Due to me doing an interview before I went to English that day, I came into the film late and I had no idea what was going on. So at the end I didn’t know what the sled meant or anything like that, all I knew was that it was a sled that said his dying words on it. Now that I know that it signified his childhood because it was his childhood sled, I can understand the film much better. I admit that’s a bit cheesy, but I think that everything is a bit cheesy to some degree. The only bad part was the quality, but that was not the fault of the film producers because they just don’t have the technology we have today. With that filming equipment it makes every man sound the same and every woman sound the same. That could be me or maybe it could be the film industry trying to mess with me when they filmed it when I wasn’t born. To this day I am still unsure if the old timey film industry was out for me. The good parts were the transitions from present day and the past. It all made sense even for someone who came into the movie late and had no idea what was going on. Seeing the aftermath of the story was interesting because I got to see where the characters would end up even if I had no idea how that would happen. The theme is money doesn’t bring happiness. The commentary is trying to say that most rich people aren’t happy because they are really different than everyone else and they strive to be normal. The film shows this by having Kane get with Susan, a girl who does not know who he is. Bringing her into his rich life didn’t work either because he still wasn’t like everyone else, but Susan still made him happy even if he did not make her happy in the end.
Through Kane’s life he does many things to be happy. First he buys the best writers and makes a very secessful paper which puts him as a well known man. He thought that he would be happy when he was wealthy, but his money making habits got the better of his marriage. So then he sought out something different. His newspaper life did not make him happy so he ended up finding Susan who he tried to be normal with. Unfortunately for them that did not work out either. He ended up using his money again and living in a “palace” away from everyone else so she stopped being as normal as he wanted her to be. He kept pushing this by trying to make her sing like her mother wanted her to do, but that just pushed them both far from where normal was. They ended up being miserable together with pretty much everything they could have wanted. Well, pretty much everything that Kane would have wanted. Yet Kane was not happy. he did all of this to try to make himself happy, yet he always steered himself in the wrong direction.
Firstly, the theme of The Love Song is the blight of the classes of society. This theme involves lower class people feeling bad just like Alfred Prudfrock in this poem. It shows that because he is a lower class citizen he feels like he is under everyone else so he feels like he cannot approach a higher class woman. These social norms are a sort of blight on our society because it encourages people being less of a person because of their social status (which is of course a bad thing). Secondly, the theme of Disillusionment of 10′ o’clock’s theme is how conformity is a bad thing. It tells how someone who conforms to society’s standards dreams of nothing, but someone who doesn’t would be dreaming of something exciting. This shows that being your own person is better than following what everyone else is doing. Thirdly, the theme of Anyone Lived in a Pretty How Town is about gender equality. Anyone is refered to as the man in the situation and no one is referred to as the woman. It is not until the woman marries the man until she is referred to as somebody. So the poem was making a statement on how society sees woman. The setting of the small town never changes, but the seasons do. The seasons may change, but year by year they are always the same, but the statement that is shown is that this gender equality never changes just like the little town. Each of these three poems are making statements on our society in their own different ways. So they are all similar in that aspect, but their topics are all different. Even if all of the topics are aiming to fix our society for the better. I think that Disillusionment of 10′ o’clock is most applicable to our society because it seems that everyone seems to want to be the same. So many people want collectors items or things like that (for example Jordan’s), but they end up just being like everyone else. That is a small example of something that is in today’s society, but since the internet is growing there is more room for people to want to conform to a group. I liked Anyone Lived in a Pretty How Town the most because the repetition of “summer autumn winter spring” just sounded really good. I didn’t care too much about any of the individual messages (even though they are good ones) I just liked the rhythm.
Due to me being out for the flu, I came back oblivious to “The Celebrated Jumping Frog of Calaveras County.” I did not understand the satire in the story until good old Mr. Mcgarry explained it to me. I’m not sure if good is the best adjective, but it’s what I used. Get over it. I had originally thought it was making fun of people who went on and on while telling a story, but it was actually about something much deeper. It tackled the different between social classes and how they speak to each other, in this case the satire was in place to make fun of the wealthy man who judged to lower classed man Simon. So Simon told this long story about Jim Smiley which I had mistaken for nonsense. Which it sort of was, but also came with the same parallels as the situation in the real world.
The only thing I really know about Huck Finn is that it is a sort of sequal to Tom Sawyer and that Jim is the only good person in the book. It’s not a lot to go on, but it seems like it will be an interesting story. In class we learned that it tackles society in the perspective of Huckleberry Finn who grew up outside of it. That seems like an interesting premise for a story, and I’m excited to read it. After reading this story (knowing Mcgarry), I will probably be disturbed in some way. Maybe Mark Twain will blow my mind with satire.
Imom really reminded me of DETROIT: Become Human near the end of the film. Which got me really excited because that game was really good. Anyways, they were using satire to make fun of a few different parent groups. For example the parents who had their kids early or an unplanned pregnancy, single parent, etc. I would also argue it is satirizing the idea of us relying heavily on technology to do things for us. That we would even replaced (sort of) our wives/mothers with a robot that would watch your kid and cook. I liked the presentation of it because the interviews were funny enough to keep me watching and the story with the imom and the boy was weird and I wanted to find out what happens.
It would be hard to go a day on youtube without running into satire. Most of our generations comedy is based around dark humor and satire. Although, The common satire I see is not something you may want to share with the class. A satire that you may share with the class is any one of pewdiepie’s videos. You will find him using satire in pretty much any of them. Satire has to be one of my favorite forms of comedy because at first you might not even catch it, and then it persists and you know for sure. The only problem I see with satire is people take things seriously and out of context, so people may be shown as something they are not. They would just be trying to make fun of that thing, but some people do not understand it. So they would be labelled at that one thing. I am sure that if you watch a comedy tv show or movie you will find at least one example of satire, or maybe even the entire show is satire like the Office.
My favorite kind of humor has to either be really dumb memes that no one gets, or simply satire. Sure, I like pretty much every kind of humor, but that’s the humor that i am most accustomed to. I most likely laugh at pretty much everything, I’m not picky in comedy. A few examples of stupid memes that I have enjoyed for the past year that I can think of off the top of my head are: big chungus, somebody toucha my spaghett, ironic minecraft memes, gamers are oppressed memes. Really anything that is stupid. I laugh at the things the general public looks at and thinks “how.”
I know little to nothing about Mark Twain if I’m being honest, but I am going to guess he did a lot of satire.
Samuel Langhorne Clemens, also known as Mark Twain, was a major American writer from Missouri. His stories and novels are famous for their humor, vivid details, and memorable characters. His best-known works are The Adventures of Tom Sawyer and The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, both classics in American literature.
Ah yes, Mark Twain is the man who wrote Huckleberry fin. I feel like a fool for not knowing this, but I am going to guess the entire reason we are learning satire is because of this book. I see through the lies of the jedi, I know the truth now. Huckleberry Fin is a satirical book, and it won’t take itself too seriously like I expected.
The first Dark Tower book was about a singular character, but this book introduces the reader to a host of new characters. These characters are introduced by a clever way of introducing the basis of this series: The Tower. Roland, the protagonist, may need these people to get to the tower, but the dimensional travel of the tower is helping him out on his journey. It is an interesting idea to drive a reader in by throwing a lot of settings around from different times and worlds. In the previous book, the protagonist seemed to only need himself, and having him have to rely on others is an interesting story telling method.
Forcing a character who is prone to being alone and to himself was a big plot point in the book. King decided he wasn’t going to do this in the most traditional way. He forced a gunslinger (who might I add sacrificed a child for his goal of the tower) from another world to go into the mind of a handful of other characters. Roland is motivated to do this by forcing him to have these characters in his world so he may find the tower. it may be frustrating to him to deal with people with many different ideals, but he keeps going on because of the motivation for the tower. The first person he must get on his side is a heroine addict from another world that he must put his life into the hands of. I would not say that is a classic story, so it brings in readers with the ridiculousness of it. The reader has to admire King for putting a story together that stays serious and sometimes comical about a gunslinger from a kingdom like town, and a heroine addict who smuggles cocaine underneath his armpits.
All of the people that Roland needs to gather are from cards that he received in the previous book. A very creative way to expand on this is when Roland was dying and Eddie (the heroine addict) was trying to nurse him back to health. After being attacked by a giant lobster, he was starting to die of infection and lack of food. So once Eddie was in Roland’s world he had to get them to the next door and nurse Roland at the same time. Roland was the protagonist so every time he blacked out the scene would skip to another. Every time the scene skipped it seemed to be skipping to the next section. Every section the heading read “shuffle” which expanded on how the cards are shuffling to find out who they would meet next. It is a very creative way to introduce another character and reference the cards.
In conclusion, adding more characters for a loner character to bond with added a lot to the series. Roland would do anything to get to the tower and fulfill his promise. he would never be able to avenge everyone he’d grown up with and stop the man in black. Once more King surprises his audiences with a wacky story about the Tower that still seemed to stay serious.
When I heard that we were going to watch an old move, I was not too excited. I didn’t really care because I really don’t watch movies. Then I saw the writing, it seems like Hitchcock paid attention to every detail, and that is the kind of writing I love. Most people in my generation want fast stories, but I love a slow moving story that takes its time to introduce characters. The more time you have with the intro, the more invested you get into those characters. So to see those characters go through trouble in the main plot ads an extra personal connection to the film. When Midge had drew herself as Carlotta, I thought that she was going to turn out to be the next one with the “dreams.” Then I was very surprised to find that Madeline had never died. I am excited to see where that side-plot goes to. I wonder if Midge will try to interfere in Judy and Scotti’s relationship. I don’t want to attempt to guess anymore because this move has his me with a handful of surprises. I do not understand why Judy would jump into the bay if she was posing as Madeline, couldn’t there have been a chance that Scotti would not save her? I suppose Gavin knew Scotti so he knew of his integrity. Also, if Madeline had been dead for a while, couldn’t the coroner have found that the body had been dead for longer. Or found other methods of death besides falling? I suppose they would have stopped when they saw that she had fell, and just assumed. They really had no reason to question it further.
I’m really not sure how you could make this more relevant for today. Firstly, you would want to change it to be in today’s times, change the cars, special effects, clothing, styles, etc. Secondly, the main character could not be a stereotypical detective from the 50’s because no one really wears a suit and fedoras anymore. We could make a story about a Jim Gordon like man who gets vertigo and roll with the plot from Vertigo.
My first thoughts on this poem were around the lines of disgust because analyzing poetry is similar to trying to walk across a rope while juggling chainsaws. For both I am sure that I would make a mistake. I was under the impression that we were done with poetry and I was crossing my fingers that we were nearing the end of transcendentalism with the divinity school address. Even if I did like that by the end, didn’t mean I enjoyed analyzing it. Maybe the same can be told of this poem, I might learn to like it after I shove it into my mind enough. My group had gotten section 6, which was filled with lines that described our society either learning for the better or worse from past society. It described the society as “grass” which I thought amusing because of course Tyler asked what are the people stepping on the grass. Wittman’s devotion to transcendentalism allows him to describe the society as grass. Of course that’s what he describes it as, sad part is it makes sense. It also allowed him to reference Christianity in his work and linking both together. Of course this duo makes the best piece of work. I think that the most important lines in our section were coming from the first stanza. “A child said What is the grass? fetching it to me with full hands;How could I answer the child? I do not know what it is any more than he.” I think that these two lines have to be the most important ones in the section because it sets up the rest of the section and allows the reader to understand what they are preparing themselves for. Although, no one is really prepared to read this stuff. Saying that the child is the societies future which would allow the section to speak on society in the past and society now and talk about how the new society years from now will only develop how we make it to be. And like a child, the society will be easily influence by its parent’s (the societies it came from.)
I think that a government that governs least is the best way to run a country, I do not suppose stripping the entire government away but a lot of it. The government should be there to enforce the law on criminals who wish to harm other citizens. The citizens should be able to chose what they do for work, where they live, how they live, etc without government intervention unless that said person has done harm on another human being. The individual citizen should be created equally, and if anyone from any social group commits a crime they should be punished to keep the equality, but keep the laws to a minimum so people are allowed to choose what they want to do. With regulations of course, just on obvious atrocities like murder, or any other form of harming someones body or identity. A government that would command your respect would be a monarchy or a dictatorship because they are often corrupt rulers. A monarch or a dictator would want you to see them as a godly figure and that in itself is demanding your respect, and that is not the way to go for a government. A government should have respect going both ways. You respect the laws and the government will respect your lifestyle whatever it is. Most protests these days do not really hit the mark like they used to, they aren’t really about the same kind of important subjects that Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. were protesting for. They were protesting for rights for their people, and nowadays we have people on both sides of the political spectrum protesting gas prices in yellow vests. What is more important? The price of gas or the rights of an entire race? And the big difference is that these protests turned violent over not being heard when Gandhi and King were never heard for years yet they never turned violent so protests have certainly changed. At the end of the day the protests in France are taking a step back to the days of the French Revolution and that is certainly ineffective. If Gandhi and King can do this without hurting anyone then they can get their word across that they aren’t being heard a different way. Besides they are just hurting their fellow man in the process.
To this day I can still not pronounce Transcendentalism, but that doesn’t hold me back from trying to understand what it means. The question is am I really understanding the concept of Transcendentalism the way it should be? After reading Thoreau’s excerpts I can conclude that Emerson and him are very similar thinking men. They both believe that people should not conform to what the general public is doing and be there own person, and they both believe that the true way to gain happiness is in nature. The first part of Thoreau’s excerpt titled “Where I lived and what I lived for” explains where he lived in his life. He explains how he used to live in a house and would browse properties always using his imagination as if he would own all of the properties around where he lived. Then he decided that he would get more out of life if he left his life behind and went to live in the woods. He believed he’d be able to see life more clearly if he would get closer to where life began. “The conclusion” is the second part of the excerpt and explains what he had learned from his experience of living in the woods. The main idea of the conclusion is to explain about how wealth does not determine your happiness and that it doesn’t matter to obtain a healthy soul. The benefits of leaving society for Thoreau is that he no longer has to worry about being an unhealthy man and doesn’t have to worry about anyone’s social status. He can just allow himself to be one with nature and use the experience to learn. The things that I would miss are showers, air condition, wifi, and everything in between. Assuming I am doing away with my cellphone as well I would miss the ability to play music on my own whim. In all honesty I could not do it because like my entire generation I am accustomed to the technology that surrounds my life and if it were gone I would go insane. A modern reader should see that you should not rely on your technology even if it is useful. You should allow yourself to see nature for what it is even if it is just on occasion.
I will probably not think on these arguing techniques for a very long time, nor will I use them while arguing with friends. Mostly because I dislike to argue with people. I do not care for it, but I do understand it a lot more now. And for doing an argument in a class like this again I will definitely keep this in mind and maybe even go back and check the notes we took in class. During an argument between peers I will not put much thought into it because that’s just the way that I am. Making a fool of myself is much more important than being good at an argument I suppose. Or maybe I will keep this in mind and I won’t even notice it. Maybe I’ll stop name calling in an argument because I’ll remember it to be Ad Hominem. I’ll look upon my friends arguments and notice when they say something stupid MORE OFTEN. It’ll be great, i can point out how their arguments are invalid now. And maybe they won’t remember anything and I can knowingly spit out fallacies at them. So many possibilities. Bu will these possibilities be executed? Maybe. With adults i am more serious so then my mindset will be different and I will be willing to point out their fallacies in their arguments because there is something good about proving someone who is older than you wrong. Sure it will ruin their self worth because some high school student knew what Hasty Generalization was. Developing a valid argument is actually a lot more difficult than I thought and that’s why so many people just end up calling the other side an “idiot”, a “tool”, or something more unpleasant. You don’t put much thought into how much preparation is needed and you don’t thing of how important that really is. After you get your sources, you could be well off or you could have gotten bad sources and you’ll have to try to do some more research while you’re supposed to be forming the argument. Or maybe you’re topic is just not as well known so the sources are barren.