living in Gilead might hate this situation, but they have grown accustomed to it. If I were living in a world like that and had the knowledge of what happened in the 21^st century I would most certainly lose the will to live. Living in a world where your skin color and gender determine your privileges seem truly outrageous. The worst thing about all this is perhaps the fact that as women you see other people having the privileges you so desperately want.

After reading Talking Back and while writing my script I realized how lucky I am to be able to just write my opinions on a blog. I’m very sorry for what happened to Bell Hooks when she was a kid, but in a way her writing is very helpful to everyone living in the 21^st century. It helps us in being more appreciative about our freedom of speech. Dystopian novels represent the most atrocious lifestyles; however by showing us how bad life can be are they actually helping us value what we have? Is that their purpose?

Monday, November 15, 2010

Men Remain Superior...

Blame it on feminism shows that woman’s rights are better than that in The Handmaid’s tale. Unfortunately, this improvement isn’t big enough, women still suffer today. They are given jobs, but they are not the same post as the men or their salary is undersized. Although women are being given more freedom, one big similarity between the women at the close of the 20^th century and the one’s in The Handmaids’s Tale stands out. The fact that women are to exercise their bodies to have kids is still present in the 20^th century.

Women of the 20^th century are given more liberty, but by no means are they treated as equals to men. There is a clear progress from the women in The Handmaid’s Tale; however, women are not being given the rights and life they were promised. The arguments of people against woman’s rights say that women are being given the same jobs as men, and they are presented with the same opportunities. The matter of the fact is they are not. The article says, “If American women are so equal, why do they represent two-thirds of all poor adults? Why are more than 80% of full time working making less than $20,000 a year, nearby double the male rate?” These are valid questions for women to ask. They were told that they are seen a equals to men, but this article which is full of data, declares otherwise.

Another argument to show that the improvement we have observed is not enough by any stretch of the imagination is that women are still pressured to have kids. In The Handmaid’s Tale, women’s sole purpose is to have a child, and although in the 20^th century this may be articulated differently the fact remains the same. In the book it says, “I almost gasp: he’s said a forbidden word. Sterile.”This shows that the women only have one purpose which takes priority over everything else, have children. In this case, it is so extreme that the people of The Republic of Gilead believe so strongly in the ‘purpose’ of women that they eradicated any explanation that would keep you from having a child. Moreover, women are then accustomed to feel the same way; they pray and hope that they will have a child in order to fulfill their duties. When Offred goes to the doctor’s office it says, “Yes, I say. It’s true, and I don’t ask why, because I know. Give me children, or else I die. There’s more than one meaning to it.” If Offred doesn’t give birth to a healthy baby then she is most certainly going to die. In Blame it on Feminism, these extreme and harsh measures don’t exist, but the belief that a woman’s purpose is to have a child is still at hand. A woman in the article states, “My biological clock is ticking so loud it keeps me awake at night.” I don’t believe that the women truly feel that way, I think it’s more that they been familiarized with the fact that they have to have kids before they reach a certain age.

It is clear that women and men aren’t treated equally, but at least there has been an improvement. Women are accustomed to do certain things like, being a nurse, giving birth, and taking care of the family because that is what society tells them to do. In a world where men and women are one, women would not receive any pressure to do anything; they will have ‘absolute freedom’. Just like men.

Tuesday, October 5, 2010

Shine Lived Through The Unthinkable

http://akashenglish.blogspot.com/2010/09/shine-lived-through-unthinkable.html

The reason I chose this blog was because it affected me emotionally. This was the only blog in which I truly spoke from my heart and shared my feelings. I found it interesting to read a very deep and moving article.

Sorry there is no Objective truth…

http://akashenglish.blogspot.com/2010/09/sorry-there-is-no-objective-truth.html

This article was really interesting because it presented questions that no one can answer. The whole blog is based on figuring out the answer to ‘what is truth?’

Anything Can Be Criticized

http://akashenglish.blogspot.com/2010/09/anything-can-be-criticized.html

This is one of my favorite topics; it shows that no matter how hard you work somebody is always going to criticize you.

We must take better care of the English Language

http://akashenglish.blogspot.com/2010/09/we-must-take-better-care-of-english.html

Everybody from this generation can relate to this blog. We spend so much time chatting with shortcuts for words that we end up ruining the language. It’s interesting because if we decide to not be lazy then this problem can vanish.

The Escape From Reality

http://akashenglish.blogspot.com/2010/09/escape-from-reality.html

This blog allows us to escape from our everyday life. It seems like an interesting topic since, it allows us comparison between our lives and the one’s of the people in the book.

What is a Human?

http://akashenglish.blogspot.com/2010/08/what-is-human.html

This is the ultimate question, ‘what makes a human?’ Every time you answer a question, more questions arise. This happens because there is no right or wrong answer, and that always makes an interesting blog

Thursday, September 30, 2010

Shine Lived Through The Unthinkable

This article was very deep and therefore, I found it quite hard to read. It’s really heartbreaking to even think that people have had lives like Shin’s. This article made me think of two things. The first is that if you’ve seen too many bad things then you slowly loose your emotions and change as a person. The second was very interesting because it kept me thinking about the same question, would a life like this be my dystopia?

From the moment you start reading the article you can tell that this is going to be a tragic and depressing story. When he explains that his mother and brother were brought out and killed, I suddenly got an image of my mom and sister being up there. As hard as it is to write that is what I pictured and even though it was completely fictional I felt extremely sad for a split second. I found it very peculiar that if I can react that way based on an imagination, then how can Shin not cry when it actually happened. Shin said, “My father was weeping, but I didn’t cry. I had no love for her. Even today I hate her for what I had to go through because of her.” This is imperative to the story because not one of us can relate to it. One must be crazy to hate one’s own mother, we are built in such a way that in one way or another we do love our parents. Moreover, when he said I didn’t cry, that was one of the most shocking sentences I read. Witnessing somebody getting hanged and shot in front of must be life scaring especially, if it’s your mother and brother! Shin was surrounded by so much pain and violence that I believe he lost all his emotions. People say that if you’ve been in a war or been in prison for too long it changes you. If that’s true then surely living under Shin’s conditions must completely destroy your emotions.

While reading about Camp Number 14 you feel as though you are being a told a scary and fictional story. The reason one feels this way is because the living conditions are so dreadful that it’s simply too hard to believe. This is definitely going to be a dystopia for a lot of people. I for one would have never been able to survive if I was treated like Shine. In the article Shine says, “I got to visit my mother only once or twice a year. I never saw my whole family together. I don’t think I saw my brother more than a few times.” Even the thought of going through what he just told us frightens me; at 11 I couldn’t spend more than 2 weeks without my mom. The thing that saddens me the most is when he said that he has never seen his entire family together, the definition of a family is parents and children living together in a household. According to that Shin has never seen a family and therefore, never experienced the joy that comes with it. Towards the end of the article it says, “He has recurring nightmare about being back in Camp No. 14. Awake, he wonders what happened to his father…” Again, these passages are so strong, particularly if you decide to put yourself in his shoes. One can only imagine how horrible a place must be in order to get recurring nightmares years after you’ve left it. It’s amazing that he’s able to live his life and at the same time ask himself, ‘what happened to my father?’

It’s unthinkable that somebody has actually experienced these things and lived under such frightful conditions. Reading this article made me feel miserable, and the worst part is that it never seems to end. If I would have been in Shine’s position I would have killed myself long ago because the truth is, there is no way death could be worse than the life he was living.

Tuesday, September 28, 2010

Sorry, There Is No Objective Truth...

Despite having been utterly killed and humiliated in class, I believe I have a pretty good idea of what makes an objective truth. It’s nothing! In my opinion there is no such thing as an objective truth, although we are not many students in HL not one of us was told that our truth was completely objective. No matter how well thought out something may be, everything can arise questions (the cover of Entourage is proof of that).

All it takes is one person to make an objective truth subjective. It doesn’t matter who that person is, but if they disagree with your truth and have some kind of evidence then by definition it is no longer an objective truth. There is no way to know whether anything in the world is an objective truth. We may have accepted something as people, a universal truth, but it doesn’t mean that it is an objective truth. A universal truth simply signifies the best opinion or answer that someone has presented. For example, for thousands of years it was a universal truth that the earth was flat; however, then somebody came up with a more ‘provable’ idea and that became the new universal truth. The fact is that both of them were universal truths but as shown in the example in doesn’t mean that it is an objective truth. For all we know in 300 years or so mankind will find out that the world is in fact a different shape. We cannot come up with an objective truth because there aren’t any. However, that doesn’t mean that all ideas are equally subjective.

A universal truth is formed when the majority of the people on earth agree with a statement. As seen in class, no one had an objective truth, but some people did have better statements than others. I unfortunately was on the wrong end. Moreover, the amount of evidence you have while presenting your argument determines how subjective your truth is. Some people spend their entire life on research in order to prove that their statement works; their goal is to get as many as they can to agree with their statement. This may be confusing, but because there is no objective truth the world functions and competition exists. Even though there is no objective truth, the goal is to make your statement as objective as it can be. Once, you have achieved that then people live by the notion that your statements is as close to the truth as they can get. So, because there is no objective truth, you should always try and prove somebody else’s theory wrong in the hope that somebody will start looking for answers. If enough people question a truth then eventually somebody will come up with a better one.

Objectives truths don’t exist, and it’s for the better. It allows improvement in ideas and propels people to question everything.

Sunday, September 26, 2010

Anything Can Be Criticized

Writing may be one of the hardest things to do. Especially, because every piece of writing can always be criticized which makes it hard to come up with a speech that everyone will like. In class we were given four speeches; our job was to rewrite each one of them. Two were rewritten while following George Orwell’s rules and the other two were rewritten while doing the opposite.

The first two required us to shorten down the speeches and take away any unnecessary words. It was surprising to see that these famous people used sentences and words that were completely useless. The only reasons they used them was to make the speech sound smart and long. The funny part is that most of the time it works. There was a staggering amount of unneeded information in each speech, as each speech must’ve lasted 5-10 minutes when in fact I could have been completed in 2-3 minutes. Even in that time frame they would have covered the same amount of information, but it would have contained less unnecessary sentences and words.

The other speeches were right to the point and well written, but our job was to pack them with more words and sentences. It was actually quite mean, as we were taking a perfectly good speeches and ruining them by adding more words. But that is why writing is so hard; no matter what you do people always have criticism. For instance, in these two speeches people would’ve accused them of not having enough strong vocabulary words. Their belief is that by adding more strong vocabulary words it would make the speech sound ‘better’ and ‘smarter’. The fact is that once we did add all those strong vocabulary words, it made the speeches confusing and took away all their essence. Even though this exercise made the speeches’ bad it was much easier than the other one. Moreover, there are a million ways to say the same thing and a synonym can be found for almost every single word. This makes our job much easier we just added a bunch of synonyms and made singular sentences into numerous one’s. We made the speech have fine vocabulary words, but we took away its meaning.

Every piece of writing no matter whom it’s from has flaws. In order to become better speech writers or writers in general for that matter, we have to use the method that portrays our writing the best. If the goal is be in front of an audience and be there for 1 hour then it may be understandable to fill your paper with multiple sentences and words who’s goal is to reveal the same opinion. However, when we are just trying to get a point across, then it may be more suitable to just get straight to it and skip unnecessary sentences. Critics will always be there to bother you, but if you want to be a great author then they shouldn’t matter; you should just do what’s best for you. In fact, you are your best critic.

Wednesday, September 22, 2010

We must take better care of the English Language

George Orwell portrays great points to show us what is going wrong with the English Language. When he is explaining what’s wrong with it, as a student you feel responsible. It’s an interesting thought because we are never told by teachers to use longer and stronger words, but we deem it necessary to do so anyways. Our misuse of words, phrases, and the lack of expressing our thoughts are slowly killing the English language.

Firstly, students and kids misuse words all the time; whether it’s using words we don’t know or shortening their spelling. Nowadays, kids learn how to operate a computer by the age of 7 or 8. Although kids are portrayed as energetic and hyper when it comes to typing we are the complete opposite. When I’m chatting online with someone I tend to shorten words like: thx, 2morw, u (you), y (why), r (are), ttyl (talk to you later), and many more. Orwell says, “Written English, is full of bad habits which spread by imitation and which can be avoided, if one is willing to take the necessary trouble.” He’s completely right, these bad habits can be avoided; all we have to do is type a couple of extra letters and slowly we’ll get rid of the habit. Furthermore, students make another huge mistake; they use words they don’t know. While constructing sentences we have this urge to make them seem smarter, and so we right-click on our mouse and replace a word with one we do not truly understand. This makes the sentence confusing and it also does the opposite of what we want; it doesn’t sound smart, it sounds like you don’t know what you are talking about. Moreover, we also use very drastic words when they are not appropriate. Orwell says that words like phenomenon, liquidate, and utilize are, “Used to dress up simple statements.” These words shouldn’t fit in our daily vocabulary. For example, you can’t say, “I got an F! The problems I am going to have at home will be of gigantic proportions,” because anything that is of gigantic proportions doesn’t happen frequently and it represents something that would affect a great deal of people. Orwell also establishes another problem with these words, “ The words freedom, patriotic, realistic, have each of them several different meanings which cannot be reconciled with one another.” He’s right, we cannot say stuff like, “I love my country; I’m a patriot!” The fact is we don’t know what makes a patriot; one cannot just claim to love one’s country and become a patriot.

Secondly, we constantly use phrases just because they seem to flow well or because it is common. The fact is that by doing so, we get rid of what makes us unique writers. Orwell states, “… there is a huge dump of worn-out metaphors which have lost all evocative power and are merely used because they save people the trouble of inventing phrases for themselves.” Whenever we hear something that sounds good and flows well we tend to use it in our writing. What we forget is that we didn’t come up with those words, we just found a place to put them in. By using other people’s words and sentences we are making a collage instead of inventing unique sentences and ideas. Additionally, metaphors are also constantly misused. Much like phrases when one writes an essay one uses pre-made metaphors instead of creating them. In order to show us how metaphors are being misused Orwell even provides us with an example, “THE HAMMER AND THE ANVIL, now always used with the implication that the anvil gets the worst of it. In real life it is always the anvil that breaks the hammer.” These mistakes would stop occurring if one took the time to comprehend what one is writing.

Lastly, often times when we get to a controversial subject we tend to express our thoughts in different ways than what we actually believe. In order to sound more ‘politically correct’ we modify our thoughts and present our arguments with a bunch of lies attached to it. We feel as though by saying something to direct like, “I believe that it was good thing when the U.S dropped the nuke on Hiroshima,” we are bad people. The fact is, we are not. We are simply expressing our opinions. Orwell says, “But if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought.” If we compromise with our language too much we may end up believing our own lie. Modifying our language takes away our opinions. Orwell agrees with this fact when he says, “Things like the continuance of British rule in India, the Russian purges and deportations, the dropping of then atom bombs on Japan, can indeed be defended, but only by arguments which are too brutal for most people to face, and which do not square with the professed aims of political parties.” One shouldn’t disregard their opinion simply because it may sound ‘politically incorrect’; this is why it’s called an opinion, it’s what you believe and no one should have an affect on that.

The English language faces many problems, but they are all extinguishable. If we work on our writing and understand what we are writing then these mistakes should be gone automatically. It is only logical that when one writes a paper one is meant to know the meaning of what they are writing. While writing, we have to stop using shortcuts and start being original. If this happens then the English language will get its elegance back!

Monday, September 20, 2010

The Escape From Reality

The article lays out a great deal of topics, but what we desire to know is what makes us so connected to a novel? Throughout the reading we are told what components are necessary in order for a novel to be created. When one gets attached to a novel one cannot do anything but think about it all the time. Reading allows us to break-free from our lives and read about somebody else’s whether it’s better or worse than ours. As mentioned in the reading it allows us to feel a bond with somebody else, whether they are fictional or not is irrelevant.

While reading a novel we allow our minds to wander and think of what life may be like in the novel; it presents us with the opportunity to step into somebody else’s shoes and see the world from an alternate perspective. The article says, “… it exists not as words written in books but as images with feelings attached.” When we remember what a book was about we remember how it made us feel and how we imagined the characters in it. It most certainly is not a memory of specific words or lines. It’s staggering how much we can feel attached to a book, it can make us feel levels of happiness which is indescribable in words. A novel is so powerful that it can put you in any possible mood depending on the last line you read.

Take the Harry Potter books for example; I was glued to the pages of the book and absolutely distraught when the book ended. I could only imagine what it would be like to live in a place in Hogwarts and even when I wasn’t reading the book all I could do was create images of how the characters and places looked. A good author like J.K. Rowling knows exactly how to grasp the reader’s attention and drive them into a world from which no one would desire to leave. It says, “… It can be enjoyable and correctly read just to see what happens next and to enjoy the company of the author, the narrator, and the characters.” This is what the best authors in the world do! They exercise their talent to create a novel, which becomes your friend. You pick it up because you want to know what’s happening to the characters and if something bad were to happen you feel sorrow. You feel these emotions because you have a bond with the characters in the book. Moreover, another thing that drives people to be attached to fictional characters is their similarity to themselves. The article says, “It enables a reader to relax with a novel as with another person, and also to feel as though the novelist might have something to say in relevance to the reader’s own common life.” When we read about a character we always find similarities between him/her and us. Whether it’s being annoyed with your sister, having no parents, or being frustrated with school. We relate to that character and look for what the author is trying to tell us. What’s so amazing about this is that every character is different but every one of them will have something in common with you, no matter how big or small.

Another very interesting opinion is that every section and chapter is unique which is why one is supposed to read them differently. Each chapter has a different goal from the other. For example, in a paragraph where an author is describing a house, the readers must read slowly and imagine what that house would look like. By reading slowly you pay attention to the small details and it makes you’re image of the house more precise. However, if one were to read a chase scene then it’s meant to be read fast and impatiently. By doing so, we feel the same excitement and suspense as the characters who are in the book. This brings up another great point; it shows the correlation between the reader and the author. Surely, when a good author writes a chase scene he or she does not ponder upon every word and come up with a sentence after 1 hour. When writing a chase scene the author is just as exited as the reader, which is why it is probably written fast and full of suspense. Of course the author will go back and re-phrase his sentences.

Connections, thrills, and imaginations are the reasons for why we get so attached to books. A book can take us away from our boring lives and take us to any place we covet. There are so many varieties of great authors that you can choose exactly where you want to go. Whether it’s in a scary jungle with zombies, or up in heaven, or in a magical place. The options are limitless! Thank goodness for books, our escape to wherever we want.

Monday, August 30, 2010

What is a Human?

What is a Human? After reading We and Forests: The Shadow of Civilization it is clear that the answer lies in between both of them. We argues that animals are more human than machines whereas Forests: The Shadow of Civilization says that animals are not humans. Then what are we? Is there an answer? The best we can do is analyze the information that we are given and based on that come up with our own answer. Machines and animals don’t have curiosity, individuality, or greed; these are the key components to show that a human is in between a machine and an animal.

All people living in this era are curious about something. Why is it then that the People in We and in the forest aren’t? ‘Humans’ are obsessed with the unknown whether it’s overhearing a conversation, talking about space, or gossip in general. We detest being kept in the dark; it is an incurable need for us to want to know everything. The people in We however, don’t feel the same way. The majority of the people just live their life with a colossal bag of unanswered questions. Every year they vote for the benefactor not knowing why. They just do so because that is what society told them. They don’t question why they need to respect the table of hours, why they need pink coupons, or why they need to do what they are told. They just simply let it slide and tell themselves that’s what everyone does. This fact alone already rules them out as human’s; they don’t have the need to know all. Furthermore, animals are not better. They just live in the forest and don’t ask questions. It isn’t until the thunder struck that they realized that there was a sky. If a human were stuck in the jungle he/she would have analyzed everything until it made sense. Even if it hadn’t made sense by analyzing everything they would have noticed an odd emptiness above them. The animals run around the jungle all day, never once questioning whether there is somewhere else they could be; they just simply accept it. ‘Humans’ wouldn’t! They would do whatever they deem necessary in order to get the answers they seek.

Secondly, individuality is a key component in being human. We don’t like to be the same as somebody else we search within ourselves to find the things that make us unique. We like to do our own things because if don’t we would be boring and identical. Machines aren’t familiar with the word: unique. They do as they are told regardless of what they want. They all live the same way with the same rules. As a human that would bother you, we want to do things our own way. Our ego’s tell us we are better than everyone else. Machines don’t care about what others think, they just do as they are told. Animals are the same. They all run all day trying to do the same thing: find food. They don’t care whether somebody is faster than them or better looking. They simply do exactly what every other animal does. As humans we endeavor to find other ways, in the search of being unique and different.

Lastly, all humans are covetous. We always want something new, we are never fully satisfied with what we are given. All people have this dire need to want more. Whether we can afford what we desire does not matter, what matters is to recognize that we have this greediness within us. Every time something new comes out we want it simply because it’s new, not getting it would mean we are using something old and unwanted. Machines on the other hand, don’t have that emotion; they don’t feel the need to have more. They accept what they are given and don’t ask for more. They live in a society in which you do not ask for anything, you only have what you are given. If you’re brought up like this then you never feel the emotion to constantly want something that is beyond your grasp. Once again, animals are alike. They never feel the need to have something more. Animals could have broken trees and ran until their very last breath trying to uncover something unknown. Yet, they decide to stay put and accept what they are given. Animals and machines lack an emotion that people have, is that not enough to rule them out as Humans?

These are essential things that each person has, yet for some reason they are absent in animals and machines. Neither of them is human because they are extremes, one is at the end of mankind and the other is at the beginning of it. If the world really does re-create itself and this idea of a cycle exists then we are taking the two most extreme beings. Animal is how we started and Machines may be how we end. The part where we were humans was when we evolved from animals and hadn’t reached a point where we would be rid of our emotions. The answer lies somewhere in between. When exactly is impossible to tell, but we can see that animals and machines are very similar, is it possible that how we started and ended is almost the same? In the beginning we lacked knowledge and technology, but as time progressed did we end up having too much of it?

Tuesday, August 24, 2010

Society And Its People

These two articles bring a great deal of realization to people. It shows that we are not unique, we do only what society tells us. No matter who you are, you become a victim of society whether it is by loosing your identity in a democracy or giving up your life in theocratic society.

In the Questions of Conquest article, the Incas surrendered themselves to death due to the inability to live without a leader. According to the author, these people lacked the ability to make their own decisions. These people are a creation of their society; they do not have the means to think for themselves. They had the opportunity to make a decision but they can’t exercise that privilege due to lack of individuality. Furthermore, in a theocratic society the people are collective; they agree with each other and more or less do the same things. By living this way they loose what makes them unique, and it restricts their ability to be individual thinkers.

Are we products of our society? Freedom and democracy endeavors to answer this question. From the moment we are born we are thought how to behave. As a baby we are told to smile and as we get older we are thought numerous other “necessary” manners such as ‘please’ and ‘thank you.’ However, the most interesting aspect of this article is the fact that kids are not the only ones that are manipulated by our society; adults are too. The author of this essay believes that we take ready-made goals and adopt them as our own. He’s absolutely right whilst making this statement. As a high school student, I seek the best possible education for the sole purpose that I am told it will get me the most prestigious job offers and a secure future. If I were to think of education in a different manner, my thoughts would be regarded as unusual. Why? Because we as students have grown accustomed to the fact that education only promises us a brighter future! We end up doing whatever we deem necessary in order to accomplish these goals and forget that they are not truly our own.

These articles expose the connection between the modern, western, and the historical Inca society. From these articles we learn that each society has its flaws in guiding its people. The characteristics are displayed in great detail and therefore, allow us to see observe our society from a different angle.

Wednesday, August 18, 2010

Zamyatin is a remarkably talented writer with a very simple yet amazing approach. The sentences flow well together, the scenes are incredibly descriptive, and at no point in the story do you feel lost or confused. He has perfected in making the audience understand his style and methods. At all times you are glued to the book and left to utter amazement.

When one reads On language they can instantly see the correlation between that and We. Furthermore, Zamyatin says that in order for an actor to be great he or she must stick to what they do best. By reading the book you can see that the author constantly describes everything in great detail. Zamyatin’s ability to give us a vivid image of what he’s talking about is exceptional. By exercising that talent he adds on to the quality of his book.

In order to be a great author one must believe in what he or she is writing. Zamyatin says, “If you are writing about provincial life, you must yourself at that moment live the life of the province.” This reflects greatly onto his book. Even though the people in We are from the future the author describes everything so well that you feel as though he has experienced it. Moreover, He has dedicated himself to the fact that while writing the book he lives in the same time period as the people in it. In fact, he is so dedicated that he goes on to say, “True writers reincarnate themselves into their heroes.”

Lastly, the reason We is such an amazing book is because Zamyatin knows how to make the reader understand his words. Zamyatin believes that, “The prime source and creator of language is the people.” Because his way of writing is so natural he is able to use neologisms and still have the reader know exactly what he means. The reason he is able to perfect this is because he believes that a good neologism can only be created if, “It always seems to you that you have heard of seen the word before, it sounds so natural.” I’m sure I must’ve come across a neologism while reading We but because it was so natural I kept on reading feeling as though I understood the word perfectly.

All in all, his dedication to the reader is what makes him such a magnificent writer. His ability to experiment with a language, create new words, and describe specific scenes is just remarkable. The methods he talks about in On language are the reason for which We is such an exceptional read.

Quote