Picture by: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/24/business/money-satisfaction-lottery-study.html
My reaction to the film was honestly just confused. I was not expecting the movie to end the way it did. Throughout the entire movie, I thought that rosebud was going to have a much deeper meaning than it did. I was overanalyzing what was going on and what he was missing in his life. Overall I only liked part of the movie. There were times when I thought it was really interesting and had me really wondering what it all meant. Other times I did not like the film at all. It got confusing when they would flashback to Kane’s earlier life because I wasn’t sure what exactly was going on. The biggest part that confused me was when they flashbacked to when Kane was a young child. At first, I didn’t realize that it was Kane as a little kid, so I didn’t know the point of showing the flashback. In the end, I realized how important that scene was because the sled he was riding was named Rosebud, and that was the last time he really felt love. I think the point of the movie is dumb. They should have made rosebud be something else. Having it be a sled was a very dumb symbol for love. Overall I was not a fan of the movie. During this time the American Dream meant that you had money and you were living well. Even though Charles had more money than most could imagine, he still was not happy. We were supposed to take away that even if you are living the “American Dream” you still may not be truly happy. The theme is that money can not give you love. No matter how much Charles Kane tried, he did not feel love. He tried to do everything in his power to be loved but he wasn’t. The last time he felt love was when he was a child. With all the money in the world, he still couldn’t buy love. The key figures in Kane’s life impacted his quest for happiness in many ways. Susan Alexander told Kane that he did not give her anything he just bought her things. Kane thought that if he bought things for the people in his life that it would make him feel love but it did not. The other characters in the film didn’t make him feel loved because the things he was doing did not make him a lovable person. He would buy people things hoping that would mean something but it did not, and he could not understand why. Kane cheating on his first wife and losing the election affected his quest for happiness as well. The happiest and most love he felt was when he was a child and did not have money so he was unable to use his money as a way to feel love. Kane let the wealth get to him and that got in the way of him finding genuine love.
Picture by: https://www.google.com/search?q=prufrock&safe=strict&rlz=1C1GCEA_enUS805US805&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi1laSx-57iAhVGh-AKHe60DUUQ_AUIECgD&biw=1440&bih=818&dpr=1.5#imgrc=ReWBdLNhgnb0hM:
The theme of the poem The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock is not being able to fit into society. Throughout this poem, it was very dark and sad. As you kept reading the poem I realized that he was sitting outside of a party with high-class people and he wanted to talk to a girl, but he felt like he was not good enough. The next poem I read was “Disillusionment at 10 o’clock”. The theme of this poem was the idea that the only people that are really living and experiencing life are the ones that do not follow the rules of society. In this poem, it talks about how there are people that have the same dreams and are wearing the same basic clothes to bed, but then they look down upon the man who is drunk and dreaming about something crazy. This shows the theme of this poem. The third poem that I read was “anyone lived in a pretty how town”. The theme of this poem was how everyone in society just lives their life and goes on with it and eventually we all die and that’s just that. All three of these poems have one thing in common with their theme and it is that they all have to do with society. Each and every one of these deals with impressions other people or yourself have on society. Whether it is what Prufrock wrote in his poem about not feeling good enough in society or the idea that no one is living a full life and that we all just go and die. The one I find most applicable to our society today is Prufrock’s poem. I think the idea that people are too worried about not fitting in and thinking they aren’t good enough is very accurate. In society today people can dress a certain way, and drive a style of car that we have made more desirable than most, which gives the impression to people that they have money or are better off. At the end of the day it does not matter what you do, its what you think of yourself not how you look. My favorite poem was Prufrock’s because I felt that it was the most accurate and easy to understand.
Picture by: https://www.amazon.com/Schleich-14407-Frog/dp/B0002HY7IW
My thoughts on “The Celebrated Jumping Frog of Calaveras County” were very scattered. When I finished reading the story the night before class I thought to myself this is pretty good, and thought it was kind of funny. Once I got to school the next day and we were discussing it in class I realized I completely misunderstood the entire story and took it way to literal. After I realized what Mark Twain’s point was I thought it was good it just took me a while to fully get there. I liked the satire that was used in it and thought it was quite comical how the story ended. I am a little bit nervous to start Huck Finn because now that I know how Mark Twain writes, I am not sure if I am going to understand it right away. I am glad that we read this short story first because it should make me as the reader more aware of what to expect and what to look for in regard to satire. I should have less trouble understanding it and get what Twain is trying to say to the reader through this book. I honestly have no expectations for what it is supposed to be about because I do not know anything about this book, except to expect a lot of satire. I think that it will be a good book as long as you can follow what he trying to say and what is going on throughout the book. After watching Imom I am so disturbed. As the movie was going on I had a feeling that the Imom was going to cook the baby and not the chicken, but when she did it was so awful. There were so many things that happened throughout the film that made it so creepy and weird. I personally think that the way the Imom acted was so creepy yet so close to reality that it made it even worse as a viewer. I think it made it scary because our society could get to a point where we depend on a robot like that to take care of different things around the house or with their children. Overall I think that it was very disturbing and something that should never happen.
Picture by: https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/1048/mark-twain
I do not have much experience with satire, but I do with humor. Satire is something that I have been exposed too for as long as I can remember, but I was never actually told the true definition of what it was called or meant. I just looked at it as something that was mocking or making fun of something that most people knew about. There are many types of humor. One is the giggles. This is definitely one that many people my age and that I’m around have. Laughing uncontrollably at things that are not that funny seems to be something most teenagers have in common. Another example is healing humor, which is when you are laughing with someone and not at them. This is not something that occurs frequently, but it does happen sometimes. The one that I like the most is self-deprecating humor. It is when someone is constantly making jokes about themselves and makes other people laugh. I personally like this one the best because I think it ends up being the funniest because if you are able to laugh at yourself and make others laugh while doing it, it is so much better. My type of humor is hardly even a thing. I really am not that funny, I end up trying to say something funny that I just laugh at. I personally do not know much about Mark Twain. I know that he is known for his book Huck Fin but besides that, I do not know much about how he writes. Based on what I looked up Twain uses satire a lot in his writing and is known for his writing style to be known as realism. I think that using this style of writing makes the books he wrote much more interesting. Mark Twain’s real name is Samuel Langhorne Clemens. He also wrote an autobiography that he published while he was still alive. He then wrote another autobiography that he had made sure someone published it 100 years after his death. He did this so that he could write whatever he wanted and include names of people that he does not care for in it. The fact that Twain did this is not surprising considering that he was known for satire.
Picture by: https://www.kobo.com/gb/en/audiobook/the-sun-is-also-a-star-6
This quarter I chose to read the book The Sun Is Also The Star by Nicole Yoon. Before I decided what book I was going to read, I knew that I wanted to read a romance. When I found this book and realized that it was a romantic I decided right away that this was going to be the book I would read. As I started to read it, I was slightly confused about why it was considered a romantic. The book is filled with different sections with different characters’ point of views. Right away I thought this seems like a bizarre way to have a romance novel organized, but I went along with it. As I continued to read the first couple section it introduced the two main characters from their perspectives. At this point in the novel, there was no romance, just two kids living their own lives and dealing with some serious life problems. It took a while for the author to introduce the romance side of this book, and for a while, I was concerned I had picked the wrong book. As I began to think about why she would do this, I realized that it was so that it made this book an even better romance novel. Nicole Yoon incorporated both characters points of views so that you could really understand what was going on between them and their lives. This was such a smart way of really ensuring that this was a romantic because you hear both people in the relationship and how they feel.
Another example of how this book was considered a romance to me was certain things the author included at the beginning of the book. Before a relationship had started between the two main characters and they were just friends the author made sure to include subtle elements that made it clear to me about what was going to happen. The two main characters Daniel and Natasha were complete strangers before they briefly met at a record store. They then coincidentally ended up at the same stoplight and Daniel saved her from getting hit by a car. Daniel says, “She’s not paying enough attention to realize that a guy in a white BMW is about to run that red light. I yank her backward by her arm. Our feet tangle. We trip over each other and fall onto the sidewalk.”. As soon as I read this it had already fulfilled what a romance novel was supposed to do. It needed romance and this was just the beginning. Although many would say this was a cliche way to start a romance between two teenagers, it was necessary. You need an impressionable start to their relationship in order for the reader to realize the impact this one event is going to have on the rest of the book.
Last but not least the ending of the book managed to make even more clear that this was a romance novel and it completely satisfied what I wanted and needed in a romantic. Although it is not the most typical happy ending it still manages to be a happy ending. The author leaves you thinking that Daniel and Natasha are never going to see each other again until they meet again ten years later on an airplane.
Throughout the novel, the author included many things that make it as good of a romance as it is. Between the style of how she writes and the things, she incorporates in it. This book made me believe it was a romance novel just like it is listed as when you look it up.
picture by: https://www.google.com/search?q=vertigo&safe=strict&rlz=1C1GCEA_enUS805US805&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&sqi=2&pjf=1&ved=0ahUKEwi7qZ3J257hAhUOGewKHUeoCx4Q_AUIDygC&biw=1440&bih=818&dpr=1.5#imgrc=UOCBozwE4xkPXM:
When Mr. McGarry first told us his reaction to the film, when he watched it in college, I was concerned about how much I would like it. To be honest I thought that it was going to be worse then it ended up being. When I first started watching I thought that it was a little dry, and was kind of bored. There was a lot of parts of it where you were just watching people wander and there was no action going on. Once it picked up and more action started occurring it was so much better. It was much more interesting then I thought it was going to be. I was not a fan of the ending, just because I wasn’t expecting it and it was a little harsh and sad. Overall I thought it was a good movie. I didn’t know notice when the effects of nausea and motion sickness were showing. I did not like how long it took to get to the point and I also think it would have been better if they gave you clues or used foreshadowing to show that the husband was planning to kill his wife. If I were to change it to a modern audience I would make it more clear that the women and her husband had lots of money. I would also do a better job of making it clear that Scotty has issues. For a large part of the movie, I thought that he had gotten over his issues of heights and the problems he had occurring with it. I think for a modern audience they should add more drama and conflict with the other girl that Scotty was acquainted with. I also think they should have been more clear on what happened to him after Madeline had died. He was in an institute I assume, but we were not sure what had happened. All of a sudden he was fine and had found the new girl, which I thought was weird. Overall I liked this movie and I think that it would be a really cool movie to remake for a more modern audience.
My initial reaction to the work was good. When I first started reading and analyzing the work I realized that the first section was not that difficult to interpret. After we were given two sections to analyze as a group is when it all started to go downhill. As I read my two sections I realized that this was way more difficult then I had suspected. There were so many things that were hard to understand and it felt like he was writing in code. My initial thoughts of my sections were confused and, honestly, I still am. I think that our section was mainly talking about how there are people that are always going to talk and act like they are going to get things done but they don’t and they end up being the ones that judge the most. Whitman’s thoughts on transcendentalism throughout the work influence his writing. He looks at life as everyone is born good and you can tell that is true when you read his works. He mentions the goodness in people at the time of death and birth. I think the lines where they talk about the “talkers” is one of the most important lines in our work. The idea of talkers is showing people you say they are going to take action but do not. This idea is one of the first lines of our section. I think it is important to the section because it has to do with the whole theme of the sections. It talks about how we need to continue to increase our members of society and look at life in so many ways. It also says how the world is filled with lots of mysteries that we continue to keep trying to understand better. There are still certain things that I do not understand completely. Some of the lines in the poem are difficult to completely understand. After I read the poem I think I have a pretty good understanding of what it all means, but honestly, there is a high chance that my understanding of the work is completely wrong. Overall, I didn’t mind reading and analyzing the work.
Picture by: https://abaforlawstudents.com/2016/09/23/how-does-a-lawyer-handle-civil-disobedience/
After reading “Civil Disobedience”, I thought about some of the things that Thoreau said. He talks about the government and what is the best type. He says, “government is best which governs least” and I agree with him in certain cases. I do not think that the government needs to be so involved in everything that goes on in the United States or in other countries but there are times we need it. Individually I do not think the government needs to be in your business completely. I do not think it is right for things such as them listening to your conversations if they want to. They do not need to know every aspect of your personal life. The governments rule in individuals is to help keep our country safe, so of course, there are situations where there is a lot of investigation into peoples personal business occurring, and sometimes it is necessary. They need to control the things we are allowed to do to a certain extent, and that is what they do now. A government that gains my respect is one that does everything it can to better the citizens in our country but not abusing their power. In a democracy it should not be whatever says goes and things should be occurring and rules should be created or taken away because it is trying to genuinely help the people, not to just help whoever is in charge. Civil disobedience today does occur but of course, it also does not. There are many protests that are peaceful and get the point across and do a good job, and there are also protests that create more problems and havoc and are not occurring for the right reasons. As a whole, I think we still have civil disobedience but I don’t know if it is occurring for the right reasons. Martin Luther King Jr. used civil disobedience to fight for what was right and refused certain treatment and that was needed, but some people use this for selfish reason and it takes away from the point of it all, and why it started.
Picture by: https://slideplayer.com/slide/10150792/
Thoreau’s and Emerson’s work are similar in many ways. They both are dealing with life and how nature should and needs to be a part of it. Thoreau’s work was dealing with how you need nature in your life in order to live and get a true understanding of what life is and what you need in it. It also talked about how it is necessary because you learn so much from it. Throughout the work, you could tell that he was relying on nature to survive. He needed the clarity and the experience in order to feel like he lived and to be able to live on with the rest of his life. Emerson’s work deals more with how nature and man rely on each other and need each other in order to exist. This is similar to Thoreau’s works because he actually did it and relied on nature and realized how much you need it in his life. The main point of the beginning of Thoreau’s work was to explain to the reader what exactly he needed to find and talk about what life is. He discusses how you do not need materialistic things you need to live a simple life and that will make you happy. The ending was to clarify how his time in the woods was and to let the reader know that life is about happiness and your soul. I understand where Thoreau was coming from when he went to live in the woods, I just don’t know if I would be doing it for the same reasons. I would do it to take a break and to spend time really thinking about myself and what I have in my life so I would become more grateful. I would not last long because I would not be good at finding food and just surviving as a whole. I think that we should remember what we have and be thankful and not take it for granted because we need nature to survive and it is something that is so easily taken for granted and it should not be.
picture by: https://www.youthareawesome.com/debate-awesome/
Overall this unit has definitely helped me with my arguing skills. When I was researching I made sure to look up certain points that were important to my argument and my opponent’s argument. I think that for me personally, I was going to have to argue with a lot of emotion for my topic, but I also had to have facts that supported the emotional side of it or I would definitely lose. I think it is funny because as we learned about all the fallacies it made me realize how often people use them in their arguments. A lot of people tend to say things that are not true when they argue but since they state them as a fact it seems like what they are saying is true. I think that this is very common for people my age to act like they know what they are talking about when they don’t. They also use name-calling a lot when it comes to arguing. I think that at the beginning of the unit when I got my topic I did not know what to do or how to argue. I was really stressed that there wasn’t going to be enough information to talk about. I thought that my opponent was definitely going to beat me because I didn’t know how or what facts I was going to use to argue. I felt like mine was more based on your morals and less on facts. As I got into it I realized that I actually had a lot to talk about and they were very easy to research. I also found that it was so easy to incorporate all the things we talked about in our notes. I think that overall once I got into my debate I realized how much the notes helped and that it was much easier then I thought. I thought the actual persuasive written arguments weren’t very difficult to write but I struggled with the amount of time I spent talking about my topic. No matter how much I added, when I timed it, it still wasn’t long enough even though I felt like I had said everything I needed to say.