Are you a Transcendentalist?

From my understanding, I see transcendentalism as being a movement for individualism. Transcendentalists believe that institutions and religion organize people and limit them from being their self. They want people to be free from control and express themselves in whichever way they feel would benefit the world. Transcendentalists also believe that people who are self-reliant and independent make a true community. The limitations and boundaries that political parties, religion, or institutions set up take away that independence and make a communities that include people who are not truly themselves. Also, transcendentalists believe in the inner goodness of people and nature.. Some people it may be easy to see the good, but there are others who you have to search a little deeper to find that positive part of them. Transcendentalists do not need facts or physical experience to believe in their principals, they instead use inner spiritual thoughts and the mental essence of a human.

There are some areas that I agree with transcendentalists and other areas I don't. I agree with transcendentalists when it comes to the idea of finding the good in everyone. I think all people have goodness in them it just may be hard to see the good from their physical actions. Also, I think it is important for people to be their self because everyone has a special talent that can add to the world and make it a better place, but on the other side I think it is important that we have institutions and religion to set guidelines and rules to keep order in communities.

Overall, I do not see myself as a true transcendentalist. I do agree with some of their ideas including the goodness within everyone, but I do not think I live life like most transcendentalists do. I believe it is important to have some order in life to keep everyone safe. Most transcendentalists are more easy-going and support less structure and more freedom to express themselves which I think could potentially lead to problems in communities. Also, transcendentalists base their decisions and ideas off of spiritual thoughts and for the most part it is hard for me to agree with something if it is not supported by facts.  

The Great Gatsby

All Americans have heard at one time or another about the Great Gatsby. It is commonly used to teach the American Dream to students and give people a sense of life during the roaring 20s. The movie and book are filled with many similarities but also include many differences as well. 

To start out, in the book and movie are different when it comes to Jordan and Nick's relationship. They seem to be inseparable in the book. While I was reading the book, I felt like Jordan and Nick had a believable connection that added to the whole love atmosphere in the book. For example, multiple times Jordan and Nick go out on dates and Nick describes them and includes dialogue for what is said on those dates. At one point, the reader learns about Jordan's take on being a bad driver. On the other hand, in the movie, not once did I ever sense a connection between Jordan and Nick. I simply saw them as friends of Daisy and nothing more. They never once went on dates and when they talked it never seemed like they were more than friends. Another difference between the movie and the book is the choice of music. This book is written in the 1920s when the Harlem Renaissance and Charleston were very big. In the movie, it seems like it is set in more modern times. They used some old songs with a modern twist to them or other songs that recently had come out but still have that 1920s feel to them. This was an interesting choice by the producer, but I think it was smart in the end to give the movie and commonly known book a little bit of a change and to fit the time period. 

The movie and book are also very similar. The main similarity between the two is the mentioning of several symbols that add to the themes in the movie and book and the overall idea of the American Dream. One symbol that is clearly shown and mentioned is the green light on Daisy's dock. This symbol represents optimism for Gatsby and his dream to repeat the past with Daisy. The scenes that involve the light in the movie often don't involve much more than the light itself, this shows that it is very important. In the book, the light is also singled out and described in a very detailed way so that the reader recognizes the importance of it. Another aspect of the movie and book that was the same is the sense of color in different scenes. The parties at Gatsby's included tons of glitter and bright colors which represented more symbols of wealth. In the book, the parties are described using color too and tons of description of the amount of wealth that was at the parties. Then in the movie and book when the characters leave West Egg, color is no longer a thing. Everything is described as dull and presented in blacks, grays and browns. 

Overall, there are a lot of similarities as well as differences in the movie and book that add to overall presentation and perception of the movie and book.

 

Bowling for Columbine

Michael Moore used many different persuasive strategies to tackle the gun law arguments. His main persuasive strategy was using a deductive argument. He believe that their should be stricter gun laws. He supported his general argument with several details and examples that also used persuasive techniques like logos, ethos, and pathos.

For example, he used a logos example to support his main argument when he involved multiple statistics that showed how the United States had way higher hand-gun deaths than most places around the world. The article "A Land Without Guns" also mentioned several hand-gun death statistics comparing Japan to the United States. In 2008, the United States had over 12 thousand firearm-related homicides and Japan only had 11 firearm-related homicides. Using logos, Michael Moore was able to provide proof to people that the facts show that there is a problem in the United States since other countries don't have the same struggle with gun related killings. This is a good persuasive strategy because people can't argue facts; they are the truth.

Michael Moore also used pathos in his examples to help support his main argument. He showed footage of the Columbine High School shooting which emotionally affects people as they are watching. It makes them fearful and wanting to help the students that are seen in the videos. Also, emotion is expressed with the shooting of the six year old in Flint, MI. When people hear that a little girl was shot they immediately feel attached because they think about all the possible accomplishments and life goals that girl could have achieve and experience. Teachers were shown crying in the video also which makes the viewer emotionally connected and concerned. Overall, using patho examples to support his general argument was a good idea to form a meaningful connection between the argument and the people he wanted to persuade.

Lastly, Michael Moore used a lot of etho examples. Each of his interviews dealt with a person who shared a specific view on gun laws. Those people may or may not have valued the gun law but they all had specific values and beliefs of how guns should be represented in America. For example, the president of anti-gun law club clearly showed his values of having a loaded gun in his household. He believed that the gun provided a sense of safety even though he was never using it and had never been affected by a crime.

Overall, the persuasive techniques that Michael Moore used in this documentary were very helpful in supporting his main argument of having more gun laws. He showed both sides of the argument but used great rhetorical strategies to show that his argument was the better one. I personally liked how he connected the gun laws to interesting events that have really affected our nation and also how he included many different facts that not a lot of Americans are aware of. This documentary definitely provided me with a clearer vision of my views on guns and gun laws in the United States.

Sound and Fury

There was one main argument in Sound and Fury that broke into different pieces of other arguments. The main argument was whether a cochlear implant was a good thing or a bad thing. The two families in the film had different views on the cochlear implant. The family with hearing parents, Chris and Mari, did want their son, Peter, to get the cochlear implant. The family with deaf parents, Nita and Peter, did not want their daughter, Heather, to get the implant.  This whole issue came back down to the concept of how the deaf culture was perceived by both the parents.

Looking into the family with Peter and Nita, they were strongly against letting their little girl get a cochlear implant. At first, they were curious to find out what positives could come out of the surgery, but their love for the deaf culture took over and helped them make their final decision. They did not think the cochlear implant left enough of the deaf culture in their child. They saw kids who no longer signed and instead talked almost to the same capability as a hearing person. Since so many people in their family were deaf, they wanted their daughter to be able to sign.  They also feared that her love for the deaf culture would fade. They thought that since she would be able to hear, she would lose interest in her true self which is being a deaf person. I found this very interesting. Being able to hear, I don’t think I can truly understand how important their culture is to them. I personally saw deaf people as having a disability, but they believe they are just the same and just learn in different ways. This was very cool to hear and changed my vision of the deaf culture. I now do not see them as having a disability, but I do still think life is harder being deaf. There are some activities in the world that require being able to hear and without having that ability they are missing out on job opportunities and other hearing activities.

The other argument came from the family with Mari and Chris. They strongly believed in giving their child peter a cochlear implant. They realised that the best time to give him one was when he was the youngest possible age to get one that way he would have the best chance to develop the best possible hearing. They argued that even though Peter was deaf, they still wanted him to get a chance to be able to hear and have all the opportunities of a hearing person. They believed they were not taking away his deaf culture. He would always be deaf, they are just giving him the option to be a part of the hearing culture as well. I personally side with this choice. The other family with Peter and Nita believed that the a deaf person should not be exposed to the hearing world then they would be considered “not accepting of the culture”. I disagree with this. Even though the cochlear implant gives the child the ability to hear sound, they can’t hear perfectly which will remind them that they are deaf. Also, the implant can be turned off which would make the child deaf again and have to use sign language to communicate so it wouldn’t be forgotten. Also, I was surprised to see how many jobs deaf people can actually get with hearing people, but there will always be those jobs they for sure can not get. The cochlear implant gives them that opportunity to have that job.

Overall after watching the film, Sound and Fury my vision on the deaf culture changed.  Living in a hearing world, I never would think that someone who is deaf could function so well. To my surprise the deaf culture is very good at reading and writing and can actually get jobs in the hearing world. I liked how the film included the deaf people using sign language then added the voice in the background to let hearing people understand. This is a good stylistic choice because it allows the movie to be seen by both the deaf and hearing world. If another parent had a deaf kid or if they were deaf themselves, they could understand the film and get information from the different examples of why or why to not support the cochlear implant.

Fear of Cucumbers

Most people fear creepy crawlers or haunted objects that appear in the dark, but I fear the oddly colored, innocent looking vegetable—a cucumber. A vivid memory of being forced to eat one sticks with me every time I see or smell one. It was a normal night at the dinner table. My family ate mash potatoes, my favorite, and chicken. The house smelled of a warm thanksgiving aroma that drew you to the kitchen. I couldn't think of anything that could possibly make this dinner bad. My mom called my brother and I and within seconds we were both seated and waiting patiently for everyone one else. Once everyone had sat down I grabbed my fork and knife, ready to dig in. Without even noticing I dug into my mash potatoes. The smell of the thanksgiving meal had never smelt better. Bite after bite the meal got better and better. I continued to scarf down my meal until a hint of a smell I feared snuck its way over the thanksgiving aroma. I looked down at my plate in slow motion to see the innocent green vegetable staring at me. Instantly the tree bark, sour smell took over the tasty thanksgiving smell. I all of a sudden didn't feel so good. How could I have gone the whole meal without noticing the horrendous smell coming from the cucumbers? I looked at my mom who was biting down on her cucumber that instant. She loved cucumbers and always wished my brother and I did too. I reminded her that I hated cucumbers and that I was just going to throw them away so why would she put them on my plate. She stared at me and smiled and said, “Not tonight you aren’t. You are going to eat those cucumbers before you leave this table.” This was my worst nightmare. The smell was getting stronger by the minute and I started to feel light headed. My family began to finish up and leave the table. I sat there glaring at the cucumber that sat in the middle of my plate. I held my nose shut to block out the nasty smell. Three hours had passed and I hadn't even attempted to eat the stupid vegetable. My mom came back and gave me the option to eat it with another food that was left on the table. Then and there I wished I still had some leftover chicken or mash potatoes to accompany the cucumber as I ate it, but all that was left was carrots and grapes. I told myself to just forget about the smell and eat it as fast as I could. I threw it in my mouth and chewed as fast as I could. The texture gave me chills and I swallowed as quickly as I could. I shoved five grapes in my mouth to follow the cucumber, but nothing was making it better. I ran from the table straight to the bathroom where I brushed my teeth more than three times. I will never forget the torture of eating that cucumber that one night I thought was going to be the best dinner as it turned into the worst dinner ever. 

Blurred Lines by Robin Thicke

My friends and I this summer definitely found ourselves singing Blurred Lines in the car, and not once did we think of the potential message behind it. It was a catchy song that you heard on the radio about 2-3 times a day in the summer. How could a song that was played so much and be so catchy have a bad meaning behind it? This was my initial reaction to Robin Thicke's Blurred Lines. I simply ignored the words and continued singing the song along with my friends. After reading these articles, I have some questions about the song, but I do not think the song is necessarily "Rapey". 

An editor at NPR Music, Frannie Kelley states, "Lyrically, it's problematic, but I feel like so many pop songs right now are problematic". A lot of songs these days are on the edge and pushing the normal boundaries making people more uncomfortable. I don't think we can treat this song any differently. Yes, it was a hit song so more people heard it, but it was still published and it had to have been liked by people to get the rating it received. Also, the lyrics "I know you want it" are stated multiple times which don't directly target sexual consent. The women are given the change to react in the lyrics as well so the decision is going both ways even if it seems like it isn't. 

I do think that this song has it moments when things are taken too far. I never pictured any bad things when I heard the song, but as soon as I saw the video it changed my perception of the song. If it is a well known song the music video should be for everyone to enjoy. I wouldn't want my kids to watch the video even if they loved the song. I think the video is degrading to women as it clearly show that the men are in control of the women, but I don't think rape is the main message. I think it has a lot of open ended areas where the audience can chose the outcome. Overall, the song crossed some boundaries, but a lot of songs do these days so it doesn't deserve the label of being "Rapey" though it shows signs of being degrading to women. Sooner than later, I bet some limits will be put on what songs can imply.

Autobiography of a Face

Imagine trying to live a normal life with half of your face missing. It's impossible. People stare at you all the time breaking down your self confidence fast. This is the life of Lucy Grealy. A brave young girl who never thought her life would change after being hit in the face by a kickball one recess. That one kickball game caused Lucy to later head to the hospital in pain to find out she actually had cancer in her jaw. With little help from her father and mother, Lucy faces life changing surgeries while she lives in the hospital. But on the other fun side of the hospital days, she never fails to find someway to cause trouble with the nurses or her best friend Derek. There comes a time when Lucy needs to face the world with her "new face" where she takes on every struggle bravely. There are times when Lucy questions her "new face" and wishes she were normal again. She never gives up and stays brave throughout every situation. Later on, Lucy meets new surgeons who work miracles to her face bringing her closer and closer to that normal life again.

I would recommend this book to any audience that is looking in the career field working with cancer, someone who wants a heart felt story of someones life, or simply someone looking for a short read that keeps you wanting to turn the pages. I loved how this book not only talks about all the challenges Lucy faces, but her reactions and how she deals with those challenges. She often talks about loneliness and the pain of feeling different which can relate to many different life scenarios. That way many readers can relate to the story even if they are experiencing a totally different issue.

Reading isn't my first choice for an activity, but I really enjoyed reading this autobiography. It was easy to read, yet introduced me to new words to add to my vocabulary. Also, with an interest in the science field I loved hearing about all the procedures Lucy had to undergo and all the medical help she was given. Overall, Autobiography of a Face was a very unique book based around a remarkable person who deserves to have her story heard.