Upon finishing "The Prevailing Opinion of a Sexual Character Discussed", I found it to be one of those essays that took a few pages to get into, but once I got going, I got through the essay fairly effortlessly. Seeing as her 18th century style of writing was a bit unfamiliar to me, some of the essay was a bit confusing. However, I did understand the gist of it.
She discussed the way men and society viewed women. Basically, that education was wasted on women and all they were good for was to be some sort of trophy wife for the men to have. From the begining, women were taught how to behave best to get a husband, as if this were the ultimate goal in life. They didn't have any worthy role in society. Women weren't respected or allowed to follow their own dreams.
Clearly, times have changed since then. Women are now respected as active participants in their community. We have been grated the right to vote, we go to school, and have jobs; things that would have been unheard of in the eighteenth century, when Mary Wollstonecraft wrote this piece.
It was obvious from the introduction that this piece would have something to do with women's rights. I admire Wollstonecraft for being one of the few women of her time to stand up for women and not give in to men and allow them to treat women the way they did. I really liked this essay and the overall theme it portrayed.
Monday, August 31, 2009
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Katie on "Autobiography of a Face"
Over the weekend, I finished my non-fiction book Autobiography of a Face by Lucy Grealy.
In fourth grade, Lucy's face collided with a classmate's head which caused her to need a lot of tests done. After a toothache and presumed lockjaw, her doctors found out it was an Ewing's sarcoma which, defined by Wikipedia, "is a malignant round-cell tumor. It is a rare disease in which cancer cells are found in the bone or in soft tissue. The most common areas in which it occurs are the pelvis, the femur, the humerus, and the ribs". Lucy's Ewing's sarcoma was found in her jaw. She had surgeries upon surgeries to remove the cancer then several more to reconstruct the part of her jaw that had to be removed.
You always hear those heartwarming stories about people with cancer who don't let it affect their lives and stay upbeat; my grandma was like that. I think it's safe to say that Lucy Grealy was not one of those heartwarming stories. I think she tried to be, but handled things wrong as she grew up, turning to drugs, which ultimately killed her. She tried to put on a brave face, but it was more like a mask that disintegrated as she continued with her treatments, especially the chemotherapy. She was an inspiring child, but growing up with a disfigured face such as her's would not be easy for any adolescent. Her family suffered through financial problems after her father died and I think her faith slowly slipped away. Especially after so many failed reconstructive surgeries.
Lucy 's relationship with her mother was a somewhat disconnected one. Lucy never wanted to cry in front of her mother for fear of appearing weak to her. Her relationship with her father was not much better. She went through her illness and all that came with it believeing she had to be strong. She was constantly feeling as if she was alone. She went through high school always craving acceptance and approval: that meant having friends. She went to Sarah Lawrence where she did make many close friends. Once she had that attention, she needed more. The next step for her was love. Her face made her feel unlovable, a term she used copiously throughout her autobiography. And no matter how many valuable friendships she had, she needed to be loved. She used sex and men to fulfill this need. Because of her face, she was constantly in need. And I think she milked it. In Ann Patchett's book Truth and Beauty (what you could call the unofficial sequel), she tells of how she got a note from Lucy, whom she did not formally know at the time, asking her to look for an apartment for her in Iowa since she knew that she was going to be there. At Sarah Lawrence she became a campus celebrity. Everyone knew her story. And everyone liked her. She portrays herself as awkward and sheltered and ugly. But her friend Patchett describes her as more graceful and pretty. The contrast between Lucy's version of herself, and Ann's version of Lucy stunned me at first. Ann's Lucy was outgoing, fun, bubbly, and pretty.
I really enjoyed Lucy's book and look forward to finishing Ann Patchett's book about Lucy.
In fourth grade, Lucy's face collided with a classmate's head which caused her to need a lot of tests done. After a toothache and presumed lockjaw, her doctors found out it was an Ewing's sarcoma which, defined by Wikipedia, "is a malignant round-cell tumor. It is a rare disease in which cancer cells are found in the bone or in soft tissue. The most common areas in which it occurs are the pelvis, the femur, the humerus, and the ribs". Lucy's Ewing's sarcoma was found in her jaw. She had surgeries upon surgeries to remove the cancer then several more to reconstruct the part of her jaw that had to be removed.
You always hear those heartwarming stories about people with cancer who don't let it affect their lives and stay upbeat; my grandma was like that. I think it's safe to say that Lucy Grealy was not one of those heartwarming stories. I think she tried to be, but handled things wrong as she grew up, turning to drugs, which ultimately killed her. She tried to put on a brave face, but it was more like a mask that disintegrated as she continued with her treatments, especially the chemotherapy. She was an inspiring child, but growing up with a disfigured face such as her's would not be easy for any adolescent. Her family suffered through financial problems after her father died and I think her faith slowly slipped away. Especially after so many failed reconstructive surgeries.
Lucy 's relationship with her mother was a somewhat disconnected one. Lucy never wanted to cry in front of her mother for fear of appearing weak to her. Her relationship with her father was not much better. She went through her illness and all that came with it believeing she had to be strong. She was constantly feeling as if she was alone. She went through high school always craving acceptance and approval: that meant having friends. She went to Sarah Lawrence where she did make many close friends. Once she had that attention, she needed more. The next step for her was love. Her face made her feel unlovable, a term she used copiously throughout her autobiography. And no matter how many valuable friendships she had, she needed to be loved. She used sex and men to fulfill this need. Because of her face, she was constantly in need. And I think she milked it. In Ann Patchett's book Truth and Beauty (what you could call the unofficial sequel), she tells of how she got a note from Lucy, whom she did not formally know at the time, asking her to look for an apartment for her in Iowa since she knew that she was going to be there. At Sarah Lawrence she became a campus celebrity. Everyone knew her story. And everyone liked her. She portrays herself as awkward and sheltered and ugly. But her friend Patchett describes her as more graceful and pretty. The contrast between Lucy's version of herself, and Ann's version of Lucy stunned me at first. Ann's Lucy was outgoing, fun, bubbly, and pretty.
I really enjoyed Lucy's book and look forward to finishing Ann Patchett's book about Lucy.
Saturday, July 11, 2009
Katie on "Skunk Dreams"
I'm going to be honest here: it took me a while to get through this essay. I'd start it, get bored, put it down, then start where I left off, and repeat this process over and over. I got about 6 pages in and realized I had no idea what she was talking about or what I had just read.
I'm not someone who is very easily distracted. Usually having noise in the background doesn't bother me when I'm reading. But it did while I was reading this. I felt like I needed to be somewhere quiet. At first I thought it was because I needed to concentrate more since her thoguhts jumped around so much, but as I read, I realized it was more that the tone of the essay that almost calmed me down and made me crave a quiet place to read.
So last night when it was nice and quiet, I decided I should just start over completely. I sat down with my pen and started annotating every single page. Mr. Kunkle's right: that is a helpful tool. It helped me sort out Louise Erdrich's thoughts. That was not an easy task, mind you. I found it difficult to decipher her meaning. She jumped around a lot without warning or transistions.
I have torn thoguhts about this story; I liked it, but I didn't like it. I liked it from page 343 on. I didn't like it up until that point. Though I'm sure it's all necessary to her getting her point across, some of it didn't make sense to me. Once all the elements of her story came together it was very beautifully written. Some of the anecdotes she told seemed unecessary to the story at first, but once I finished the entire thing, several of them related to the ending of the story. The dream sequence about the fence and what was on the other side was the most obvious one. While I understand the story and what happened, there's a part of me that is still wondering why she wrote it. While I may not understand the exact thinking behind the essay, I loved how it was written (after page 343). I thought the way she described the nature scenes she's seen was riveting. That was what made me want to sit somewhere quiet. It reminded me of the woods around my cousin's house and it made reminisce about some fond memories I've had there. Her accounts of these places were so vivid, it made me feel as if I was really there.
Even though I started out very confused by this story, Erdrich really redeemed herself by the end.
My aunt and her friend had heard me talking about this essay before, so now they both want to read it. I'll let you know what they think later. :)
I'm not someone who is very easily distracted. Usually having noise in the background doesn't bother me when I'm reading. But it did while I was reading this. I felt like I needed to be somewhere quiet. At first I thought it was because I needed to concentrate more since her thoguhts jumped around so much, but as I read, I realized it was more that the tone of the essay that almost calmed me down and made me crave a quiet place to read.
So last night when it was nice and quiet, I decided I should just start over completely. I sat down with my pen and started annotating every single page. Mr. Kunkle's right: that is a helpful tool. It helped me sort out Louise Erdrich's thoughts. That was not an easy task, mind you. I found it difficult to decipher her meaning. She jumped around a lot without warning or transistions.
I have torn thoguhts about this story; I liked it, but I didn't like it. I liked it from page 343 on. I didn't like it up until that point. Though I'm sure it's all necessary to her getting her point across, some of it didn't make sense to me. Once all the elements of her story came together it was very beautifully written. Some of the anecdotes she told seemed unecessary to the story at first, but once I finished the entire thing, several of them related to the ending of the story. The dream sequence about the fence and what was on the other side was the most obvious one. While I understand the story and what happened, there's a part of me that is still wondering why she wrote it. While I may not understand the exact thinking behind the essay, I loved how it was written (after page 343). I thought the way she described the nature scenes she's seen was riveting. That was what made me want to sit somewhere quiet. It reminded me of the woods around my cousin's house and it made reminisce about some fond memories I've had there. Her accounts of these places were so vivid, it made me feel as if I was really there.
Even though I started out very confused by this story, Erdrich really redeemed herself by the end.
My aunt and her friend had heard me talking about this essay before, so now they both want to read it. I'll let you know what they think later. :)
Thursday, July 2, 2009
Katie on "Is Google Making Us Stupid"
Since reading the thought-provoking and intriguing “Is Google Making Us Stupid”, I’ve been asking myself a lot of questions about our society today and comparing it to our society less than a decade ago.
Today everything and everyone feels the need for speed. Fast cars, fast computers, fast phones. Ads on TV are constantly boasting “The Fastest 3G Network” and the quickest new gadgets so that people never have to be without their Facebook accounts or their Twitter updates. Some commercials even display people distraught because they have fallen into a dreaded “dead zone” and can’t access the aforementioned social networking sites.
It isn’t just the fact that people are becoming stupid by the technological crutches that we have been endowed with, it’s also enabling laziness and giving the idea that technology will always be there to help us. With the internet always accessible, young students don’t need to learn how to use an encyclopedia or a dictionary because all that information is easily and readily available on the internet. I’m no exception. I don’t remember the last time I used an encyclopedia. I couldn’t tell you where my family’s dictionary is right now. I was taught, but no longer use those skills. So I guess you could say, yeah, Google has made me kind of stupid. I used to be an avid reader, but now pretty much the only reading I do is for school. I tell myself that I just don’t have the time, but really, I just don’t make the time. Up until high school, every class had the opportunity a few times a week to go into the library, hear about new books, and then go pick a few out. The AR program (though annoying at times) promoted reading outside of school. I’ve even noticed a decrease in my reading speed. It takes me longer to get through a book now than it did when I was in 5th grade. That is due to a lack of focus.
I could really relate to what Bruce Friedman said here about the “staccato quality” to his thinking and how it has become difficult to read and absorb articles. We are all so distracted by so many different things now. Having music playing and TV on and internet open while we are doing homework. That “staccato quality” Friedman referred to comes from this, I believe. With so much media vying for our attention, it’s hard to pay attention to just one thing at a time for too long, before we become bored and need something else to entertain us.
I remember a research project we had to do in fourth grade on our favorite animal. Every day, our class would travel to the library where we would use the Dewey decimal system to find books relating to our subject, then sit down and take notes. Computers, internet, and Google were not part of our research time. My sister recently did that same project. I asked her if they ever got library time to find books and she they went once a week and didn’t get class time to take notes. On the other hand, she mentioned that they had frequent computer time where they were allowed to Google their animal and print out web pages to get information from.
I think Carr has something going here. It isn’t just Google, it’s all kinds of things that supposedly make our lives easier, fast internet, GPS, cell phones with everything you could possibly want, are just making it easier for us to become lazier.
Having said all this, I can’t imagine my life without Google or the internet. I would be lost if I had to try to complete those note cards without dictionary.com. Even this class is relying on the internet. All the materials we need and all the means we need to communicate are all on the internet. While the internet may be killing the written word (which sucks for me), I don’t know what I’d do without it.
Today everything and everyone feels the need for speed. Fast cars, fast computers, fast phones. Ads on TV are constantly boasting “The Fastest 3G Network” and the quickest new gadgets so that people never have to be without their Facebook accounts or their Twitter updates. Some commercials even display people distraught because they have fallen into a dreaded “dead zone” and can’t access the aforementioned social networking sites.
It isn’t just the fact that people are becoming stupid by the technological crutches that we have been endowed with, it’s also enabling laziness and giving the idea that technology will always be there to help us. With the internet always accessible, young students don’t need to learn how to use an encyclopedia or a dictionary because all that information is easily and readily available on the internet. I’m no exception. I don’t remember the last time I used an encyclopedia. I couldn’t tell you where my family’s dictionary is right now. I was taught, but no longer use those skills. So I guess you could say, yeah, Google has made me kind of stupid. I used to be an avid reader, but now pretty much the only reading I do is for school. I tell myself that I just don’t have the time, but really, I just don’t make the time. Up until high school, every class had the opportunity a few times a week to go into the library, hear about new books, and then go pick a few out. The AR program (though annoying at times) promoted reading outside of school. I’ve even noticed a decrease in my reading speed. It takes me longer to get through a book now than it did when I was in 5th grade. That is due to a lack of focus.
I could really relate to what Bruce Friedman said here about the “staccato quality” to his thinking and how it has become difficult to read and absorb articles. We are all so distracted by so many different things now. Having music playing and TV on and internet open while we are doing homework. That “staccato quality” Friedman referred to comes from this, I believe. With so much media vying for our attention, it’s hard to pay attention to just one thing at a time for too long, before we become bored and need something else to entertain us.
I remember a research project we had to do in fourth grade on our favorite animal. Every day, our class would travel to the library where we would use the Dewey decimal system to find books relating to our subject, then sit down and take notes. Computers, internet, and Google were not part of our research time. My sister recently did that same project. I asked her if they ever got library time to find books and she they went once a week and didn’t get class time to take notes. On the other hand, she mentioned that they had frequent computer time where they were allowed to Google their animal and print out web pages to get information from.
I think Carr has something going here. It isn’t just Google, it’s all kinds of things that supposedly make our lives easier, fast internet, GPS, cell phones with everything you could possibly want, are just making it easier for us to become lazier.
Having said all this, I can’t imagine my life without Google or the internet. I would be lost if I had to try to complete those note cards without dictionary.com. Even this class is relying on the internet. All the materials we need and all the means we need to communicate are all on the internet. While the internet may be killing the written word (which sucks for me), I don’t know what I’d do without it.
Katie on "Talk of the Town"
For the most part, I don't understand to point of people owning guns. Yes, they are used for hunting. But why are non-hunting guns sold to the public so liberally? And why do teenagers have such easy access to guns?
Here are some facts about school shootings in the U.S. There have been 75 since 1966 in the United States alone. There have been three so far this year. California has had the most school shootings: 10. Wisconsin has only had two. 34 of the 50 states (68%) have had one or more school shootings. The Virgina Tech massacre of 2007 had the most fatalities: 33. Only five shootings have been classified as massacres.
These statistics make it difficult to fathome why more action hasn't been taken to prevent school shootings. If parents have guns, why are they not hidden and locked up? Why are teenagers able to buy guns? How are students able to get into school with weapons? What motivates these students to do this? Intolerance, bullying, teasing, and hazing. These are believed to be the causes behind the students coming to school with guns.
Gopnik names three specific cases where shootings occured and gun control laws were tightened and that helped prevent such shootings. I'm sure they're are others as well. Why can't that happen here? What is it going to take for people to realize that this is a problem? There have already been 204 lives taken by school shooters. When is enough going to be enough? Of all the issues debated in this year's presidential election, gun control was not a major one.
Why is it that other countries are able to take a stand against gun control and somewhat resolve the issue and we can barely talk about it? I like what Adam Gopnik said at the end of his piece: "There is no reason why any private citizen in a democracy should own a handgun". I think it is completely unnecessary.
The parents asking why in this story represent more than just parents. They represent everyone who wants to know why this happened...again. Why something was not done between 1966 and now to prevent innocent children from being killed. And those people asking why have a right to ask why.
Susan Sontag bummed me out a little. She talked about the "ineptitude of American intelligence and counter-intelligence, about options avaliable to American foreign policy, particularly in the Middle East, and about what constitutes a smart program of military defense". Meaning a lot of information is being kept from the public about Iraq as well as other issues.
She seemed very condescending and negative toward our government (which is not always the best way to get your point across), but she did make a good point. How are we supposed to stay strong when we aren't given all the information on certain issues?
Here are some facts about school shootings in the U.S. There have been 75 since 1966 in the United States alone. There have been three so far this year. California has had the most school shootings: 10. Wisconsin has only had two. 34 of the 50 states (68%) have had one or more school shootings. The Virgina Tech massacre of 2007 had the most fatalities: 33. Only five shootings have been classified as massacres.
These statistics make it difficult to fathome why more action hasn't been taken to prevent school shootings. If parents have guns, why are they not hidden and locked up? Why are teenagers able to buy guns? How are students able to get into school with weapons? What motivates these students to do this? Intolerance, bullying, teasing, and hazing. These are believed to be the causes behind the students coming to school with guns.
Gopnik names three specific cases where shootings occured and gun control laws were tightened and that helped prevent such shootings. I'm sure they're are others as well. Why can't that happen here? What is it going to take for people to realize that this is a problem? There have already been 204 lives taken by school shooters. When is enough going to be enough? Of all the issues debated in this year's presidential election, gun control was not a major one.
Why is it that other countries are able to take a stand against gun control and somewhat resolve the issue and we can barely talk about it? I like what Adam Gopnik said at the end of his piece: "There is no reason why any private citizen in a democracy should own a handgun". I think it is completely unnecessary.
The parents asking why in this story represent more than just parents. They represent everyone who wants to know why this happened...again. Why something was not done between 1966 and now to prevent innocent children from being killed. And those people asking why have a right to ask why.
Susan Sontag bummed me out a little. She talked about the "ineptitude of American intelligence and counter-intelligence, about options avaliable to American foreign policy, particularly in the Middle East, and about what constitutes a smart program of military defense". Meaning a lot of information is being kept from the public about Iraq as well as other issues.
She seemed very condescending and negative toward our government (which is not always the best way to get your point across), but she did make a good point. How are we supposed to stay strong when we aren't given all the information on certain issues?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
