As anyone who has read my previous entries knows, this blog was for an English class at the university. Overall, I'd say I enjoyed it a little, but due to my tendency to leave things for the last moment, I didn't really keep it updated throughout the semester. I wrote some entries and ideas on my phone with the intent to post them here later, but I never really got to that last part (which, as you may imagine, is the most important one). Anyways, I think it would have been a more satisfying and maybe less stressful experience in the ends if each entry had a due date, rather than the blog itself. I know it's a pretty stupid idea; I could have imposed these due dates on myself. However, me and many others do this thing where we take as long a break as we can before doing our assignments, and well, if I were forced to do the assignment bit by bit rather than all of it for a specific date, I think I'd have enjoyed it more and the entries publishing dates would certainly be more spread out. Anyways...
The main idea for the blog was to speak our minds about some specific topics, and we were even given the freedom to choose some of these for ourselves. I ended up writing 13 blog entries, this one being the 14th, and though they were supposed to be between 300 and 500 words each, I'm pretty sure most of mine were longer than that (and I think this last one will be no exception). I guess for these kinds of things it's better to say more rather than say less though, right?
Anyways, throughout the blog experience, I feel I opened up to myself as to how I like to write. Obviously, I won't be as casual when writing an essay or a thesis or something as I am when writing here, but I enjoy writing in the way I think and speak throughout my normal life. As you may notice, I loosened up more and more after each entry, and I think I can speak my thoughts pretty clearly in a casual way better than I did before. I think one of my favorite entries, in terms of content, is the one about The Use of Force, due to its controversial nature. There can be a lot of opinions in regards to that story, and no one person can say that one of them is wrong or right. The one about my identity was pretty significant too, but I think the one about the journal is that meant the most. The journal itself was a great experience, and as I said in the entry, it even helped me out quite a bit in my personal life.
I think what changed most between my writing in the journal and my writing in here was the content. In terms of style, I wrote pretty similarly, though since the journal was only for myself, I didn't worry about making things understandable for others or explaining inside jokes or anything. I also didn't worry about censoring myself. I think I'll have to burn it down once its graded. Both were good experiences, but as I've expressed before, the journal was my favorite.
As for the commenting experience, I honestly have to say I felt it was a little too much. Commenting on all of our group member's blog posts (approximately 15 each, and my group had 6 members) felt tedious to say the least. I believe this task is still in progress for all of us, and I'm not really sure if any of us will manage to finish commenting on all the blog posts, due to the fact that they're A LOT and not all of us have even finished our blog posts themselves yet. The Peter Elbows method was very interesting though, and I think it would've been really helpful if we were to comment on 5 or fewer of our group members' entries so that it felt like we were choosing something we actually cared about or had an opinion on to comment.
So... As I said, the blog has helped me discover how I like to write most. It also helped me see how horrible I am at sticking to word limits. This post is probably way over 500 already. I'm finished though. So yeah. Good bye!
Tuesday, May 5, 2015
The 60's: Part 2
So! The white family in the 60's.
The family's last name is a little weird, but after looking it up, I found out they are the Herlihys. So, in this family, the father is as conservative as a conservative can be, while the mother is submissive, as any 60's housewife would be. Their kids, Brian, Michael, and Katie, each get their own storyline throughout the movie/mini-series. Brian joins the Marines right after high-school, and is fortunate enough (note my sarcasm) to go to Vietnam, much to his father's pride. Once he comes back, he is visibly traumatized by what he saw and experienced. He ignores his father and his enthusiasm for a long time, and eventually lets the audience know that the war didn't really have a purpose; at times, he said he didn't even know who his enemies were or why they were fighting them.
(I just realized it may be a little hard to tie all the stories up but I'll try.)
Michael, on the other hand, gets involved in politics and equal rights movements and has very different ideals from his father. He is a much more radical and progressive-minded person. He stands up for a woman who tried to voice her opinion in a student meeting, and ends up dating her. This storyline gets a little complicated, but she ends up leaving him for another revolutionary student, and after finding out she was wrong, tries to get back together with him (sort of) but doesn't want a serious relationship so he rejects her, and then she comes back to him once more and they get back together. So... I honestly don't know if there's something else to say about this storyline. Oh! He gets in a few confrontations with his father regarding the morality of the Vietnam war, and he inspires his mother to disagree with the father and vote in favor of a movement he was proposing. Or something like that.
Finally, Katie meets a singer at a concert, and after having sex with him, ends up getting pregnant. Her father kicks her out of the house and she moves with the singer to San Francisco and becomes part of the hippie movement. She is clearly not at comfort with this lifestyle, and this is most evident when her child is sick and she needs to get medicine for him, but can't find the money for it. She becomes a stripper, at one point in the story, in order to maintain her child.
So, after Brian comes back, he and Michael go to a hippie concert/party (I forgot the name) and Brian has a traumatizing flashback that ends with him covered in mud and unconscious. As luck would have it, the woman charged with cleaning him up is Katie, his sister. Once all three brothers are reunited, they go back home, and after a few struggling moments, the family is back together.
Damn, this was much longer than I thought it'd be. Enough!
The 60's: Part 1
So I haven't done it much, but the professor asked us to use layers (images, videos, music, etc.) for our entries. I felt using music for an entry about The 60's movie is very appropriate, but I realized that the song I chose was the same one of my classmates chose... anyways, no shame. I'll use it too.
Ah. Few things are more 60's than this.
In class, we spent a few classes watching The 60's mini-series/TV movie (I'm not sure which it is, so I'll just say both). We're supposed to write two entries about it, but I honestly don't know if I can write two... I'll try though. The movie is mostly about two (presumably fictional) families living in the 60's: one white, and one black. The white family's story focused on their three kids and how their lives take different paths, while the black family's story focused mainly on how the father and son struggled living in the deep-south during this time period. A big theme for a chunk of the semester was discrimination. I think it's pretty obvious how much discrimination existed in the 60's, and a movie about the 60's isn't really complete if it doesn't talk about it. So, the father in the black family is a minister, and is constantly trying to guide his son through the right path, leading him to fight for equality without resorting to violence. His son, like most teenagers, is reluctant to follow his father's teachings, and they clash a lot. In one scene (and one of the most emotional ones in the movie), there is a riot going on, and the father (named Willie Taylor) is desperately looking for his son amidst the chaos. When he finally finds him, his son is stealing a TV and holding a gun. He reprimands him, orders him to drop the TV and give him the gun, and once he does, they hug. The police, however, spot them standing amongst the mess, and order them to turn around. The father is still holding the gun, and as soon as they see it, the nervous police fire at him, killing him in front of his son.
(I tried to find a Youtube video of the father's death, but I couldn't find any...)
The son escapes and moves to the city to join the Black Panthers, but his involvement in the story slowly fades away, as it begins to focus more and more on the white family (so much for a movie about racism). I'll discuss this a little more in the next one...
Trifles
So, Trifles. I just found out I start a lot of my paragraphs with "so." It's pretty funny. I only do it here though, 'cause it's a pretty casual writing. I think. Anyways...
Trifles is a story about three men investigating the death of a farmer at his house. Accompanying them are two women, Mrs. Hale and Mrs. Peters. The women decide to look around a little, and the men criticize and make fun of them, saying that women worry about trifles rather than the important things. They allow them to take some things for the deceased man's wife, Mrs. Wright, as long as they're not important to the case. As you might expect, they end up finding incriminating evidence; a bird, strangled in the same manner as the dead man, was hidden in a box inside Mrs. Wright's sewing basket. This, along with the women's suspicion that Mrs. Wright had been unhappy after getting married, leads them to conclude that she had killed her husband, and had strangled the bird first for practice. They decide not to tell the men, however; I don't really know if they did it out of love for her or out of spite for the men's disrespect towards them, but they decide to hide the evidence, and the story ends implying that Mrs. Wright will not be incriminated.
I really liked the irony in the story, despite how clear and non-subtle it is. The men disregarded the women's opinions and intents, and they ended up finding the most important evidence due to their observational skills. The ending was a little predictable though, and in my opinion the best stories are those with unpredictable twists. I enjoyed reading it, but I must admit it's not exactly a story I'd re-read.
Trifles is a story about three men investigating the death of a farmer at his house. Accompanying them are two women, Mrs. Hale and Mrs. Peters. The women decide to look around a little, and the men criticize and make fun of them, saying that women worry about trifles rather than the important things. They allow them to take some things for the deceased man's wife, Mrs. Wright, as long as they're not important to the case. As you might expect, they end up finding incriminating evidence; a bird, strangled in the same manner as the dead man, was hidden in a box inside Mrs. Wright's sewing basket. This, along with the women's suspicion that Mrs. Wright had been unhappy after getting married, leads them to conclude that she had killed her husband, and had strangled the bird first for practice. They decide not to tell the men, however; I don't really know if they did it out of love for her or out of spite for the men's disrespect towards them, but they decide to hide the evidence, and the story ends implying that Mrs. Wright will not be incriminated.
I really liked the irony in the story, despite how clear and non-subtle it is. The men disregarded the women's opinions and intents, and they ended up finding the most important evidence due to their observational skills. The ending was a little predictable though, and in my opinion the best stories are those with unpredictable twists. I enjoyed reading it, but I must admit it's not exactly a story I'd re-read.
Skit Reflection
A reflection on the skit itself... I have a feeling this one will be a little short too, but I'll do my best to say every little detail about it. So, we had to make a skit about a modern problem related to discrimination. I wasn't present on the day the group chose the topic, but they chose to make our skit about discrimination towards the homeless, and I agreed that it was a good and relatively original idea. We wrote a preliminary script, and we found out it was hard to make a mini-drama about a serious topic without making it too dark or non-entertaining. We often found ourselves recurring to comedy, and though this is fine if used in moderation, it can belittle the seriousness of the topic if overused. We managed to stay between these lines, though I think with a few more rehearsals we could have improved it a little more.
So, our skit was about two guys (played by Alexis and Josue) discussing Game of Thrones in a car, when a homeless man (played by Dylan) approaches asking for spare change. They ignore him, but in their distraction they fail to notice that the traffic light had changed to green. An impatient man (played by Luis) honks his horn and yells at them to move and run the homeless guy over. This guy was named Richard (Dick, for short [I know, we're awesome]). So, the next day, Alexis' car breaks down in the same red light and no one around is willing to help him move. He calls a towing service, but since it's rush hour, the service operator (played by me) tells him he can get there in two hours at best. The homeless guy from before shows up and, despite having initial suspicions, Alexis lets him help. They push the car out of the road, and Alexis, feeling indebted to him, offers the homeless guy a meal and a smoothie at a nearby McDonald's and later offers him a job at his workplace. Throughout all this, the play was stopped every now and then so a thoughts guy (played by Melissa) would speak out loud the thoughts a specific character was having. Oh, and Alexis' character had a name, but it was never mentioned in the drama and I forgot. Oops.
So yeah, that's about it... It was honestly pretty fun, but if I were to do it again, I'd like it if we performed it a few times in class or something and get recommendations from the other classmates on how to improve it. And I think I've said all I can say, sooo... yeah.
So, our skit was about two guys (played by Alexis and Josue) discussing Game of Thrones in a car, when a homeless man (played by Dylan) approaches asking for spare change. They ignore him, but in their distraction they fail to notice that the traffic light had changed to green. An impatient man (played by Luis) honks his horn and yells at them to move and run the homeless guy over. This guy was named Richard (Dick, for short [I know, we're awesome]). So, the next day, Alexis' car breaks down in the same red light and no one around is willing to help him move. He calls a towing service, but since it's rush hour, the service operator (played by me) tells him he can get there in two hours at best. The homeless guy from before shows up and, despite having initial suspicions, Alexis lets him help. They push the car out of the road, and Alexis, feeling indebted to him, offers the homeless guy a meal and a smoothie at a nearby McDonald's and later offers him a job at his workplace. Throughout all this, the play was stopped every now and then so a thoughts guy (played by Melissa) would speak out loud the thoughts a specific character was having. Oh, and Alexis' character had a name, but it was never mentioned in the drama and I forgot. Oops.
So yeah, that's about it... It was honestly pretty fun, but if I were to do it again, I'd like it if we performed it a few times in class or something and get recommendations from the other classmates on how to improve it. And I think I've said all I can say, sooo... yeah.
Semester Group Project
I've honestly never been a fan of group projects; I always feel like some people end up working harder than others, and then the hard-workers' grade ends up being worse than it should be because of the not-so-hard-workers. I also tend to leave my work until the last possible moment (I've tried to change, but damn it, it's not easy! Don't judge me.), but when working in a group I consider it disrespectful and unfair to my classmates, so I feel forced to do it a bit earlier. This is annoying, of course, since it forces me to go against my nature, but in a way it's also good; I'm not exactly proud of being such a lazy guy half the time, so at least in group projects I can say I did (most of) my work on time. In this group, like in all others, there were some disagreements, but overall it was a good experience. Communication wasn't always easy due to our very different and very busy schedules, but we found a way. The skit was much more fun than I thought it'd be, though with a little more time or a few "test-runs" I feel we could've done even better. We also had a pretty intense discussion the last class when discussing the movie, but it never got out of hand and I felt everyone was respectful, so I'd say it was a productive debate. We never reached an agreement though, and I don't think we ever will, so it's better if we never speak of it again. Ever. (Just kidding, comedy is important too, blah blah.)
So... yeah! I hate group projects in general, but this one wasn't so bad. I guess I wouldn't mind doing it again, though I'll always prefer individual work. (Short entry. Not really much to say.)
So... yeah! I hate group projects in general, but this one wasn't so bad. I guess I wouldn't mind doing it again, though I'll always prefer individual work. (Short entry. Not really much to say.)
Serving In Silence: Reaction Questions
1. Describe these reactions:
A. Military: Due to military regulations, it is seen unacceptable and immoral. Some of her friends in the military don't seem to be bothered by it, but most agree that she should be removed due to the regulation that forbids homosexuality.
B. Father: He initially seems to not know how to react (he responds to her letter with a mere two sentences) and doesn't accept it. When he finally does, he wants it to be a secret.
C. Children Each Son (s): The three oldest ones are completely okay with it, and they even say that they already knew. The youngest, however, is in denial right up until the end of the movie, when he finally reconciliates with his mother.
2. Margarethe's decision to tell
A. the military: Surprisingly to her, they asked her during an interview for a promotion and she felt she shouldn't lie.
B. her children: She feels forced to tell them due to the potential lawsuit; she'd rather have them find out from her.
C. her father: Same as above, she tells decides to tell him before the confrontation with the military. She lets him know through a letter that takes her a long time to write.
3. What is your reaction to this true story? Do you believe that she should have kept her secret or told it to everyone? Explain your reasons why.
I enjoyed the movie, though I admit I was a little shocked at how relatable it is to recent events in my life. I'd rather not elaborate much on this due to their private nature, but I will say that I thought the movie was good and the story was a very interesting and important one that I had not heard of. I believe she did the right thing by letting everyone know; there are few worse pains than having to hide an important part of yourself from your family and loved ones. (EDIT: I don't know why this section looks smaller on the blog, but I can't quite find how to fix it. Sorry.)
5. (?) How would Dr. Kinsey explain the Margarethe Cammermeyer's sexuality?
She is a mother of 4 boys so how can she be lesbian? Is it her choice?
We debated this extensively in class, and we couldn't come to an agreement on exactly where on the Kinsey Scale she could be classified. I find it hard to use this scale because I believe one moves through it. I think it's possible that she didn't know she was homosexual until she fell in love with a woman; this could help explain how she is a mother despite being a lesbian. I don't think she is "any less of a lesbian" (as odd and ridiculous as that sounds) because she has kids; if she feels she is a lesbian, then she is. Ultimately, I believe she would be a 4 on the Kinsey Scale due to the fact that she lived as a heterosexual woman until the events in the story. Finally, I don't think anyone chooses to be heterosexual or homosexual; I certainly don't remember choosing to be heterosexual. Therefore, I don't think it's her choice, it's just who she is.
6.What does Margarethe believe about her sexuality as it relates to her identity?
She believes that it is an important part of her identity (hence her decision to expose it to the world), but that it doesn't change the rest of her identity and personality.
A. Military: Due to military regulations, it is seen unacceptable and immoral. Some of her friends in the military don't seem to be bothered by it, but most agree that she should be removed due to the regulation that forbids homosexuality.
B. Father: He initially seems to not know how to react (he responds to her letter with a mere two sentences) and doesn't accept it. When he finally does, he wants it to be a secret.
C. Children Each Son (s): The three oldest ones are completely okay with it, and they even say that they already knew. The youngest, however, is in denial right up until the end of the movie, when he finally reconciliates with his mother.
2. Margarethe's decision to tell
A. the military: Surprisingly to her, they asked her during an interview for a promotion and she felt she shouldn't lie.
B. her children: She feels forced to tell them due to the potential lawsuit; she'd rather have them find out from her.
C. her father: Same as above, she tells decides to tell him before the confrontation with the military. She lets him know through a letter that takes her a long time to write.
3. What is your reaction to this true story? Do you believe that she should have kept her secret or told it to everyone? Explain your reasons why.
I enjoyed the movie, though I admit I was a little shocked at how relatable it is to recent events in my life. I'd rather not elaborate much on this due to their private nature, but I will say that I thought the movie was good and the story was a very interesting and important one that I had not heard of. I believe she did the right thing by letting everyone know; there are few worse pains than having to hide an important part of yourself from your family and loved ones. (EDIT: I don't know why this section looks smaller on the blog, but I can't quite find how to fix it. Sorry.)
(Stole an idea from a classmate again, though I used a different pic.) On the left is Margarethe Cammermeyer, and on the right is the cover art for the movie, featuring Glenn Close, the actress who portrayed her.
5. (?) How would Dr. Kinsey explain the Margarethe Cammermeyer's sexuality?
She is a mother of 4 boys so how can she be lesbian? Is it her choice?
We debated this extensively in class, and we couldn't come to an agreement on exactly where on the Kinsey Scale she could be classified. I find it hard to use this scale because I believe one moves through it. I think it's possible that she didn't know she was homosexual until she fell in love with a woman; this could help explain how she is a mother despite being a lesbian. I don't think she is "any less of a lesbian" (as odd and ridiculous as that sounds) because she has kids; if she feels she is a lesbian, then she is. Ultimately, I believe she would be a 4 on the Kinsey Scale due to the fact that she lived as a heterosexual woman until the events in the story. Finally, I don't think anyone chooses to be heterosexual or homosexual; I certainly don't remember choosing to be heterosexual. Therefore, I don't think it's her choice, it's just who she is.
6.What does Margarethe believe about her sexuality as it relates to her identity?
She believes that it is an important part of her identity (hence her decision to expose it to the world), but that it doesn't change the rest of her identity and personality.
Monday, May 4, 2015
Reflection: Award Ceremony for English Literary Contest
On Thursday, April 23rd, our class attended the award ceremony for the Literary Contest we had been asked to participate in early in the semester. The event was dedicated to a recently, and unfortunately, deceased English professor from the university (I apologize for not remembering his name). The love and appreciation his colleagues felt for him was evident throughout the ceremony. Apart from being a professor, he was a writer, and a few of his poems were read out loud by some students. Finally, the awards were given for the winners in the Poetry, Essay, and Short Story categories, and two or three of them were from our class.
The event itself was good. It was clear that the staff responsible for organizing the ceremony had spent much time and dedication on it. The 1st place entries for each category were read out loud, and I enjoyed them quite a lot. My favorite was the poetry winner; I believe the poem was called "Godly Poet," though I can't say for certain. As for my own entry, I didn't win, though I must admit I was glad that I didn't have to read my poem out loud. I made the mistake of choosing an old journal entry as the base for my poem, and as such I didn't feel comfortable with the end result due to the "outdated feelings" it contained. Perhaps with more time I would've submitted a separate entry (in a different category, since poems have never been a strength of mine) with more effort and emotion put into it.
In conclusion, the event itself was very enjoyable. I felt really moved seeing how excited and emotional most of the staff were when speaking of the deceased professor. As for myself, if I could turn back time, I'd work harder and spend more time on my writing and submit an entry I'm actually proud of and hopeful of winning with, or at least getting some recognition from.
Monday, April 27, 2015
A Room With a View: Class Situation
Let me start off by saying that A Room With a View is not my type of movie. I generally don't really enjoy what I think are called period pieces; in other words, movies that are set in the past. In different eras, maybe, is a better way to explain it. I don't really know why, but I find it very hard to enjoy them... Perhaps the only one I've liked is the recently released and Oscar-nominated (and with a few Oscar wins, too) movie called "The Theory of Everything", based on famous physicist, cosmologist, etc. Stephen Hawking, and even then it didn't focus on a specific era but rather on his life, his struggles with his disease, his love life, and... I digress. Point is, I usually don't like these types of movies, and A Room With a View was sadly no exception. Anyways, on to the class situation in the movie...
So! In the movie, Lucy and Charlotte, two seemingly upper class women, stay in a hotel in Italy, but are inconvenienced by the fact that their room doesn't have a view. Mr. Emerson and his handsome son George offer to switch rooms with them, and for some reason I don't quite understand, this seems to bother Charlotte. Anyways, although they don't seem to be poor, these men are more easy-going and open-minded and shit when compared to Lucy and Charlotte. Oh, I hadn't thought about it before, but are we allowed to cuss here? Well, already did it so... Digressing again. Point is, Lucy begins to find herself drawn to George, and eventually he surprises her by grabbing her and kissing her passionately, and Charlotte interrupts them. Once they're back home in England, Lucy is engaged to a snobby, definitely upper class guy named Cecil (even the name is snobby! No offense to any Cecils who read this, I only speak the truth.). Things get complicated when George, the other guy, moves in right next to her. We see a pretty good example of the class difference between George and Cecil in the lake scenes. Rich men are stereotypically seen as allergic to fun and real emotion, so Cecyl, being a rich man, doesn't even think of going for a swim. On the other hand, George, the fun, relatively poor guy, gets in and splashes around and stuff. So, long story short, she breaks off her marriage and tries to run away from George and her feelings for him, but ends up running off with him to Italy again.
So... I guess that's it.
Monday, April 6, 2015
My Journal Experience
It's been a while since I last wrote here, I gotta keep this thing updated...
So! At the beginning of the semester, our English professor informed us of a two or three month project: throughout the semester, we were going to keep a journal and write in it approximately five days a week. The journal had a little peculiarity, however; in this journal, we were to follow five "anti-rules" based on Natalie Golding's "Writing Down The Bones," which basically said to write whatever came into our mind non-stop for about 10 minutes, completely uncensored and without much regard for grammar or spelling. One of the anti-rules, and probably the one the professor emphasized most on, was to "go for the jugular," which basically meant to go for precisely that which we didn't want to write, that which we didn't want anyone else to see, to go for those dark feelings inside ourselves that we have trouble admitting exist. It can be hard to explain, but I think you know what I mean.
When we were told of the project, I was obviously not excited at all. Although I do enjoy writing every now and then, keeping a journal updated 5 out of 7 days sounded very tedious and time-consuming, and it was something I knew I'd forget very frequently. Effectively, I hated it during the first week or two; I forgot to write in it at least 6 days a week, and the few times I did write, it felt like I was only giving a half-hearted, "let's-get-this-out-of-the-way" effort. It was also very hard for me to ignore my spelling mistakes, so I frequently went back to correct something or stopped to look up how exactly to write a word (the word "embarrassing" has always confused me, for some reason). However, I slowly began to enjoy it a little more each day. I also began to write all 7 days of the week, in order to make up for the days I'd forgotten. Eventually, I actually looked forward to the late hours at night in which I'd write! It was a place to write down the thoughts I'd had during the day, my thoughts about what had happened and how I had felt about it. Since the rule was to ignore those barriers we build up about what's right and what's wrong, about what is and isn't acceptable, I could expose my true thoughts about certain topics no matter how wrong or controversial they seemed, even if only I was ever going to read them. This openness with myself about how I felt helped me make a significant decision some weeks back to stop going after something that had no future, and I've felt much happier with my life since then.
The project is now over, and my journal had a grand total of 43 entries. Even though I haven't written in the journal ever since I wrote the last entry, I'd really like to keep one in the future. In the summer, when I don't have any more assignments from classes and stuff, I plan to begin a new one, with five minute entries so it doesn't take up too much time. It's been a surprisingly good experience, and I look forward to doing it again. Oh, and I probably won't decorate this one.
So! At the beginning of the semester, our English professor informed us of a two or three month project: throughout the semester, we were going to keep a journal and write in it approximately five days a week. The journal had a little peculiarity, however; in this journal, we were to follow five "anti-rules" based on Natalie Golding's "Writing Down The Bones," which basically said to write whatever came into our mind non-stop for about 10 minutes, completely uncensored and without much regard for grammar or spelling. One of the anti-rules, and probably the one the professor emphasized most on, was to "go for the jugular," which basically meant to go for precisely that which we didn't want to write, that which we didn't want anyone else to see, to go for those dark feelings inside ourselves that we have trouble admitting exist. It can be hard to explain, but I think you know what I mean.
When we were told of the project, I was obviously not excited at all. Although I do enjoy writing every now and then, keeping a journal updated 5 out of 7 days sounded very tedious and time-consuming, and it was something I knew I'd forget very frequently. Effectively, I hated it during the first week or two; I forgot to write in it at least 6 days a week, and the few times I did write, it felt like I was only giving a half-hearted, "let's-get-this-out-of-the-way" effort. It was also very hard for me to ignore my spelling mistakes, so I frequently went back to correct something or stopped to look up how exactly to write a word (the word "embarrassing" has always confused me, for some reason). However, I slowly began to enjoy it a little more each day. I also began to write all 7 days of the week, in order to make up for the days I'd forgotten. Eventually, I actually looked forward to the late hours at night in which I'd write! It was a place to write down the thoughts I'd had during the day, my thoughts about what had happened and how I had felt about it. Since the rule was to ignore those barriers we build up about what's right and what's wrong, about what is and isn't acceptable, I could expose my true thoughts about certain topics no matter how wrong or controversial they seemed, even if only I was ever going to read them. This openness with myself about how I felt helped me make a significant decision some weeks back to stop going after something that had no future, and I've felt much happier with my life since then.
The project is now over, and my journal had a grand total of 43 entries. Even though I haven't written in the journal ever since I wrote the last entry, I'd really like to keep one in the future. In the summer, when I don't have any more assignments from classes and stuff, I plan to begin a new one, with five minute entries so it doesn't take up too much time. It's been a surprisingly good experience, and I look forward to doing it again. Oh, and I probably won't decorate this one.
Monday, March 9, 2015
On Looking
"On Looking" is the name of the story (well. the part we read isn't so much a story, but I wouldn't know what else to call it) our English professor asked us to read for this blog entry. It's written by Alexandra Horowitz and, among other things, it poses an interesting question: What is "paying attention?" The answer may seem obvious, but if you take some time to think about it, it's not. Many psychologists have spent years upon years studying what exactly it is to "pay attention," and yet they still haven't been able to come up with a clear answer.
Another interesting idea in the text is the idea that concentrating on something means ignoring so many other things. The first few sentences do a great job making you think about this idea; for example, the author makes you realize that as you are reading her story, you are ignoring "the hum of the fluorescent lights, the ambient noise in a large room, the places your chair presses against your legs or back, your tongue touching the roof of your mouth, the tension you are holding in your shoulders or jaw," amongst many other things. I found it to be true in my case; as I read the story, everyone in my house left one by one, and I only noticed when I took a break to go to the bathroom, despite the fact that opening my home's is a very noisy task to say the least. Something similar may have happened to you as you read this very entry.
Finally, Alexandra Horowitz also writes about a bias in an individual's perspective named "deformation professionnelle" by the French. As one may infer by the phenomena's name, it means that humans tend to look at every context from the viewpoint of their profession. For example, a psychologist may see many diagnosable conditions on his friends while on a night out based on their attitudes, or an economist "views the simple act of buying a cup of coffee as an example of a macroeconomic phenomenon." It makes sense; most of us have witnessed it firsthand with our parents, and we will probably be victims of it in the future when we have our own professional careers. The protagonist in the story (whom I assume is also the author) tells us that later on she will go through a walk with different people, and will try to mark down what they see, how they see it, and what varies between people. She also provides a short anecdote of how a psychologist who was on a walk with her and who "thinks a great deal about attention" walks past $60 thrown on the street without even noticing. It's quite ironic, of course, but it serves as proof that no matter what it is practically impossible to keep our attention on everything around us. I would truly be interested in reading more of her experiences during this experiment.
Another interesting idea in the text is the idea that concentrating on something means ignoring so many other things. The first few sentences do a great job making you think about this idea; for example, the author makes you realize that as you are reading her story, you are ignoring "the hum of the fluorescent lights, the ambient noise in a large room, the places your chair presses against your legs or back, your tongue touching the roof of your mouth, the tension you are holding in your shoulders or jaw," amongst many other things. I found it to be true in my case; as I read the story, everyone in my house left one by one, and I only noticed when I took a break to go to the bathroom, despite the fact that opening my home's is a very noisy task to say the least. Something similar may have happened to you as you read this very entry.
Finally, Alexandra Horowitz also writes about a bias in an individual's perspective named "deformation professionnelle" by the French. As one may infer by the phenomena's name, it means that humans tend to look at every context from the viewpoint of their profession. For example, a psychologist may see many diagnosable conditions on his friends while on a night out based on their attitudes, or an economist "views the simple act of buying a cup of coffee as an example of a macroeconomic phenomenon." It makes sense; most of us have witnessed it firsthand with our parents, and we will probably be victims of it in the future when we have our own professional careers. The protagonist in the story (whom I assume is also the author) tells us that later on she will go through a walk with different people, and will try to mark down what they see, how they see it, and what varies between people. She also provides a short anecdote of how a psychologist who was on a walk with her and who "thinks a great deal about attention" walks past $60 thrown on the street without even noticing. It's quite ironic, of course, but it serves as proof that no matter what it is practically impossible to keep our attention on everything around us. I would truly be interested in reading more of her experiences during this experiment.
Sunday, February 15, 2015
Reflection on "A Use of Force"
The short story "A Use of Force" is written by the author William Carlos Williams. It's a story about a young girl who has symptoms of diphtheria, but won't let neither her parents nor the call-in doctor check to see if she is indeed infected. Her stubbornness leads the doctor and her parents to use force to open her mouth and see if she has the membrane typically associated with the illness on her throat. This event invites us to reflect upon and analyze the ethics of the doctor's choice. Was the use of extreme force in order to acquire a diagnosis justified? Does the doctor's admission that he enjoyed it have any effect on the morality of the event? Can this use of force also be classified as violence?
In my opinion, the use of force was indeed justified. The girl's stubbornness is hard for me to understand, but I suppose a reason could have been of the doctor confirming her fears of having diphtheria, a possibly lethal illness at the time. However, her stubbornness, even if understandable, was placing her entire family and anyone who came in contact with them in danger. Diphtheria could be very infectious, and could be transmitted by simple physical contact, or by breathing the "aerosolized secretions" of those infected. A diagnosis was needed for proper action (probably isolation) to be taken, but the girl was getting in the way of that. If others lived can be saved by using it, then I believe that certain force can be justified.
However, the doctor explicitly admits that he received joy from this event. To quote his own words, "I could have torn the child apart in my own fury and enjoyed it. It was a pleasure to attack her." I find this extremely disturbing, to say the least. Although it was possibly his "animal nature" taking control of him, to see that someone who is supposed to be a healer receive pleasure out of causing pain is very off-putting. The morality of his choice and our attitude towards it certainly changes after learning this, but I still believe that, even if only for the health of her family, the use of force was justified.
Finally, can this use of force also be called violence? Yes, sadly. According to Merriam-Webster, violence is defined as "the use of physical force to harm someone, property, etc." or as "great destructive force or energy." The event described in the short story applies to both definitions. However, even when looking at it as violence instead of force, I still believe that, although another method could have been better (I'm not sure if anesthesia of some kind existed at the time), the girl's diagnosis was much too important, and therefore, the violence was justified.
In my opinion, the use of force was indeed justified. The girl's stubbornness is hard for me to understand, but I suppose a reason could have been of the doctor confirming her fears of having diphtheria, a possibly lethal illness at the time. However, her stubbornness, even if understandable, was placing her entire family and anyone who came in contact with them in danger. Diphtheria could be very infectious, and could be transmitted by simple physical contact, or by breathing the "aerosolized secretions" of those infected. A diagnosis was needed for proper action (probably isolation) to be taken, but the girl was getting in the way of that. If others lived can be saved by using it, then I believe that certain force can be justified.
However, the doctor explicitly admits that he received joy from this event. To quote his own words, "I could have torn the child apart in my own fury and enjoyed it. It was a pleasure to attack her." I find this extremely disturbing, to say the least. Although it was possibly his "animal nature" taking control of him, to see that someone who is supposed to be a healer receive pleasure out of causing pain is very off-putting. The morality of his choice and our attitude towards it certainly changes after learning this, but I still believe that, even if only for the health of her family, the use of force was justified.
Finally, can this use of force also be called violence? Yes, sadly. According to Merriam-Webster, violence is defined as "the use of physical force to harm someone, property, etc." or as "great destructive force or energy." The event described in the short story applies to both definitions. However, even when looking at it as violence instead of force, I still believe that, although another method could have been better (I'm not sure if anesthesia of some kind existed at the time), the girl's diagnosis was much too important, and therefore, the violence was justified.
Identity
Well... what is my identity? Our Advanced English class professor asked us to write about our identities but, honestly, I have pretty much no idea what to write. As most people do, I have a pretty hard time talking about myself because I don't want to seem presumptuous, but I also don't want to downplay any of my good qualities. Anyways, I'll give it a try. (I'll be using the article on "Identity" the professor linked to for help.)
I'm a 19 year-old, electrical engineering student at the University of Puerto Rico, and my name is Guillermo José Ramos Oquendo. I've lived in Puerto Rico my entire life, and as such, I've been raised around both the English and Spanish languages. I've heard people say that the language you think in is a big part of your identity, but I honestly divide my "thinking time" in both languages (if I have to put it in numbers, I'd say 60% English and 40% Spanish). Although I do love the island I was born in, I've always wanted to have experiences living in other places. I love to travel (even though I haven't done it much), and since my oldest sister lives in L.A., I spent June of 2013 visiting her. California is definitely a place I'd love to live in! I really liked L.A. but my favorite part of the trip was the weekend we spent in San Francisco. I've been told it's an expensive city to live in, but I was enamored with everything about it, and living there for at least a month is one of the top items in my bucket list. I digress... To close with this topic, I'd also really love to travel throughout the world, including Canada, Norway, Sweden, Colombia, Denmark, and New York, amongst many others. I'd also really like to go to Minnesota in summer, just so I could see and/or listen to my favorite animal, the loon.
As for my personality, I strive to be an approachable and likable person. I like to talk and smile a lot, but I usually prefer one on one or three to four people conversations over big groups. I'd also say that I'm a very loving person. One of my favorite quotes, and one that I try to apply to my life as much as possible, is the one (supposedly by Albert Einstein) that says: "Only a life lived for others is a life worth living." I don't believe it's the only life worth living, but it's an interesting philosophy that would make all of us happier if we followed it to some extent.
Finally, my hobbies. The thing I love doing most in the world is probably playing basketball; I play nearly every day, and for me it's a way to relax and take my mind off whatever other issues I may have for a while. Some of my other hobbies are playing billiards, following sports in general, listening to music, and reading, to name a few. I enjoy reading both novels (the Game of Thrones series, The Outsiders, and The Chocolate War are some of my favorites) and online articles about varied topics, mostly on science. My favorite website for the second type of reading is Cracked.com. It's a comedy website that, although sometimes slightly inaccurate, makes reading about science, history, psychology, and an extremely varied amount of topics less tedious and more enjoyable.
There's a lot more I could say about myself, but I crossed the 500 word limit long ago, so I'll cut it short right here. I hope this has given you an idea about who I am, and if you ever wish to know more, you're welcome to talk to me!
I'm a 19 year-old, electrical engineering student at the University of Puerto Rico, and my name is Guillermo José Ramos Oquendo. I've lived in Puerto Rico my entire life, and as such, I've been raised around both the English and Spanish languages. I've heard people say that the language you think in is a big part of your identity, but I honestly divide my "thinking time" in both languages (if I have to put it in numbers, I'd say 60% English and 40% Spanish). Although I do love the island I was born in, I've always wanted to have experiences living in other places. I love to travel (even though I haven't done it much), and since my oldest sister lives in L.A., I spent June of 2013 visiting her. California is definitely a place I'd love to live in! I really liked L.A. but my favorite part of the trip was the weekend we spent in San Francisco. I've been told it's an expensive city to live in, but I was enamored with everything about it, and living there for at least a month is one of the top items in my bucket list. I digress... To close with this topic, I'd also really love to travel throughout the world, including Canada, Norway, Sweden, Colombia, Denmark, and New York, amongst many others. I'd also really like to go to Minnesota in summer, just so I could see and/or listen to my favorite animal, the loon.
As for my personality, I strive to be an approachable and likable person. I like to talk and smile a lot, but I usually prefer one on one or three to four people conversations over big groups. I'd also say that I'm a very loving person. One of my favorite quotes, and one that I try to apply to my life as much as possible, is the one (supposedly by Albert Einstein) that says: "Only a life lived for others is a life worth living." I don't believe it's the only life worth living, but it's an interesting philosophy that would make all of us happier if we followed it to some extent.
Finally, my hobbies. The thing I love doing most in the world is probably playing basketball; I play nearly every day, and for me it's a way to relax and take my mind off whatever other issues I may have for a while. Some of my other hobbies are playing billiards, following sports in general, listening to music, and reading, to name a few. I enjoy reading both novels (the Game of Thrones series, The Outsiders, and The Chocolate War are some of my favorites) and online articles about varied topics, mostly on science. My favorite website for the second type of reading is Cracked.com. It's a comedy website that, although sometimes slightly inaccurate, makes reading about science, history, psychology, and an extremely varied amount of topics less tedious and more enjoyable.
There's a lot more I could say about myself, but I crossed the 500 word limit long ago, so I'll cut it short right here. I hope this has given you an idea about who I am, and if you ever wish to know more, you're welcome to talk to me!
Monday, February 2, 2015
Running Brave
Over the last 3 classes, our class watched the movie "Running Brave," which focused on the story of Billy Mills, the Native American Indian who won the 10,000m race while representing the United States as a huge underdog at the 1964 Tokyo Olympics.
I actually enjoyed the movie much more than I thought I would have, considering it's a movie we saw in class (and everyone knows those are usually not too good). The acting wasn't the best, in my opinion, but the messages in the movie are pretty clear. It's easy to see how much discrimination Billy Mills faced as a Native American living in a white world in the 1960s. Similar to the way the offensive n-word is used against African-American citizens today, Billy is clearly offended and angered when a police officer judges him as a trespasser at his own university and refers to him as "chief." At one point, the pressure Billy faces being an outsider in his everyday life brings him to nearly quit on everything. He struggles to find his identity as a Native-American Indian runner living in a white world, facing discrimination and rejection from both the white people he lives with now and the Native Americans he lived with before. However, despite no longer competing for Kansas University, Billy decides to try out for the Olympics as he had originally planned, and marginally manages to earn a spot. His underdog status doesn't inspire much hope in those around him, but he barely seems to be faced by this. Something I really liked about the movie was the fact that, even though I already knew his story and the fact that he had won the climatic event at the end, it kept me in suspense throughout all of the race. Billy Mills wins the gold medal, becoming the first (and, so far, the only) athlete from the western hemisphere to win the gold in this event. He also becomes the second Native American to ever win a gold medal in the Olympics, proving those who thought "they were quitters" wrong.
On a more personal note, as I said before, I had already heard of Billy's story. In elementary school I used to be a bit of a nerdy guy, but I also liked to run, and I was also pretty good at it. I don't quite remember if it was my father or my coach who told me the story of Billy Mills, but one of them did, and I used it as my inspiration to run as best as I could and practice even harder than that. Every practice they reminded me how, with practice and dedication, even the biggest underdog can win. In summary, the movie was very enjoyable, and carried more than its share of inspirational and important messages on never giving up, even when faced with extreme adversity and unfair racial judgments.
Following a classmates' example, I include here a clip from the race the real Billy Mills won.
I actually enjoyed the movie much more than I thought I would have, considering it's a movie we saw in class (and everyone knows those are usually not too good). The acting wasn't the best, in my opinion, but the messages in the movie are pretty clear. It's easy to see how much discrimination Billy Mills faced as a Native American living in a white world in the 1960s. Similar to the way the offensive n-word is used against African-American citizens today, Billy is clearly offended and angered when a police officer judges him as a trespasser at his own university and refers to him as "chief." At one point, the pressure Billy faces being an outsider in his everyday life brings him to nearly quit on everything. He struggles to find his identity as a Native-American Indian runner living in a white world, facing discrimination and rejection from both the white people he lives with now and the Native Americans he lived with before. However, despite no longer competing for Kansas University, Billy decides to try out for the Olympics as he had originally planned, and marginally manages to earn a spot. His underdog status doesn't inspire much hope in those around him, but he barely seems to be faced by this. Something I really liked about the movie was the fact that, even though I already knew his story and the fact that he had won the climatic event at the end, it kept me in suspense throughout all of the race. Billy Mills wins the gold medal, becoming the first (and, so far, the only) athlete from the western hemisphere to win the gold in this event. He also becomes the second Native American to ever win a gold medal in the Olympics, proving those who thought "they were quitters" wrong.
On a more personal note, as I said before, I had already heard of Billy's story. In elementary school I used to be a bit of a nerdy guy, but I also liked to run, and I was also pretty good at it. I don't quite remember if it was my father or my coach who told me the story of Billy Mills, but one of them did, and I used it as my inspiration to run as best as I could and practice even harder than that. Every practice they reminded me how, with practice and dedication, even the biggest underdog can win. In summary, the movie was very enjoyable, and carried more than its share of inspirational and important messages on never giving up, even when faced with extreme adversity and unfair racial judgments.
Following a classmates' example, I include here a clip from the race the real Billy Mills won.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)