Initially, I wasn't planning on writing a post about The Things They Carried because I thought it would just end up sounding like everyone else's. However, the more I read this incredible book, the more I feel like not posting something about it denies it credit that it so completely deserves. And so, while attempting to ignore the shock I am experiencing as a result of realizing that I actually agree with the sentiments of nearly everybody in this class, I say this: I love this book.
The Things They Carried is absolutely fantastic, and Tim O'Brien is just. . .brilliant. He's so open with his explanation of the war in Vietnam. Nothing he writes seems out of place or unnecessary. It's all wonderful and captivating. I especially have the greatest appreciation possible for his vivid descriptions and evident voice. The writing in this book is beautiful, and each page I turn increases the effect that O'Brien is having on me.
Another aspect that I really enjoy about The Things They Carried is how the book is laid out as a series of short stories about O'Brien's life and experiences during the time of the war. I think it's really cool how each section could easily be read separately and be effective and is still totally interconnected with the others when presented as a complete book.
In a word, this book is powerful. I never expected that I could be this impressed or infatuated with a book about war, but I think that's because my idea of what war is has been formed with little investigation. Through reading this book, I'm learning about a subject I've never really explored before, developing new opinions, changing as a reader and writer, and, perhaps most importantly, feeling as though my time is being well-spent. Because of these things, I am very grateful to have been introduced to this book and writer Tim O'Brien. Thanks, Mr. Kunkle!
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Response to "Lampert Smith: Times have changed for student protesters"
I really agree with the idea that Susan Lampert Smith presented in this article from the Wisconsin State Journal. Things today are so much different that they were forty years ago, but this piece of writing worked to prove that point by offering a completely new example by means of discussing protests. I thought that it was a really original way of addressing how people's attitudes and motivation have changed throughout the years while also referencing a really serious and important event (the Dow protest) and its repercussions.
One concept in particular that I really liked that Smith brought up was that of "semi-apathy." I feel like this term, coined by Campus Anti-war Network member Zach Heise, was a great way of explaining how people think as opposed to how they used to think: people show compassion so long as it is convenient for them to do so.
At first it seemed ridiculous to me that students had actually told Heise that they would have participated more in protest had it not been for the fact that their favorite TV show was on the same night as meetings, but after thinking more about it, the idea didn't seem that far-fetched. In fact, I would definitely expect similar--if not worse--excuses out of students in high school for their lack of participation (whether that be in protest or just in extracurricular activities).
Honestly, this really disappoints me. I mean, it's great that we're all not about to dismantle "the establishment", to take town "the man", or to try to overthrow our government, but how sad is it that, as Heise put it, "everyone is able to be cocooned in their own little worlds" and, in turn, is on the edge of being unable to care less about anyone's life and problems but his/her own? Or, perhaps worse yet (as presented by Buhle) that even if he/she does care, it won't matter? That's terrible!
I wish people today had more of the passion and faith in what they see as meaningful issues that people 40 years ago had. It feels to me like we're in a time when our rules and ways of communicating should allow to get more and more things done, yet we seem to be accomplishing less and less. Times have changed and people have changed, but at this point these changes do not seem to have been for the better when it comes to attaining goals. I think that until people realize that and try to make something new--something better--out of the the things we have today that we did not in the '60s, Heise is very right in saying that "the idea of a massive social movement that can rise up and change our government doesn't seem possible."
One concept in particular that I really liked that Smith brought up was that of "semi-apathy." I feel like this term, coined by Campus Anti-war Network member Zach Heise, was a great way of explaining how people think as opposed to how they used to think: people show compassion so long as it is convenient for them to do so.
At first it seemed ridiculous to me that students had actually told Heise that they would have participated more in protest had it not been for the fact that their favorite TV show was on the same night as meetings, but after thinking more about it, the idea didn't seem that far-fetched. In fact, I would definitely expect similar--if not worse--excuses out of students in high school for their lack of participation (whether that be in protest or just in extracurricular activities).
Honestly, this really disappoints me. I mean, it's great that we're all not about to dismantle "the establishment", to take town "the man", or to try to overthrow our government, but how sad is it that, as Heise put it, "everyone is able to be cocooned in their own little worlds" and, in turn, is on the edge of being unable to care less about anyone's life and problems but his/her own? Or, perhaps worse yet (as presented by Buhle) that even if he/she does care, it won't matter? That's terrible!
I wish people today had more of the passion and faith in what they see as meaningful issues that people 40 years ago had. It feels to me like we're in a time when our rules and ways of communicating should allow to get more and more things done, yet we seem to be accomplishing less and less. Times have changed and people have changed, but at this point these changes do not seem to have been for the better when it comes to attaining goals. I think that until people realize that and try to make something new--something better--out of the the things we have today that we did not in the '60s, Heise is very right in saying that "the idea of a massive social movement that can rise up and change our government doesn't seem possible."
Sunday, October 18, 2009
Weekly Blog #7: Response to "See Baby Discriminate"
I was so excited to read this article. In fact, I even had a copy of my own that Mrs. D.W. had copied for me upon request already in my folder. I hadn't had a chance to read it due to all the homework I'd had, but then it became homework! What a lucky break for me. . .
Any who. . .the reason why I'd planned on reading this was because I knew it would remind me of my AP Psychology class. I think it's obvious that I find it really fascinating to try to figure out how people (of any age group) think, so this was a really nice fit for me to read. However, despite my enjoyment of reading about something psychology-related, there are a few things I actually didn't like about reading and discussing this piece of writing, and I feel that I need to express them here.
First of all, I think that people--both those who conducted/are conducting these experiments and those who have read and discussed this piece of writing--are, perhaps by no fault of their own, putting way too much weight on the word "discriminate." I know that in this day and age, we can all agree that the word has been built a bad reputation full of negative connotations. Yet in it's mildest, most classic use, discrimination simply means to make a distinction--to notice differences.
There is no denying that people of different races look. . .well. . .different. Everyone looks different. I don't look like Raven Symoné; she doesn't look like Lin Manuel Miranda; he doesn't look Sandra Oh; she doesn't look like Barack Obama; and he certainly doesn't look like either of the Olsen twins. (That assortment of people would seem a lot less random if you were in my dream last night.) I don't think that it's the least bit fair to imply that children are racist simply because they are able to notice these facts. It's inevitable that babies will stare longer at a picture of someone who does not have the same color skin as the people in their families (the people they've been around all their lives). In fewer words, it's inevitable that babies will, in fact, discriminate. In that point in their lives, however, that's not a bad thing.
Also, I did not agree with the fact that those conducting the experiments only thought to study African-American and Caucasian babies. I think that a valid point can't be made if entire groups of people are left out of an evaluation like this one.
Somethings I did find really interesting about this article had a lot to do with parental impact on how children view race. I thought that the idea of there being a window for teaching kids how to think about race was definitely worth considering. It seems very likely that this is true, and I believe that it would be beneficial to parents to be aware of this when raising their children. I think that parents need also to be conscious of the idea that they are saying things to their children even when they say nothing at all. In other words, parents need to be aware that even though they think that doing things like not talking about race or brushing off the subject make it seem less serious, doing these things still has an effect on how children think about race. Put in even simpler terms, parents (and all adults) need to be aware that they are the ones crafting the meaning of "discrimination" for their kids.
Any who. . .the reason why I'd planned on reading this was because I knew it would remind me of my AP Psychology class. I think it's obvious that I find it really fascinating to try to figure out how people (of any age group) think, so this was a really nice fit for me to read. However, despite my enjoyment of reading about something psychology-related, there are a few things I actually didn't like about reading and discussing this piece of writing, and I feel that I need to express them here.
First of all, I think that people--both those who conducted/are conducting these experiments and those who have read and discussed this piece of writing--are, perhaps by no fault of their own, putting way too much weight on the word "discriminate." I know that in this day and age, we can all agree that the word has been built a bad reputation full of negative connotations. Yet in it's mildest, most classic use, discrimination simply means to make a distinction--to notice differences.
There is no denying that people of different races look. . .well. . .different. Everyone looks different. I don't look like Raven Symoné; she doesn't look like Lin Manuel Miranda; he doesn't look Sandra Oh; she doesn't look like Barack Obama; and he certainly doesn't look like either of the Olsen twins. (That assortment of people would seem a lot less random if you were in my dream last night.) I don't think that it's the least bit fair to imply that children are racist simply because they are able to notice these facts. It's inevitable that babies will stare longer at a picture of someone who does not have the same color skin as the people in their families (the people they've been around all their lives). In fewer words, it's inevitable that babies will, in fact, discriminate. In that point in their lives, however, that's not a bad thing.
Also, I did not agree with the fact that those conducting the experiments only thought to study African-American and Caucasian babies. I think that a valid point can't be made if entire groups of people are left out of an evaluation like this one.
Somethings I did find really interesting about this article had a lot to do with parental impact on how children view race. I thought that the idea of there being a window for teaching kids how to think about race was definitely worth considering. It seems very likely that this is true, and I believe that it would be beneficial to parents to be aware of this when raising their children. I think that parents need also to be conscious of the idea that they are saying things to their children even when they say nothing at all. In other words, parents need to be aware that even though they think that doing things like not talking about race or brushing off the subject make it seem less serious, doing these things still has an effect on how children think about race. Put in even simpler terms, parents (and all adults) need to be aware that they are the ones crafting the meaning of "discrimination" for their kids.
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Weekly Blog #6: Response to "Letters from Birmingham Jail"
I absolutely loved this piece.
This letter written by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. during his time spent in Birmingham Jail was by far my favorite of the writings we've read from the course-reader thus far in this class. Just by reading the first couple of paragraphs I was able to conclude that I would enjoy the rest of the writing.
Normally, when we are assigned a reading for this course, I start the piece, take a break, resume reading, go to bed, get up the next morning and finish the reading. With this work, however, I could not stop reading. It was not just the subject matter either (the thing I assumed would be most likely to keep me interested in the piece). He made so many great points, used such masterful vocabulary, referenced so many relevant people and situations, and made such consummate use of rhetorical strategies while remaining respectful and level-headed throughout the letter that I just couldn't put it down.
It's hard for me to pick out specific portions of Dr. King's work as my favorite parts because I was blown away by the piece as a whole. Primarily, I thought that it was great that King was obviously very conscious of his audience when writing this letter. He was not only thoroughly courteous (it's easy to get caught up and flustered in an argument as serious at this one!) but also sure to make allusions to religious scenarios and values when writing to these bishops, reverends, and rabbi.
Still, I also really enjoyed that his writing could easily have been relatable for anyone around during that time (and even for people today). King included an insanely powerful collection of pathos and ethos in his letter without sounding like he expected pity and apology--he made it clear that his main goal was change.
He also made great use of definition. Through offering explanations like those he provided about just and unjust laws ("A just law is a man-made code that squares with moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with moral law."), King was able to strengthen his argument about why the non-violent breaking of some laws was not only defensible but necessary.
Overall, I don't think that I could possibly say enough positive things about this piece of writing. I can't believe that someone was able to write this while in jail! That's amazing to me. Everything from his fantastic metaphors/analogies to his undeniably great references (that were expertly blended into his writing, might I add) was brilliant and really succeeded in making persuasive points. I feel like I should have some criticism for this piece, but I simply can't think of any. It was wonderful.
This letter written by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. during his time spent in Birmingham Jail was by far my favorite of the writings we've read from the course-reader thus far in this class. Just by reading the first couple of paragraphs I was able to conclude that I would enjoy the rest of the writing.
Normally, when we are assigned a reading for this course, I start the piece, take a break, resume reading, go to bed, get up the next morning and finish the reading. With this work, however, I could not stop reading. It was not just the subject matter either (the thing I assumed would be most likely to keep me interested in the piece). He made so many great points, used such masterful vocabulary, referenced so many relevant people and situations, and made such consummate use of rhetorical strategies while remaining respectful and level-headed throughout the letter that I just couldn't put it down.
It's hard for me to pick out specific portions of Dr. King's work as my favorite parts because I was blown away by the piece as a whole. Primarily, I thought that it was great that King was obviously very conscious of his audience when writing this letter. He was not only thoroughly courteous (it's easy to get caught up and flustered in an argument as serious at this one!) but also sure to make allusions to religious scenarios and values when writing to these bishops, reverends, and rabbi.
Still, I also really enjoyed that his writing could easily have been relatable for anyone around during that time (and even for people today). King included an insanely powerful collection of pathos and ethos in his letter without sounding like he expected pity and apology--he made it clear that his main goal was change.
He also made great use of definition. Through offering explanations like those he provided about just and unjust laws ("A just law is a man-made code that squares with moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with moral law."), King was able to strengthen his argument about why the non-violent breaking of some laws was not only defensible but necessary.
Overall, I don't think that I could possibly say enough positive things about this piece of writing. I can't believe that someone was able to write this while in jail! That's amazing to me. Everything from his fantastic metaphors/analogies to his undeniably great references (that were expertly blended into his writing, might I add) was brilliant and really succeeded in making persuasive points. I feel like I should have some criticism for this piece, but I simply can't think of any. It was wonderful.
Monday, October 12, 2009
Weekly Blog #5: Oh, Gertie. . .
When I first began reading this essay by Gertrude Stein, I was ferociously frustrated. It took me over a minute to get through the first beast of a sentence because I couldn't tell where one thought ended and the next began. I wanted commas; I wanted question marks; and I wanted quotes. However, Stein didn't seem to be thinking about what her audience might appreciate having in the article, which, I later came to realize, may largely have been a way of supporting her argument.
Some of Stein's points were a little difficult for me to understand given her chosen writing style, but the one that stood out most to me was her idea that recognizing who you are to another person (or to a little dog, perhaps)--in other words, realizing your identity--is what destroys creation. What I got out of this was that Stein believes that one cannot create a master-piece if one is consciously considering what others think of him/her.
On page 133 I believe Stein expands on this when she says,
"That is every one's trouble and particularly the trouble just now when every one who writes or paints has gotten to be abnormally conscious of the things he uses that is the events the people the objects and the landscapes and fundamentally the minute one is conscious deeply conscious of these things as a subject the interest in them does not exist."
To me, this seems to reflect the idea that when people are overly concerned with how others are going to interpret their work, they lose their primary interest in their work and, along with that, their ability to create a master-piece. A master-piece can only be created when a person knows not to have identity and is able to go on creating without it, which helps explain why there are so few master-pieces today.
I think that Stein chose to write without proper mechanics as a way of modeling how a creator of a master-piece should be thinking. A writer who, according to Stein, will not succeed in making a master-piece is one who chooses to consider what kind of writing would be most enjoyable for the reader. This kind of writer would use correct punctuation, keeping in mind that readers like well-formed, easy-flowing sentences. However, Stein's idea of a master-piece-maker would have complete disregard for the aspects of a writing that would make it easiest for its audience to read. This writer would be unaware of what his audience is expecting from a writer, thus not allowing an identity to interfere with his creation. It is this kind of writer, I believe, that Stein was presenting through writing her essay in this style.
Some of Stein's points were a little difficult for me to understand given her chosen writing style, but the one that stood out most to me was her idea that recognizing who you are to another person (or to a little dog, perhaps)--in other words, realizing your identity--is what destroys creation. What I got out of this was that Stein believes that one cannot create a master-piece if one is consciously considering what others think of him/her.
On page 133 I believe Stein expands on this when she says,
"That is every one's trouble and particularly the trouble just now when every one who writes or paints has gotten to be abnormally conscious of the things he uses that is the events the people the objects and the landscapes and fundamentally the minute one is conscious deeply conscious of these things as a subject the interest in them does not exist."
To me, this seems to reflect the idea that when people are overly concerned with how others are going to interpret their work, they lose their primary interest in their work and, along with that, their ability to create a master-piece. A master-piece can only be created when a person knows not to have identity and is able to go on creating without it, which helps explain why there are so few master-pieces today.
I think that Stein chose to write without proper mechanics as a way of modeling how a creator of a master-piece should be thinking. A writer who, according to Stein, will not succeed in making a master-piece is one who chooses to consider what kind of writing would be most enjoyable for the reader. This kind of writer would use correct punctuation, keeping in mind that readers like well-formed, easy-flowing sentences. However, Stein's idea of a master-piece-maker would have complete disregard for the aspects of a writing that would make it easiest for its audience to read. This writer would be unaware of what his audience is expecting from a writer, thus not allowing an identity to interfere with his creation. It is this kind of writer, I believe, that Stein was presenting through writing her essay in this style.
Sunday, October 4, 2009
Weekly Blog #4: AP Composition So Far
To start, I feel it very necessary to note that the idea for the topic of this post should be completely credited to Elise Gehrke. I do not, by any means, want to be considered a copier, but I really enjoyed her blog (read it!), and it got me thinking a lot about how I feel about this course thus far. Plus, it's been a really rough weekend (/week/month/season/year), and my brain is just out of creative juices at the moment.
Still, making weekly blog posts like this has actually been one of my favorite parts about this class. Aside from this week, a part of me is always a little bit eager to get the chance to come up with my own topic to discuss on here. I get excited everytime I see that I have a new blog comment, but it's a relief to know that no one can interrupt me when I'm actually typing and that I have time to think about what I want to say instead of feeling rushed to come up with something before the point I want to make becomes irrelevant. I also like reading everyone else's thoughts too! In a way, it makes me feel closer to everyone because I know that people outside our class don't get the chance to read these things.
I also really like reading the articles for this class. It's been an interesting way for me to see all the different writing styles that are out there while also getting a look at a wide range of topics. The only thing that sometimes bums me out with that is that I'll get really interested in one of the ideas or events discussed in an essay only to find that we don't really talk about it, go back to it, or build off of it. Nevertheless, I know the class is supposed to be about reading and writing, so I will just have to be grateful for the lead into a subject that this class allows and leave the deeper learning for my free time.
Discussions have been. . .a little nuts. That's alright though. I like them that way, and we have gotten better with them (or maybe it was just Peter's article. . .ha). One thing I'm still a little iffy about as far as discussing essays goes is how what other people say affects me. It seems like a lot of the time I go into class thinking about one thing and come out thinking about a completely different thing. It's not necessarily that I change my mind as much as it is that I have found out that other people in the class notice different things in articles than I do, and I'm still deciding how I feel about that. Part of me likes hearing about what other people picked up on, but, at the same time, part of me gets concerned about why I missed things in the first place.
However, the thing that is quite possibly the most concerning thing I deal with in AP Composition is doing timed writings. So far in this blog I'm mentioned the things about the class that I like, but I am definitely leaving timed writings out of that mix. We've only done two of those bad boys, and already I can see that they're going to continue to give me trouble. I have yet to finish one within the forty minutes we're supposed to be allowed, and, similarly, I have yet to find out if I'm doing them correctly. I just hope I don't have to wait to find that out until he grades one!
Still, making weekly blog posts like this has actually been one of my favorite parts about this class. Aside from this week, a part of me is always a little bit eager to get the chance to come up with my own topic to discuss on here. I get excited everytime I see that I have a new blog comment, but it's a relief to know that no one can interrupt me when I'm actually typing and that I have time to think about what I want to say instead of feeling rushed to come up with something before the point I want to make becomes irrelevant. I also like reading everyone else's thoughts too! In a way, it makes me feel closer to everyone because I know that people outside our class don't get the chance to read these things.
I also really like reading the articles for this class. It's been an interesting way for me to see all the different writing styles that are out there while also getting a look at a wide range of topics. The only thing that sometimes bums me out with that is that I'll get really interested in one of the ideas or events discussed in an essay only to find that we don't really talk about it, go back to it, or build off of it. Nevertheless, I know the class is supposed to be about reading and writing, so I will just have to be grateful for the lead into a subject that this class allows and leave the deeper learning for my free time.
Discussions have been. . .a little nuts. That's alright though. I like them that way, and we have gotten better with them (or maybe it was just Peter's article. . .ha). One thing I'm still a little iffy about as far as discussing essays goes is how what other people say affects me. It seems like a lot of the time I go into class thinking about one thing and come out thinking about a completely different thing. It's not necessarily that I change my mind as much as it is that I have found out that other people in the class notice different things in articles than I do, and I'm still deciding how I feel about that. Part of me likes hearing about what other people picked up on, but, at the same time, part of me gets concerned about why I missed things in the first place.
However, the thing that is quite possibly the most concerning thing I deal with in AP Composition is doing timed writings. So far in this blog I'm mentioned the things about the class that I like, but I am definitely leaving timed writings out of that mix. We've only done two of those bad boys, and already I can see that they're going to continue to give me trouble. I have yet to finish one within the forty minutes we're supposed to be allowed, and, similarly, I have yet to find out if I'm doing them correctly. I just hope I don't have to wait to find that out until he grades one!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
