For my blog post this week I am posting my opinion about Riding the Rails, a video we watched in English. It was really quite interesting.
Life in the 1930s for everyone was rough, many families were desperate and the teenagers were tired. Some teenagers went on the trains for and adventure, others were running away from home due to dysfunctional families and others were traveling for a job so they could send money back home. There was a 72year old man still riding the railways. One black man was riding the railways back into Louisiana and the authorities were looking for a black man matching the description of this teen. The alleged culprit was black so the conductor kicked the kid off the train. The man later remarked that being kicked off the train saved his life. There were so many migrants coming to California that for 6 weeks there were not migrants allowed to go to California. I liked the personal stories about what made the teens so desperate to pick up and leave. I did not like that California closed its doors that is TOTALLY unconstitutional. I loved hearing what made the teenagers want to pick up and leave just like that. I loved comparing their mentality to the mentality to teenagers today. I loved hearing how riske and how on the edge these teenagers were. I loved the compare and contrast with our world and theirs back then.
Thursday, February 19, 2015
Tuesday, February 10, 2015
Comparing the T(ea
I want to apologize for the no show post last week so I have 2 posts one a Utah write and the other a T(ea) chart based on the SAGE testing.
You may notice my title comparing the T(ea). Kade Jackson inspired me to compare Mormons and tea and I decided to do a T chart comaring the SAGE testing that went on in my English class today.
SAGE Testing (sage '15) | last year SAGE
_______________________________________|___________________________________________
* Sage testing has a section more essay writing | * SAGE was done at the end of the year
based | *SAGE essay questions were less stupid
*sage '15 text to speech was worse |* SAGE there was a lot more pressure on students
*sage '15 is more weighted in politics | *SAGE It was harder for me to type a paragraph in
*sage '15 felt less stressful | 1 hour
*sage '15 I was given more preparation before | *SAGE the prep my teachers gave me before
the test (thanks Mrs. Bailey!) | SAGE was not beneficial b/c teachers were very
*sage '15 had stricter policy | clueless
|
The most basic guaranteed ideas that some have considered a right through modern history. "If you work hard you can achieve financial success"- Ben Franklin. That famous quote is the root of one of the most internationally known ideas about America, the American dream. The question posed asks if the American Dream is alive and available to all today? The American Dream is defined as: equality to all citizens to the same privileges and right before the law.(By The People, 2008) Belief is different from availability. The fight for the dream, the ideals fought for, and the American Dream today are all part aspects of the American Dream and its availability.
The fight for the American Dream is one fought by almost every type of ethnic group and every type of people. People have fought for the ability to receive the American Dream and the chance to have it. One of the most famous articles written during the Civil Rights Movement is the Letter Dr. Martin Luther King wrote while in Birmingham Jail to some clergymen. In the letter Dr. Martin Luther King said, "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." Meaning that no matter where injustice is it is a threat. Injustice is a threat to the American Dream because the American Dream is just and injustices always threaten the just. The Civil Rights Movement wanted the American dream for the African Americans who did not have the ability to get the American Dream. Langton Hughes in the poem Let American Be America Again stated " I am the poor white, fooled and pushed apart, I am the Negro bearing slavery's scars. I am the red man driven from the land, I am the immigrant clutching the hope I seek-- And finding only the same old stupid plan of dog eat dog, of mighty crush the weak." Meaning that the fight for justice has involved everyone, or to take it a bit further the fight for the American Dream has involved everyone. The fight for the American Dream started out as the Revolutionary War. Colonists were tired of England bossing them around.England's law preventing them from doing whatever the colonists wanted to do. During war there has always been a fight for the American Dream. Men and Women die so that our nation will remain safe and free. That their children and grandchildren will be able to live in harmony and free from fear with the ability to do whatever they want. The American Dream fight has been shown through suffrage, the Civil War, The Revolutionary War, both World Wars, the Civil Rights Movement, through Supreme Court Cases and millions of protests. The fight for the American Dream has been going on since the beginning of our country and continues today.
The American Dream interpretation has changed over the years yet the principles stay the same. Martin Luther King fought for tension for force change a change of injustice racial signs, and civil rights equality. King said, "Its ugly record of brutality is widely known. Negroes have experienced grossly unjust treatment in the courts." To King and many others the American Dream included equality for the African Americans. In the poem Let American Be American Again it stated "Equality is in the air we breathe. (There's never been equality for me, Nor freedom in this "homeland of the free.") ." Meaning Langston wanted equality for all. "Some of the most common principles to the dream are social equality, economic equality, equal outcome, political equality, equal opportunity. "(By The People, 2008) President Lyndon B. Johnson said, "We should double our wealth, conquer the stars, and still not be equal to the issue, then we failed as a nation." President Johnson said that addressing the inequalities that taint the American Dream. When asking my mom what the dream meant to her she said that the American Dream is "The dream that I will continue to have the freedoms our forefathers secured, to have a chance at good retirement, and a secure economy. The American Dream involves a job that I enjoy, enough money to comfortably support myself, the government as far away as possible, freedom, and that my kids will grow up in a safe and free land". The basic principles are equality(in every form), freedom, and a chance. The American Dream is composed of three basic principles and knowing what those principle are will help us better understand their value.
The American Dream and what it is today. I am a political science college student and for an assignment my professor asked us to come up with things that are absolutely necessary to be identified as an American for. Ideas like born in the country, opportunistic, social hierarchy, melting pot, free education, and being united by football were thrown out because they were not absolutely necessary to be identified as American. I then said the American Dream was absolutely needed to be considered American. While that idea was shot down there were some good points to it. The American Dream is something internationally recognized. The American Dream was obviously a dream for Americans and some ideals in the dream were good. However, the thing that shot the American Dream down was the fact that the number of people who believe that the American dream is available or even possible has significantly gone down in recent times. Hughes even said in his poem that the "dream is no longer today." While Martin Luther King gave his famous "I have a Dream Speech" and the whole point of his speech was to make the American dream possible for everyone. Statistics from 2012 show that only 35% of Americans still believe in the dream compared to 80% in the 1960s. Many who don't believe in the dream said things like "the American dream is harder for people to achieve" or "There never was such thing as total equality like the dream states". The American Dream has changes over the years to today.
In conclusion the American Dream is alive and Available today is a matter of opinion. Everyone before us fought to have the American Dream and to those then the American Dream was either alive then or about to be realistic to everyone. Understanding the ideals behind the American Dream play an important role in deciding if the dream is alive and available to all today because the ideas change. The three basic ideas behind the dream are equality, freedom and a chance. President Bill Clinton said, "If you work hard and play by the rules you should be given a chance to go as far as your god given abilities will take you." To most Americans the American Dream is neither alive or available today. The American Dream is the dream of hope, equality, freedom and a chance.
Tuesday, January 27, 2015
Double Wammy
I am so sorry me week got so busy. This week I am double posting for last week my Utah Compose assignment(errors and all) and for this week my opinion on todays English bellwork.
Utah compose:
Muskets loaded aimed at devils in red. Shots fired from behind rocks and tree leaving many of those devils dead. The shooters believed in basic ideals about unalienable rights and a fair government. The devils in red were the British red coats, the shooters were American colonists called Minuete Man, and the battle was after the Redcoats had beat the colonists at Lexington and Concord. The battle of Lexington and Concord was part of the Revolutionary war. The Revolutionary war was the most historic wars of all time. There after the Revolutionary war the ideals of defense and unalienable rights were passed down from generation. These ideas are instilled in American's brains so much that many think that these ideas were bred into Americans. I know that the topic for this paper is the true origin of violence in America and the media's apperance in America. Many would think limiting guns and video games is the solution however, It is my belief that limiting or restricting is not the way to solve any problem. The answer for this prompt is in the fact that Americans were bred on defense, knowing their rights in the constition, and that the media is not to blame.
Many people think the bulk of the origin of violence is from technoligy media or guns. There is one purpatrator that Americans often neglect. This purpatrator is that American's were bred on defense. Ever since the Revolutionary war Americans have been very particular on their defense. After England lost, America was a very fragile country for a very long time and colonists were worried that another counrty would come and try to conquer them. In turn that fear was passed down and eventally bred into Americans. Defense is having the means at any time to defend yourself at any cost when you feel scared. Colonists kept guns, their children kept guns and their children's children had guns all the way down to the 21st centuray. Violence is the opposite of defense, or rather defense taken to far is violence. Rather
then blaming mental illness, health issues, family problems, or even the media has anyone ever thought that those involved in shootings were scared? According to the article Does Media Violence Lead to the Real Thing it states " Although exposure to violent media isn't the only or even the strongest risk factor for violence, it's more easily modified then othe risk factors like being male or having a low socioeconomic status or low I.Q." These people had reason to be scared. I am not shrinking responsibliltiy for those who did/do things like that but individuals who are resoponsible may simply be scared and those people have great reason to be. In my opinion I think violence in America originated from defense. It is how people use defense that can make it violent. Defense or violence has been in our herritage since the begining of our counrty and Americans were bred on defense. Since the Revolutionary war Americans were bred on defense and that may be viewed as violence depending on how a person defends themselves.
Americans were bred on their consitutional rights and that may contribute to the war on violence. The Revolutionary war was the war wher Americans firmly established who they are and what exactly the gvermant and the population can and can not do. Based on interpritaion may people that in the ammendmants of the United States Constitution there is a clause that states that Americans have the right to bear arms and that the govermant can tnot take that right away. While poeple have good intentions for gun control it is in American herritage that Americans are very protective of their rights. I do not think that having some gun control is worth loosing a right that is clearly spelled out in the constitution. There are many problems in this nation and many poeple think that the answer is to take away or limit a right that is mention in the constitution. When you have a nation where the population is essentially bred on the knowledge of their rights and limitations and you limit a right it will cause a historic uproar for the whole nation. There is considerable evidance to show go against limiting Americans rights. The band on Alchohol and the prohibitaion ammendmant caused national uproar and the prohibitation only lasted 14 years. It had absolutley no benifit on siocioty. In 1971 President Nixon declared a war on drugs. Now almost 50 years later the trenches of the drug war have long since collapsed. This long effort at prohibitation also has not worked and infacts according to an article called Violence: The American Way of Life it states " the war on drugs resulted in deaths of thousands of Americans . This prohibitatino fostered a creation of international crimeinal cartels. The war on drugs made America and the whole world worse off then they were before the war was declared. Bottom line, Takign away a right is not the way to solve problems, they only make things worse.
The modern American has fictionalized that a large portion of the 'war on violence' is the media's fault or that modern American has a violent culture. The media's job is to report everything. The media understands that the American people have a right to know. The idea that the American people want to blame the news is garbage. If the American people want to blame the media then they need to thank or credit the media for reporting 'good' things.
Therefore since the American people dont credit the media the media can no loneger be held accountable. Modern American is bred on defense and constitutional rights, that is tour culture that is who we are. So the question is do I think modern America is violent? No, Modern America does not have a vioent culture because I think that modern America has more access to things that may make our culture violent. Take for example the media, if there is 'violent' things on the media and I as an American have easier acces to read the media does that make me or my life have a 'violent' culture? NO. Sure I may be very teritorial on defense but that and the media does not make me have a vioent culture.
Americans were bred on defense and constituion. While defense may seem like violence it clearly is not. Taking a right away to limit violence will not nor has ever been a solution worth achieving. Since the Revolutionary war we were bred on two idas it is part of our heritage and our culture. Violence however is not. The media is not at all held accountable for the violence that it reports because we do not credit the media for the good thingd they do. Thank you!
Today's bellwork: the question was something to the extent of : what can we learn from older texts/stories?
My Answer: Things that we can learn from older texts/stories are: history, the culture of the time period, the things those in that era thought, what is within social norm and what is not within the social norm.
I an going to do a brief 3-5 sentence summary on each thing listed.
History- History repeats itself. Older literature gives us views on how view history. By looking at how others view historical events it can help us be prepared for a repeat and it can help us look on the bright side and be a mental helper if we ever come across that historical event.
Culture of the time: Old(der)literature will help us understand the culture of that time period. In the literature there is (not generalizing here) the music, fashion, population, government, language, writing styles, art fads, house plans, fad color swatches, healthcare advances, furniture fads, government protests, or even new countries. This is all a small part of the word culture. How peoples' culture is bases on how the write and interpret literature.
Social Norm.- Social Norm is what people view as socially acceptable. Inside Social Norm are things that are only normal in that particular era( bellbottom pants, the Beetles, powdered wigs). Social Norm plays a massive role on how we can learn things from texts in that time because by reading the literature we get an understanding for how they views things going on in THEIR world.
Outside of Social Norm- Outside of the Social Norm are things that are done that is not viewed at socially acceptable or 'normal'. Things that are outside of social Norm now would be like convicting women on witch craft like the Puritans did. While that was within Social Norm if you did that today it would be Outside Social Norm because you would be considered crazy and weird. Outside Social Norm plays a role in what we can learn from older literature because many literature outline things that the 'wierdos' do telling us that was acceptable and what was not acceptable in that era.
SEE YA NEXT WEEK!-Kalea
Utah compose:
Muskets loaded aimed at devils in red. Shots fired from behind rocks and tree leaving many of those devils dead. The shooters believed in basic ideals about unalienable rights and a fair government. The devils in red were the British red coats, the shooters were American colonists called Minuete Man, and the battle was after the Redcoats had beat the colonists at Lexington and Concord. The battle of Lexington and Concord was part of the Revolutionary war. The Revolutionary war was the most historic wars of all time. There after the Revolutionary war the ideals of defense and unalienable rights were passed down from generation. These ideas are instilled in American's brains so much that many think that these ideas were bred into Americans. I know that the topic for this paper is the true origin of violence in America and the media's apperance in America. Many would think limiting guns and video games is the solution however, It is my belief that limiting or restricting is not the way to solve any problem. The answer for this prompt is in the fact that Americans were bred on defense, knowing their rights in the constition, and that the media is not to blame.
Many people think the bulk of the origin of violence is from technoligy media or guns. There is one purpatrator that Americans often neglect. This purpatrator is that American's were bred on defense. Ever since the Revolutionary war Americans have been very particular on their defense. After England lost, America was a very fragile country for a very long time and colonists were worried that another counrty would come and try to conquer them. In turn that fear was passed down and eventally bred into Americans. Defense is having the means at any time to defend yourself at any cost when you feel scared. Colonists kept guns, their children kept guns and their children's children had guns all the way down to the 21st centuray. Violence is the opposite of defense, or rather defense taken to far is violence. Rather
then blaming mental illness, health issues, family problems, or even the media has anyone ever thought that those involved in shootings were scared? According to the article Does Media Violence Lead to the Real Thing it states " Although exposure to violent media isn't the only or even the strongest risk factor for violence, it's more easily modified then othe risk factors like being male or having a low socioeconomic status or low I.Q." These people had reason to be scared. I am not shrinking responsibliltiy for those who did/do things like that but individuals who are resoponsible may simply be scared and those people have great reason to be. In my opinion I think violence in America originated from defense. It is how people use defense that can make it violent. Defense or violence has been in our herritage since the begining of our counrty and Americans were bred on defense. Since the Revolutionary war Americans were bred on defense and that may be viewed as violence depending on how a person defends themselves. Americans were bred on their consitutional rights and that may contribute to the war on violence. The Revolutionary war was the war wher Americans firmly established who they are and what exactly the gvermant and the population can and can not do. Based on interpritaion may people that in the ammendmants of the United States Constitution there is a clause that states that Americans have the right to bear arms and that the govermant can tnot take that right away. While poeple have good intentions for gun control it is in American herritage that Americans are very protective of their rights. I do not think that having some gun control is worth loosing a right that is clearly spelled out in the constitution. There are many problems in this nation and many poeple think that the answer is to take away or limit a right that is mention in the constitution. When you have a nation where the population is essentially bred on the knowledge of their rights and limitations and you limit a right it will cause a historic uproar for the whole nation. There is considerable evidance to show go against limiting Americans rights. The band on Alchohol and the prohibitaion ammendmant caused national uproar and the prohibitation only lasted 14 years. It had absolutley no benifit on siocioty. In 1971 President Nixon declared a war on drugs. Now almost 50 years later the trenches of the drug war have long since collapsed. This long effort at prohibitation also has not worked and infacts according to an article called Violence: The American Way of Life it states " the war on drugs resulted in deaths of thousands of Americans . This prohibitatino fostered a creation of international crimeinal cartels. The war on drugs made America and the whole world worse off then they were before the war was declared. Bottom line, Takign away a right is not the way to solve problems, they only make things worse.
The modern American has fictionalized that a large portion of the 'war on violence' is the media's fault or that modern American has a violent culture. The media's job is to report everything. The media understands that the American people have a right to know. The idea that the American people want to blame the news is garbage. If the American people want to blame the media then they need to thank or credit the media for reporting 'good' things.
Therefore since the American people dont credit the media the media can no loneger be held accountable. Modern American is bred on defense and constitutional rights, that is tour culture that is who we are. So the question is do I think modern America is violent? No, Modern America does not have a vioent culture because I think that modern America has more access to things that may make our culture violent. Take for example the media, if there is 'violent' things on the media and I as an American have easier acces to read the media does that make me or my life have a 'violent' culture? NO. Sure I may be very teritorial on defense but that and the media does not make me have a vioent culture.Americans were bred on defense and constituion. While defense may seem like violence it clearly is not. Taking a right away to limit violence will not nor has ever been a solution worth achieving. Since the Revolutionary war we were bred on two idas it is part of our heritage and our culture. Violence however is not. The media is not at all held accountable for the violence that it reports because we do not credit the media for the good thingd they do. Thank you!
Today's bellwork: the question was something to the extent of : what can we learn from older texts/stories?
My Answer: Things that we can learn from older texts/stories are: history, the culture of the time period, the things those in that era thought, what is within social norm and what is not within the social norm.
I an going to do a brief 3-5 sentence summary on each thing listed.
History- History repeats itself. Older literature gives us views on how view history. By looking at how others view historical events it can help us be prepared for a repeat and it can help us look on the bright side and be a mental helper if we ever come across that historical event.
Culture of the time: Old(der)literature will help us understand the culture of that time period. In the literature there is (not generalizing here) the music, fashion, population, government, language, writing styles, art fads, house plans, fad color swatches, healthcare advances, furniture fads, government protests, or even new countries. This is all a small part of the word culture. How peoples' culture is bases on how the write and interpret literature.
Social Norm.- Social Norm is what people view as socially acceptable. Inside Social Norm are things that are only normal in that particular era( bellbottom pants, the Beetles, powdered wigs). Social Norm plays a massive role on how we can learn things from texts in that time because by reading the literature we get an understanding for how they views things going on in THEIR world.
Outside of Social Norm- Outside of the Social Norm are things that are done that is not viewed at socially acceptable or 'normal'. Things that are outside of social Norm now would be like convicting women on witch craft like the Puritans did. While that was within Social Norm if you did that today it would be Outside Social Norm because you would be considered crazy and weird. Outside Social Norm plays a role in what we can learn from older literature because many literature outline things that the 'wierdos' do telling us that was acceptable and what was not acceptable in that era.
SEE YA NEXT WEEK!-Kalea
Wednesday, January 14, 2015
The Last Juror
Well I first want to apologize to however is reading this because I posted late. It get's hard to remember that you have a blog sometimes. This post is about my favorite author and the book I am reading for this quarter. You are in for a little treat because I actually posted pictures!!! Hopefully pictures will make my blog more interesting for you and for me. So based on the picture you can predict that the book is called The Last Juror by John Grisham. Since I have not finished the book I got this short summary from wikipediaIn 1970, the first person narrator, a 23-year-old college drop-out by the name of Willie Traynor, comes to Clanton, Mississippi for an internship at the local newspaper, The Ford County Times. However the editor, Wilson Caudle, drives the newspaper into bankruptcy through years of mismanagement. Willie decides to buy the paper spontaneously for fifty thousand dollars, using money borrowed from his wealthy grandmother, and becomes the editor and owner of The Ford County Times. Months later, a member of the notorious and scandalous Padgitt family brutally rapes and kills a young widow named Rhoda Kassellaw. The murderer, Danny Padgitt, is put on trial. Before being found guilty, Danny threatens to kill each of the jury members, should they convict him. Although they do find him guilty, the jury cannot decide whether to send him to life in prison or to Death Row, so Danny is sentenced to life in prison at the Mississippi State Penitentiary.
After only nine years in prison, Danny Padgitt is paroled and returns to Clanton. Immediately, two jury members are killed and one is nearly killed by a bomb. Jury member and close friend of Willie, Miss Callie Ruffin, reveals that the recent victims were the jurors who were against sentencing Danny to Death Row......
As you can imagine from the title at some point what happens in the rest of the book upon stumbling on this I found out the ending(by accident)...
Moving On..
John Grisham- John Grisham's books usually deal with the legal field and lawyers. I am drawn to books like this and I think John is an AMAZING author. Here is his biography from Wikipedia
John Ray Grisham, Jr. (/ˈɡrɪʃəm/; born February 8, 1955)[2][3] is an American lawyer, politician, and author, best known for his popular legal thrillers. His books have been translated into forty-two languages. John Grisham graduated from Mississippi State University before attending the University of Mississippi School of Law in 1981. He practiced criminal law for about a decade, and served in the House of Representatives in Mississippi from January 1984 to September 1990.[4] He began writing his first novel, A Time to Kill, in 1984, and it was published in June 1989.
Wednesday, January 7, 2015
Points and Biasism
Hi, welcome back! I hope that your break was enjoyable! In the past my posts have been on random days during the week and this semester I would like to keep it on a regular date so due to class conflicts and such posts will be posted on Tuesday 99% of the time for the rest of the semester.
In my English class we are getting into argument papers unit. Yesterday we did the difference between an argumentative paper and a persuasive paper. I being on the speech and debate team for my high school like argumentative papers much more then persuasive papers. For today's blog post I am going to explain the difference between argumentative and persuasive papers while also giving my personal views on each. Happy reading!!!
Argumentative paper- An argumentative paper is a paper more based on logical thinking, involves a claim and is backed by warrants of evidence. There are a few arguments of an argument paper they are as follows:
-Evidence or a warrant
-claim
-An explanation to how the evidence proves the claim
-Things to support the warrant
-Qualifications and rebutals
- Counter arguments that refute
Kalea's take- Argumentaive papers are great to be read aloud. Argumentative papers have a lot of emotion and need to be treated as such. When you type or read an Argumentive paper you need to act like you have confidence (even if you don't). The biggest thing for an argumentive paper is that you constantly repeat what you believe. When I create my debate brief I am basically writing an argumentative paper and so when I write briefs and argument papers I try to get myself in the competitive aggressive mindset that I need for my debate rounds.
Persuasive paper: The word of advertisements is nothing but persuasion. When a piece of writing tries to convince the reader about the efficacy or efficiency about a product or service, it is known as persuasive writing. However, it is an umbrella term that includes all writing that is done to convert the opinion of the reader so that he finally accepts the point of view of the author. Persuasive writing makes heavy use of logic to drive home the point. This style of writing appears to have a personal touch where the writer seeks to speak in a direct manner with the reader. At the end of the piece, there is always a call for action from the writer.
Kalea's take: When you compare argumentative and persuasive papers the argument paper is the dad and the persuasion paper is the mom. Persuasion is less in your face, less in-your-face, and less evidence is required to make your point. Like mothers persuasion requires less questioning on the down side of things. When I do persuasion papers I keep the paper upbeat, keep grasp of the readers attention, and I use things that my reader can relate to. I like to use words and points that are the simplest and leave the least amount of room for questions. Argument papers are more about proving a point and persuasion papers are more giving a bias version to the reader of the point keeping the readers interest at all times.
Thanks for reading see you next week
In my English class we are getting into argument papers unit. Yesterday we did the difference between an argumentative paper and a persuasive paper. I being on the speech and debate team for my high school like argumentative papers much more then persuasive papers. For today's blog post I am going to explain the difference between argumentative and persuasive papers while also giving my personal views on each. Happy reading!!!
Argumentative paper- An argumentative paper is a paper more based on logical thinking, involves a claim and is backed by warrants of evidence. There are a few arguments of an argument paper they are as follows:
-Evidence or a warrant
-claim
-An explanation to how the evidence proves the claim
-Things to support the warrant
-Qualifications and rebutals
- Counter arguments that refute
Kalea's take- Argumentaive papers are great to be read aloud. Argumentative papers have a lot of emotion and need to be treated as such. When you type or read an Argumentive paper you need to act like you have confidence (even if you don't). The biggest thing for an argumentive paper is that you constantly repeat what you believe. When I create my debate brief I am basically writing an argumentative paper and so when I write briefs and argument papers I try to get myself in the competitive aggressive mindset that I need for my debate rounds.
Persuasive paper: The word of advertisements is nothing but persuasion. When a piece of writing tries to convince the reader about the efficacy or efficiency about a product or service, it is known as persuasive writing. However, it is an umbrella term that includes all writing that is done to convert the opinion of the reader so that he finally accepts the point of view of the author. Persuasive writing makes heavy use of logic to drive home the point. This style of writing appears to have a personal touch where the writer seeks to speak in a direct manner with the reader. At the end of the piece, there is always a call for action from the writer.
Kalea's take: When you compare argumentative and persuasive papers the argument paper is the dad and the persuasion paper is the mom. Persuasion is less in your face, less in-your-face, and less evidence is required to make your point. Like mothers persuasion requires less questioning on the down side of things. When I do persuasion papers I keep the paper upbeat, keep grasp of the readers attention, and I use things that my reader can relate to. I like to use words and points that are the simplest and leave the least amount of room for questions. Argument papers are more about proving a point and persuasion papers are more giving a bias version to the reader of the point keeping the readers interest at all times.
Thanks for reading see you next week
Wednesday, December 17, 2014
Dracula Essential Questions
Last week I told you that I would publish the essential questions for Dracula. I did love this book I would strongly recommend that you beware filter wise of which website you use to help you understand the book. I have only used sparknotes but just beware there are some pretty mature things I didn't pick up on that sparknotes mentions. Anyways I did very much enjoy this book even though I did read it in December. I decided to read this book because I liked Frankenstein that my class read. The comparisons between what the book is acutally based on and how vampires and Dracula is viewed today is so fascinating to me!
The quote I am going to start this off with is " Literature has been called a handbook for the art of a human being. Every Story we read...is about us, in one way or another" (Cameron Wright, The Rent Collector, 94). I am going to keep my answers to a MINIMUM of three sentances each.
1. What does the novel teach you about being human?
A- Dracula teaches about overcoming fear. Dracula is about putting the natural wishes of man (like the strongest will not to do something) aside for the greater good. The whole' Van Helsing team' demonstrates that when they all talk about how terrible the situation is and how scared the all are.
2. What character, event, or theme speaks to you?
A- Mina Murray speaks to me the most because of her bravery. Mina is the definition of a courageous woman she did things for the greater good of the 'Van Helsing Team'. Mina put others before herself, was extremely kind and courageous. Woman in the 1900s were sometimes viewed as very delicate and unable to handle much. Mina, to the contrary of her century was very tough and overall a fantastic woman.
3. Why is this novel considered a classic?
A- When I look at this question I think what makes Frankenstein, A Christmas Carol, Little women, and To Kill a Mocking Bird so well read and so old. First I think that the older the book the more of a classic it is. It's kind of like when your parents hear a song from their 'glory days' and say "this song is a classic" you know it's old and sometimes assoticate old with being a classic. Honestly though I think that this book is a classic simply because it speaks truth, maturity, wisdom, knowledge, and understanding that when people read it they can relate it to them. Dracula is a classis because it speaks to the heart for all ages and all time periods.
4.Is this text still relevant Today?
A- Dracula is absolutely 100% relevant today. I mean come on, Halloween, Twilight, Vampire Diaries, and all those sappy vampire T.V shows that come on all the freaking time. Through one book millions of poems short stories, plays, books, andT.V shows were born all based on the same ideas of Dracula. Even if the theme of the story is different the 'Van Helsing Team' showed curage team work and sacrifice.
5. What does this novel reveal about our world?
A- Dracula reveals dedication, courage, and (the biggest thing for me) POTENTIAL. The 'Van Helsing Team' revealed that through a group of terrified, sad, scared, people wanting their friends(Johnathon and Lucy) to be avenged killed a horrible, mean and cruel monster that has been hunted down for hundred of years. The Count has had man hunt him and try and kill him for centuries! Then some friends who are sick and tired of the Count gets rid of him in less then a 3 month time period!!! This book is leaking potential. Dracula reveals potential. POTENTIAL, POTENTIAL, POTENTIAL!
6. What social inequalities are present in the text and how does it compare to your world?
A-There are many social inequalities in Dracula. Lucy's fiancé is Arthur a.k.a. Lord Goodlming. Arthur's title is very helpful in the destruction of Count Dracula. The title is used to get a locksmith, important inquires about the boxes of earth, carriages and used to hide any suspicion that others may have. The other social inequality is the position that women are in in the 1900s. Some people wouldn't call that a social inequality which is true however, there is a social inequality between women of our age and women of madam Mina. In our day women are less 'danity', fragile, and innocent. Count Dracula also has a social inequality. Count Dracula is viewed as the all powerful super powerlord .There also was a social inequality between Quincy Morris and the rest of the 'Van Helsing Team'. Quincy Morris seems socially distant from the rest of the team. I am not saying that Quincy is better or less then the rest of the 'Van Helsing Team'. Being the only one from America he just has that distant no sense of belonging feel to him. In relation to the question Quincy Morris's social inequality is like being the new kid at school. The new kid in school is quiet, distant and their head is still back in their old school hanging out with old friends. Arthur's inequality is like the popular English Drama Downton Abbey(which by the way is fantastic!). A major character in the show is Lord Granthum. He is respected and honored as a lord and used the title a few times to benefit him a specific unorthodox way. The Count Dracula's social inequality is like (for those majority republicans in Utah) President Barack Obama, not in a sense of killing or assassination but in the sense that some Utahs(most) feel like he is killing the country and is using his power like crazy as Dracula did. Dracula also hypnotized many people and some would agree( my job is to stay completely neutral in this ) that our dear President is getting his way where ever whenever he wants. Mina's social inequality compared in our world today is there to some extent. Most men let the women eat first, open doors for them, spare them of the more challenging mental or physical tasks.(That's why there are more male seminary teacher.. that's a joke :) There are many social inequalities in Dracula that are applicable in our world today.
7. Select a modern text: how does it relate to your honors reading?
A- Honestly I am not sure what this question means especially since this is my honors reading but Dracula relates to my honors text because it is my honors text. Dracula relates to Dracula because they are the same thing so everything is related to each other.
8. What if this novel was re-written for today's audiences? What would it look like?
A- If Dracula was re-written for the twenty first century it would be something like 50 Shades of Grey especially because there are some words that I didn't know their meaning and they meant some pretty adult words. Dracula also would NOT and NOT EVER be a classic. I think that the ways the new books are I can't see them ask classics or books that my grand kids would love to read. The books coming out today seem to modern and way way to out there for them to be a classic(except hunger games). Dracula would look like scarlet red book with maybe some teeth on the cover. The whole cover would be very dramatic. Books that are coming out today have to be very very dramatic. If Dracula was re-written today it would be a pretty adult dramatic book.
9. In what ways does your life or personality resemble the main character within the text? Compare and contrast.
A- The Main character that I like the most is Mina so I am going to compare and contrast with her.
Different
The quote I am going to start this off with is " Literature has been called a handbook for the art of a human being. Every Story we read...is about us, in one way or another" (Cameron Wright, The Rent Collector, 94). I am going to keep my answers to a MINIMUM of three sentances each.
1. What does the novel teach you about being human?
A- Dracula teaches about overcoming fear. Dracula is about putting the natural wishes of man (like the strongest will not to do something) aside for the greater good. The whole' Van Helsing team' demonstrates that when they all talk about how terrible the situation is and how scared the all are.
2. What character, event, or theme speaks to you?
A- Mina Murray speaks to me the most because of her bravery. Mina is the definition of a courageous woman she did things for the greater good of the 'Van Helsing Team'. Mina put others before herself, was extremely kind and courageous. Woman in the 1900s were sometimes viewed as very delicate and unable to handle much. Mina, to the contrary of her century was very tough and overall a fantastic woman.
3. Why is this novel considered a classic?
A- When I look at this question I think what makes Frankenstein, A Christmas Carol, Little women, and To Kill a Mocking Bird so well read and so old. First I think that the older the book the more of a classic it is. It's kind of like when your parents hear a song from their 'glory days' and say "this song is a classic" you know it's old and sometimes assoticate old with being a classic. Honestly though I think that this book is a classic simply because it speaks truth, maturity, wisdom, knowledge, and understanding that when people read it they can relate it to them. Dracula is a classis because it speaks to the heart for all ages and all time periods.
4.Is this text still relevant Today?
A- Dracula is absolutely 100% relevant today. I mean come on, Halloween, Twilight, Vampire Diaries, and all those sappy vampire T.V shows that come on all the freaking time. Through one book millions of poems short stories, plays, books, andT.V shows were born all based on the same ideas of Dracula. Even if the theme of the story is different the 'Van Helsing Team' showed curage team work and sacrifice.
5. What does this novel reveal about our world?
A- Dracula reveals dedication, courage, and (the biggest thing for me) POTENTIAL. The 'Van Helsing Team' revealed that through a group of terrified, sad, scared, people wanting their friends(Johnathon and Lucy) to be avenged killed a horrible, mean and cruel monster that has been hunted down for hundred of years. The Count has had man hunt him and try and kill him for centuries! Then some friends who are sick and tired of the Count gets rid of him in less then a 3 month time period!!! This book is leaking potential. Dracula reveals potential. POTENTIAL, POTENTIAL, POTENTIAL!
6. What social inequalities are present in the text and how does it compare to your world?
A-There are many social inequalities in Dracula. Lucy's fiancé is Arthur a.k.a. Lord Goodlming. Arthur's title is very helpful in the destruction of Count Dracula. The title is used to get a locksmith, important inquires about the boxes of earth, carriages and used to hide any suspicion that others may have. The other social inequality is the position that women are in in the 1900s. Some people wouldn't call that a social inequality which is true however, there is a social inequality between women of our age and women of madam Mina. In our day women are less 'danity', fragile, and innocent. Count Dracula also has a social inequality. Count Dracula is viewed as the all powerful super powerlord .There also was a social inequality between Quincy Morris and the rest of the 'Van Helsing Team'. Quincy Morris seems socially distant from the rest of the team. I am not saying that Quincy is better or less then the rest of the 'Van Helsing Team'. Being the only one from America he just has that distant no sense of belonging feel to him. In relation to the question Quincy Morris's social inequality is like being the new kid at school. The new kid in school is quiet, distant and their head is still back in their old school hanging out with old friends. Arthur's inequality is like the popular English Drama Downton Abbey(which by the way is fantastic!). A major character in the show is Lord Granthum. He is respected and honored as a lord and used the title a few times to benefit him a specific unorthodox way. The Count Dracula's social inequality is like (for those majority republicans in Utah) President Barack Obama, not in a sense of killing or assassination but in the sense that some Utahs(most) feel like he is killing the country and is using his power like crazy as Dracula did. Dracula also hypnotized many people and some would agree( my job is to stay completely neutral in this ) that our dear President is getting his way where ever whenever he wants. Mina's social inequality compared in our world today is there to some extent. Most men let the women eat first, open doors for them, spare them of the more challenging mental or physical tasks.(That's why there are more male seminary teacher.. that's a joke :) There are many social inequalities in Dracula that are applicable in our world today.
7. Select a modern text: how does it relate to your honors reading?
A- Honestly I am not sure what this question means especially since this is my honors reading but Dracula relates to my honors text because it is my honors text. Dracula relates to Dracula because they are the same thing so everything is related to each other.
8. What if this novel was re-written for today's audiences? What would it look like?
A- If Dracula was re-written for the twenty first century it would be something like 50 Shades of Grey especially because there are some words that I didn't know their meaning and they meant some pretty adult words. Dracula also would NOT and NOT EVER be a classic. I think that the ways the new books are I can't see them ask classics or books that my grand kids would love to read. The books coming out today seem to modern and way way to out there for them to be a classic(except hunger games). Dracula would look like scarlet red book with maybe some teeth on the cover. The whole cover would be very dramatic. Books that are coming out today have to be very very dramatic. If Dracula was re-written today it would be a pretty adult dramatic book.
9. In what ways does your life or personality resemble the main character within the text? Compare and contrast.
A- The Main character that I like the most is Mina so I am going to compare and contrast with her.
Different
She was in the 1900s, Mina keeps a journal more consistently then I do, Mina is a assistant school teacher, Mina is a lot braver then me. she is a lot more calm.
Same:
Mina and I have a big personality, Mina and I are both girls, Mina and I are very smart, Mina and I both have a best friend, Mina and I both love technology, Mina and I love acting secretary.
10-Joseph Campbell identified a formula for literiture known as the "Hero's Journey". How does this text follow the story line?
A-The following picture is a view of a Hero's Journey . Johnathon; when he visits the Count that is his call to adventure. The crucifix that he has is the supernatural aid. In the Beginning of the book Count Dracula acts as the threshold of gardians. The helper and Mentor is Mina. The letters he writes is his final helper as he goes through the challenges and temptations stage. The challenges and temptation stage is when Johnathon realizes that he is trapped. The vampire women and Count's terror is the Abyss and death. Johnathon's transformation is when he is in the hospital and Mina comes to aid him. Atonement is the process that Johnathon goes through in the time that passes after the hospital until Mina writes letters to Dr. Seward and Van Helsing. The return is when the 'Van Helsing Team' returns to get rid of Dracula once and for all.
11. Every piece of writing calls the reader to make a change. What change is this author attempting inspire and how is this agenda manifest in the text?
A- The change that the reader goes through in Dracula is trusting the Count in the beginning and then changing the reader's view to know that he is a terrible wicked man/monster. The Author goes about that by showing how nice the Count is and his generosity. At the very beginning the author makes the reader feel uneasy about Count and slowly builds up the uneasy feeling like a crescendo until Van Helsing clarifies it.
12.How does the protagonist/antagonist change throughout the course of the story?
A-The Count Dracula the antagonist changes though the story. Dracula seems mysterious in the beginning of the book and crescendos into evil terrible monster. Then the Count tappers off when Van Helsing and the team find him at his house in Carfax. In Carfax he act truly desperate and almost scare. Count Dracula goes from this mysterious odd character who goes evil and then finally seems desperate and scared to die.
This is my last blog post this year see you January 7 2015! Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!
Thursday, December 11, 2014
Dracula
For this week's post I am going to do a brief overview of Dracula. I have been reading Dracula for a honors English assignment. I will have the rest of the assignment on my next weeks post. You may ask why I am reading Dracula at Christmas time and to answer that I put this semester assignment off and liked reading Frankenstien and so I thought Dracula would be a good fit. I am going to summarize the first half of the book
Johnathon Harker is a young home soliciter(of sorts) he goes on a mysterious ride to the home of Count Dracula. The Count is skinny tall man with a black cape and white beard with sharp white teeth and a scar on his forhead. The Count only lets Johnathan into 4 rooms of the big majestic house. Johnathan spends most of his days in the library and the Count only comes to talk to him in the night. Johnathan never sees the Count eat and never sees the Count in the day. After a few weeks of staying with the Count Johnathan feels like he is getting nowhere in terms of the estate and the Count's interest to buy an estate in London. The Count on a few occasions has Johnathon write 3 letters to his fiancé Mina, his boss and another friend. The Count then requests that Jognathon stay one more month. By this time Johnathan is getting scared. Gypsies visit the castle and do work inside the castle for the Count. One night Johnathan sees the count scale the castle walls and run off. There are a few more other creepy experiences. Johnathon wanders the house and runs into some female vampire, realizing the Count is a Vampire Johnathon scales the castle walls to get to the Counts room. Johnatan discovers some scary things. Johnathon visits the Count's room one more time. Johnathon even tried to give letters to the Gypsies to get posted but the gypsies give the letters to the Count. Count Dracula is very mysterious and is clever and throws the letters into the fire. Johnathon is terrified.
Mina, Johnathon's fiancé takes narrating over telling of her experiences visiting a village with her friend Lucy. Lucy is engaged also to Arthur (aka Lord Goodlming). There are many things that happen to the village while the pair visits. Lucy is a sleep walker and one day walks out of the hotel room and wanders off. Lucy then is bent over at a bench and some black figure is bent over her. Mina saves her but realizes two small puncture holes on Lucy's neck. Meanwhile Mina is very concerned for Johnathan because she has not heard from him in weeks. As the days go by Lucy looks pailer and has less energy. After Two months Mina finds out that Johnathon is in a hospital with a severe brain fever. Lucy and Mina depart.
Johnathon Harker is a young home soliciter(of sorts) he goes on a mysterious ride to the home of Count Dracula. The Count is skinny tall man with a black cape and white beard with sharp white teeth and a scar on his forhead. The Count only lets Johnathan into 4 rooms of the big majestic house. Johnathan spends most of his days in the library and the Count only comes to talk to him in the night. Johnathan never sees the Count eat and never sees the Count in the day. After a few weeks of staying with the Count Johnathan feels like he is getting nowhere in terms of the estate and the Count's interest to buy an estate in London. The Count on a few occasions has Johnathon write 3 letters to his fiancé Mina, his boss and another friend. The Count then requests that Jognathon stay one more month. By this time Johnathan is getting scared. Gypsies visit the castle and do work inside the castle for the Count. One night Johnathan sees the count scale the castle walls and run off. There are a few more other creepy experiences. Johnathon wanders the house and runs into some female vampire, realizing the Count is a Vampire Johnathon scales the castle walls to get to the Counts room. Johnatan discovers some scary things. Johnathon visits the Count's room one more time. Johnathon even tried to give letters to the Gypsies to get posted but the gypsies give the letters to the Count. Count Dracula is very mysterious and is clever and throws the letters into the fire. Johnathon is terrified.
Mina, Johnathon's fiancé takes narrating over telling of her experiences visiting a village with her friend Lucy. Lucy is engaged also to Arthur (aka Lord Goodlming). There are many things that happen to the village while the pair visits. Lucy is a sleep walker and one day walks out of the hotel room and wanders off. Lucy then is bent over at a bench and some black figure is bent over her. Mina saves her but realizes two small puncture holes on Lucy's neck. Meanwhile Mina is very concerned for Johnathan because she has not heard from him in weeks. As the days go by Lucy looks pailer and has less energy. After Two months Mina finds out that Johnathon is in a hospital with a severe brain fever. Lucy and Mina depart.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)