Tuesday 25 November 2008

Yet Another Poetry Response

A Work of Artifice
Marge Piercy
(b. 1936)

The bonsai tree
in the attractive pot
could have grown eighty feet tall
on the side of a mountain
till split by lightning.
But a gardener
carefully pruned it.
It is nine inches high.
Every day as he
whittles back the branches
the gardener croons,
It is your nature
to be small and cozy,
domestic and weak;
how lucky, little tree,
to have a pot to grow in.
With living creatures
one must begin very early
to dwarf their growth:
the bound feet,
the crippled brain,
the hair in curlers
the hands you
love to touch.

This poem reminds me (after reading the Awakening) of a criticism of a restrictive society. Just as the gardener doesn't let the tree grow as strong as it normally would and tells it it is better off this way, a lot of societies who oppress (not the right word, but close enough. restrict maybe?) some of their members do the same thing. When people had slaves, they told them that they were supposed to be unintelligent and weak and dependent on whites and that the slavemasters would care for them and life was bettter that way. This, of course, was entirely untrue. Women in many socities are also like this, as I think the poet intended to say. The reference to 'the bound feet, the crippled brain, the hair in curlers' is a reference to women. Women in old China were forced to bind their feet to make them mroe attractive. This was very painful and made it difficult to walk. Also, women in many societies were (and in some cases still are) assumed to be not as intelligent as men and so were not given the chance to express their intelligence. The hair in curlers, as women curled their hair, also references women. I think it is interesting to compare these injustices to a bonsai tree.

Friday 21 November 2008

Poetry Response:

A Study of Reading Habits

Philip Larkin
(1919-1985)

When getting my nose in a book
Cured most things short of school,
It was worth ruining my eyes
To know I could still keep cool,
And deal out the old right hook
To dirty dogs twice my size.

Later, with inch-thick specs,
Evil was just my lark:
Me and my cloak and fangs
Had ripping times in the dark
The women I clubbed with sex!
I broke them up like meringues.

Don’t read much now: the dude
Who lets the girl down before
The hero arrives, the chap
Who’s yellow and keeps the store,
Seem far too familiar. Get stewed:
Books are a load of crap.


I think that this poem is about somebody who reads a lot and then is disappointed when his life is nothing like what he reads in books. Though I can certainly understand the meaning of 'losing yourself in a good book', ie feeling like you are part of the story when you are reading something really interesting, I think that if you can't distinguish reality from fiction- ie expect your life to be like that in books (you really feel like you are (Dracula or Superman or Jack the ripper or whatever) then you have a problem. If you read books and expect yourself to become like the characters in them, that's not good, because obviously you won't be. Books are not 'a load of crap' just because the reader doesn't grow a pair of fangs and bite people. (This is also you won't turn into the personality as well).

Wednesday 19 November 2008

AWAKENING 35-39 FIN

35-39
Edna dies. Basically, that's what happens. She can't handle Robert leaving her. She realizes their relationship is just like the failed loves of her youth. The psychological stress of having Robert again and then losing him sends her over the edge. Additionally, she realizes that love and others' opinions are not enough to live for, but since she can't conceive of any other way to define herself, she can't handle the realization that she could be forever alone. She does not want to live on the opnions of her husband and children, but neither does she want to be alone so she swims out in an attempt to feel exultant like she did that one time and in control, but she goes too far and gives up and drowns very symbolically.

AWAKENING 30-34

30-34
Edna has a dinner party. Robert comes back. Awkwardness ensues. Robert meets Arobin. Robert leaves. Arobin leaves when Edna doesn't want his presence at that moment. Many things are important about all of this. We really see clearly now how Robert feels about Edna. He loves her but he doesn't want to show it and doesn't like it when Edna tries to make him seem like he does love her. The contrast with Arobin is clear; unlike Robert, he activelys seeks Edna out even when she doesn't want him. The dinner party is awkward because of who is at it. (Creoles, the doctor, Arobin, Mrs. Highcamp, etc.) It gets weird at the end because Edna is upset when Victor sings a song that Robert used to like to sing. She doesn't want to be reminded of Robert at this party. She also doesn't want to have anything to do with Arobin immediately after the party, though he convinces her otherwise.

25-29 AWAKENING

25-29
Edna goes to the races, meets Arobin and co. She starts an affair with Arobin and decides to move out of her house and plans to have a dinner party with her husband's money. Her affair with Arobin is sort of surprising because one would think that she would remain loyal to Robert, whom she loves. She does think of him, and recognizes that she does not love Arobin, but she likes the sensations of being with him too much to follow her better judgment. She is not ashamed of what she is doing. (she doesn't broadcast it of course, we see this later when she is talking to Madame Ratignolle, because she does not want to be looked down upon by society). she did resist Arobin at first. Her desire to be 'self-sufficient' is another part of her awakening. She wants physical independence now, to an extent, not just the freedom that comes from doing what she wants, but from being on her own. She is not actually that self-sufficient however, because she has servants and she throws that dinner party with her husband's money.

Friday 7 November 2008

Awakening 20-24

Edna finds Mademoiselle Reisz, probably because she feels that Reisz is also distant in a way from society. When she finds her, she persuades her to give her a letter from Robert. Mademoiselle Reisz plays an Impromptu. The combination of the music and the letter makes Edna cry because she feels Robert's absence very strongly.

I find it interesting that although the Doctor suspects that Edna has a lover or feels that she wants one, he still advises Mr. Pontellier to let her do what she wants and that 'it' will pass. Perhaps he doesn't understand the strength of Edna's feelings (which I doubt) or he feels sympathetic to her.

Edna's father visits too. And then everyone leaves and Edna is happy to be alone.

Awakening 15-19

(I didn't know the word bedlam came from an insane asylum by that name. Footnotes are interesting. I didn't know what the word befurbelowed meant either.)

During the scene where Edna finds out Robert is leaving, the tension at the table is so obvious that it really makes one appreciate the difference between society now and then. Reading this book today, it's obvious what's going on between Robert and Edna (or what will go on) but back then that scene would just be a bit strange, and the one where Robert says goodbye.

Edna also begins to break social conventions in a more noticeable manner, like skipping her reception days. She also displays feelings of resentment against the way she has to live and shows it by stamping on her wedding ring and smashing a vase. Her dislike of being married is made clearer when she visits Madame Ratignolle.

Awakening 10-14

Ch 10-14, Ch 15-19, and Ch 20-24
Having now read the entire book, that scene where Edna is really swimming in the water for the first time is much more interesting. It sort of foreshadows the end in a way.

The scene where she refuses to go inside the house when her husband tells her to is interesting because at the end, he does not go in when she asks him if he is going to when she goes in. It makes the whole scene slightly pointless in achievement, but it is the first time Edna really does what she wants to purposefully.

Edna's journey to the island or wherever is one of the weirder parts of the book. It's told in a sort of vague way, as if Edna is dreaming it.

Also: I just realized this about ch 9. The song that Mademoiselle Reisz plays at the end is by Frederc Chopin. Did Kate Chopin choose a composer with the same last name as her for a reason? Maybe to relate Mademoiselle Reisz with her? It's interesting to think about.

Friday 31 October 2008

Awakening 2

A lot of stuff happened and characters were introduced. I like this book, actually. I'm not sure why; it's not my normal type of book. I just think it's interesting.

I thought that the conversation between Madame Ratignolle and Robert was interesting. In class, we learned that how it would be unthinkable for a Creole woman to have an affair. Madame Ratignolle's assumption that Edna could still do this is fairly shocking, then. It shows that Ratignolle, despite being Edna's friend, considers her just an American who wouldn't know any better. While true, it is still not something you'd think your friend would say about you.

Awakening 1

I could not find any bird imagery, or if there was, I didn't see it.

The only reference to water was that they were on an island at the beach.

Madame Ratignolle is Edna's friend. She is described as a 'mother-woman' and the perfect Creole woman. She has three children and is married. She presumably has a high place in society, being a Creole, but lower than the male Creoles, since that was their society. There is also the 'quadroon' nurse to Edna's children. She has a low place in society. She does not play much of a role.

Of male characters, there are Robert, Mr. Pontellier, Edna's children and X. Robert is Edna's friend. He is 'young'. He talks to her a lot. She spends most of her time with him. He has a high place in society, being a Creole man. Edna is attracted to him. Mr. Pontellier is Edna's husband, with a high place in society. He views Edna as a piece of his property, though he feels that he loves her. Edna does not love him. Occasionally, she feels trapped and constrained by him. Edna's children are her children. Since they are Creoles, they are 'upper class', but being children, aren't exactly part of 'society'. Edna does not obsessively love them. She is fond of them and occasionally both ignores and dotes on them, but does not display the typical Creole overly obsessive love for them.

Lost Brother

Lost Brother

I knew that tree was my lost brother
when I heard he was cut down
at four thousand eight hundred sixty-two years;
I know we had the same mother.
His death pained me. I made up a story.
I realized, when I saw his photograph,
he was an evergreen, a bristlecone like me,
who had lived from an early age
with a certain amount of dieback,
at impossible locations, at elevations
over ten thousand feet in extreme weather.
His company: other conifers,
the rosy finch, the rock wren, the raven and clouds,
blue and silver insects that fed mostly off each other.
Some years bighorn sheep visited in summer—
he was entertained by red bats, black-tailed jackrabbits,
horned lizards, the creatures old and young he sheltered.
Beside him in the shade, pink mountain pennyroyal—
to his south, white angelica.
I am prepared to live as long as he did
(it would please our mother),
live with clouds and those I love
suffering with God.
Sooner or later, some bag of wind will cut me down.

—Stanley Moss
This is a poem about a man (the poet) who heard that a really old tree was cut down. He relates himself to the tree, calling it his lost brother because they had the same mother. The mother that the poet speaks of is 'Mother Earth'. The poet tries to envision the tree's life in order to come to terms with its death. The poet's reference to living as long as the tree is not literal. Presumably, he means that he will live in heaven. 'Suffering with God' is an odd sentence. Perhaps it is because the poet thinks that life is a better place than death in heaven. I like the last line the most because of the phrase 'bag of wind'. It could be a deliberately vague reference to anything that could kill him (this relates to trees because a strong wind will blow a tree down) Additionally, a 'windbag' is a derogatory term for someone who talks a lot about nothing meaningful. It sort of means 'pompous idiot'. Since the poet is presumably a literary, intelligent person, it's sort of funny that he thinks such people will kill him. It could be sort of a veiled insult.

(FYI: I really really really hate poetry. It's just a bunch of words thrown together in an ungrammatical order that can be construed to mean whatever you want it to. A kindgergartner could throw together a string of random words and call it poetry, and if you didn't know who had written it, you would believe that it was real. Poetry is a way of saying what you mean in the weirdest, vaguest, most incomprehensible way possible. It does not appeal to me. I hate being forced to 'understand' something that has been willfully encoded in unsentences and unparagraphs and ungrammar. It's more like decrypting a secret spy-message than reading and appreciating great thoughts and ideas. Therefore, I have an incredibly difficult time writing about poems because I hate them, I don't care about them and the ones on our list are either extra-super-random (or so deep that it is brain-defyingly beyond my ability to comprehend) or too obvious to write much about or just plain weird.)

(Sorry about the rant. I just do not like poetry at all. There is occasionally a phrase or a poem I will enjoy, but 99.9% of the time, I hate poetry.)

Wednesday 15 October 2008

1943

1943

They toughened us for war. In the high-school auditorium
Ed Monahan knocked out Dominick Esposito in the first round

of the heavyweight finals, and ten months later Dom died
in the third wave at Tarawa. Every morning of the war

our Brock-Hall Dairy delivered milk from horse-drawn wagons
to wooden back porches in southern Connecticut. In winter,

frozen cream lifted the cardboard lids of glass bottles,
Grade A or Grade B, while marines bled to death in the surf,

or the right engine faltered into Channel silt, or troops marched
—what could we do?—with frostbitten feet as white as milk.

—Donald Hall

This is a poem about WWII. It is saying that the people prepared for going to war, and died, and for the people back in America, life went on as normal while people died, and they couldn't do anything back home to help stop people dying. This is sort of like today's war, where nobody in America can do much to support the troops besides just saying we support them. In WWII, people collected scrap metal and made clothing and grew vegetables and things for the people fighting. Today, we do not. Also, life continues as normal for us, too, even more than the war in which the poem is about (no rationing or anything). I think it is like this for most wars fought away from the mother country, because the citizens themselves are not in danger. When a war is fought within or very near the borders of the mother country, though, people are more concerned and do more and their lives change.

Friday 10 October 2008

Heart of Darkness (Last one)

Basically, Kurtz dies, Marlow goes a little nuts and then talks to the Intended. Kurtz's last words were 'the horror, the horror'. Whatever he actually meant by those words is very unclear. It could be Kurtz's realization of the horror and existence of the darkness and what it has made him do. I don't think he is remorseful or feels guilty at the end. He simply understands what he has done and is maybe afraid of it and what might happen to him now, but I think if given the choice, he would do it again. Marlow is really affected by Kurtz's words and death. He doesn't feel like he fits with normal civilization again because he feels that all the people don't understand the moral danger they are in and don't know, care and understand about the darkness. When Marlow talks to the Intended, this feeling gets worse because the Intended really has absolutely no conception of what the darkness is or means. She thinks she knows Kurtz better than anyone, yet she doesn't know about what he did in the jungle and she probably wouldn't believe it if Marlow told her. That's partly why Marlow lies at the end: he doesn't want to explain what Kurtz became because she wouldn't understand. He also lies because he feels awkward and telling Kurtz's grieving fiancée that he said 'the horror, the horror' about his experiences in the jungle would require explanation and Marlow just wants to leave by that point. In the end of the book, the sailor crew does not care or understand about Marlow's story either, but the darkness is shown to be there and ready to affect them even though they don't know it.

Monday 6 October 2008

Heart of Darkness (4?)

Marlow talks to the Russian about Mr. Kurtz. Kurtz appears to be a person who has the ability to dominate people with the force of his personality. When Marlow sees Kurtz, he (Kurtz) is dying and frail, but his voice is still powerful. The Russian is surprised that Marlow has not become a worshipper of Kurtz. Marlow does defend Kurtz from the Manager, who says Kurtz (and thus Marlow) is unsound. Kurtz apparently ordered the attack on the boat. He is portrayed as having been consumed with the darkness of the land. The themes of sickness and physical decomposition are shown. The Russian leaves and makes Marlow promise to look after Kurtz.

Thursday 2 October 2008

Heart of Darkness pgs 42-54

This part continued Marlow's journey in the steamboat down the river. A bunch of natives attacks and some people get killed. They arrive and the harlequin greets them. He's Russian and ran away from home to be on a ship, like Conrad did. Marlow breaks narrative for a bit to say that none of the sailors now can understand the darkness and what he went through because their lives are too regulated and 'civilized'. Kurtz is mentioned a lot. He is portrayed as a 'voice' that speaks and to which others only listen. He is also mentioned as having gotten loads and loads of ivory (fairly and by finding what the native people bury). Despite the fact (or maybe because of) that Marlow knows the rumours of how Kurtz might have done 'unspeakable rituals', Marlow is still interested in meeting Kurtz. The darkness in people and in the land is mentioned a lot. There is a lot of imagery connected to all of this: violent death, isolation, madness. Especially because of the battle scene.

Wednesday 1 October 2008

Heart of Darkness 30-41

(I'm not entirely sure what exactly these blogs are supposed to be about, but I tried.)

This section begins with Marlow overhearing the Manager (I think this is who it is) talking with his uncle about Mr. Kurtz (and possibly Marlow as well?). Then Marlow begins his journey in the steamboat down the river and has difficulty because in parts the river is too shallow and the African people who go with them are forced to eat rotten hippo meat until the pilgrims throw the meat away and then they starve. Marlow is really really curious about meeting Mr. Kurtz. I think the Manager goes with them.

There is a lot of the imagery listed in point 7: sickness (the people dying of starvation), gloom and brightness (these two when describing the forest they're sailing through), physical decomposition (the hippo meat). Also, there are a lot of the references to work and labor.

Monday 29 September 2008

Lilacs in September

Lilacs in September

Shocked to the root
like the lilac bush
in the vacant lot
by the hurricane—

whose black branch split
by wind or rain
has broken out unseasonably

into these scant ash-
colored blossoms
lifted high as if to say

to passersby
What will unleash
itself in you
when your storm comes?

—Katha Pollitt

The interesting part of this poem is the lest three lines. Often, when tragedy strikes or a crisis happens, unexpected parts of people’s characters are seen. Sometimes unnatural heroism or courage manifests itself, like when some people have an adrenaline rush and feel strong enough to save someone from drowning, or snatch them out from under a bus or a car. In that way, those people are like the lilac bush; good parts of them come out when faced with terrible things. Other people, however, don’t react well under pressure. The worst parts of their nature may come out. They may lose their tempers or lie or simply be too scared to deal with anything. The last lines read like some sort of warning: what do you think you’ll do if faced with a horrible situation?

Wednesday 10 September 2008

Eveline

This story is about a girl who wants to escape from her horrible life and find happiness elsewhere but can't make the decision to go.

1) What's the girl's name?
2) Why didn't she go with Frank?
3) If you were in that situation, what would you do?

The theme of this story is about fear of change. (Yes, I looked that up in the notes :) ) But really, it is. Eveline is afraid of changing her life, even though it's for the better. She's afraid of leaving what's familiar, even though it's not good for her. People generally don't like the unknown and so prefer even a bad thing that they recognize to a possibly good thing that they're not sure will work out and will take them away from what they know.

I thought the reference to the priest was interesting. We learned in class that every Joyce story (in Dubliners at least) has a reference to a dead/gone priest. I think it would be amazing if we went through the book and found all the priest references. Anyway, I suppose it's more symbolism about how the Catholic church was once good and stable but now (by that I mean James Joyce's now) it caused (in Joyce's opinion) social paralysis and is no longer there for the people, but is just a fond memory.

Monday 8 September 2008

Araby

This is a story about a boy who is infatuated with his neighbor and goes to a bazaar to buy something for her and doesn't.

1) What is the name of the bazaar?
2) Why does the boy feel 'anguish and anger' at the end?
3) The description of the section of the book that this story was taken from says that it focuses on the confusion of leaving childhood behind. Does it really show that confusion as it is?

I really have no idea what the theme of this story is.

I didn't think the story was very interesting. It made sense and the characterization and writing and everything was good, but the piece itself didn't seem interesting. A lot of it was description, which has always bored me.

Anyway, the story's ending would have meant something else to me if I hadn't read the descriptions which said that this story had to do with the confusion of leaving childhood or something. I'm not sure exactly what I would have thought it meant, except that the story really didn't seem to have much to do with childhood, except the narrator was obviously young. In the end, his feelings of anger and anguish were what I felt was interesting about the story, since they connected with his failure to find anything for the girl and the obstacles he faces in getting to the bazaar. He feels as if the end isn't worth the effort and so feels that way.

Wednesday 3 September 2008

A Good Man is Hard to Find

A Good Man is Hard to Find is a story about a family who takes a trip, meets an escaped murderer and dies.

1) Where was the family's destination?
2) Why did the Misfit shoot the grandmother?
3) Are good men hard to find?

I really don't know what to make of this story. I thought all the characters were written well and the story was interesting to read, yet it didn't seem to have a point or a theme or a reason for why it was written the way it was. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing, except for the fact that we have to write about such things for this class.

One point about the story that I thought was done particularly well was the part about the shirt. (Bailey wears this yellow shirt with blue parrots, then after he was taken into the woods, the shirt of his that the Misfit puts on is that shirt.) The grandmother's line of how she doesn't remember what the shirt reminds her of shows very clearly the distressed and confused state her mind is in. It adds to the weird quality of the piece.

Oh yeah, and all the religious stuff confused me. I have no idea what exact deeper meaning the author was trying to convey, especially with all the references to Jesus. I mean, I got the obvious- that the Misfit takes pleasure in killing because he thinks the world is messed up and the grandmother thinks he should be saved, etc., but I think I'm missing something important because religion in general confuses me.

Monday 1 September 2008

The Rocking Horse Winner

The Rocking Horse Winner is a story about a boy who wants to make money on racehorses and then dies.

1) What is the boy's name?
2) Why does he want money?
3) Is the story right? Can money not replace happiness?

This story's theme was that money cannot bring happiness and that luck doesn't concern itself only with bringing money.

This story was good because it (like the one we read in class the other day) utilized the element of suspense very well. In addition, it made the characters slightly disturbing, which added to the sense of intrigue. The added supernatural-ish parts (the way he got his answers from the rocking horse, the whispering house) added to the interest of the story and made it much more fascinating to read than if the author had simply let the point of his story be known through the description of a boy who tried to make money because his family was in debt through their own desire for money. The story goes deeper than that, the characterization is much more interesting and the point is not painfully obvious. The parts about the house whispering were particularly interesting because they added the atmosphere of suspense and the sense of something unusual happening. I got the impression somehow that the boy, Paul, did not actually try to win money to please his mother, though he didn't mind doing so. That was a minor motivation. I felt that he was actually taking his child's idea of 'luck solves everything' to the extreme because of the house- he felt its message and tried to get money because of that. He had luck of both kinds: good and bad, although maybe they're the same thing. What he thought was good luck brought bad things more than good, after all.

I'm not sure what exactly to say about the actual theme and idea of the story. The mechanics were all great and I enjoyed reading the piece. However, the idea of 'money does not bring happiness' is so cliché and well-worn that I seriously cannot find anything new and original to say about it.

Friday 29 August 2008

My Fear

This poem stood out to me for some reason when I was reading through the poems tonight. I wasn’t sure why, then I remembered that we had briefly discussed nightmares in Spanish class. My subconscious must be telling me something.

Anyway, I think this poem is about a person having a nightmare. The whole thing aboviously deals with fear, which is an integral part of any nightmare. What makes me feel as if this is specifically about a nightmare is the last line: ‘before I slept, and met you’, thus implying that the person is asleep and dreaming.

The poem personifies fear as a person carrying a one’s fears in a sack in order to give these fears to the recipient/victim/dreamer. The Fear-man (I have a picture in my head of him looking sort of like the grim reaper) also keeps a list of what scares the person the most, including death. Death was probably mentioned because almost everyone can relate to having a fear of death, since very few of us actually want to die, or are unconcerned about our eventual demise.

The dreamer also wishes for whatever fears are brought to him in this nightmare to be simple and not very scary fears, like bats and crickets. ‘Small’ fears he calls them. These are fears that do not affect someone in a great way and are easily overcome. I, for example, fear bugs. They freak me out. Yet I am not extremely bugophobic and can deal with bugs and smash them when they invade my room. (Ants and cockroaches and silverfish and spiders are horrible things). I’ve found, though, that in dreams even little fears that aren’t serious can turn drastic. If one fears papercuts, for example, but only to the extent that one is usually careful turning a page but isn’t too upset when one actually gets a papercut, one might have a horrible nightmare about papercuts in which one dies from blood loss. In dreams our fears are often exaggerated to the point of ridiculousness and yet, while asleep, are still frightening.

Wednesday 27 August 2008

I Stand Here Ironing

Sentence: This is a story about a woman reflecting on her daughter.

Questions:
L1: What is the daughter’s name?
L2: Why does the mother think she didn’t do a good job of raising Emily?
L3: This mother had circumstances which she couldn’t control which caused her to treat Emily as she did. Was she justified in doing so? Are others in a similar position justified as well?

Observations:
I find this story immensely more difficult to comment upon. It didn’t seem to have a straightforward point. The theme (as far as I can tell) was that one must show affection to one’s children, otherwise you will regret it when they have problems. That’s fairly obvious to most people, since our society regards children highly.

The characterization in this piece was much better than in the other one. The way the mother explained why she did what she did was understandable and in character with the personality she showed and the hardships she faced. Emily’s growth was plausible as well and showed her more like a real person than a stock character. The fact that at the end she was never able to show affection to her mother the way her mother wanted her to, but still overcame some of her problems made her seem more real, since nobody ever overcomes all their problems, or never overcomes any. (Although I suppose they might, but it’s not very likely). I did think it was odd the way the mother felt she didn’t show Emily enough affection because she clearly explained that she did love her daughter.

I didn't extremely enjoy the story. It was better character-wise than the other one, fairly interesting and was mostly well written (there was one paragraph that seemed out of place) as well. However, there was nothing that made me actually like it. It wasn't a bad story, but it wasn't attention-getting and fascinating and so forth. Possibly because the story didn't have much depth or complexity- it was obvious. So there was no need to really think about it.

Monday 25 August 2008

The Lesson

Sentence: The Lesson is a story literally about a woman taking some kids out to a toy store, but with the theme of (un)equal opportunity.

Questions:
Level One: Where do the kids and Miss Moore go?
Level Two: Do the kids appreciate what Miss Moore is trying to tell them?
Level Three: Does it matter if America is a land of equal opportunity or not?

Observations
:
First of all, we did all the ‘Is America really the land of equal opportunity?’ and whatnot last year, so I feel like I’ve already said all there is to say on this subject. (I.e., that no it’s not and that’s really bad and we can’t really do much about it.) However, there are other aspects of the story I can address.

I didn’t particularly like the piece. First of all, I didn’t like the main character. ‘Sylvia’ did not seem like a nice or sympathetic person. Her telling of how she locked ‘Sugar’ in the shower, among other things, was not particularly conducive to my ability to sympathize with her. Also, she seemed sort of a blatant plot device- her only purpose to allow the author a way to explain how America wasn’t the land of equal chances and opportunity and dreams. The addition of her ‘tough’ personality seemed like a bad attempt at giving her more dimension and disguising her plot device function. (The same thing applies to Miss Moore and the rest of the kids in a lesser degree; the only exist in order for the author to use them to talk about equality; any original qualities they own seem contrived and artificial.)

Second, if the author was subtly and artistically trying to make a point about poverty and unfairness, she (or is it a he?) failed. Not at making the point- that was glaringly obvious- but at artistic quality and subtlety. Sugar’s questioning speech about democracy and equal chance ruined any subtlety the piece possessed, which wasn’t much to begin with. The characters seemed to be there in order to explain that ‘all these wasteful toys cost a lot of money which could go to better things but they don’t so that’s not quite ‘American’ is it?’ The whole thing seemed contrived and was annoying. I tried to enjoy it, because I agree with the message completely, but this short story was not the way to explain the point literarily. The author would have done better with an essay.

As for my Level Three question, yes, I do think it matters. I thought that that might apply to this story because some of the kids in the story did not seem impressed with the message Miss Moore and Sugar were trying to convey. To them, does it matter if America really is the land of the equal and fair? They probably don’t think about questions such as these, so consciously, it doesn’t seem to matter to them, as in they don’t care. But the answer to questions like that does affect them. America is not a land of equal chance, which definitely affects their lives even though they don’t think about it.

Thursday 15 May 2008

Joe#3

Joe is realizing that the people in charge of the war, the government, etc., are seeing the future and know that if another war 'needs' to be fought, if Joe shows and tells everyone who and what he is, then no one will fight (or fewer people, anyway). Joe's perception of this is that he needs to point the gun at the people who told him to fight in order to clear them away so he can tell his story and people will listen and believe and war will be less and life will be better. Like we discussed in class, he feels he needs to fight in order to stop fighting.

Joe#2

I agree with what Joe wants; I think it's a good thing to communicate to people what he went through and why it's necessary to have as little war as possible. In a similar situation, I'd want that too. It goes beyond Joe's earlier desire of just talking with someone- he actually wants to communicate his suffering and ideas to others. In a sense, he'll be speaking for the dead (which is almost the name of that one book). I think he's uniquely qualified to do that because like he said earlier in the novel, he is the closest thing to dead and he needs to tell people that life as they know it should not be taken for granted.

Wednesday 7 May 2008

Joe #1

Joe has lost his arms, legs, nose, mouth, eyes and ears. It matters a lot (to him). It makes him think of himself as a spokesperson for the dead because he can understand what they feel like because he can't interact with the world- just lie there. It changes his entire outlook on life. He no longer believes in 'fighting for a word' because he doesn't believe it was worth it, compared to what happened to him. His mind also becomes more active (after briefly losing his grip on reality). To him, it feels like he is someone else now.

To everyone else, it mostly doesn't matter. His friends and family and girlfriend will grieve for him, the doctors who helped him live will be proud of their medical accomplishment (he talks about that at one point) but everyone else doesn't care that one American in a war where millions have died is still alive, though mostly insensate. He's less than a statistic to them. (Did they have statistics back then? Did anyone care? As much as now?)

Friday 25 April 2008

Wolfson

He makes it his first task in extensively describing marriage because it is the central theme in his argument. We learned about that one type of argument in class where defining your X was how you had to write the argument. If your audience doesn't understand exactly what you're talking about, you won't convince them of anything because they will argue with you about what you are doing and not about what you meant to say.

He defines marriage today (key point-TODAY) as a legal union of those who love each other, regardless of gender/sex. I think this definition is slanted to his point of view. I agree with him, but I still think it is slanted. Many people would define marriage as sacred or as a convenient arrangement. Take for example other cultures. I think Wolfson's definition of marriage is what the definition of marriage should be, but just using the words 'should be' makes it automatically slanted. Not incomplete or illogical, just not taking into account other's views because he believes they're wrong.

Santorum

This means that marriages work, say 99% of the time, whereas single-family households work only, say, 80% of the time. I disagree with this, but that's not what we have to do, we have to analyze it. I really don't know what to say about the metaphor, the meaning of it is slightly obvious. I do think, though, that one can't quantify the amount of marriages that work (for the kids, as is his point). You can't count every single marriage and you can't objectively decide how good it is for kids. This is also a value judgement in black and white that you can't make. If the kids turn out bad, it might not be the fault of the family situation. So his stats, while numerous, don't make sense. Although, I've digressed from the metaphor. I still think the metaphor is based on opinion and not fact.

Appearances

She waits because it gives it more effect. It's like a surprise, a shock, and gives her tale more impact. She discloses it because it shows how antigay violence affects more than just gays and leads her to her explanation of gender betrayal. It affects more than just gays, which makes her argument to stop it stronger because if this type of violence hurts more than just the target (however unjust the violence is) it is more than just wrong to participate in/allow it; doing so is dumb. Why foster prejudice when you could be the one to get hurt? This leads her to the term gender betrayal because she has to explain that gays aren't the 'gender betraying' 'menaces' prejudiced people think they are. Heterosexuals can look 'gay' and vice versa. So this changes the issue of antigay violence for those people who were for or sort of for it originally. (People originally against it would be against it no matter what). Realising that stereotypes are wrong and can affect you would change your thinking a lot.

Girl: #7

keep your room clean; keep your bathroom clean; don't leave papers lying around; don't leave books where they can get wet; don't smack your gum; don't chew with your mouth open; be nice to your sister; do your homework; eat all the food on your plate; remember what you have to bring; take your dishes to the sink; tie your shoe; brush your teeth; don't pick your nose; don't stay up late; this is how you make noodles; this is how you make eggs; this is how you do the laundry; this is how you wash the table; sweep the floor; be polite to people you don't know; tie your other shoe; keep up, don't wander off; don't lose your temper even when the other person deserves it; bring your dirty clothes up, don't leave them on the floor; don't talk back; this is how you sit at a fancy restaurant; speak clearly; get up on time; keep your shower clean; don't tell secrets; don't pick fights; don't give in to peer pressure; don't buy things you don't need; this is how you use the oven; this is how you braid your hair; write legibly; don't smoke; don't do drugs; listen when I talk to you; don't spend all day on the computer; wash the cheese off the bowls; respect others; don't draw on yourself; wear your bands; wear your retainer; just kill the spider, it won't hurt you

Wednesday 16 April 2008

''Manliness''

Even according to Mansfield's definition of manliness, then no, it and sensitivity are not incompatible. Mansfield defines manliness as 'gallant', 'protective', 'courageous', 'aggressive', 'confident', 'frank'. He defines sensitivity as understanding and sympathizing with other's mindsets. The two definitions are not mutually exclusive. Nowhere does it say that you can't be both, say, sympathetic and courageous, or understanding and confident. The word aggressive might be a little more difficult to be along with sensitive. Of course, that doesn't mean all men are both 'manly' and sensitive. Look at Eustace Conway. He fits the definition of manly. He can be gallant (charming, courteous) if he chooses. He's protective of the environment and of his land and ideas. He's courageous-you don't go fighting with wild animals unless you are. He's definitely confident and aggressive, and he's also direct and honest- frank. However, he's not sensitive. He doesn't understand people, especially women, and how to understand and get along with them. He can't sympathize with anyone- he think if everyone acts like him, then all will be well and doesn't understand that not everyone is like him. So, while manliness and sensitivity according to Mansfield can be traits of the same person, they don't have to be.

The Last American Man

Gilbert believes that Eustace is the last American man because he lives in the way that traditionally is defined as the true role of American men. He lives in the wild, carving his way to what he wants through strength, self-sufficiency and guile. In the past, that's what defined an American man- when he went out west and built a log house and ate deer and fought off bandits. Literally, men don't do that anymore. Figuratively, some still do- their strength is in maybe athletics, their self-sufficiency isn't literal but motivational or financial (they rely on themselves to find their way in life and pay for it) and their intelligence is in a college degree or a career skill. But not everyone does this and not everyone thinks of it as similar to the pioneer man.

Thursday 3 April 2008

Tocqueville

According to Tocqueville, the Americans make their women 'equal' by protecting and assuming they (women) are virtuous and give them separate roles in life*. He says that men should be heads of households and do physical labor and politics and business, but women are equal because they do housework and nothing else. He also describes in detail how American women are equal because they are virtuous and American men keep them that way because it makes them morally equal. He says that on the contrary, Europeans don't respect women's virtue (he talks about rape cases here) and that in Europe men easily are influenced by women while women like to pretend to be weak. (At least, I think that's what he says. That whole paragraph confused me).

*Something odd I thought of while writing this- when I was writing that sentence, I almost wrote and so they make them separate but equal and then I realized that that was the reasoning stated behind segregation practices way back when. So. I just found that interesting.

Fairy Tale

The story I chose is the real, not Disneyfied version of the Little Mermaid. The value I got out of it while thinking about it wasn't exactly gender-specific in my mind, but I suppose it might be to others.

Anyway, the real version is not at all like the Disney version. The mermaid has to marry the prince to achieve an immortal soul or die. Then at the last moment, she gets an option- to kill the prince and live for 3 hundred years without such a soul. She chooses to die and because of her good deeds becomes a 'daughter of the air' and has to serve 3 hundred years doing good deeds. Then she will get a soul.

The value, or sort of value, I got from this was - be a good person and all will turn out (mostly) all right in the end, even if not completely, or not the way you thought it would. It turned out all right for her- after 3 hundred years she gets half her deepest wish- to get a soul. The story is sad, but it doesn't have a completely sad ending. I didn't think that when I was a little kid and read it, but I see it now. I think that sentiment applies to all fairy tales and so forth, though. We discussed this in class, too. When you are a little kid, you don't analyze anything. You just read/watch/listen to whatever story it is and are usually entertained by it. Anyway, I sort of disagree with what I learned from it. Things don't turn out all right just because you are a good person. But that's what the story is saying.

Emerson on Nature

I know we were only supposed to do 2 lines, but I have sort of a lot, because Emerson writes the longest, most drawn-out flowery phrases for the simplest things. Anyway:

As fast as you conform your life to the pure idea in your mind, that will unfold its great proportions. A correspondent revolution in things will attend the influx of the spirit. So fast will disagreeable appearances, swine, spiders, snakes, pests, madhouses, prisons, enemies, vanish; they are temporary and shall be no more seen. The sordor and filths of nature, the sun shall dry up, and the wind exhale. As when the summer comes from the south; the snow-banks melt, and the face of the earth becomes green before it, so shall the advancing spirit create its ornaments along its path, and carry with it the beauty it visits, and the song which enchants it; it shall draw beautiful faces, warm hearts, wise discourse, and heroic acts, around its way, until evil is no more seen. The kingdom of man over nature, which cometh not with observation, -- a dominion such as now is beyond his dream of God,-- he shall enter without more wonder than the blind man feels who is gradually restored to perfect sight.'


So. Basically Emerson is saying that you should remake the world the way you want it- rid it of bad things and eveil things- and rule nature (because you are nature, if one takes into account what he says before in the essay.) in a good way. Now, what first struck me about this is the bolded part. It reminds me of global warming and how different Emerson sees the warming and 'greening' of the world than (some) people do today. This is most likely because of science and so forth, but I still found it interesting. He thinks when snow melts and bad things recede (odd how he says swine- doesn't that mean pigs?-don't people eat pigs?-is he a vegetarian?) then good things will fill in everything. Now, we are more scientifically savvy and know that when you remove or alter part of a system (eco or otherwise) it alters good things as well- we all have niches we must fill. Most specifically, this applies to his statement of 'swine, spiders, snakes, pests'. Also, he assumes that if man desires and achieves a certain amount of control (or coexistence) with nature and thus himself, he'll get rid of crime. This makes it seem as if he believes in the innate goodness of human nature. Something I disagree with.Anyway, this whole passage is about man fixing things to make it better- it is my opinion that he should just leave it as it is- it is better that way.

Friday 21 March 2008

Art

I found it very difficult to find an art piece I 'connect' with, simply because I can't connect with pictures. My mind works in words- I can relate to writing, but pictures are just, well, pictures. Just images, just colours (or hues, if black and white and gray) on a surface. Sculpture is sort of the same. I admire people who can create art- but I can't connect with it. Therefore, I have chosen this piece:



I have no emotional connection to this painting. It does bring a memory to mind. My art teacher once told us that a famous artist (I forget who) drew a dot on a blank sheet and it sold for millions of dollars. At the time, I didn't really think much about it- I was more concerned with chewing on my fingernails. Now, it strikes me as unfair that normal people scorn the idea of buying a dot and that normal people wouldn't be able to do that. The things fame can do for you seem unfair. Even the disadvantages of fame (paparazzi, etc.) can't counteract all the good things it can do. Rich or famous? some people ask. The obvious answer is that if you're famous, it's easy to get rich (unless you're famous for being Gandhi or you're posthumously famous). When you're rich, unless you're also famous, it's not as easy to get famous, unless you're VERY rich. Wealth has degrees.

Also, I think it's a sign of my disconnect from the artistic world, that I was scornful of and amused at the description of the picture, which reads:

Newman proclaimed Onement, I to be his artistic breakthrough, giving the work an importance belied by its modest size. This is the first time the artist used a vertical band to define the spatial structure of his work. This band, later dubbed a "zip," became Newman's signature mark. The artist applied the light cadmium red zip atop a strip of masking tape with a palette knife. This thick, irregular band on the smooth field of Indian Red simultaneously divides and unites the composition.

I noticed several things. First: how on earth is a line on a page an artistic breakthrough? Anyone, even me, with no artistic talent, could do that. Second, it says 'belied by its modest size'. Size? Not belied by its simplicity, but its size? To me, that's very strange, that small paintings could be considered less important, but lines are not. Third, I find it very silly that people honour this painting for being the first to have a vertical line in it. Also, the last sentence seems overanalytical and also very silly. A line 'simultaneously divides and unites the composition'? Of course it divides: the page in half. You'd have to be stretching to get the unites though. Or at least, that's how it seems to me.

I suppose you could continue to wax philosophical about it: say it represents a small part of a larger, hidden or secret whole, that it represents contrast and simplicity....etc. To me, though, it represents my general confusion, disinterest and (occasionally) scorn at art.

(And I wrote a lot about nothing, too, it seems)

End

What is Wright’s realization at the end of the novel? Do you agree with it?

His realization is that he has to try and explain what he's been through and try to make people realize what is going on and unite them to fix it. He also realizes he's basically on his own to do this because no one else sees the world the way he does. He thinks that this is a struggle maybe a lot of people go through, though he doesn't know any. Do I agree that he should do this? Of course. He shouldn't just give in to the system. No one should, if they believe they can do something about it.

Artists and politicians

Do you agree with Wright’s theory that artists and politicians stand at opposite poles?

No. It depends on the artist and politician. Those communists in the book obviously didn't get along with the artists. However, like anything else, it depends on the person. A more artistically-minded politician could in fact have things in common with an artist. I think they would have to agree politically, and the politician would have to have some liking for art(ists), but it's not impossible that they'd work together. For example, if a politician really does have his constituents' best interests at heart (ie he isn't corrupt or inefficient) and he wants to do something for the community, he can commission artwork like murals, paintings, etc. A politician's job is supposed to be to help out the community. If he does that with an open mind, there is no reason his ideas would conflict with artists'.

Thursday 13 March 2008

Crowd

Ch. 17-18, Blog – Can one voice move a crowd to action?

Yes, but it depends on who that voice is and what the crowd is. In the book, we see Wright realizing that the Communists can't reach the black population because they speak in high ideals and metaphors and things that aren't common knowledge in the impoverished black population. So the Communist speakers can't move that crowd to action. However, as seen by the fact that they can recruit successfully, a speaker can reach other crowds, like whites and 'intellectuals' and people like Wright.

Election

Ch. 16, What do you think of Wright's action during the election?

This sort of goes back to what we were talking about in class one day- about whether Wright was 'good' or 'bad' and I said neither because he was human. So this isn't as deep and profound as that, but I think what he did made sense. He may have participated bribery and a corrupt election, but as he said- he needed the money. Even if he hadn't done anything for it, someone else would have. One person can't change anything; only groups can (though one perrson can incite a group to movement). After he did all that, then he wrote I Protest This Fraud on his ballot. What do I think of that? I think that all votes should be honest, even if they don't count individually, and if that was how he felt, that was a good thing to do. (Also, my dad did something like that once: he disliked both candidates so he put 'the corpse of Benjamin Franklin') Wright wrote something else about how he knew that the politicians would know that at least one person knew what was going on and that made him feel better. I understand that feeling.

Change

Ch. 12-14 Blog – Is the change Wright sets in motion at the end of Part I a positive or negative change?

Wright's change- his move to the North- is a positive change. He's going to try and change himself so that he can be more himself and won't have to act so subservient to the whites. He thinks that in the North, the people won't discriminate against him so much. His desire to become more equal is a positive thing. The North will help him along that path, even though there is just as much prejudice there, too. So it is a positive change because he's trying for something close to equality, which all humans deserve.

Friday 7 March 2008

Stealing

Explain Wright's moral dilemma concerning stealing. Is he justified in what he does?
~
He has never considered stealing before because he didn't think that stealing was an effective way to get anything. He views stealing as behaviour that makes blacks seem less equal to whites, because it's something whites can despise about blacks and so he also doesn't want to act as if he is inferior. However, after the incident at the eye people, he decides he has to leave the South or else he knows he'll slip up and get killed. However, he needs money. He isn't making enough money on his own. After his moral barriers break down a little after he smuggles liquor like everyone else, he finally does decide to take part in doing some illegal selling of tickets to get enough money to leave. I think he is justified in what he does. Getting killed and/or remaining miserable helps nobody, least of all him. Compunctions against stealing are all well and good when one isn't struggling for one's very existence. I think it's commendable that Wright held out as long as he did. I don't know that I would have. And since the white people were apparently practically encouraging blacks to steal, it might be what they deserve.

Wednesday 5 March 2008

Live in the South

What does Griggs mean by ‘learn how to live in the south’?
~
He means that Wright has to learn how to act around whites- as if he is inferior. That Wright has to be subservient to them and not protest and not ask questions or act as if he were equal to whites. That the south is like that and if Wright doesn't learn to live in the south, then bad things will happen. He says this because Wright is having trouble acting the way he is supposed to. Griggs is concerned for him- knowing that if Wright doesn't 'learn to live in the south' by not suppressing his own equality, then he could get beaten or worse.

Speech, justified?

Is Wright justified in refusing to say the speech?
~
Yes. If he had wanted to continue with his education, go to college, etc., then refusing would not have been justified. The principal's speech might not have been what Wright wanted to say, but it was only a ninth-grade graduation speech that wouldn't have been remembered. I don't think anyone involved would have particularly cared after a year or so. So it would have been silly not to say a speech that didn't matter for a goal that did. However, Wright is perfectly fine with not teaching, not going to college, not continuing with his education. Because he doesn't care and doesn't want to continue living down south, the speech doesn't matter- nor does what the principal thinks of him. Sticking up for what he thinks he should say is justified, because there would be no reason to capitulate. So, yes, he is justified.

Monday 3 March 2008

Uncle Tom

His Uncle Tom takes something he said the wrong way and goes to beat him for it. Wright doesn't understand what he said that was so wrong. He is angry because he feels that his Uncle Tom has no right to beat him. Tom has had no say in how Wright was brought up, has not cared for him before and is basically just a stranger to him. What happens is similar to what Wright said before, in chapter 1 I think, that 'only a father has the right to beat a child'. He doesn't know Tom, doesn't think Tom cares for him and doesn't like Tom and so refuses to be taught how to behave from someone he doesn't even know, for something he doesn't think is even an issue.

Friday 29 February 2008

Writing

Wright feels gratified after sharing his writing because he finally feels as if he's done something that's uniquely his and his alone. It gives him a sense of self-accomplishment. When the girl doesn't understand why he would write something or what it means, it makes Wright feel as if he's accomplished something profound- as if he's finally beginning to understand part of what part of his life means. So Wright feels smart enough to have surpassed someone's understanding like he's getting close to understanding something greater

Paralysis

When his mother gets paralyzed, Wright starts to lose interest in things that interested him before- like hanging out with his 'gang'. He feels like he has suddenly grown up. He's worried for his future. And later, in the end of the chapter, he explains that his mother's paralysis made his suspect that life wasn't intrinsically good; that there was suffering and it was meaningless. It made him want to try and understand what can't be understood.

I think that he feels like this because so far, his mother has been the one consistent adult in his life. He getts angry at her and confused with her, but she's still his mother and the only adult who hasn't left. His father ran off with another woman. He doesn't like Granny. His Aunt Maggie went off with a Professor to Detroit after his Uncle Hoskins got killed. He can depend upon his mother. Then when she becomes unable to help him, he has to be independent for himself. Because he's only twelve, it shakes his mind up more than it would if he were older and makes him wonder and suspect everything.

"Cultural Heritage"

Wright says it was his ‘cultural heritage’ to dislike Jews. Relate that to his own experiences.

In his life, Wright has been part of the oppressed population so far. People look down on him and treat him like he treats the Jews. So he knows what it feels like to be made fun of and disliked for being a minority, though he hasn't experienced it as much yet in the book as he will. So I find it strange that he can't empathize with them and realize what he's doing. So even though he hates whites for what they do to blacks, he treats Jews the same way.

Hunger

Original answer: Wright is really hungry because his father left his family because of some woman. They (his father and the woman) live away from Wright, his brother and his mother and don't help them, even with child support. At first, there's no food because there's no one working for money. Later on, his mother works and there's some food, but not much. So he doesn't have any food to eat and so is hungry.

Then we talked in class and found out there was a deeper meaning besides the fact that he was just plain hungry.We talked about how he was hungry for attention and knowledge and something he didn't know yet. I totally did not get that from the book, but I understand it now.

Friday 22 February 2008

Are schools necessary?

I think that schools aren't necessary, especially if they're run like Gatto says they are, for the most part. (After all, homeschoolers do just fine, as he points out. And homeschoolers don't have to be just you and your siblings taught by you parents. There are homeschooling groups for the social part, where you gather at people's houses. Homeschoolers can join groups for more social interaction. You might have to be more motivated as a homeschooler, but they do work). I've never been to a public school, so I'm not sure if the 'Prussian' system is actually the norm or if it is just an exaggeration for argument's sake. My suspicion is that it is not acutally like that for the most part. Still, if the purpose of schools is to learn, both academically and socially, then schools aren't necessary. People can learn in groups, in unregimented educational systems, etc. However, as in some parts of the world, the purpose of an education is also to learn sanitation, health, good habits, etc. If one comes from a family in which all that is taken for granted, then that's fine. Or if not, and one goes to a learning place with kids/adults who know all that, then that's fine too. However, whether schools are necessary or not really depends on where you are in the world. But generally, they're not. And 'warehouse' public schools certainly are not.

Education Value

I value parts of the nonacademic education we get at school, in the way that Mann describes it. He has divides up school into parts like physical education, intellectual education as a means to remove poverty, political education, moral education and religious education. I do value religious education in the way he describes it: not converting students, but teaching them how to decide which religion is right. Learning about different cultures and religious is helpful in understanding conflicts in the world; being forced to believe in something is not. Therefore, I think the way that that works in school is a good thing.

I value the intellectual education as a means to remove poverty/to get rich a little bit. I'm not badly off, but since I'm not rich either, and if you do well at school, you get to go to college and graduate school and get a job, then you get rich, so I value school for that. I value some intellecutal education for its own sake- but Mann doesn't talk about that. I value the political education part. It makes a lot of sense to have to know what to vote and how to think about the world before you actually have a say in government. (Even if your say is negligible on its own and not en masse.)

The political education we get is a good thing too, in my opinion, for the same reasons Mann says. It's essential to know how the government works and what the issues are before you actually vote.

As for the physical and moral education part- no, I really don't value it. I don't need to learn sanitation and health- common sense is enough there. I have a sport- I don't need physical education. Mann's praise of it just seems strange. I don't value the moral education, either. Maybe I lack school spirit or whatever, but our Core Values seem more like common sense and basic good things to do and not like something that needs to be instilled into the my head. I don't feel I need a moral education at school because I know what's right and wrong. I think it's good that schools encourage being a good person, but I don't really care or think much about it.

Friday 8 February 2008

Commercial Comments

I thought the commercials from class were all very creative and very good. The two that I remember most are the hat one and that iball one. I remember the hat one because its message seemed clear (hats for everything! buy hats!), yet wasn't too obvious. It showed how hats were needed and for lots of things, and that that store could supply them, yet it didn't just say 'we have hats for everything'- it actually showed how hats were needed for everything. The hats were cool, too.

I also remember the iball commercial, mostly because I think that that's a very creative thing to come up with, that seems to be something that really would appeal to high school students. Also, I thought the product name was cool too, playing on the fact that everybody automatically assume that anything that starts with an 'i' is great. Or almost everybody, anyway. I also liked how it caught the viewer's eye by having Brittney jump in and out of the screen. And then Maggie's voiceover at the end was totally like what happens at the end of real commercials, too.

Wednesday 6 February 2008

Pottery Barn

The way Pottery Barn apparently thinks up its designs and plans for products is really interesting, and I think it works really well. They go out and find cool-looking objects, listen to complaints about existing other place's products and look at how furniture is set up in places like restaurants. I think that that would give them a better idea of what people are looking for in products than simply selling plates because everyone like plates. I also think that it would be a really fun job to have.

It also seems fairly inevitable that Pottery Barn has decided to market to a larger audience. All for-profit businesses want to make as much money as possible (at least I think so), and selling first to children, then to teens would add a lot more business. The fact that the production team is trying to connect with the teen audience they want to sell to would probably make whatever things they come up with more appealing to the target audience.

Store

Explain the way in which the environment of a store you frequent tries to influence you.

A grocery/super-department store like Target, Marsh, Meijer's, Kroger's, Wal-Mart, etc., tries to influence you by being efficient. Some, like Target, have those things where you scan in your items to see how much they cost- so you don't have to 'waste energy' by finding and asking an employee. They have self-check counters for efficiency, and aren't architecturally artistic or creative or nice looking. They also usually have signs/posters advertising how cheap their prices are and what a good deal you get by buying there. They sometimes offer options in which if you do find somewhere else with a higher price, they'll refund your purchase or something. Some have music playing in the background. The music can be either elevator music or whatever radio station whoever is playing the sound system likes. During the early winter, though, they play Christmas music to make you feel all Christmassy and like buying presents. They offer holiday deals for most hlidays, too. So, all in all, those kinds of stores try to influence to buy there by being efficient, offering deals and making your visit 'enjoyable' by playing music. (Though the music really isn't noticeable.)

Monday 4 February 2008

Superbowl

One Super Bowl ad I saw was one where giant carrier pigeons were carrying mail around. They had issues with that- they dropped things and threw cars through windows. Then two guys at the end said something like - "use FedEx". The ad compared non-FedEx mail service to useless giant pigeons and offered FedEx as a safe, effective way to send mail.

Another one I saw was one in which a girl in very tight shiny clothing was first walking, then dancing. A lizard followed her while she was walking. Then a whole bunch of lizards came and danced with her. It was a commercial for iLife water I think. It was geared to men a bit because of the girl (for obvious reasons), but it also could appeal to anyone because the lizards were cool and might be considered cute. I'm not sure exactly what the point of the lizards was, exactly, other than to get the viewer's attention.

Thursday 31 January 2008

Thoughts on Wednesday's Class Discussion

This is what we're supposed to blog about, right?

I thought everybody had some really good points about this. Most people basically were in agreement that the article's main idea- that the objectification of women in ads happens and is bad- was true. Not everyone agreed on whether Kilbourne wrote well or not, among other things. It's my opinion that she did write a good article. It's funny, that her essay-thing was like the ads she rails against. Her writing is up on a soapbox, borderline offensive, exaggerated and over-analyzing. However, it has great shock value (especially seeing the pictures, most of which were definitely disturbing), and it made you remember and think about the article. Just like the ads were shocking and made people remember the product. (And those ads do work- otherwise it would be a waste of money to air them, so the producers wouldn't if they didn't work, so since they're there, they work. Did that make sense?) So while the article was good rhetorical writing, I don't agree with all of it and can see why others don't as well. It sort of reminds me of that torture essay earlier this year, which was good writing but in my opinion idiotic.

I also just thought of something. We talked about billboards, signposts and TV. What about the Internet? Popup ads sometimes have weird pictures on them, too. Especially those weird ones for dating services. What would the role of Internet ads be in objectifying people?

Wednesday 30 January 2008

Kilbourne

Do you agree or disagree with Kilbourne’s argument?

I agree with her general idea- that the ads help to objectify women and men (in different ways). I do think, though, that she's reading too much into the subject. She picked the most drastic ads possible, in my opinion. Maybe those are common on TV, which I don't watch, but in normal life, on billboards and the Internet and signposts and some magazines and thing, ads aren't quite that overtly sexual and offensive. And she makes too much of some of the less intense ads, such as the one that shows a man (heartbreaker) and a product (a razor, I think?). Looking at that ad, I would never have thought it offensive in the way she makes it out to be. I think she says something like 'it makes desirable men seem bad' or something. I suppose that's how you could look at it, but most people don't analyze ads like that. They'd just maybe be amused by the ad, and move on. Not all ads are offensive, and I don't think she gets that.

However, I do agree that there are ads that objectify women (and men). The fact that there even are ads like some of the ones she shows is disturbing. I can see how people could come to think that that attitude is normal, if they are exposed to so much of it. Her later points about women being more at risk than men are true, I think. Of course, I'm not male, so I don't know how much men think about protecting themselves from sexual attack. But generally, it's women who are warned to be careful and not walk around alone. And anything that promotes that type of behaviour is certainly not a good thing.

So, yes, I agree with her argument. I also think, as lamags said in class, that she gets up on her soapbox a little too much.

Tuesday 29 January 2008

Ads on TV: Mucinex!

Describe the rhetorical appeal of one ad you saw

I watched many ads. Many were very confusing. I saw one about Mucinex- which is a medicine you take to get rid of phlegm (mucus) in the lungs to clear up coughs. The ad was set with Shrek-like animation in an Old-West town. The 'big bad sheriff' was a fat green thing that represented mucus. Then a box of Mucinex appeared, and the 'sheriff' went flying away and dissolved in a string of sparkly blue light. The ad said something at the end to the effect of 'Mucinex clears up mucus!'. I can't remember exactly what it said.

The style animation and setting of the ad was meant to make it more interesting to viewers. The ad would be directed to adults, since teens and children don't think of buying mucus-defeating-medicine. At least, most don't. The ad plays up how good the Mucinex is at getting rid of mucus by comparing it to the hero in Old West shows. Viewers would not think of the possible side effects of the medicine, but of the fact that it works in the commercial.