Wednesday, August 3, 2011
Poetry
Depending on when a poem was written sometimes poetry can be hard for me to understand. My favorite poem was "Cinderella" and "Ozymandius". I liked "Cinderella" because it was written so honestly and graphic. Ozymandius's message however was the most interesting to me because the statue symbolized that nothing lasts forever. Now that I think about it, I also like "The Flea". Just because I found it somewhat romantic and sweet. Despite his lover squishing the flea at the end of the story. The hardest poem for me to understand was "My Last Duchess" and "The Love Song of J Alfred Prufrock". The first time I read the stories I was a little bored and distracted so maybe thats why I found the poems more interesting after we discussed them in class.
Understanding Short Stories
My understanding of the short stories improved once we discussed the stories in class. At first I would just read the stories and disregard whatever words or references I did not understand immediately. However drafting, revising and discussing helped me understand what the author was communicating. I'm glad we actually go through the stories in class because there are so many things that I would have missed if we didn't. I think sometimes the authors just assume the readers will know the literature references they make. However if the reader was born in a different decade, let alone a different century, then the reference will go over our heads completely. I found that to be the case a lot for me. Working in small groups was very helpful too. People interpret stories differently and its interesting to learn the stories from their perspectives.
Monday, July 18, 2011
Ivan Ilych's Boring Life
Narrative of The Yellow Wallpaper
Reading "The Yellow Wallpaper" from a 1st person narrative is more interesting to me than from any other perspective. I like it more because I get a better understanding of the situation(s) in the story. I like knowing what the main character is thinking and what she observes around her. If it was told from another perspective maybe the audience would have thought that her husband was abusive and unloving. Even though you get to read what the main character is thinking, the audience can still notice if something is off about the character(s) as well. For instance we know in the beginning that she hates the yellow wallpaper but as she stays in the room longer she starts to like and become attached to the wallpaper. The character might be saying one thing but we remember what she was also thinking earlier. Slowly the audience gets to see how she slowly becomes crazy while she remains in denial.
Significance of time in "A Rose for Emily"
From what I understand, roses are a symbol of time in stories. This is the same case for "A Rose for Emily". Roses die pretty quickly if not taken care of properly. However a rose can also be preserved. I believe the towns people in the story tried to do this with Emily. Since she was the last symbol of the old school way of life, they wanted to preserve her in a sense and in doing so they covered up her mistakes. She has stayed the same over time while her environment around her is progressing and changing quickly. As you can tell, Emily does not handle change very well. This is probably also why she kills Homer. She wanted to preserve him and the good times they had rather than allow time to take its course. I am assuming that the narrator is one of the towns people who observed her life and/or one of the people who sent the tax papers to her. So you get an observers point of view of what happened to her after her father passed to the date of her death. Some areas are left open but the narrator hints at what happens to her over time. Time and change is inevitable. As much as the towns people, and even Emily, tried to stop time, the change was inevitable and that is what I think William Faulkner tried to express in this story.
Thursday, June 16, 2011
Critical Thinking with Jon Stewart
CNN did this on Anderson Cooper's show. At first Anderson Cooper is the middle man in a debate versus two men who are discussing health care and unemployment. Right when the audience feels like the debate is going somewhere Anderson Cooper says "We're going to have to leave it there." Will the debate continue after the T.V break? Nope. Anderson Cooper completely switches topics to report on a 5 year-old youtube star. Jon Stewart responses sarcastically "Bravo indeed. To be fair there was probably no other way people could have seen that...youtube video...."
People constantly hear statistics and so-called facts from whatever news network they last watched. We always hear outrageous numbers being thrown around but never question where these so-called experts got their facts. Instead fallacies are used in the news to persuade people to feel a certain way. For instance CNN had Arizona senator Jon Kyl on the network to talk about health care stating "almost everybody agrees that we can save up to 100 billion to 200 billion dollars if we had affective medical mal practice reformed". Who exactly is "almost everybody agrees" and where did he get this 100 billion to 200 billion dollar statistic? Jon Stewart responds with "...that is an impressively high citation free completely made up number! And Kyl had a bunch of them..."
Jon Stewart and The Daily Show writers always use critical thinking when reporting the news. Generally they do not force their opinions on the audience but poke fun at both major political parties so that the audience can come up with their own ideas and opinions. As what a good news network should do.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)


