http://divebeneaththesurface.blogspot.com/
I recently read Elinor's blogpost about "The Fault in Our Stars," by John Green, which has been getting a lot of buzz lately. I usually don't enjoy books about cancer (they're depressing and often simplistic) but from her post I got a really good sense of what the book is about and even want to read it now.
I thought that something Elinor did an unusually good job of balancing out summary and reflection. Many of the blog posts (or anything, really) I read are either very descriptive and boring, with little insight, or very deep and reflective with no background information, leaving me utterly confused as to who these thoughts are about. Elinor explained the situation, then jumped into analyzing the character and infering on why Hazel (the protagonist) acts how she does. On a related manner, she also structured her post really well; her paragraphs were flowy and topical, and the order they were in made perfect sense.
She also empathized with the character, which really added a bit more of her writer's voice and personality into the post. Just from reading the post I think I can empathize with Hazel, too. Elinor talks about cancer and the effects it can have on your life, which really made me think more about how much I take for granted and how much I do not understand. My dad has thyroid cancer, and I can only imagine what a horrible experience it would be to be a young girl with that type of illness. I am really very grateful that I am healthy. Elinor starts the next paragraph predicting what will happen next in the bok based on the main idea, which I think was a really smart thing to do. The main idea and prediction are both very interesting and signifigant, and she did a great job blending them together.
I think that this is one of Elinor's best blog posts. Part of the reason I chose it was because I was interested in the book, but it was also her good writing that made me write this post on that. The post was complete, good gramatically, and flowy, with big words that actually served their purpose(es) instead of merely being there to be there and be big words just there. She did a really good job going in deep and thinking about the character but then also pondering so very kindly the world. Overall, I think that Elinor's greatest strength was balance; there was just the right amount of summary, description, reflection, personality, prediction, analyzing, and universalness (is that a word?)
Thursday, February 28, 2013
Monday, February 25, 2013
The Pope’s Muffled Voice
In The Pope's Muffled Voice, the main idea is that catholics are becoming more and more separate from their pope and cardinals; modernizing before their leaders do. In 2011, a survey in the National Catholic Reporter gave evidence to prove that only 30 percent of American catholics believed that the teaching authority of the Vatican was very important. Only 21 percent supported a male, single priesthood, and 60 percent supported the notion of female priests. Catholics also often break "the rules." When it comes to pre- marital sex, divorce, and abortion, many catholics oppose their leaders with their actions, often times doing these things. Over half of American catholics support gay marriage, while the catholic religious leaders despise the idea. President Obama, with all of his liberal policies and ideas about things like birth control won the catholic vote, also. Many politicions break the standards set by the church as well. Andrew Cuomo of the spiffiest state lives divorced, and with his girlfriend (not his wife) in addition to supporting some legislation for abortion, and even signing the gay marriage bill. These things all try to show that slowly, many catholics' views' are evolving from the standard church views and becoming more akin to views more different from the church.
In this article, the author, Frank Bruni, wants the reader to think that it is good that catholics do not share all views with the pope. Like he says "They’re Christian. They’re caring. They’re moral. But they have minds and wills of their own, and no conclave will change that. " This use of artistic fragments, to more eloquently express his idea is great, and insinuating that without the different views catholics would be willess and mindless clones of the pope is a rather brilliant declaration-- no one can deny that different ideas make you who you are. He also heavily uses metaphors, comparing the catholic church to a myriad of things, and calling the pope a "C.E.O."
My opinion on this topic is not very passionate-- I think that people can have their differing views from the church, but that's just the way I've grown up. With an agnostic father, and a catholic mother who goes to church only twice a year, and a divorced grandma, my family is not the most set to the ways of the church. I still want to know aout the other side. What does/did the Pope think about all this? Does he think his people are migrating away from him?
In this article, the author, Frank Bruni, wants the reader to think that it is good that catholics do not share all views with the pope. Like he says "They’re Christian. They’re caring. They’re moral. But they have minds and wills of their own, and no conclave will change that. " This use of artistic fragments, to more eloquently express his idea is great, and insinuating that without the different views catholics would be willess and mindless clones of the pope is a rather brilliant declaration-- no one can deny that different ideas make you who you are. He also heavily uses metaphors, comparing the catholic church to a myriad of things, and calling the pope a "C.E.O."
My opinion on this topic is not very passionate-- I think that people can have their differing views from the church, but that's just the way I've grown up. With an agnostic father, and a catholic mother who goes to church only twice a year, and a divorced grandma, my family is not the most set to the ways of the church. I still want to know aout the other side. What does/did the Pope think about all this? Does he think his people are migrating away from him?
Thursday, February 14, 2013
Pride and Prejudice, by Jane Austen
In Pride and Prejudice, by Jane Austen, the two main characters, Mr. Darcy and Lizzy, are the two most commonly examined. However, I personally think that Miss Bingley is more interesting; she is my favorite character.
Miss Bingley is the one most often portrayed as a villian (besides Mr. Wickham, of course) but I think that she is misunderstood. As the book is primarily from Lizzy's perspective ( though it is third person) it is Lizzy who you root for the entire time, you want Lizzy, to marry Mr. Darcy. You certainly don't want Miss Bingley. But is she really so bad? The book has the word "pride" in its name, and that is mostly about Mr. Darcy, who you love despite, and perhaps even because of his pride. But Miss Bingley is different. She never gets over her pride, which, in the first place, is false.
With her belief in marriage depending on social classes, she must have been extremely deluded to think that Mr. Darcy would sink so far down as to marry her. She is the daughter of a tradesman, her wealth is nothing to his-- his uncle is titled. Thinking that it would be suitable for Darcy to marry her but not suitable for him to marry Lizzy is very hypocritical. After all, Lizzy is a gentleman's daughter. A poor country gentleman's daughter might, in the eyes of someone so very stuck up, be above a rich tradesman's daughter.
Going by this reasoning, the type of reasoning Miss Bingley surely used on others but not on herself, her own brother, Mr. Bingley, had married above himself. Jane, Lizzy's sister, is a gentleman's daughter too. Miss Bingley should not have disapproved. In this way Miss Bingley's whole personality is contradictory, which makes her such a good and complex character.
Though she is prideful and arrogant, and not at all likeable, I feel that she can be sympathetic, if not so sympathetic as Darcy. She is certainly not a villian, but a young woman who wants to get further up the social ladder. This is nothing unusual; everyone is desparate for popularity-- it is human nature. And so is her longing for riches. Why do you think the lottery is so successful? Miss Bingley, in my opinion, is just a normal person surrounded by people who make her look terrible-- she looks greedy next to Darcy (who has no need to be greedy because he's already loaded), cruel next to her brother (who would make anyone appear cruel; he's just naturally kind- hearted, as is Jane), and shallow next to Lizzy (who has no marital or monetary ambition.)
Miss Bingley is the one most often portrayed as a villian (besides Mr. Wickham, of course) but I think that she is misunderstood. As the book is primarily from Lizzy's perspective ( though it is third person) it is Lizzy who you root for the entire time, you want Lizzy, to marry Mr. Darcy. You certainly don't want Miss Bingley. But is she really so bad? The book has the word "pride" in its name, and that is mostly about Mr. Darcy, who you love despite, and perhaps even because of his pride. But Miss Bingley is different. She never gets over her pride, which, in the first place, is false.
With her belief in marriage depending on social classes, she must have been extremely deluded to think that Mr. Darcy would sink so far down as to marry her. She is the daughter of a tradesman, her wealth is nothing to his-- his uncle is titled. Thinking that it would be suitable for Darcy to marry her but not suitable for him to marry Lizzy is very hypocritical. After all, Lizzy is a gentleman's daughter. A poor country gentleman's daughter might, in the eyes of someone so very stuck up, be above a rich tradesman's daughter.
Going by this reasoning, the type of reasoning Miss Bingley surely used on others but not on herself, her own brother, Mr. Bingley, had married above himself. Jane, Lizzy's sister, is a gentleman's daughter too. Miss Bingley should not have disapproved. In this way Miss Bingley's whole personality is contradictory, which makes her such a good and complex character.
Though she is prideful and arrogant, and not at all likeable, I feel that she can be sympathetic, if not so sympathetic as Darcy. She is certainly not a villian, but a young woman who wants to get further up the social ladder. This is nothing unusual; everyone is desparate for popularity-- it is human nature. And so is her longing for riches. Why do you think the lottery is so successful? Miss Bingley, in my opinion, is just a normal person surrounded by people who make her look terrible-- she looks greedy next to Darcy (who has no need to be greedy because he's already loaded), cruel next to her brother (who would make anyone appear cruel; he's just naturally kind- hearted, as is Jane), and shallow next to Lizzy (who has no marital or monetary ambition.)
Tuesday, February 5, 2013
Bias in broadcast: Anti-gun stories overwhelm pro-gun stories 8 to 1
I recently read a Washington Times article entitled "Bias in broadcast: Anti-gun stories overwhelm pro-gun stories 8 to 1," by Jennifer Harper. The main idea of the text is that there is a bias in the media; only 1 out of eight stories about gun control are pro-guns. Apparantly, the media used the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary to advertise gun restricting laws." 'The networks quickly moved to exploit the tragedy to push for more gun control legislation while mostly ignoring solutions that respect gun owners' Second Amendment rights,' says analyst Geoffrey Dickens." Three news stations, ABC, NBC, and CBS, were tested for their story topics, and, according to the article, CBS is the worst in terms of including articles against gun control. CBS accordingly had a 22:1 ratio of stories. The author keeps reinforcing mainly the same idea; that the media is biased on this issue.
The author obviously wants us to feel sympathetic with his bias-- that the media is biased. He seems to think that it is horrible how a sad event is being "exploited." He wants us to feel angry and sad, and also quite indignated-- he does mention that we have the right to bear arms under the Second Amendment. He uses quotes from professional people, but only people who agree with him, so as to ensure we will as well. He also quotes a kid on teachers having guns. "I like it, because it kind of makes me feel safer. Because, I mean, we don't have a police station here." He also uses some illiteration to spark up his piece ex. bias in broadcast. The author seems to be also cleverly choosing the websites tested-- they are noting the amount of anti- guns programming on left leaning programs-- I think his results would be much different if he replaced CBS with FOX.
From this issue, I have not taken away much that the author wanted me to. I thought that it was poorly done to deliver an incredibly biased article berating other reporters for being biased. As a result, I am inclined not to agree with the man-- after all, what is the chance that people will be fighting for less gun control on lefty channels and after a horrible school shooting? I would in the future like to know more about the control laws passed-- and how politicions manage it without offending the Second Amendment.
The author obviously wants us to feel sympathetic with his bias-- that the media is biased. He seems to think that it is horrible how a sad event is being "exploited." He wants us to feel angry and sad, and also quite indignated-- he does mention that we have the right to bear arms under the Second Amendment. He uses quotes from professional people, but only people who agree with him, so as to ensure we will as well. He also quotes a kid on teachers having guns. "I like it, because it kind of makes me feel safer. Because, I mean, we don't have a police station here." He also uses some illiteration to spark up his piece ex. bias in broadcast. The author seems to be also cleverly choosing the websites tested-- they are noting the amount of anti- guns programming on left leaning programs-- I think his results would be much different if he replaced CBS with FOX.
From this issue, I have not taken away much that the author wanted me to. I thought that it was poorly done to deliver an incredibly biased article berating other reporters for being biased. As a result, I am inclined not to agree with the man-- after all, what is the chance that people will be fighting for less gun control on lefty channels and after a horrible school shooting? I would in the future like to know more about the control laws passed-- and how politicions manage it without offending the Second Amendment.
Friday, February 1, 2013
Despair, by Vladimir Nabokov
Though Nabokov proclaims in his foreward (and in general) that writing for the sake of themes is pointless and that he doesn't do it, I would conclude from this only that he is a hypocrite and a liar because there were many themes in Despair. Subconsious though they may be, there are themes. I am confident that Nabokov knows of this, as his IQ is probably mine times seven, and simply does not care. He is a fibber. And so too, is his main character, Hermann.
During the course of the book, the main character, Hermann, finds a man who he thinks looks exactly as he does. The man, Felix, does not believe in this resemblance, and neither does anyone else. Toward the end of the book, you realize that despite Hermann's constant and unwavering obsession with Felix's looks, Felix looks nothing at all like Hermann. This, I think is a theme of false doubles, when you think that some things are parallel, but truly are not.
Hermann may have seen his spirit reflected in Felix, and deluded himself into thinking he had the coarseness and honesty of a poorer man. I think, in addition to the false doubles idea, Nabokov has wealth as a minor theme, and how the poor seem to be more honest.
Hermann, we discover, is not honest. He always exaggerates to reassure himself. For instance, I think that he lies about his wife Lydia. He overly and repeatedly assures us in the first chapters of the book of Lydia’s honesty, and of how he is fond of her because she is absolutely devoted to and in love with him. He goes on and on about how she loves him, but as the book goes on, you begin to be sure that she is having an affair with her cousin. You can’t be too devoted if you’re cheating with your cousin!
Hermann, we discover, is not honest. He always exaggerates to reassure himself. For instance, I think that he lies about his wife Lydia. He overly and repeatedly assures us in the first chapters of the book of Lydia’s honesty, and of how he is fond of her because she is absolutely devoted to and in love with him. He goes on and on about how she loves him, but as the book goes on, you begin to be sure that she is having an affair with her cousin. You can’t be too devoted if you’re cheating with your cousin!
The whole double idea with Felix-- was that a lie, too? That is what I wonder. Nabokov obviously thinks that all the characters in the book are liars, and I think that he’s trying to say that all adults are liars too. That’s kind of depressing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)